underworld Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 gates quote in article: Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point." headline of same article: Gates says U.S. is not winning Iraq war Quote
chucK Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 It's just so annoying that when someone asks, "Are we winning?" and the person answers "No", that the fucking liberal media spins that to mean that the person means "we are not winning"! We should have a purple koolaid icon Quote
underworld Posted December 5, 2006 Author Posted December 5, 2006 fair enough....at least other news outlets spun it enought to not inlude the latter part of that statement... "neither winning nor losing" did you even get that far? Quote
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 (edited) Ha a pretender to the Media Bias thread scene! I stand corrected Frankly we should be worried about government censorship! Last month, the government blocked two Web sites, tik.ir and meydann.com. The first contained criticism of the government and its spiritual leadership, and the second published articles calling for an end to the stoning of women, according to Reporters Without Borders. Damn I lost the link but it is WSJ Online. Gotta keep those women in line. Edited December 5, 2006 by Peter_Puget Quote
G-spotter Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I'm all for women getting stoned, if the men can have some too Quote
foraker Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Funny, PP quoting Reporters sans Frontieres who ranked the US 53rd on their recent Press Freedom Index..... Deterioration in the United States and Japan, with France also slipping The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 fair enough....at least other news outlets spun it enought to not inlude the latter part of that statement... "neither winning nor losing" did you even get that far? jeez, is there anyone who thinks the US is winning? You don't have to spin anything to tell the truth: The US isn't just losing, the US has LOST. Plain and simple. And now the right clutches at straws on their long ride down... I remember some at this site so in favor of the war, and how the noble US had brought "democracy" to Iraq; how silent they are now.... Quote
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Funny, PP quoting Reporters sans Frontieres who ranked the US 53rd on their recent Press Freedom Index..... Deterioration in the United States and Japan, with France also slipping The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism. Hmm I don't think it was actually a quote! Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Probably because they were banned. there are still a few here. peter puget, jayb, kaskadhfsafjadf, a few others. They were at one time pretty unequivocal in their support for the US invasion. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Actually SC I was just writing a more detailed repsonse! Quote
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Quick response for sexy: I have argued over and over with both ChucK and Mattp that they have misrepresented Bush Administration’s build up to the war. (90% of my argumentation was directed towards that argument not the decision to invade.) That issue aside I was not against invading Iraq. I think I always said it was a bold plan that may or may not work out. Am I against it now? Well given perfect information I would say it was an error to invade; however, at the time we did not have perfect information. Whenever actions are based on probabilities a bad outcome doesn’t invalidate the analysis that leads to it. I will say that it soon became evident to me that the Bush Admin most likely did not see things the same as I did. For example: the lack of troops securing the Iraq border or not almost immediately grabbing Sadr and removing him from power. Would these have made a difference? Who knows? I think we (the US) have shown reluctance to really do the job in Iraq. We do not inspire confidence in the Iraqis, we do not inspire fear in those operating against us. Bush never asked for a sacrifice at home. Bush tried to do it on the cheap. Something I do not understand. Time and time again he avoided the opportunity to say: “We fucked up but here is how we are changing plans.” I think the Country would have seen that as leadership. Where are we now? Sadly I think we might be about to sell the Iraqis out. Whenever I hear the suggestion that we talk to the Syrians and Iranians to help stabilize the situation what we are really saying is screw the Iraqis. We are repeating Sudetenland obscenity all over. Perhaps that is in fact the best solution but it does seem shameful and I think will create even greater problems I the future. Quote
foraker Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Seems everyone giving them contrary or experience-based advice kept getting fired (e.g. Shinseki). I think people got the message. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 That issue aside I was not against invading Iraq. I think I always said it was a bold plan that may or may not work out. A rather ruthless rolling of the dice, no? It seems to me that games should remain at the casinos, and questions of life and death shouldn't be approached so blithely. Am I against it now? Well given perfect information I would say it was an error to invade; however, at the time we did not have perfect information. It seems the information was pretty good, if one listened to those working on the ground as weapons inspectors. The situation was stable, and with continued inspections would have remained stable. now of course if one listened to ideologues.... Whenever actions are based on probabilities a bad outcome doesn’t invalidate the analysis that leads to it. Agreed. The analysis justifying the war was so flawed that no bad outcome was needed to inalidate it. I will say that it soon became evident to me that the Bush Admin most likely did not see things the same as I did. For example: ...not almost immediately grabbing Sadr and removing him from power. Grab one of the most powerful representatives for the local majority? That's a good way to make friends! I would think the US would have had a bigger problem on their hands. We do not inspire confidence in the Iraqis, we do not inspire fear in those operating against us. Because "we" can't! We can't do it! Do you really think we could load up Iraq with 200,000 more troops? How would that go over in the region? How would that work with our already stretched forces? Time for the draft? And even if we loaded the country with a million troops, we'd suppress opposition, but only until we left! Only if we created the same type of repressive security apparatus that Saddam had (this time run by the Shias!), complete with absolute disregard for human rights, fair trials, open torture, etc., would there be a semblance of stability in Iraq. (I use "we" colloquially!) Bush never asked for a sacrifice at home. Bush tried to do it on the cheap. Something I do not understand. Because he knew that if he asked for sacrifice at home for a speculative war built on the most untenable foundation, he wouldn't have been able to execute the war! Any support would have been questioned and eroded. Anyways it's pointless to rehash crap that you will see one way and I will see another. What's done is done, and pretty much every prediction I made has come to fruition, so what else is there to say? The situation now is ugly, and honestly I don't see any hope right now. I'd like to, but boy it just keeps getting worse and worse. Quote
Jim Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Quick response for sexy: Well given perfect information I would say it was an error to invade; however, at the time we did not have perfect information. This is BS. Anyone with common sense and a library card (not our president) could see what would occur when we dismantled the tough fisted regime that was the glue of this tribal country. The bushies were warned time and again by the State Department and independent advisors. There are quite a number of good books on the subject. We'll do what I said we would from the start. Declare victory and go home. Only this time there will be long standing consequences, unlike Vietnam. Quote
underworld Posted December 5, 2006 Author Posted December 5, 2006 fair enough....at least other news outlets spun it enought to not inlude the latter part of that statement... "neither winning nor losing" did you even get that far? jeez, is there anyone who thinks the US is winning? You don't have to spin anything to tell the truth: The US isn't just losing, the US has LOST. Plain and simple. And now the right clutches at straws on their long ride down... I remember some at this site so in favor of the war, and how the noble US had brought "democracy" to Iraq; how silent they are now.... the point of my post is not whether or not we are winning...it was the blatant cherry pick of the article's author. like i said...at least other outlets covered their cherry-pickin ass by not contradicting their own headline. why couldn't the author use the headline "neither winning or losing in iraq" instead of "not winning..." Quote
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 A couple of quick points.... It seems the information was pretty good, if one listened to those working on the ground as weapons inspectors. The situation was stable, and with continued inspections would have remained stable. I argued several times that the invasion of iraq had very little to do with the inspections for WMD. Grab one of the most powerful representatives for the local majority? That's a good way to make friends! I would think the US would have had a bigger problem on their hands. Our not grabbing him made him more powerful. Because "we" can't! We can't do it! Do you really think we could load up Iraq with 200,000 more troops? How would that go over in the region? How would that work with our already stretched forces? Time for the draft? Odd you should mention this because immediately below I wrote how Bush tried to do it on the cheap and tried to have guns and butter. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 fair enough....at least other news outlets spun it enought to not inlude the latter part of that statement... "neither winning nor losing" did you even get that far? jeez, is there anyone who thinks the US is winning? You don't have to spin anything to tell the truth: The US isn't just losing, the US has LOST. Plain and simple. And now the right clutches at straws on their long ride down... I remember some at this site so in favor of the war, and how the noble US had brought "democracy" to Iraq; how silent they are now.... the point of my post is not whether or not we are winning...it was the blatant cherry pick of the article's author. like i said...at least other outlets covered their cherry-pickin ass by not contradicting their own headline. why couldn't the author use the headline "neither winning or losing in iraq" instead of "not winning..." And you are right! Quote
mattp Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Hey guys: our president and the secretary of defense have been telling us that we are winning -- pretty much non-stop -- since we invaded. And they did all they could to discredit anybody who said differently. The big news now IS the fact that we are starting to hear something different. We are neither winning nor losing? What a crock of BS. If you listened to the testimony this morning (and I did), "we are not winning" is a lot closer to what he actually said given the context. Yes, he tried to be all wiggly about it, and he was obviously trying to limit any political use of his words, and he did offer the "neither winning nor losing" clarification, and after lunch he came back and clarified that when he said we were not winning he did not mean to suggest that we had actually failed to win any single on-the-ground battle. Its all a bunch of BS histrionics to avoid admitting the truth: we are in fact losing. And we have no intention of fully pulling out. No matter what happens we'll keep that nice fort we're building in southern Iraq. And Peter: don't get us started on that "impending" vs. "imminent" b.s. again. Yes, Chalabi and his pals said otherwise, and Saddam was waving whatever he had as loudly as he could, but the vast majority of the intelligence we had, and the on-the-ground inspectors, told us that not only was Saddam weak militarily, but that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism and little prospect for the Iraqis to pose much of a threat and certainly no urgency to any invasion. It wasn't a bold venture - it was a war crime. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Well given perfect information I would say it was an error to invade; however, at the time we did not have perfect information. Drop the 'we' in that statement, pal. Never has the U.S. had MORE information about a target of invasion than we had about Iraq. We'd already invaded once. We'd been bombing the shit out of them for 12 straight years. We had copious amounts of information from weapons inspectors, academics, journalists and our own intelligence. We had them under a fucking microscope, and the information was widely and publicly available. The only folks in the US who didn't know there were no WMDs or didn't realize what a fiasco the invasion would inevitably become were either asleep, dishonest, deluding themselves, or outright morons. Which category were you? I think we (the US) have shown reluctance to really do the job in Iraq. Bush never asked for a sacrifice at home. Bush tried to do it on the cheap. Something I do not understand. Add this to your apparently long list. There never WAS a job to do in Iraq: it was a fundamentally flawed project from the beginning. Bush never asked for sacrifice because fully half of us were completely against the invasion every step of the way. And if you think $8 billion a month is 'on the cheap', your sense of scale is as poor as your sense of history: We are repeating Sudetenland obscenity all over. Quote
G-spotter Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 blah blah blah politics Can't you guys talk about giant housecats for a bit? Please? Quote
chucK Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 back to the original topic! site that ranks (and links) media sites by leanings Here's the headline of interest in that liberal rag, The Washington Times: Gates: Region threatened if U.S. fails Robert Gates conceded today that the United States is losing the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two, it could lead to a "regional conflagration." emphasis mine Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Can't you guys talk about giant housecats for a bit? Please? and do any of you Bush loving cretins realize how many housecats have died in Iraq's downward spiral of violence? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Robert Gates conceded today that the United States is losing the war in Iraq but he MEANT to say 'not really winning'. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.