Baghdad Jim

[mattp]

Just over one year ago, Jim McDermott was in Baghdad. He made some public statements to the effect that he believee Saddam may in fact have been telling the truth wheh he said he was not hiding weapons of mass destruction or working with AlQueda, and he said the he thought GW Bush might lie to the American public and to the world about our reasons for going to war in Iraq. When criticised for going to an enemy country to make such remarks, "Baghdad Jim" said that he could not get any press coverage for making the same statements at home -- so the only way he might be heard was to engage in a staged production of making such statements in Baghdad.

 

All over the U.S., conservatives were outraged that he would say such things -- and particularly that he would go to Baghdad to say them. I believe that some of our conservative pundits on this very bulletin board expressed their outrage that he would do so.

 

It looks as if Jim McDermott was exactly right. What does the fact that the "liberal press" wouldn't cover him before he went to Baghdad say about that "liberal press?"

 

What does the incident say about the enlightenment of the conservative pundits nationwide and on this little bulletin board we spend so much time on?

[Al_Pine]

Give 'em some time Matt. Give 'em some time. They'll find those WMD's. Nucular weapons I'll bet, probably just about 1 year from now. Zactly.

 

 

And I don't think the press bias is the reason noone listens to Baghdad Jim. I think it's because noone really takes him serious about anything 'cause he's sorta looney tunes.

[mattp]

Yeah, well I'm not saying he's my hero or anything, but I think he DID call this one right. You are probably right about the timing of when they will find these WMD.

[allthumbs]

Roll another one

[Cpt.Caveman]

Kill the assholes in Iraq- NO MERCY! Fuck the press. Any argument about the press is full of shit most of the time and one sided.

 

There is liberal and right wing press.

 

BORING

[klenke]

Matt: Jim McDermott is no more an expert as to the existence of WMDs than Bush. Only Saddam (if he's still alive) and those of his cronies in the know are certain as to the existence of WMDs. Everyone else just speculates.

 

McDoormat went over to Iraq, got toured around sites chosen for him by the Iraq government (Baath Party goons), and saw only what they wanted him to see. And what they showed him would only be things that spun Iraq and, in particular, the ruling Baath Party in the positive light. Do you really think that, if Jim asked them if they had WMDs or not and if so could he see them, they would say they did and possibly show him the WMDs? Simple human nature logic. The Baath Party was stupid but not that stupid. Unless, of course, McDoormat was shown the WMDs but suppressed the info out of spite for Bush. Even I have more respect for Jim than that, and I have not much respect for him as it is.

 

McDoormat's trip over there solved nothing, proved nothing, and really posed no new questions. It was a political stunt. That was it.

[glacierdog]

Whatever. The media didn't block out the millions of people protesting in the streets from the getgo. Nor did they censor other personalities from spewing their anti-Bush admin garbage. If Jim didn't make it, it's because the media didn't think he had anything sensational to say. His actions made him sensational, not what he had to say.

[mattp]

Klenke- Of course everything you say is correct. I don't think ANYBODY says Saddam was playing straight with us or that Jim McDermott claimed to be able to find out the "truth." He was very clear at the time that he went over there to bring attention to his issue.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Mike said-

 

I read Matt Perkins post about Baghdad Jim. Tell all armchair losers back there to either come over here, get in the game or go back to what they do best. Pounding their bird chests on the internet. Quote for me exactly will ya? And you can post that pic of me, ___ and ______ sitting on the Euphrates if you want. Tell them we are driving around Iraq all by ourselves and I bet they would be shaking their fucking socks....asshole know it all climbers....

[scott_harpell]

[mattp]

Tell Mike I said hello. Last time I listened to President Bush he told me that Mike is over there precisely so that I CAN spout off on the inernet and he thinks Mike is doing a swell job.

[allthumbs]

"who's that behind those Foster Grants.....?"

[Cpt.Caveman]

mattp said:

Tell Mike I said hello. Last time I listened to President Bush he told me that Mike is over there precisely so that I CAN spout off on the inernet and he thinks Mike is doing a swell job.

 

I guess you have a belief or point that directs you to the American Way?

 

If you dont respect the man's work and dedication then speak up because the statement I read is pretty vague as usual.

 

Yes you have a right to say and vote on what is going on there I agree. But the comments around here sometimes stink and reek with dirt since I know how things happen in situations like this. This brings in the armchair quarterback situation.

 

Whether or not you agree or disagree people's\soldier's lives are at stake- I dont need a TV to view it since I have not had one for 4 months.. Is up to you.

 

The supposed "war" is far from over if you can read.

 

It's shitty some would say that a person without service is ready to ridicule the actions of servicemembers without first hand knowledge. It's so easy to make an argument when you dont have orders in your face-

 

It's also shitty when you think that you actually know what is going wrong in another country when you are fed half truths.

 

Maybe one day you will see.

[glacierdog]

Caveman.

[mattp]

Cavey, you've asked where I'm coming from. Let me clarify:

 

1. I respect the members of all of our armed services who are in Iraq and elsewhere, serving our country at great risk and under substantial hardship. I believe that, on this internet bulletin board, I have at times shown MORE respect than have some of the supporters of the war - such as when I argued that the reservists who are now serving much longer combat stints than they could ever have imagined are probably real people with real families and they may be living under difficult conditions and thus are deserving of not only our thanks but some sympathy as well. Several posters on this board responded more or less to the effect of "fuck em" and argued that they knew what they signed up for and they don't need our concern now. Kind of disrespectful, don't you think?

 

2. I believe that the citizens in a democracy have a duty to seek to inform themselves and to debate the issues of the day. We don't live in Russia under Stalin. It is neither disrespectful nor unpatriotic to me to say that I think our president lied to us - and certainly far less disrespectful and unpatriotic than for someone to tell me I don't have a right to say what I think about these issues.

 

3. I don't think that our war effort was harmed by my spouting off on the internet, nor by Jim McDermott's going to Baghdad on a publicity stunt one year ago. I could be wrong, but I don't think anybody listened to Jim McDermott and I doubt they will listen to me.

 

4. I am well aware that the war is far from over.

 

As to Mike's work and dedication, I have no way of knowing whether he works hard or is dedicated because I simply don't know him. If he is asking you to fight his battles for him by arguing with me on this website, my respect for him just went down a notch.

[scrambler]

The real issue on the home front is that some conservatives construe ‘support for the troops’ as meaning, “Do not criticize the action in Iraq.” Why? Because these conservatives view the ‘action in Iraq’ as identical to the troops so it follows that a criticism of the ‘action in Iraq’, which is actually a criticism of the current Administration, is an act of denouncing the troops stationed there.

 

Some liberals, on the other hand, believe that we support our troops by using them effectively for a just and strategic cause, that is, the soldiers who will die, will not have died in vain. These liberals do not advocate abolition of the armed forces, to do so would be suicidal, but to hold the decision-makers accountable.

 

Hypothetically, put yourself in the shoes of a parent who had lost a son or daughter in a war. Would you believe that, the ultimate sacrifice was justifiable because one must do unquestionably what the government demands? Even soldiers have felt the need to speak out though the ‘military’ is, in a sense, a hive-mind, meaning that individual decisions are subsumed for the sake of the mission. “I was only following orders” should not become a mantra whether you are a citizen or a soldier.

 

No. However unfavorably some people see McDermott, maybe his was the voice in the wilderness and it has been said that a prophet is not heeded in one’s own country and must travel abroad at times to be heard. I don’t necessarily agree with the man’s politics but sometimes the voice on the fringe points out an image of truth on the multi-faceted object of our reality.

 

Maybe the man is more a fool than a prophet. I, however, do not see his action associated with intent such as that committed by Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War when she posed in the anti-aircraft battery with the enemy and earned her the name, Hanoi Jane. McDermott’s action took place prior to the involvement of our troops in this desert equivalent of Yugoslavia.

 

I don’t care to get involved in detailed political debates arguing my so-called conservative or liberal beliefs. I also don’t want to parrot the version of reality issued by the press. I do want to present a picture of the Iraqi situation available at this link: Kevin Sites unaffliciated blog site . You may find this site offers a glimpse into the life of Iraq without pushing a partisan agenda.

 

Disclaimer: Views subject to change. No claims of validity to truth are implied. Resemblance to persons living or dead are strictly coincidental.

 

[Al_Pine]

I don't think it does much good for anyone to start in with the told-ya-so's. We are there now, and there is a job to do. Iraq needs to be helped to become a reasonably stable country. By saying that this was all a big mistake, the best you are doing is making the soldiers feel like shit, just like you would if someone was bagging on your job all day long. The worst it is doing is giving the anti-US forces hope and helping them get up the courage to kill our people.

 

I think it seems best to focus on a forward viewing converstation. What can be done now? I would think the two goals are 1) get our people out of harm's way and 2) do so without creating a worse situation than there was before Saddam.

 

Well, here is the part where bashing on Bush might help out. At present we are looking at a fairly good way to get at least some of our armed forces out of harm's way. Other countries appear possibly willing to take on some of the burden in Iraq IF we relinquish some of our authority over there. The Bush administration does not appear willing to act on this opportunity. In (not) doint so, they are showing that they value control of Iraq over the lives a 4 Americans/week. I think it is time that they loosened their grip on the lucrative contracts and oil rights of the conquered Iraq, in return for bringing our boys home.

 

Op-ed piece by a guy with a funny name

[hakioawa]

Al_Pine said:

I don't think it does much good for anyone to start in with the told-ya-so's. We are there now, and there is a job to do.

 

Sorry but the I told you so's should be srcreaming it at the top of thier lungs! We did tell you so. Unfortuately Bush chose to listen to his war mongering cronies. Every day it looks more and more like the Jim McDermot's and Robert Byrds (when I found myself agreeing with Robert Byrd I knew somthing weird was going on) or the world were right. Bush had his chance and totally blem it, so its time to listen to someone else. Its far too self serving of Bush and his "cabinet of evil" to say "now is not the time second guess". Its an election year. More people should be screaming I told you so!

[Jim]

The support your troops mantra and the "don't critisize now" mantra a two variations on the same theme:

 

Shut up and get in line.

 

Democracy is a bit messy, but this is not how it works. There should be a critical analysis of the events leading uup to this - the lies, the desire to go it alone, the economic calculations.

 

I would have disagreed, but would have more respect for the admin if they said this: Look we think Saddam is a potential future threat, he is not now but will be. We're going to go in with a strong coalition of nations, let the UN take over the administration, and work with them to build a government and get the infrastructure back up, with a fair division of contracts amongst the major nations. This will require some sacrafice so I'm RAISING taxes for a few years to pay for this endeavor. Blah, blah, blah.

 

 

[Al_Pine]

Hey Hakaiowa,

Did you even read past my first paragraph?

 

I think we are better served by thinking about how to get out of this mess, than we are by just focusing on bitching about who got us into it. What's done is done, and, unfortunately, people can't take back their year-2000 votes.

 

However, I believe a case can be made that most anyone could do a better job of getting us out of this mess than Bush can, and thus he should be booted out of office. I think that kind of argument is going to sway more people than saying "I told ya so".

[hakioawa]

Guilty as charged. None the less I think its important that those of us who have consistantly been against the war stand up and be counted. Personnaly I don't not know many people who truly supported the invasion for valid and honest reasons. I thnk a lot of people that are against the war and the current occupation assume they are in the minority. The media has continuously undercoverd people that are against the war. These people should be heard. Some should be listened to.

 

I do think "support the troops" is another way of saying shut the fuck up. It also does not help to say well we're there so lets fisish the job. How do we do that? When will the troops come home? I gaurentee may of those guys would love to have somone say to them exactly what thier exit criteria is. Nov 1? Jun 1 2004? Dec 31 2009? Dates, times, rules, schedules these are what is needed. It comes down to discussion and debate and this is something the Bushies refuse to do. So I'd rather have Jim McDermot screaming I told you so as long as he has something to add to the current debate. Even if it is "the whole thing was a mistake, lets pull the troops now, badgad be dammed". At least its somthing to talk about rather than blind faith in the double sceret plan the administration says is on schedule.

[j_b]

hour long talk by robert fisk, award winning middle east correspondent for the independent. fisk spent the past year in iraq; he describes the situation there and comments on the role of the press. well worth it.

 

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/flashpoints/flashpoints_031008.html

 

fisk's talk starts at minute 8

Edited October 21, 2003 by j_b

[allthumbs]

nuke the middle east

it's a worthless chossheap

with no redeaming value