132 Comments

1. David Thomson:

Far too many people get upset with the very notion of propaganda. This is a immature attitude. There is nothing inherently wrong with marketing your position. The only moral question is whether you are telling the truth. Are we lying? If not, this is not even a story worthy of a few minutes of our time.

I have such contempt for the intellectual talents of the majority comprising the MSM. They are idiots. They need to be selling used cars or robbing convenience stores.

Dec 3, 2005 - 12:18 pm 2. David Thomson:

“This is a immature attitude.”

Should be:

This is an immature attitude.

Dec 3, 2005 - 12:20 pm 3. pudly:

So let me see if I understand this. We are contending for the “hearts and minds” of these people and we are supposed to do it without using the local media? Is there any tactic that is okay in a war according to the left?

It seems to me that if even a few Iraqis are convinced not to shoot at our soldiers then this propaganda has been justified.

Dec 3, 2005 - 12:36 pm 4. monkyboy:

Not that I claim to speak for the “left” pudly, but I see a theme running through almost everything this administration does in Iraq:

1. Someone made a lot of money doing it ($300 million, in this case).

2. It didn’t work. Now this story is out, Iraqis will see every positive story as a plant.

It’s true that in the past that these kinds of operations were carried out. But they were carried out by people getting military grade pay, not CEO-bumbling crony grade pay. And they were better at keeping it a secret, which is the whole point to propaganda.

Dec 3, 2005 - 12:44 pm 5. Ed Poinsett:

Let’s see, we have to put up with anti US propaganda 24/7 from the BBC, AP, NYT, LAT and the rest of the MSM. They turn around and charge that our Public Affairs officers in Iraq are practically criminals for telling our version of the story to Iraqis. Yeah, that’s speaking truth to power alright.

Dec 3, 2005 - 12:48 pm 6. PeterUK:

Monkyboy,

Now that was propaganda,a bit obvious,how much did you get paid?

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:00 pm 7. Terrye:

I know what, they could call the stories “leaks” and the people who planted them [assuming they exist] could be reffered to as “anonymous sources” and exactly how would this be different from what shows up in the NYT every day?

I know I have to listen to propaganda from the MSM all the time myself, it seems only fair that both sides have an oppurtunity to get their stories out there. After all the media will tell us all about AbuGhraib and trash the soldiers every chance they get and the military can tell us about the positive things the soldiers do because we all know damn well that the folks at the Times and their ilk will not.

And besides the Iraqis already see conspiracies of all kinds every where any way..this is the middle east and as long as the lefties have propagandists like Michael Moore making movies like F911 they are in no position to complain.

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:00 pm 8. Terrye:

I know what, they could call the stories “leaks” and the people who planted them [assuming they exist] could be reffered to as “anonymous sources” and exactly how would this be different from what shows up in the NYT every day?

I know I have to listen to propaganda from the MSM all the time myself, it seems only fair that both sides have an oppurtunity to get their stories out there. After all the media will tell us all about AbuGhraib and trash the soldiers every chance they get and the military can tell us about the positive things the soldiers do because we all know damn well that the folks at the Times and their ilk will not.

And besides the Iraqis already see conspiracies of all kinds every where any way..this is the middle east and as long as the lefties have propagandists like Michael Moore making movies like F911 they are in no position to complain.

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:02 pm 9. PeterUK:

Pudly

“Not that I claim to speak for the “left” pudly”

Maybe not “for” the left but certainly “from” the left,one of Monkyboy’s little subterfuges.

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:09 pm 10. David Thomson:

ì…how much did you get paid?î

This is a very fair question. The odds are high that George Soros and other wealthy leftists pay people to post comments on blogs like this one. And why not? Roger L. Simon has earned a certain degree of influence. Financially, it does make sense. Let us not forget that these left wingers are the intellectual heirs of Antonio Gramsci.

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:09 pm 11. monkyboy:

Here’s a bit of freely available “propaganda” for you PeterUK. It comes from a countryman of yours, T.E. Lawrence, the only westener to have a clue about the middle east. He wrote this almost 100 years ago, but it still applies.

How to set up a successful Muslim rebellion:

It seemed that rebellion must have an unassailable base, something guarded not merely from attack, but from the fear of it: such a base as we had in the Red Sea Parts, the desert, or in the minds of the men we converted to our creed.

It must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form of a disciplined army of occupation too small to fulfil the doctrine of acreage: too few to adjust number to space, in order to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts.

It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2 per cent. active in a striking force, and 98 per cent. passively sympathetic.

The few active rebels must have the qualities of speed and endurance, ubiquity and independence of arteries of supply.

They must have the technical equipment to destroy or paralyse the enemy’s organized communications, for irregular war is fairly Willisens definition of strategy, the study of communication’s in its extreme degree, of attack where the enemy is not.

It’s seems like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have followed Lawrence of Arabia’s advice to the letter. Why they did it is the real question…

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:13 pm 12. Terrye:

monkyboy:

That is stupid, it really is.

I know that people like yourself see the people of the middle east as stupid little brown people who have no passion, no heart, no hatred, no mindset, no culture..other than that which we give them, allow them, incite in them. They are but blank slates for white people to write on.

Have you ever read any Bernard Lewis? Victor Hanson? You know, historians who actually know what they are talking about?

If you go back in history you can find many interesting thigs. Such as a hatred of Jews that predated the state of Israel.

In fact in our own Marine hymm the words “the shores of Tripoli” refer to the fight against Muslim pirates back when Thomas Jefferson was president.

Hell, if you are going to drag Lawrence of Arabia into your paranoid fantasies about Bush and Cheney, why not bring in the Crusades as well?

You are no help, people like you never are. You just bitch, you never fix anything. Cut and run and all well be well.

I am sure Saddam wishes more Americans were like you, then he could rest assured that he would be back in power feeding old people to dogs in no time. We all know you would never lift a finger to cramp his style.

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:28 pm 13. PeterUK:

Good Monkyboy,you can cut and paste without cutting yourself with the scissors.

Yet another aimless bit of monkery.

What is the point of quoting something if not to draw conclusions from it or making a point.

“Why they did it is the real question…”

Any random prose would have sufficed,then you could have just tagged this squib of flatulent vapidity on the end,

More to the point,why did you do so?

Dec 3, 2005 - 1:52 pm 14. Jim Rockford:

The problem with the LAT is that they are afraid. Afraid of saying ANYTHING that would anger jihadis or terrorists or their apologists/supporters here at home. They are also afraid of condemnation from their peers if they said ANYTHING that was not completely negative about GWB, the military, or the general policy of using military force to deter terrorism.

The technical term for this is cowardice. I can’t recall a SINGLE LAT story that criticized jihadis (rather than cowardly repetition of their talking points).

Monkeyboy — comparing the vast majority of Sunnis who suffered under the Ottoman yoke to the vast majority of SHIAs and Kurds who suffered under Saddam’s yoke is foolish. In any case the lesson is the same: ONLY a WESTERN POWER can change things in the Middle East (destroy the Ottomans, Saddam, the Taliban). Moreover contrary to T.E. Lawrence’s self-promotion, it was Allenby who destroyed the Ottomans, in decisive battles culminating in Meggido (an early version of the “highway of death” in Kuwait Gulf War 1). So complete was the destruction that it forced an epiphany in an unknown Ottoman officer that only complete Westernization and Nationalism could allow Turkey to survive, at the cost of the Islamic Sultanate. You might have heard of Kemal Ataturk.

The reality is that the Kurds and Shias have good political reasons to want the US around; as a guarantor of their political safety, to prevent other nations from seizing parts of Iraq, and preventing a new Saddam from rising. Even the Sunnis are coming to that realization. That’s a vast difference from getting on board Faisal’s conquest train (which had as a point of fact great bloody armed resistance in the Hijaz up to the late 1920’s).

Belmont Club’s Wretchard has posited the wide gulf between the Military men who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and KNOW directly what they faced (pure evil, what else can you call bombs in toys or the murder of teachers?) and what they did (destroy the enemy every time they faced them) in direct contradiction of the Press’s and Political/Academic elite’s view that the military is a massive failure comprised of mindless cannon fodder and war criminals.

The military overwhelmingly supports GWB and hates the Press, Democrats as “collaborators” of Al Qaeda. This is not good for the nation. Other than Joe Lieberman there exists not a single Democrat active in the Party who is committed to victory in Iraq (defined as Iraq being relatively stable akin to South Korea 1989, territorially intact, and not hostile to the US).

Dec 3, 2005 - 2:01 pm 15. Shochu John:

In terms of strategic value of propaganda, you get no points for not doing it at all. You get positive points for doing it well so that your point of view gets some serious media play, and hopefully convinces somebody. Negative points are awarded for doing it so poorly that everyone knows you’re doing it and consequetly becomes even less receptive to your message because they don’t want to be manipulated by propaganda. Further negative points if you spent a lot of money inflicting this wound upon yourself. The fact that this story is gracing our discourse demonstrates how badly somebody screwed this one up. I don’t even see how that point is seriously contestable.

Dec 3, 2005 - 2:15 pm 16. Stephen_M:

Shochu John, but enough about the MSMs dollars wasted on PlameGate

Dec 3, 2005 - 2:31 pm 17. Shochu John:

Stephen,

Congrats, that quip wins the Britney Spears award for the evening. It is cute, but vacuous. There is a lot of rubbish that passes for news, such as wall to wall coverage of Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, Scott Peterson or whatever other celebrity is the latest subject of scandal. However, I really have no idea how one could possibly think that high level officials in the federal government displaying such a lack of respect for the law that they would lie and obstruct an investigation (with one already having been indicted) is a story that has been getting more news coverage than it is reasonably due. But, alas, we are off topic.

Dec 3, 2005 - 2:56 pm 18. Yehudit:

I already started posting about it. You going to do a repeat of the January SoA thing with Hitchens and Totten? That would be cool.

Some of us had a party watching the January election on TV – we could liveblog this one.

Dec 3, 2005 - 2:58 pm 19. PeterUK:

It is gracing our discourse simply because those laoyal citizens at the LAT and NYT consider their income far more important than the effort to Iraq achieve peace and the troops withdraw.

It is also because the handmaidens of the loyal opposition, like you John, will make sure it is an issue.

Only the most adolescently naive would believe this has not be common practice for as long as we have had a mass media and by other means for centuries before.

By your metric the LAT and NYT are scoring highly…but who for?

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:05 pm 20. Shochu John:

Peter,

Would you submit that this is not newsworthy? If it is newsworthy, than why should it not be reported? Simply because those in Iraq in charge of the strategic propaganda are doing their jobs poorly, does it follow that reporters should feel obliged to also do their jobs poorly to cover for them? You may not think it is a particularly large problem to undermine a free press, but I do.

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:16 pm 21. Yehudit:

I had a TE Lawrence phase when I was 18. Saw the movie 6 times, read everything he wrote and 5 bios of him. Very odd person, very romantic, a bit inclined to embroider.

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:41 pm 22. PeterUK:

Do you deny the media decides what is newsworthy,that the editorial board decide what coverage and prominence any item is given?

All this nonsense about reporters doing their jobs properly compared to administrators in Iraq,these are the hyenas of the press you are talking about,all that concerns them is a story which conforms to editorial policy.

“You may not think it is a particularly large problem to undermine a free press, but I do.”

This come under the category of “creative writing”,BTW do you teach it? You have the style,no substance, but certainly the style.

What is called for is a responsible press,with freedom comes responsiblity.

You may not think it is a particulary large problem undermining your government in times of peril merely to install the administration of your choice,but I do.

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:48 pm 23. Rick Ballard:

A seditious and objectively pro-terrorist press is worthy not just being undermined but of being destroyed. The market will have its way but every little bit of help along that way has to be appreciated. The end cannot come to soon.

Omar does a very nice election roundup. I’m curious as to why he didn’t mention Chalabi by name. The NCC’s split from the UIA makes the possibility of a Kurd/Sunni/NCC coalition forming a majority, leaving the UIA as a strong minority at least theoretically possible. I’m betting that the secular vote outside of the south is going to be stronger than anticipated.

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:59 pm 24. jedrury:

This story is the biggest gasser of all. Show me a journalist who has not prostituted himself for the editor, owner or confidential source and I will show you a guy writing obituraries, or, schleping cars at CarMax.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:05 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:

I wonder how the leading edge of the legacy media–NYT, WaPo, 2 of 3 BC Nets, managed to miss Senator’s Joe’s pro-OIF bombshell for a day or two, after which if mentioned at all, it was buried deep. I mean, in light of the sanctimony of the defenders of the !st amendment re the post topic, one wonders where the emotion should be wrt the Lieberman Shun.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:06 pm 26. Captain Hate:

“I really have no idea how one could possibly think that high level officials in the federal government displaying such a lack of respect for the law that they would lie and obstruct an investigation (with one already having been indicted) is a story that has been getting more news coverage than it is reasonably due. But, alas, we are off topic.”

If you’re going off topic you should still be accurate. “high level officials”? Who’s the second one? And being indicted isn’t the same as being convicted. With Woodward’s revelation I would think that Scooter Libbey has a reasonable chance of beating the rap. If his counsel calls enough reporters as witnesses, the MSM may end up giving itself a high colonic. Or should he sacrifice the right to defend himself against charges if it somehow damages the “free” press? You know, the greater good and all that.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:07 pm 27. Shochu John:

OK, Peter,

Let’s have it your way for awhile. If freedom of the press is to be limited by official goals, how far do we go? Does a “responsible” press avoid publishing casualty reports becuase it serves to undermine public confidence in the operation? Does a “responsbile” press publish, if not technically false, then at least selectively truthful stories designed to paint the conflict in a favorable light? At what point does this “responsible” press become a propaganda organ?

You ask, “Do you deny the media decides what is newsworthy,that the editorial board decide what coverage and prominence any item is given?” No. Now it is your turn to answer my question, which I shall now ask a second time. Would you submit that this is not newsworthy? In other words, having agreed that the editors of a newspaper decide what is and is not considered newsworthy for that publicaton, do you disagree with their decision that this story IS newsworthy, and if so, why?

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:10 pm 28. Captain Hate:

That’s Scooter Libby.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:11 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

Y’all going to gallop off after the nitwit looking for the non-outer of a non-covert non-secret agent or get back to looking at the Iraqi election?

He’s a clumsy thread thief and a poor sophist. Why waste the time and why let him choose a topic?

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:17 pm 30. Buddy Larsen:

SJohn, you’re asking along the second derivative. The first of course is the question of the war effort. If a national war effort is no different than any other national issue, then your line has merit.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:18 pm 31. monkyboy:

I believe the press covered Lieberman’s “bombshell” by reporting that the Iraq “war” now has Joe-mentum on its side.

How many home runs does Bush have to serve up before you guys stop blaming the announcers and call in some relief pitching?

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:21 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:

Check into how the press helped their nation win WWII, for a good model of how to get the hostilities over with and get on with the fundamental task of bettering the world by rescuing people from aggressively hostile tyranny.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:23 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

MB–Brit Hume reported–24 hrs after the Joe-bomb hit the air, that–as i said–an effort was underway to ignore/downplay what even you must admit would–shoe-on-other-foot–be the story of the month. Fish awhile, you’ll find the facts–I’m not gonna do it for you, you’re the aggressor on the question.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:29 pm 34. David Thomson:

ìDoes a “responsible” press avoid publishing casualty reports becuase it serves to undermine public confidence in the operation?î

You are totally missing the point. The real question is this: do they want our side to win? There is no such thing as pure objectivity. We are all committed to a particular way of looking at the world. What is the reason behind the publishing of the casualty reports? Are they trying to truly enlightening us—or are these journalists trying to make sure we lose the war on terror?

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:31 pm 35. Captain Hate:

“How many home runs does Bush have to serve up before you guys stop blaming the announcers and call in some relief pitching?”

Speaking of sports, thanks to the presence of the subprimate troll, I’m really enjoying USC destroying UCLA.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:37 pm 36. Buddy Larsen:

two nuggets: Pix of USA KIA never hit press until late 1943, when FDR felt the national war effort had reached the point of coping. For two years, the press followed the no-pix diktat of the war leadership, presumably because the press wanted to win the war. Cut to Slapton Sands, coast of england, training exercise for upcoming D-Day, German E-boats break into training operastion, sink several troop transports, neasrly 900 US troops KIA. Ike–not FDR–but IKE, a mere theater commander, put the quietus on the whole thing, with a word. Object? To win the war.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:37 pm 37. PeterUK:

!Let’s have it your way for awhile. If freedom of the press is to be limited by official goals,”

That is your assertion not my stance,you really must stop making shit up John.

“Does a “responsible” press avoid publishing casualty reports becuase it serves to undermine public confidence in the operation”

It could certainly adopt some decency and humanity unlike the ghoulish countdown to the “Grim Milestone” But as you are perfectly aware the press does not have these qualities..it is capitalist big business.

To ask you a question,was this anymore newsworthy than a democratic Senator getting drunk and making inflammatory speeches.

It is a matter,of choosing the news,come on John we all know there is an election coming up,that the Democratic position is that Iraq is a disaster,which of course makes this story top the one about waht the Democrats in New Orleans have done with hundreds of milions of aid aid money.

Choices John,in this case made by the finest media money can buy.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:41 pm 38. Buddy Larsen:

BTW, those late’43 pix were of the invasion of Tarawa, in the Gilberts, I believe…the first opposed landing in the Pacific Theater. USN had no good tidal charts, and Marines had to wade 500 yds under a withering fire that the naval bombardment had been ’sure’ to’ve eliminated.

The first wave of landing was almost 100% wiped out, nearly 3000 Marine KIA in a matter of hours.

But, the Marines took the island.

Why? Because on Dec 7 ‘41, their nation had been attacked by the Empire of Japan.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:46 pm 39. Buddy Larsen:

Oops, forgot my point: Press could’ve ripped Navy/Corps/FDR to shreds over the snafu, but chose not to. Why? Because there was a LARGER PRINCIPLE involved, than the myriad sanctimonies about ‘right-to-know’. What about ‘right to NOT know’? As, in matters of ultimate exigency? Besides, the press knew the diff between deliberate or goofed-off snafu, and the honest snafu that often results from executing vast, complex operations under intense pressures of every imaginable sort.

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:55 pm 40. dougf:

The odds are high that George Soros and other wealthy leftists pay people to post comments on blogs like this one.—DT

Really ? I could post ’significant’ analysis like the usual suspects and collect those big Soros dollars ? And here I am working for nothing? !!

How do I sign up ? Just a ‘cute’ handle for effect and off to the races, would I be.

I could perhaps down a 6 pack or so, or indulge otherwise, before ‘creating’, just to get in the proper space ,and then when I returned to reality, I could then post a scathing ‘reply’ to my previous paid-for babbling.

Sounds like a Win-Win to me.

Capitalism. What can’t it do?

Dec 3, 2005 - 4:56 pm 41. Buddy Larsen:

When the legalistic hair-splitters of the left feign ignorance of the power of precedent, it’s my cue I’m wasting my time with ‘em.

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:00 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Dougf–Brilliant!

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:02 pm 43. Buddy Larsen:

Captain Hate, I’d jern ya on that but except I’m a Longhorn & was hoping the Bares would knock off the Prophylactics so my guys–who squeaked past Colorado 70-3 today–could rise to #1.

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:15 pm 44. PeterUK:

Who was it on the Armed Services Committee leaked this to the press?

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:15 pm 45. Buddy Larsen:

Peter, throw a dart at the bottom paragraph (Sen. Joe & maybe two others excepted).

REPUBLICANS

John Warner (Virginia)

Chairman

John McCain (Arizona)

James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)

Pat Roberts (Kansas)

Jeff Sessions (Alabama)

Susan M. Collins (Maine)

John Ensign (Nevada)

James M. Talent (Missouri)

Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)

Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina)

Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)

John Cornyn (Texas)

John Thune (South Dakota)

DEMOCRATS

Carl Levin (Michigan)

Ranking Member

Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts)

Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia)

Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)

Jack Reed (Rhode Island)

Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)

Bill Nelson (Florida)

E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska)

Mark Dayton (Minnesota)

Evan Bayh (Indiana)

Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:20 pm 46. Captain Hate:

Buddy, that’ll just make yer boys next win all the more impressive!!!!

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:24 pm 47. PeterUK:

Buddy,

This might narrow the field,one prominent elder Statesman straight onto the bandwagon.

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:35 pm 48. David Thomson:

ìAnd here I am working for nothing? !!î

Yup, Iím afraid that George Soros and his buddies are on the other side. Whoever said life was fair? We may be fighting on the side of the poor and powerless. Well, isnít it nice to speak truth to power? Didnít you always want to be a member of the downtrodden and against the establishment?

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:35 pm 49. monkyboy:

I think the fringe right needs to go easy on the World War II comparisons.

By the time the midterm elections roll around next year, we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII…

I will enjoy seeing how Karl Rove’s spin that Al Queda is a much tougher foe than Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined goes over.

Dec 3, 2005 - 5:49 pm 50. PeterUK:

If Iraq had been fought like WWII,we would have been hanging the Christmas decorations in Damascus and Tehran by now.

Either that or the Middle East would have been a smoking crater.

You have no historical perspective Monkychild of the forces of destruction which were held back in thsi conflict.The Coalition traded higher military casualties for lower civilian ones,for humanitarian reasons, but also so that the cringing left could maintain its moral feelgood factor.

Yes it could have been over sooner…about fifteen minutes after commencement..is that what you wanted?

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:02 pm 51. PeterUK:

Ah Yes!

“By the time the midterm elections roll around next year, we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII…”

See you can be honest if you wish…it has always been about political power..hasn’t it?

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:11 pm 52. Buddy Larsen:

Yes, I’m sure you DO dislike the WWII comparisons–no place for monkeyboyz in that clarified can-do all-American atmosphere.

And the duration thing–thanks for making my point wrt the press. I couldnt’ve said it better.

And Rove, I’m sure you DO hate him–don’t blame ya a bit. Seeing as how Bush is too stupid (tho smart enuff to hire Rove) to be leading the nation to winning a thirty-years war while growing an excellent economy while the nation turns conservative, traditional, and religious under the control of both houses of congress, the White House, more and more governorships, statehouses, and municipalities, and soon the Supreme Court.

Yes, my petite brachiator, you have much howling and feces-throwing to do, from the comfort of your cage.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:12 pm 53. ForNow:

Could bloggers like Iraq the Model be part of it? The Times acts as if they never heard of them.)

The NYT should remember IraqTheModel, they published an article identifying the blogging brothers by their full names (see Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2005_01_18.html#008905 and Power Line http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009232.php. It was a particularly disgusting incident in which the defense included the idea that since the article was in some sort of arts/entertainment section, it didn’t count as reckessly endangering them — different newspaper section, different universe, etc. It was written by some young chick Sarah Boxer (in her early 20s, I think) who’d been on the NYT “art beat” for a few years.

By the way, I saw either Roger, or somebody who look a lot like him, complete with The Hat from his photo, outside the Empire State Building today.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:15 pm 54. monkyboy:

Last time I checked, Bush and the Republicans have been running things since 9/11. That means they are the ones who get judged next November.

You guys better hope that training up a large army in a country where military coup is the usual method of leadership change leads to democracy.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:23 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:

Oh, sh*t, MB, nobody ever thought of THAT! Quick, call Ramsey Clark, spring Saddam, grease the people-shredders and put him back on the throne!

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:26 pm 56. Buddy Larsen:

And to prevent that coup, better keep our troops there forever–just let ‘em work under Saddam.

There. The Perfect Dem Solution–a nutz foreign policy, and plenty of permanent Iss-yewz to hair-split infinitely.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:30 pm 57. PeterUK:

ForNow,

Thank you for that perfect example of Press responsibility.There was a poll,ranking people by occupation,it went something like this.

Pushers

Pimps

Politicians.

Press.

The bottom four outside the utterly unspeakable.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:31 pm 58. chuck:

Free Iraqi has a good post on this.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:38 pm 59. PeterUK:

Buddy,

Don’t tell me that George Bush will still be President after November…that’s a lot more Spanky Monky!

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:38 pm 60. Buddy Larsen:

I’m sorry, ForNow–your post is much more important that endless squirming-cercopithecoid baiting. I retire, MB, to read ForNow’s links. catch ya later, Doood!

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:40 pm 61. Ed Poinsett:

And while we’re at it MB let’s turn the internet over to the UN. GWB’s dolts are ruining a great tax revenue source for Kofi and friends. I’m certain you’re angry about John Bolton demanding UN reform. We need more International management since the US can’t manage it’s own affairs or protect its own freedoms.

My country is the greatest place on earth to live, and I’m proud to be an american. Is there anything you’re proud of?

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:43 pm 62. PeterUK:

Actually,There isn’t much difference in an American reading the New York Times and an Iraqi reading Al Mu’tamar newspaper.

To presume differently is to be patronisingly racist.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:44 pm 63. Buddy Larsen:

One other thing, MB–re your implicit ‘brown people can’t handle freedom’ idea: Would YOU be an Iraqi election worker? Judge or prosecutor in the Saddam trial? Cop or (Iraqi) soldier in the Triangle?

No, you wouldn’t.

Why? Because those folks are willing to die–and DO die–to be free.

So, what can’t they handle? People like you?

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:51 pm 64. PeterUK:

Perhaps an extract is appropriate.http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009232.php

“So here is a reporter from The New York Times — let’s repeat that, The New York Times — speculating in print on whether an Iraqi citizen, whose only apparent weirdness and sin in her eyes is (a) publishing and (b) supporting America, is a CIA or Defense Department plant or an American.

Ms. Boxer, don’t you think you could be putting the life of that person at risk with that kind of speculation? In your own story, you quote Ali — one of the three blogging brothers who started IraqTheModel — saying that “here some people would kill you for just writing to an American.” And yet you go so much farther — blithely, glibly speculating about this same man working for the CIA or the DoD — to sex up your lead and get your story atop the front of the Arts section (I’m in the biz, Boxer, I know how the game is played).

How dare you? Have you no sense of responsibility? Have you no shame?”

I rest my case.

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:58 pm 65. monkyboy:

Better permanent issues than permanent war, Buddy (unless you are making a profit on the war, of course).

I’m not the one who decided to make Iraq “the front in ‘war’ on terror.” Seems to me that the Republicans don’t care how many brown people die to keep America “safe.”

Otherwise, we’d move the front, or at least let them vote on whether we stay in their country or not.

At the same point in WWII, we’d just landed in Normandy and were heading for Berlin. Where are we again in Iraq?

Dec 3, 2005 - 6:59 pm 66. ForNow:

Thank you everybody. I haven’t posted here often, but when I do, I like my posts to be…important.

As for Mr. John Bolton — he rocks!

John Bolton had choppers threee,

Got a message from Miss Libertyyy,

She was stuck in some U.N. sliiime,

John Bolton didn’t waste no tiiime,

John Bolton to the rescue,

Go, John Bolton, go, John Bolton!

John Bolton to the rescue! John Bolton to the rescue!

John Bolton to the rescue! Go, John Bolton, go, John Bolton!

Ko-fee craves the world he robs,

All Voino could deliver was sobs,

Pet-ty gossip — Senate delaaay,

John Bolton didn’t walk awaaay,

John Bolton to the rescue,

Go, John Bolton, go, John Bolton!

John Bolton got to Turtle Baaay,

The stooges and the rouges been lootin’ all daaay,

John Bolton didn’t need no suiiite,

He was hip and hittin’ the beeeat,

John Bolton to the rescue,

Go, John Bolton, go, John Bolton!

Go! Go! Go, John Bolton! Go! Go! Go, John Bolton!

Go! Go! Go, John Bolton! Go, John Bolton, yeeee-haaah!

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:09 pm 67. chuck:

Better permanent issues than permanent war, Buddy (unless you are making a profit on the war, of course).

Heh, one hundred years of BS and MB still sucks it up. Better start evolving, dude. Just losing an ‘e’ to mutation won’t cut it these days.

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:12 pm 68. PeterUK:

Monky,

Your ignorance is showing,the Coalition hit Bahgdad sooner than the Allies reached Berlin,with a minute fraction of the casualties.

The Allies still have troops in Germany,for decades this was a powerful offensive army,tank divisions,artillery,infantry,airborne assault troops,mechanised divisions,aircraft,nuclear weapons…where have you been since 1945? The hall had been booked for WWIII until the USSR collapsed..don’t they teach you anything other than finger painting?

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:14 pm 69. Terrye:

monkey boy:

Well you know what? If Bill Clinton had spent as much time with his pants on in the Oval Office as he did with them around his ankles maybe some of these problems would not have been problems when he slinked out of town.

I remember the Washington Post running an editorial in January 2001 concerning the fact that Clinton had dumped the problem of Saddam and his weapons on Bush.

But then again I remember a lot of things, like the Iraqi Liberation Act, the Food for Oil program, bombing Iraq in 1998, Saddam’s noncompliance with more than a dozen UN resolutions, his attempts to kill a president, his giving sanctuary to Yasin after the first attack on the WTC. And on and on and on.

Years of threatening Saddam, of escalating tensions, of threats of war. What I do not remember is the Democrats resolving the situation when they had the chance to do it. Why the hell not? I mean if Saddam was such a harmless old guy and if Iraq was really not that bad a place just what the hell was Saint Bill doing for the two terms he danced around with that madman?

As for WW2 comparisons the press actually censored itself in those days and there was a government agency dedicated to propaganda.

Silly as it may seem they were all on the same side.

They actually wanted the US to win.

That is why the Republicans refused to make Pearl Harbor an issue in the 1944 election. Imagine that? Someone thinking that their country was more important than using dead Americans for personal political gain.

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:18 pm 70. Luther McLeod:

You are an idiot MB. Hang on to your fantasies, you may get a good job in the democratic party some day. But for now, please take your childish BS somewhere else. You obviously have no faith nor belief in anything, other than your own little selfish dialog of ‘how the world really is’. I rue the day when you and yours are running this country. For that will truly be the end.

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:20 pm 71. Buddy Larsen:

Wars–hot and cold–hold markets down, MB. Do some reading outside your hothouse. Bulldozers add value, tanks just keep bad people from subtracting–or stealing–value.

I half-agree with your second para–I cringe when I hear the war cast as only about our personal safety.

Go deeper than the surface–re para 3. the vote would be close in Sunni land, tho not in the south and north. You see, under Saddam, there was no public urban violence, and it’s his Sunni areas that are now suffering the most from terrorists fighting the Coalition. But to look at that in isolation, you have to forget the thirty years war we’re fighting, the destabilizing of the region and the world by Saddam & al Qaida, 911, and the promise of far far worse once an enemy achieved control of KSA oilfields/OPEC.

Your last para is a non-sequiter and only makes sense as a verbal formula, an arrangement of words. Assay the differing situations first, then compare like-to-like. Please, try to keep up with the room.

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:21 pm 72. Shochu John:

Peter,

“!Let’s have it your way for awhile. If freedom of the press is to be limited by official goals,”

That is your assertion not my stance,you really must stop making shit up John.”

Perhaps you will have to be a bit more clear on what you’re talking about. I am having a hard time figuring out what your point is. How am I to interpret this, “You may not think it is a particulary large problem undermining your government in times of peril merely to install the administration of your choice,but I do.” If you do not think that the press should be permitted to “undermine your government,” which you are clearly construing in very loose terms here, how does that not count as limiting the freedom of the press in favor of offical goals. In other words, exactly what I said. Also, I notice you keep asking me questions but refuse to answer mine. For the THIRD TIME, is this story newsworthy? Is is simple, why not just reply? I’ll tell you what. Once you answer my question, I’ll answer yours. Deal? This is, after all, a give and take.

Mr Thomson says:

“What is the reason behind the publishing of the casualty reports? Are they trying to truly enlightening us—or are these journalists trying to make sure we lose the war on terror?”

Well, it seems to me to be a very informative statistic as it is an indicator of what level of law and order, or lack therof, exists in Iraq. Being as that the American people are the ones who are paying for the war and, indeed, the ones sacrificing lives for it, perhaps they should be told how things are going. No? I can see questioning the intent of the press if they were doing something unreasonable, but reporting information that the American people have a right to know does not strike me a as reason to question whose side they are on.

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:28 pm 73. Buddy Larsen:

hey, way cool, ForNow–just needs a melody and ya got a hit!

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:33 pm 74. Buddy Larsen:

“…but reporting information that the American people have a right to know does not strike me a as reason to question whose side they are on.”

That thought was tested on Nov 02, 2004, SJohn.

The problem is, the losing party, in a manner unprecedented in American history, refuses to accept the referendum, and prefers instead to chase UFOs, and to use the difficulty in finding any as evidence that they must exist, and then proceeding under an assumption of conspiracy-driven cold civil-war.

That the worst of the left at times merges with the worst of the right is by use of verbal formulae cast as anything the imagination can conceive, and the resultant paranoid style of politics is precisely what this centrist blog–chockful of lapsed Democrats–is all about the exposure of.

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:47 pm 75. Terrye:

John:

Oh puhleaze. What self righteous crap.

The whole reason we can publish the figures is that we are counting them in handfulls. And the soldiers? Well most of them want to finish the job now, they don’t want some self serving politician to pull their ass out of Iraq today just so they can go back later. Again. When it will be more dangerous.

When we look at the cusualties of previous wars it would not only have been pointless, it would have been endless to read all the names and day in and day out. Hour after hour of naming all the names of men who died in places like Korea or Viet Nam or Iwo Jima or Normandy or North Africa or the Battle of the Bulge or Antietam. Even in the Revolution when cities like New York and Philadelphia had populations less than 40,000 we lost 11,000 men aboard the prison ships alone.

It is too bad the press did not do its job before.

For instance, how did the major media with all their resources completely miss the intel failures of 90’s? How is it that it took the collapse of the Iraqi regime for them to become aware of the Food for Oil scandal? In fact if not for the invasion would the know it alls in American journalism be aware of any of this today? I doubt it.

They missed Saddam putting hundreds of thousands of people in mass graves and the complete destruction of that country’s infrastructure. They were oblivious to the rise of Islamic radicalism.

Other than harassing Republicans, what are they good for?

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:49 pm 76. ForNow:

To the tune of the Black Oak Arkansas arrangement of “Jim Dandy to the Rescue” (lyrics by Lincoln Chase, first recorded by LaVerne Baker).

Dec 3, 2005 - 7:59 pm 77. Rick Ballard:

What line will the sophist seditionists be peddling after the elections? Whom will they encompass with their faux empathy as the Iraqis methodically exterminate the remaining Baathist terrorist elements? Will they sob and wring their hands when Ramadi is completely reduced and a few of the river tribes wiped out?

That’s where I think they are headed next – handwringing for the Sunni Arab deadend bomb planters. A nice warm embrace of the headchoppers as they are wiped out by legitimate government action.

A pity that they can’t be there beside those with whom they are allied as the end comes. Truly a pity.

Terrye,

The massacres weren’t covered because every one of the dying media outlets in Iraq signed the same butt kissing agreement with Saddam that Eason Jordan did. There is no alliance too greasy for the MSM.

Dec 3, 2005 - 8:05 pm 78. Buddy Larsen:

Rick, would that be Eason “American soldiers deliberately murder journalists” Jordan, of Madrid Conference fame? The one that HellFire Mary Mapes is peddling as a martyr murdered–alongside her own heroic self at the barricades–by the VRWC of bloggers?

Dec 3, 2005 - 8:21 pm 79. Buddy Larsen:

That’s “murdered” in the metaphorical, lose-your-job sense, not murdered in the “leaping out the windows of collapsing skyscrapers with your clothes and hair on fire” sense.

Dec 3, 2005 - 8:46 pm 80. Rick Ballard:

Yeah, good ol’ ‘Greaser’ Eason. Almost but not quite forgotten and a suitable stablemate for Lucy Ramirez Mapes – Queen of the Kinkos.

Heros of modern journalistic sedition – there needs to be a Hall of Shame for these clowns.

Dec 3, 2005 - 8:54 pm 81. Buddy Larsen:

And they’ll look you in the eye to this day and tell you they had every right in the world to attempt to lie you into hating your country as much as they do.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:03 pm 82. Buddy Larsen:

And since no G*d could give them that right, they just took it. If they took it, where did they take it from?

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:06 pm 83. monkyboy:

I think the press did a fair job of covering Saddam’s reign. Here is a photo of him meeting with a big supporter:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

I did not bring up the World War 2 analogy, the OP did. Why not compare how the press behaved, what the politicians said and how good our Generals were in WW II vs Iraq?

These days, seems like every general is another Patton just because his number came up…

Tommy Franks vs. George Patton?

I have done some research, here is my first test sig:

Day 989 of the Iraq war. On day 989 of World War 2 – Aug 23, 1944 – Romania surrenders to the Russians. Its oil fields were Germany’s only source of natural oil.

Kinda spooky.

BTW, Day 1000 of the Iraqi “war” is the day before elections there…do I smell another “grim milestone?”

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:07 pm 84. Rick Ballard:

“do I smell another “grim milestone?”

Your digestive and personal hygiene problems are of little concern to others – aside from those downwind, of course.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:12 pm 85. Buddy Larsen:

M ’static analysis’ B, Saddam didn’t start off as near a piece of sh*t as he became steadily with the passge of time. And there were other fish to fry at the time (I didn’t link, but I know your icons). Again, please try to keep up with the room. Barking “Rumsfeld” may get you a banana at your zoo, but this isn’t your zoo.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:19 pm 86. Terrye:

monky boy:

You are tedious.

I was a Democrat for years and it is because of people like you that I left the party.

The US and the UK were never big supporters of Saddam Hussein.

After the Ayatollah took over Iran following the seizure of our embassy…. and began sending young men into Iraq with tickets to paradise in their back pockets…. while the mullahs promised to bring war to the entire Muslim world as well as the destruction of Israel…well at that point Saddam seemed a lesser evil.

Chirac was a big shot even then and he called Saddam “a close personal friend” and sold the man a nuclear reactor in 1979. Nor did that relationship end there. In 1991 half of all French arms sales went to Iraq. But, hey the French are part of the peace camp so they can get away with that stuff, just like Russia, Germany and China. those were the big suppliers of Saddam Hussein..as if anyone gives a damn.

The truth is the only countries that really cut Saddam off once it became obvious he was looney was the US and the UK and they are the only countries that ever showed any concern at all for the people like Iraq.

The thing about the left is that they love to bitch about the US pandering to dictators, but they get even more pissed when the US does not.

Hyupocrites. Keep it up. The terrorists in Iraq need all the moral support they can get. If not for the anti war folks like you and the calls for withdrawal some of those guys might give up killing people. Can’t have that now can we? Spoil all your fun.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:23 pm 87. Buddy Larsen:

Ha, Rick, i wanna be upwind too!

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:24 pm 88. Buddy Larsen:

Dammit, Terrye, you are my favorite Bitch Goddess of All Time. Nobody does straightforward and fact-filled like you. Mind if I sleep with you in my dreams tonite?

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:28 pm 89. Terrye:

Buddy:

Only in your dreams?

Well let me give you a mental picture. I am a cross between Ma Kettle and Meryl Streep.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:33 pm 90. Buddy Larsen:

ha ha—well, I’m a cross between Dagwood Bumstead and a triceratops.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:37 pm 91. Buddy Larsen:

Well–getting late–guess i’ll go lay down and take off my boots and jacket.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:44 pm 92. Terrye:

Buddy:

Sounds interesting. How big are your feet?

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:45 pm 93. Buddy Larsen:

When it takes 10 years to find a way to re-tell a joke, maybe it means “don’t re-tell the joke”.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:46 pm 94. Buddy Larsen:

Well, 13 DD, actually (blush).

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:47 pm 95. Buddy Larsen:

But, will you still respect monkyboy, afterwards?

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:49 pm 96. Terrye:

I don’t respect him now.

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:51 pm 97. Buddy Larsen:

Maybe he’ll grow up someday. Well-nite all–thanks for the fun time and impressive gunfire!

Dec 3, 2005 - 9:53 pm 98. chuck:

Day 989 of the Iraq war. On day 989 of World War 2 – Aug 23, 1944 – Romania surrenders to the Russians. Its oil fields were Germany’s only source of natural oil.

Perhaps you should start it back in 1939. Fifty million dead later it ended. You would prefer something like that, perhaps? Or maybe 13 million Americans under arms? Hell, at the end of the war I believe Bradley alone had some three million men under his command. Your whole comparison is pathetic and stupid.

Dec 3, 2005 - 11:03 pm 99. Hotjets:

To what degree has the MSM stressed the total number of enemy casualties in Iraq? I don’t recall ever having seen these sorts of figures anywhere, or even any sort of approximation. Does the MSM consider the absolute (and relative) number of enemies killed in Iraq irrelevant? If a war is on, isn’t this one sort of information that should be widely available?

Dec 3, 2005 - 11:49 pm 100. Fresh Air:

To everyone countering simian stupidity with facts: href=”http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html”>Here is a handy chart that shows which countries armed Saddam by percentage of weaponry sold. You will notice that the USSR, China and France were responsible for 82% of the arms sales. The US and UK combined were less than 2%.

Dec 4, 2005 - 12:46 am 101. Fresh Air:

Cripes, here’s the link again: Link.

Good night.

Dec 4, 2005 - 12:47 am 102. Gary Rosen:

As long as we’re making WWII comparisons, chew on this: if the press had covered WWII they way they’re covering this war, the Nazis would still be in power. And no doubt monkyboy and Shochu John would be hailing their, uh, “evenhanded” approach to the Mideast, untainted by the influence of “Trotskyist neocons” as soulmate Pat Buchanan calls them.

Dec 4, 2005 - 1:08 am 103. monkyboy:

I disagree, Gary.

Here is a pretty good archive of papers from WWII:

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/atlantic_e.html

It’s mostly from the Canadian paper The Globe & Mail, but it has NY Times and other sources, too.

I browsed it for about an hour. Allied casualties are openly discussed, low troop moral and poor conditions in many campaigns are also noted by both embedded AP reporters and military spokesmen.

There are also many editorials that criticize the strategy and tactics of WWII military leaders.

I see little difference between coverage and Iraq and coverage of WWII.

The main difference I can see is that victory conditions in WWII were clear to everybody. What constitutes a “victory” in Iraq is unclear.

By the administration’s latest definition of victory, we could be in Iraq for the next 20 years and still not “win” there.

Anyhoo, good reading there. Certainly not what I expected…

Dec 4, 2005 - 4:01 am 104. klrfz1:

The facts:

Pudly comments at 12:36 P.M. and 8 minutes later monkeyboy replies to him. Pudly never comments again.

The comment timing is

Pudly comments at 12:36 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 12:44 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 1:13 P.M.

Shochu John comments at 2:15 P.M.

Shochu John comments at 2:56 P.M.

Shochu John comments at 3:16 P.M.

Shochu John comments at 4:10 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 4:21 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 5:49 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 6:23 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 6:59 P.M.

Shochu John comments at 7:23 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 9:47 P.M.

Monkeyboy comments at 4:01 A.M.

My analysis:

Pudly is the new troll sock puppet. Monkeyboy is too busy creating Shochu John comments to remember poor pudly.

MonkeyboyShochuJohn is too lazy to log out and back in as the other name to interleave identities.

MonkeyboyShochuJohn is located in the Eastern or Central time zone. Like me.

MonkeyboyShochuJohn is worth every penny George Soros pays him. If the money is enough to live on it must be about 10 cents/word. GIVE THE GUY A RAISE, GEORGE, HE GETS TO WORK EARLY ON SUNDAY!

Dec 4, 2005 - 4:27 am 105. Terrye:

monkeyboy:

Good day.

Still here?

Did you not have your beauty rest?

My father and his three bothers foght in WW2, trust me this is not WW2. If it is I guess we will be nuking Damascus and Tehran any day now.

I suppose it is only a matter of time before we firebomb Mecca.

And then there are the death camps and forced marches.

Gitmo just is not up to snuff. I mean how can we compare Harry Potter, air conditioning, food and medical attention to turning people into lampshades?

No problem for the likes of the monk. Maybe that is why you call yourself monky boy..are you [ahem] celibate?

Dec 4, 2005 - 5:11 am 106. Buddy Larsen:

he’ll have to go into the archives to find out. But hell, so would i.

Dec 4, 2005 - 6:21 am 107. PeterUK:

“If you do not think that the press should be permitted to ”

Permitted? John,permitted? Where did the word permitted appear,you are making shit up again John!

Dec 4, 2005 - 6:34 am 108. Buddy Larsen:

“permitted” shows up all over the leftist visage–two examples spring to mind–various Clinton scandals excused by the hair-split contention that “no controlling authority” exprssly forbade this or that ethical escapade, and JFKerry & others speaking on their being aghast at the lack of controlling authority over the internet.

Dec 4, 2005 - 6:43 am 109. Buddy Larsen:

Terrye hit the nail when she used the term “self-censorship”…meaning of course some amalgam of duty and responsibility and patriotism.

Dec 4, 2005 - 6:53 am 110. PeterUK:

Kerfizzle,

Would Maine do?

Dec 4, 2005 - 6:55 am 111. Buddy Larsen:

…and re your archival findings, MB, what we are talking about is not a difference in kind, but rather a difference in degree. The argument against the current status quo of the MSM is that the envelope–traditionally containing much difference in degree but no difference in kind–has been torn open.

Practically speaking, not since Lincoln had to suspend Habeas Corpus in order to jail a few editors for awhile in an attempt to hold the border states (sure, un-Constitutional, but as he in effect asked, “what’s the point of the Constitution if there’s no nation attached?” It’s known as ‘rising above one’s principles and is only exigent in matters of survival–the actual seriousness of which to be judged at any rate by regularly-scheduled elections), have there been elements of the national press actively promoting victory for the enemy.

Dec 4, 2005 - 7:06 am 112. Buddy Larsen:

“regularly-scheduled elections” which are not up for grabs at the whim of bossmen, due to the 2nd Amendment. Which, natch, the left hates.

Dec 4, 2005 - 7:12 am 113. Buddy Larsen:

The left presents its softness on personal responsibility as proof of its big old “impressionistic” soft heart.

Others–like me–see such softness refracted through practical matters such as education and crime, wherein educational softness promotes gullibility in–thus control of–the masses, and softness on crime will hopefully create enough murdering to suspend the 2nd Amendment, which in time will “permit” the suspension also of the 22nd Amendment, thus bringing in the Great Proletarian Revolution (which will of course mean a revolutionary rise in the proletarian Misery Index while the New Nomenklatura cools its permanenty-enthroned heels in say, Hyannisport).

Dec 4, 2005 - 7:31 am 114. Jamison1:

monkyboy,

It should be clear to everyone now what victory conditions are for Iraq. The Pentagon and the rest of the administration needs to repeat them over and over again, of course, but no one should complain they don’t know what they are anymore.

Dec 4, 2005 - 7:53 am 115. PeterUK:

Buddy,

“regularly-scheduled elections” They don’t even want them in the US,they are “Gonna take back the Whitehouse”.

Implicit in this statement is that the Whitehouse is theirs by right

BTW,

Warfar is as much deceit and misinformation as combat,to publiscise casualty figures in any specific way is insane.

Simian shit and Sushi boy may not know how many men there are in a platoon,but the Jihadis do,they also know what roads can be used and how long rebuilding a unit back up to strength will take.

Others is the “Axis of Losers” the Democrats,stoppers and assorted left wing saprophytes,will rejoice,”We were right,we were right” What kind of degenerates have been spawned,so ignorant that they don;t even know that paddling on Omaha Beach saw the loss of more gallent men.

Dec 4, 2005 - 7:55 am 116. Buddy Larsen:

Peter, they’re expert mechanics on fine-tuning the self-fulfilling power of the negative prophecy.

Dec 4, 2005 - 8:09 am 117. Buddy Larsen:

No demoralized combatant ever won. Unless the other combatant was even more demoralized….

Dec 4, 2005 - 8:21 am 118. Buddy Larsen:

Meaning, MB, that if NYTimes does 500 stories on the “victims” of Abu Grabe & Gitmo, and does 50 on the victims of those “victims”, then the morale effect on this side of the front is negative-10, and on the other side of the front, positive 10. A 20 point swing against this nation, enveloped in just enough fog to provide a ‘there’s no press bias’ talking point to those who know how to use it, and to those like you, who are trying to learn.

Dec 4, 2005 - 8:33 am 119. Captain Hate:

The first mistake in dealing with trolls is believing that they’re *really* interested in having a serious discussion. Once they’ve typed their dogmatic talking points and need to use their stunted intellect, they’re at a decided disadvantage. That’s why it’s best to ridicule and then ignore them, because they’ll only degrade the discussion.

Dec 4, 2005 - 9:01 am 120. Buddy Larsen:

I half-agree, Captain Hate–converting them is an exercise in futility. But, we do get to see their best arguments–and that they’re so fricken factually ignorant about everything is a sort of reality-test, proving that the rest of us are on the right track with this idea that objective data should drive policy more than moody atmospherics.

Dec 4, 2005 - 9:18 am 121. Fresh Air:

One place to look at for comparisons with the Second World War, if one were to indulge this simian line of thinking further, would be in the names we gave our enemies on the front pages of the newspaper and the nifty cartoons we made of them. I won’t recount these names, but they have become popular among leftists to describe only one person–President Bush, freer of 50 million Muslims and disarmer of Libya.

Come on, Monkychild, spare us an adjective or two for Saddam. Surely you can come up with something bad to say about him.

Here is a Sunday morning tonic to the troll who goes “Hoo Hoo Haa Haa Hee Hee Hoo Oooga Oooga.”

Mark Steyn, of course.

P.S. Typekey sucks. That two week business has never once worked. More like two minutes.

Dec 4, 2005 - 9:21 am 122. Buddy Larsen:

FA–right on typekey–it eats so many posts i copy before I send. You’re right on those names. Michelle Malkin puts it on paper in “Liberals Gone Wild”–she’s a “gook” who needs to be shot between her “viet-cong eyes”. VC good before breakfast, VC bad after lunch, me wake up in new world every day!

Here, ht Wretchard, and beautifully synthesized by Truepeers, is an important piece, an action memo, right at the heart of this entire several-day discussion.

Dec 4, 2005 - 9:35 am 123. PeterUK:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012446.php Ah the unbiased gentlefolk of the press,This really does say it all!

Dec 4, 2005 - 9:49 am 124. promoguy:

Buddy & Capt Hate, sorry for being so late on your NCAA analysis. Could only get online now after having to actually sit and watch us, Rout 66 (LAT) those folks on the other side of the city that insist on wearing powder blue. Too many margaritas savored at El Cholo as my post game show.

Buddy, keep reading the East Coast press. I do believe that’s what got Oklahoma up for the down game last year.

Okay sorry for being off topic on some folk’s Sabbath.

Dec 4, 2005 - 10:32 am 125. Captain Hate:

promoguy,

No matter what happens on January 2 you’ve had a great coupla years. Good luck to both teams.

Dec 4, 2005 - 10:50 am 126. promoguy:

Captain Hate, It’s actually January 4th, but you must really mean it since you mentioned it twice, LOL. Now that being said, you’re right about one thing it’s been a great ride.

Dec 4, 2005 - 10:58 am 127. Buddy Larsen:

promoguy, I’ll take Orange, blind-line, for any friendly amount–we can test trust.

Dec 4, 2005 - 11:07 am 128. Buddy Larsen:

promoguy, I’ll take Orange, blind-line, for any friendly amount–we can test trust.

Dec 4, 2005 - 11:07 am 129. promoguy:

Hey Buddy, great idea….but let’s take it to email and you or I can figure about what we can come up with. promoguy101 at yahoo dot com

Hmmmm, maybe kicking Monkyboy’s butt around the 400 meter track at UCLA, LOL

Dec 4, 2005 - 11:24 am 130. Buddy Larsen:

Okay, i emailed…yes, let’s meet at the track and tar & feather the snarky little Ceboid.

//;-)

Dec 4, 2005 - 11:53 am 131. Buddy Larsen:

Okay, i emailed…yes, let’s meet at the track and tar & feather the snarky little Ceboid.

//;-)

Dec 4, 2005 - 11:55 am 132. Chandler Rosenberger:

Speaking of Saddam, how about this opening ditty from his trial?

“BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Men and women were tortured for days and babies left to die in an interrogation facility which featured a meat grinder for human flesh, the first prosecution witness to face Saddam Hussein told the court on Monday.

“I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath,” said 38-year-old Ahmed Hassan, who said he had been kept in room 63 at the Hakmiya intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.”

Gosh, this almost sounds like something out of American-run Abu Graib!

Not.

Dec 5, 2005 - 12:05 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: