slothrop

That's what I'm trying to do, ya right-wing fucktard I'm not following your left-wing bias story, since I don't know who Robert Conquest is, what he said, or who "the other side" was. Again: what did the NYT have to do with it? I'm honestly curious.

What was the NY Times' role in covering it up/playing it down? Is this Stalin we're talking about? Congo for sure. Man, there's just too much genocide going on to report on it all at once. There will always be some bias. It's terrible.

Or how about how there's not much mention of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan? People boiled alive for political crimes. We have military bases there and have cozied up to the corrupt leadership.

Which Ukrainian genocide, when? Do tell. I agree that media bias can cost lives, I just think PP is being ridiculous. Sudan is not on the front page every day, even though more people have died there than in southern Russia.

He'll have to cut down on the foie gras and fried chicken after this. And better watch out for overly exciting encounters with the young ladies!

So the appearance of this line in a post about the events in Beslan is merely an elegant sweep of rhetoric, not meant to imply anything specific: Maybe you should be more careful with your incredibly overblown generalizations.

How quasi-enlightened of you, Scott.

PP, how did the use of the words "hostage-takers" and "militants" in the Western media lead to more deaths? And please do not use the technique of second-guessing the Russian negotiators or special forces. You were not there.

Hey Mr. Semantics, what if there were no children? Would that make the situation different? Then they would just be terrorists. Even if the goal was just to lure in more victims, they were controlling and threatening something the Russians valued in order to get what they wanted. That's hostage-taking. Using that term doesn't dilute the fact that they're terrorists, too. Use whatever loaded shorthand you want, the facts are that they took hostages. PP - ?

Anyone know what the terrorists' demands were? Hostage-taking is such a bad idea... it's just terrible for both sides. I can't imagine any Russian who doesn't want to nuke Grozny now.

This reminds me of the good ol' PC euphemism wars! Lame! "Hostage-takers" is factual. They took hostages. Otherwise, why not just blow up the building outright, or shoot everyone immediately? "Terrorists" is true--they caused "terror". "Freedom-fighters" is also factual, since they probably believed they were fighting for freedom (say it with a sneer if it wasn't your freedom they were fighting for). Calling them "gardeners" or "out for a Sunday stroll" would be inaccurate and misleading.

I totally agree. Wait, I can't read Russian.

Uh, I'm one of those fuckhead liberals and I thought it was obvious that diplomacy and sensitivity go out the window when armed gunmen start shooting your children in the back. Diplomacy and sensitivity are only useful in preventing this kind of incident from happening, i.e., figuring out more productive ways to solve conflicts before they escalate to such levels of perverse violence. Of course, the Russians did try diplomacy before the bombs started going off. I read that they offered the assholes safe passage out of the country, but they refused. What their demands actually were is not clear to me. Would you blindly go in, guns blazing, if someone held a pistol to your cute little dog's head? What if the crazy fucker just wanted a Twinkie? It doesn't hurt to ask.

Not PNW, but WTF? Vedauwoo.

All-Purpose Duck. Why is that name weirdly funny to me?

I don't get you, Scott. Kerry laid out a lot of his platform in his speech. I'm hoping GW will do the same, because I'm sick of the nitpicking and clever spinning of quotes taken out of context ("I voted for the war before I voted against it", "We can't win the war on terror", etc.) done by both sides. The Swift Boat thing was the lowest of low points so far.

You almost can't go wrong here. Oh yes you can. Just ask eric8 about the routes he wants to do on Dragontail. That guy's a master of creative pronunciation. I make him listen to NPR as punishment while driving to climbs.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of: the South Face route. My partner pulled a piece and almost decked on that pitch a few years ago. There's a big pointy flake right underneath the start of the climb and it's an awkward belay, so the belayer tends to want to sit back from the base and thus can get yanked off his stance by a fall. I'm glad the climbers involved got speedy, competent help. Good thing the accident was at Castle Rock and not somewhere more remote and less popular.

And now even South Korea got caught enriching uranium! We are losing influence in Asia... bad news.

So are you complaining that Kerry lacks a unifying vision (what is Bush's)? I thought you wanted to hear him speak about his platform, which it seems that he has done. We managed to have strong nuclear arms anti-proliferation with our arch-enemies, the Soviets, during the Cold War. Remember START and all that? I'm sure that, unless we pursue the policy unilaterally (Kerry's not for this, as he himself has said), we can help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush is capable of swallowing his pride and dealing fairly with other countries in pursuit of non-proliferation. There has been virtually no effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons under Bush. Discussion of the fine points of policy is beyond the scope of an acceptance speech. I don't think you'll find Bush delving into more detail than Kerry, and I wouldn't expect him to. That's what all those staffers are for--to write the long, detailed policy documents that hardly anyone reads. You can find the details on both the GOP and Dems websites, if you're so inclined. But I think you'd rather argue semantics ad infinitum.

Huh? "articles that do you attack Bush's war record"? It looks like most of the articles are analysis about the race itself, with not much discussion of the domestic platforms of either candidate. Most of what I read discussed the strategy of the two parties and how effective they are (polls, swing states, approval ratings, etc.). And then there is plenty about the Iraq conflict. Not surprising that the focus of German coverage is on international issues (the war) and the political process in the US (which Germans may not understand, since it's different than their own). I wouldn't be surprised if Germans have little interest in US domestic policy, since it doesn't affect them directly. Just like you don't read much in US media about the huge issue (to Germans) of pension reform in Germany.

From the text of Kerry's speech (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5552784/). He may not have written it all, but he sure said it: "I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world. And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us." "We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives - and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists." "We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation - to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world. " "The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission." "As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. " And several pages' worth after this, where Kerry lays out his platform for the economy, health care, the budget deficit, taxes, and energy policy: "So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America..." Sure there was some oblique (and not-so-oblique) Bush-bashing, but there's also plenty of policy in there.

If video is too low-brow a medium for your multiple-foreign-language-newspaper-reading mind, you can read the transcripts, too: http://nytimes.com/2004/08/30/politics/campaign/RNC_SPEECHES.html Or there's this summary of Kerry's positions, as posted on the NYT website (sorry, in English): And for a Euro perspective: http://www.zeit.de/politik/usa/wahl2004

What has been the commanding-general turnover rate in Iraq, anyway? Something like three per year? Doesn't that seem excessive? I mean, the average undertrained National Guard MP has probably served an 18-month tour.

You were vague and over-simple, so I "took liberties". You complained (I think) about bi-partisan bureaucracy getting in the way of fighting a war. Please give evidence of this, or mention an alternative to bi-partisan democracy/bureaucracy that would be more effective at fighting wars within the framework of our Constitution. Take a nap if you're getting all tired out by this, cheif.