Vanity Fair got Abramoff to sit down for a while, with all his documents, photographs and whatnot…here’s the segment I got my hands on:
Newt Gingrich, whose spokesman Rick Tyler tells Margolick that “Before [Abramoff’s] picture appeared on TV and in the newspapers, Newt wouldn’t have known him if he fell across him. He hadn’t seen him in 10 years.” A rankled Abramoff says “I have more pictures of [Newt] than I have of my wife.” Abramoff shows Margolick numerous photographs: “Here’s Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. More Newt. Newt with Grover [Norquist, the Washington conservative Republican Über-strategist and longtime Abramoff friend] this time. But Newt never met me. Ollie North. Newt. Can’t be Newt … he never met me. Oh, Newt! What’s he doing there? Must be a Newt look-alike.… Newt again! It’s sick! I thought he never met me!”
Abramoff saying something doesn’t really equal much in my mind, but when the guy has pictures, it really looks bad. This article is going to be a doozy! (available outside of NYC and LA on the 14th)
Hell, I can print off a hundred Newt pictures from the internet but can I claim to know him personally?
Pictures with both of them posing. Several, over a number of years.
How many people did Gingrich take photos with over the last 20 years? There are people in my own high school graduation photo that I can’t identify. This guy is one of 10,000 lobbyists looking for favors from politicians, they probably all start to look alike after a while.
Politicans, left and right, have pictures with dubious people. Jimmy Carter has some great ones. Bill Clinton has many as does Bush (both).
This is where reason leaves a debate and is replaced by emotion. “Look at the pictures!!!!!” Instead what should be said is that the number of photographs politicans take with people boggles the mind. Often they are unaware of who is in the picture. Does anyone hold it against Clinton that he posed with James Traficant or Harold Ickes? They shouldn’t-it doesn’t matter
Being in a photograph with someone does not make one friends or even acquaintances !!
See, that’s perfect…so no matter who our elected leaders associate with, or plan crimes with, as long as people will say these types of things once they’re caught, they’ve got nothing to worry about.
Abramoff was close with a number of politicians who are now heading for the hills whenever his name is brought up.
You guys are willing to believe anything when it comes to this guy I suppose. Par for the course.
Chris:
When Clinton was photographed with George Soros (Conviction for Insider Trading) and Peter Lewis (Transporting Drugs) was he, Clinton, by default dirty? Answer that question? Or answer the one about Trafficant.
BTW
You guys are willing to believe anything when it comes to this guy I suppose. Par for the course.
Maybe but you seem to be able to take the slightest whisp of a connection and blow it up into a huge conspiracy….except on the 3 Al-Queda training camps set up by Saddam Huissein in Iraq. No amount of evidence will compell liberals to rethink their “etched in stone” belief that Saddam and Bin Laden live on different planets and have no clue of the other’s existence.
When Clinton was photographed with George Soros (Conviction for Insider Trading)
Yes, but Soros is a staunch, (or stench? :- ) wealthy liberal and, thus, no laws, rules or morals apply to him. George Soros could eat a baby and liberals would turn it into a freedom of choice argument. Hell, look at how they covered for Clinton and then have tha balls to call Republicans the culture of corruption. Democrats put corruption on the map.
Right:
This is a time when you should probably let it go. It does not matter whether or not Saddam Husien was working with Al Quada, Bush and Co got to invade, the real issue at this point is that Bush and Co bungled the invasion.
Did they lie so they coould go to war? Most likely. Losing the war ws probably a bigger mistake though.
Losing the war ws probably a bigger mistake though.
I’m looking out my office window right now and I don’t see any Iraqi military vehicles rolling down the street. Actually, Saddam is in captivity now and Kuwait and the Kurds are free again. Looks like we won to me.
Kuwait and the Kurds were doing pretty well before Desert storm II. In fact some might argue the Kurds were better off as now they have to deal with the Shihites.
As for no Iraqi trucks going down your street, from what i have seen of Vegas traffic a tank might be the best way to negotiate your city.
Why not answer the questions about Soros, et al.
As for Bush I am not a supporter of his. However, I do come to the defense of anyone who is the recipient of partisan nonsense.
The Kurds can deal with the Shias. They are our best friends in Iraq.
Washington – Was Clinton dirty? The guy got laid in the office, by his subordinates. The Soros, Trafacanti comparisons are apt, and while one of them did their time (Soros – I’m assuming that if he was convicted and free now, that’s the case), Trafacanti on the other hand is someone who never should have been near the guy.
It’s interesting the space in terms of criminal activity between Soros and Trafacanti…the difference between corporate crime and ‘shot-to-the-kneecap-where’s-my-money-where’s-my-money’ crime. Violence sets the two apart. Some may say that white collar crime is just as bad, but in our country, it’s the violence that makes a difference in terms of years on a sentence.
Abramoff has cracked, giving it all up, and that means we’re going to eventually find out things about some of these politicians. I can assume that the response from GOP voters will be to brush it all away and get to some Clinton-bashing.
Interesting also, because the same folks who will envoke Clinton in a tight spot, are the ones who throw around the poo-poo label of ‘Bush-bashing’, describing it as a mental defect, an obscession.
Of course, these people are important, and when we’ve got one of them we’re partial to and another we think is a loser, the hypocracy can drown out all substance.
Clinton was a dirty guy. So is this Abramoff, and I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that Ney, Delay and Burns did commit crimes while in office. They’re not fine upstanding gentlemen these guys. One of their friends, Cunningham, got 9 years…and his crimes were so blatant that it should cause us all to take a second and realize how wide open Washington DC has been these past few years.
Abramoff and the insiders he controlled are crooks. You can deny all that if you want to, split hairs on every detail of what Abramoff spills, but honesty has to enter this discussion at some point.
Criminal activity…I’m sure Clinton engaged in some, and if not that, he’s clearly in dangerous territory ethically. Yet who among those on the opposite side of this issue can take the perceptive gaze used to access Clinton and turn it to Abramoff and everyone involved here?
“Don’t cross the streams…”
Paul:
Aren’t you sort of suggesting a civil war? I agree the Kurds are probably the least of two evils, but the Shias are the ones who are democraticaly elected and also the most likely to install a theocracy. Seems like a path to civil war when the majority wants to impose their ignorance on everyone else.
I can be perceptive without resorting to the arcane – There are a large number of senior Republicans who are tainted by this guy. Delay being the least liked makes him the number one guy but one can assume that there are others as well. In fact I would be surprised if there are not nearly a dozen.
However, I don’t base that on photographs. If we use that logic everyone is tainted. That was my point.
Karl:
Imposing ignorance is what socialists have done for nearly a decade…what is your solution for Iraq without resorting to the lame tactic of talking about what if-how about some ideas?
What do you base it on then? When Abramoff gives a sworn statement that the feds then corroborate? Or then is it just about, ‘someone looking for revenge’?
It just seems to me that no matter what gets tossed into the mix, those who don’t want to believe anything negative generally find reasons not to, regardless of how out there they have to get.
I take your point about the photographs to heart, but who is showing who the photographs? Some nobody with a camera, or the principle player in this entire thing?
These aren’t photographs that showed up on the internet…in fact, Abramoff turned down millions offered to have them published. Why? Because he’s still loyal to a point. Didn’t want to sacrafice his freedom on their behalf, and now that his conviction is in the books, when he’s showing pictures, telling stories and dropping names…
It means something. Simply brushing it off doesn’t make it any less true.
Unbelievable.
I can’t decide if you are contrary due to some inetellectual defect or simply because you believe that you sound rational. Or perhaps its just to keep a conversation going-that is what I hope.
Like this is some guy (Abramoff) who is known to be schizophrenic…Newt’s people tell it like these two never crossed paths, which is the political move, doesn’t mean it’s not complete bullshit.
Inclination to lean towards denial can turn the obvious into arbitrary. It happens all the time in politics. Facts are already in market decline when it comes to their value in DC, but you and I aren’t running for elections every couple of years.
Just because it’s easy to deny whatever Abramoff says or presents as evidence, it doesn’t mean that every single thing that comes of it is irrelevant. That’s what you’re doing here, simply assuming what you hope is true.
The flip side of this is true also, but I’m not writing about every single detail of this case, listing every politician who ‘might’ be implicated…in fact, Bob Ney is the only one I posted on exclusively before Gingrich.
What’s interesting to me is that the denial/defense of Gingrich is coming out of a mere acquaintence with this guy…not talking about his staff, but from people commenting on this post. I didn’t accuse him of a crime, just said that he had some explaining to do.
Nobody wants to come clean about anything involving Abramoff, and for the sake of maybe going to jail, I can understand. Gingrich though, he’s not even holding an office that ‘can be’ corrupted at the moment.
So basically, he believes that he has a chance at becoming President…something I’ve known for a while now, but the fact that he thinks this isn’t going to become a roadblock in his path…something he needs to confront rather than run away from.
Presidential politicians tend to approach something like this differently…I can’t picture Reagan, Clinton or either Bush providing a response so lame.
He’s going to be tapdancing in the future because of this…under the lights, with people at home watching.
Correct in responding aggressively, incorrect in not getting at all creative. He’s tainted from this point on. It’s a fact.
Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your personal opinions appear tainted to you. It doesn’t make it so.
I don’t know if Gingrich is dirty or not. Unlike you I will wait and see. I did the same for Clinton. That is objectivity.
You approach these issues in the smae way as the people you despise. Hilarious.
Washington:
In order to solve any problem you first have to admit that their is a problem. Right now the people in charge specically Rumsfield keep saying all is well, we just have to stay the course. If you want to admit that Iraq is not going well, then what would you recomomend?
The only solutions I can think of at this point are either, bring in a lot more troops and spend a lot more money to rebuild the country. Things like electricity and running water might go along way towards creating a stable country. Or split the country into three parts, an area for the Kurds, an area for the Shias, and an area for the Sunnis, and then we get out of the way. The only problem with that is then the Shia area would probably become a satilite of Iran, and Turkey does not want a Kurdish state, so that is possibly a war brewing. Any idea that does not involve substantial US committment probably creates weak governments that are perfect for groups like Al Quada.
From what I have read terrorist groups gain a foothold when they start to help with the infrastructure, they provide services to the people that the government is not providing and become the de-facto government, at least that is what happened in the Sudan; and the reason that Al Sadre has the power he does is that his group takes care of things like trash removal and fulfills many of the duties of a stable government. Anytime you leave a place with no infrastructure you create a place where terrorists can flourish, so I part of the solution is that the US needs to create stable infrastructure. Some people would argue that the Iraqis should do this themselves the problem is that groups like Al Queda will be happy to help them if we don’t.
Karl:
There is no problem with Turkey – no war there. They will posture but that is the Turkish nature. You are correct on splitting the country-it is a possibility.
Infrastructure is vital and we are trying to create a viable infrastructure – all the while we are attempting to train soldiers. If you talk to troops returning home we seem to be doing a better job of that than gets reported but that is not surprising; war reporting is almost always below the level of truth because the reporter is only able to see what is in front of them-and reports that as the entire situation.
Excellent coments.
BTW Karl:
My hat is off to you for making your comments without an abundance of emotion-very reasoned. Bravo.
I can’t see denying the Kurds their own official, recognized homeland because Turkey doesn’t want the hassle of having to deal with its own Kurd population. I don’t study the issue for hours on end, but from what I understand, to paraphrase Nice Guy Eddie, the Kurds have been “nothing but good luck” to us.
Washington: Thx for the compliment. I guess we all agree that a good infrastructure is key to any lasting success in Iraq. I guess the only question is who is going to build it. I would argue that it is going to take a lot of US dollars and a strong government, helped along by people who believe governments can make things better. The problem with trying to privatize public works projects in Iraq as it seems like it is the local warlord or fanatic who gets the contract and this gives them control over the well being of the people who work for them, thus increasing their power.
The problem with democracy in the middle east is that the majority of people don’t seem to like the US. The interesting thing is that people once they get exposeded to western culture seem to like it and become more pro-western. At least I am told that the Sunnis were more educated and pro-western than the shihites. Also, I have met several people from Iran who tell me that most people in Iran like western culture. This makes me think that a approach similar to the one used during the cold war might be appropriate; avoid direct confrontation and assume western values will win out.
On karl’s point, I think democracy in another country alone will not bridge the gap between our societies. Regardless of how much peace we enjoy with India, Russia or China…for the most part, our people know little to nothing about their people. We do business, and that’s the extent of it. In the Middle East, this can be the case as well, but history has shown that stable governments and free societies aren’t really things that will get in the way of business…just look at what the Carlysle Group makes off of Saudi Arabia alone.
Business is one thing, but a forced comingling of our two cultures is a disaster waiting to happen whenever and where ever it takes place.
As uneducated as we tend to appear at times, we’re leaps and bounds ahead of the 3rd world populations on earth…and when you’re dealing with hooples of the highest order, the reality sets in quick, that you can get them to believe just about anything if you put enough effort into it.
For the political reasons of any leader in any of those countries, a white face living within their country can be demonized in a moment. The hooples buy it, and they get crazy…shit, they did so over a cartoon! Let alone an American walking out in front of their house with a rifle. Or…Americans working the machinery that pumps oil out of the ground, while unemployed locals go hungry.
It’s easy to turn on someone like the United States…we don’t understand it, but we do make it awfully easy for power-hungry assholes to light a fire under the hooples…toss in some hot virgin sex and they’ll destroy tall buildings in a single…
Karl:
I disagree about people who believe governments can, in the vernacular common today, “be all that.”
In every instance in history where government was looked at as anything other than a tool the result has been chaos. I might add that the current administration believes in government-they have expanded it!
As to your second point there is validity in that..at least I think there is. The problem is that we are looking at what amounts to a holy war for some militants – they would rather have their country go up in flames than be caught reforming.
Washington – government can never be ‘all that’?
What kind of a place is that to start from? And what, may I ask, is the alternative to government?
In my opinion, the world has plenty of examples in Africa and the Middle East. Because when strong government has no interest in who is getting the shaft for no reason under their rule, that’s exactally what happens. Like boys on the playground, the alpha emerges and decides he doesn’t like to share. Sometimes he kills everyone who didn’t grow up in his tribe/neighboorhood.
The falsehood of government being inherently useless or a pandora’s box is usefull, yet merely a gimick, as for quite a while now, many countries have maintained order and produced happy people with their respective governments.
Are any of them perfect? No, but what in this life is?
If your point is that government will never be perfect, then I might as well start off everything I write with the premise that nobody can live forever. If your point is that certain parts of modern governments are non-essential or like a cancer to the whole, then why don’t we talk about those parts?
Whatever we deem useless is worth debating, but just broadstroking an idea you have, so often, in a tone that suggests to the reader that what you’re saying is perhaps the most obvious thing anyone could ever know…
I think it’s debatable. I think that any organization can run efficiently, from a Photomat to Congress. It takes the right people in the right places to make that happen.
The government is “we the people” and sometimes the people forget that very masxim! Most citizens could care less bout politics or who is President as long as they have “life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” However, who elects these politicians that you rail against Chris? Yes. the people elect them!
Chris:
Where did I say government was useless? Please provide an example! You can’t because you are unable to debate. You create a phrase and then apply it to me – you rarely answer a question and you only read from something what your overly partisan mind wishes to read…try to slow down, breathe, and address what I said-not what you falsely state that I said.
To the others who seem to know how to debate-government is nothing but a tool. It does not live – that is not logical. I refer to my previous comment about history showing us what happens when goverernment is looked at as anything but a tool.
Cheers!
Washington:
I agree government is a tool, the point I was trying to make is that their are certain things that governments can do better than private industry; and nation building is one of those things. Trying to do large public works projects with companies whos main obligation is to their shareholders seems to create poor results. This may be a result of a win at all costs corporate culture, or maybe corporations are not as efficient as people would ike to pretend. The attempted rebuilding of Iraq is the ultimate example of these problems, specificaly Haliburton, who has record profits, but has not completed a project in Iraq. The company is wildly successful in terms of its main goal to produce a profit, but is a complete failure when it comes to getting the job done. That is an example of a good business, make the most money for the least work, it is not an example of how to rebuild a country.
Karl:
Could you cite two examples wherein government rebuilt another nation after war?
Washington,
You become flabbergasted with pretty much every argument you get involved in. I can see both sides of what you and Chris debate about (and it is debate). If you feel like we are that beneath you intellectually, why do you stick around?
Thier was the marshall plan, and…. I know why you asked for two. However rebuilding western europe after WW II turned out to be a very effective method of maintaining peace. Another thing about large rebuilding projects is they put people in the country to work, if you are working it is harder to be an insurgent, as it would seem that making car bombs and such requires a lot of free time. The whole idea behind Iraq, I thought was to show the middle east a better way, I don’t think that has been accomplished.
BTW, I hate it when my gasted gets flabbered.
OK – at this point we’re more apt to track each other down with blood thirsty Dobermans than come to an agreement…so I’m going to quote your words from within this thread and search out every question you’ve asked, then answer it.
As to why I felt it was established, your point of view regarding government:
I was going to scour the past threads, but the restraints of family will not allow for that. Basically there was a thread where I stated that government was a living entity, based on the phrase ‘We the People’…to me, this clearly establishes that government is a culmination of the collective will of everyone living in the country at a given time. Comprised of living individuals who (supposedly) live up to the ideal. A pro-government word, I haven’t read any from you.
Your questions:
15. (my reply) Washington – Was Clinton dirty? The guy got laid in the office, by his subordinates. The Soros, Trafacanti comparisons are apt, and while one of them did their time (Soros – I’m assuming that if he was convicted and free now, that’s the case), Trafacanti on the other hand is someone who never should have been near the guy.
I’m not pretending that Clinton was a saint.
Again the time constraints…look, I don’t see why we can’t quote each other and respond. The only way debate in this format can work is if one’s response speaks to what the previous writer stated. The practice of tossing aside the text and speaking only to one’s perception of the writer himself will only result in conflict.
You and I are not running for office, nor are either of us looking forward to a prize at the end of all this.
What you think of me personally has little to do with the debate – – – – – so I’ll be sure to quote your words in the future, and rest assured, I won’t be classifying you personally in anything I write, only your ideas.
Washington – Neither of us are dumb, so let’s not pretend otherwise. That’s the crux of my last comment. The debate is the debate…how you perceive my brain to work, whether it’s riddled with illness and/or poisoned perception has NOTHING to do with the debate.
The second things shift into, ‘I think you’re mentally insufficient in such-and-such a way’, there’s nowhere to go but down.
Wisenhiemer:
I’m afraid I disagree. You may take it as being flabbergasted but it is simply a tool of debate.Please understand that I resent very much your insinuation that I feel myself superior intellectually. I visit here and debate because it is stimulating; thus the people are up to the debate. If it were not my browser would point elsewhere.
Chris:
The only way debate in this format can work is if one’s response speaks to what the previous writer stated.
The problem that I have is this: I like to debate but I will not debate someone who puts words in my mouth. If you find any quote from me (and you can’t because it doesn’t exist) wherein I stated that government was useless I should be happy to apologize.
What I state about government is that it is a tool-and when people have regarded it as something more it has led to terrible things. So in the sense that some regard government as a savior or anything resembling one I say that they are wrong.
Clinton did more than what you propose and if you can’t see that then there is no hope for debate-just like one cannot debate someone who feels Bush has never done anything wrong. Clinton’s cabinet suffered through indictment after indictment-all of them were in close proximity to the President-but does that make him dirty?
Karl:
Do you recall who actually rebuilt Europe after WWII – Marshall did have his plan but industry rebuilt Europe. I agree that government has a role. That role should be oversight-but good government doesn’t build or rebuild-It exists as a tool which society utilizes…sometimes too much and rarely too little. I know that we differ on this point and I respect your right to your views…
Cheers!
Washington, sorry for putting words in your mouth.
I was in the Army and high school during Clinton’s 8 years, and during neither was I really paying attention to politics. In 1998 I read ‘Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72’ and started reading stars and stripes every day, the political stuff.
Payed close attention after the embassies in Africa were bombed, and the content on Headline News (the only news station we got in Europe) baffled me. We had been attacked, our unit was on alert and Monica dominated the news cycle.
I never really reconciled the reality that during Clinton’s presidency, my life wasn’t ever in serious danger while I had that uniform on…my time in was nothing like what it’s like today, in the same community I lived in over there for 2.5 years.
Is it because the country would never “allow” Clinton to do such a thing? A friend of mine got jumped in Somalia, knocked out cold, all his gear stolen, though they did leave him alive…I don’t know much about that whole deal, as I said before, I was a lot younger and not very interested in it when it happened. But it did strike me as odd that I clearly remembered everyone dogging it from the getgo.
Bush…I’m accused of having a mental disorder that makes me hate whatever he does uncontrollably…on the other hand, bullshits his way into a war and the country, Congress…suddenly you’re unpatriotic if you criticize the president, you’re hurting the troops.
I know how that feels. And if I was born later than I was, let’s say I’m alive in Vilseck right now, having made it through two rotations in Iraq, lying down watching Headline News (although, I believe that FoxNews has replaced that channel in the past couple of years…not making this up), and not only are the people in charge and the talking heads babbling on about everything but me and all the shit I’ve been through…when someone speaks up for the people dying, the maimed, those who can’t sleep, see or live without a catheder – they’re accused of being unpatriotic…
The logic is non-existant!
It’s a line of bullshit that’s f*&ked up this country for a long time now. Let’s face facts here…domestic political rhetoric draws on the mental image of a soldier quite often, but to them it’s not a war, it’s an ISSUE. Politics determine policy, and necessity demands that certain facts are therfore ignored, and illogical condemnation is a primary weapon.
Incorporate the theme of ‘you’re patriotic and they’re not’ and mass confusion ensues. Soon, the political debate becomes over-touchy-feely, with the goon squad on TV going at it like there’s an Oscar at stake.
From experience, I know that for all the self-love America showers itself with on a daily basis, the reality that I or someone like me is getting blown up while millions back home have been conditioned to not give a shit unless told to do so, it’s all compiled into a wire-crossing mess where your sentimental buttons are pushed for certain reasons, yet not for other ones, whether they’re directly related or not.
Pat Tillman…perfect example, they chose and made up what they knew would push the right buttons, and ignored, covered up the details that would have pushed the incorrect buttons. What might have envoked questions like, “how often do soldiers accidentally kill their own”, “what were Pat’s political beliefs”, “what did he think about the war”?
They know something that I know now as well…if they’d done anything else at the time, the country’s collective wiring would have been reduced to that of a 5 year old all at once, leaving millions with either part of their skull broken off, brain splattered all over the wall behind or above, or even some whose skulls had held in there, meaning the slop had to project itself through the eye sockets.
You can’t bring a story like that to the public…or maybe you can, who knows? I suppose the important thing is that peoples’ days aren’t ruined by bad news. Afterall, their jobs are to work, not be reflective about a war someone else is fighting…look at the gas prices, their lives are hard enough…so let’s not get into the bad news, the reality of the situation, because the public is too FRAGILE to be leveled with.
I just think the politics don’t match up with reality, and lots of people feel better with it like that…so they don’t have to ever switch teams, vote for the other party, consider the other side of the argument…get called ‘unpatriotic’…who needs all that mess?
Chris:
when someone speaks up for the people dying, the maimed, those who can’t sleep, see or live without a catheder – they’re accused of being unpatriotic…
I speak up for them and have yet to be called unpatriotic. My involvement with disabled veterans is substantial in the sense that I belong to the main body of people who comprise that group. They, the people coming back, don’t complain about Bush; they complain about the media distorting what the real situations are…In fact I am more inclined to complain about Bush. What happens is that one person complains and the media make it out to be the entire military. This has occured just as the staging of news events have occured.
I would comment more but there is too much to address.
Cheers!
I don’t percieve this as being the case at all. Soldiers returning from the war have a multitude of opinions, gripes and ideas for the future of this operation.
It’s dishonest to encapsulate the beliefs and ideas of every single veteran into one description as you’ve just done here. That’s not the case with all of them.
Everyone’s different, and they have their own story and future struggles to deal with, most of which, provide each of them more stress on an individual level than in terms of what’s going to happen in Iraq.
I’ve seen seriouly disabled veterans say they’d go back in a second if their ‘boys’ had to…i’ve seen seriously disabled veterans who believe that we should demolish the entire country and/or region with bombs…I’ve seen seriously disabled veterans who have no opinion on it at all…I’ve seen seriously disabled veterans who feel we never belonged there in the first place.
It’s not measured in any scientific way, be it polling or survey, that the perception soldiers have coming home is what you described in this last comment.
Zogby ran a poll of troops on the ground in Iraq and more than 70% said we should pull out. I didn’t trumpet this number on the blog, because I didn’t want it to become a politicized point of tension here. I do believe though, that if this poll had been widely publicized, there would have been a lot of angry words as result, complete with someone like Limbaugh or worse comparing those soldiers polled with cowards like John Kerry…or some sort of nonsence.
My point being, there are measurable ways to develop these theories, but the country is in no position to debate any of it in an honest, rational manner. The soldiers will always come after the politicians, the political necessity at the time…this is a fact.
Can’t cross the streams…
Chris: I am at the VA weekly. I know what veterans are saying. I am a member of the DAV and thus have access to a large number of opinions.
As to the Zogby poll that is far from surprising. It would be shocking if it were the other way round. I also call to your attention the fact that the poll-the people running it-were not in Iraq. That puts a bit of doubt as to its validity.
I trust Zogby as far as I can throw an Islamofascist Chris. 🙂
As for the Zogby poll, I’m waiting on a second to legitimize the findings. Washington, I don’t doubt that the actual opinions on the ground don’t automatically embody the rhetoric of those still in favor of ‘staying the course’, and with that said, why do we subject ourselves to the illogical notion that dissent equals non-support or that even entertaining the thought that everything we’re told about the troops isn’t true somehow means we’re on the wrong side of the issue?
I’m getting awfully tired of Frist and the administration categorizing dissent as ‘aiding the enemy’. Alberto Gonzalez stating that to hold hearings on the eavesdropping program would provide information to the enemy…as if they didn’t already assume that we’d be monitoring their phone calls and bank accounts.
It’s this fog of non-reality that I’m fighting against, and the politics of it don’t interest me that much at all. What infuriates me more than anything though, is the adoption of these ridiculous statements (the ‘you’re aiding the enemy by questioning whatever’) that are becoming the only response to anything that’s brought up concerning the war. People who honestly believe it everytime they think or say it in response to something legitimate…my take on it is, they’re putting themselves before the troops, before the war effort. It’s “my mental well being” being paramount to whatever opinion I hold concerning all things “war related”.
I’ve been speaking out about this since the start of this war, highlighting instances where our government has sold the troops short in terms of supplies, monetary compensation, conscription (stop loss), veterans administration funding, etc. These very issues, when brought up in mixed company, end up making me look like I’m unpatriotic in the eyes of those who subscribe to the ‘aiding the enemy’ mantra.
Along the lines of what you’re saying about the opinions of veterans you speak to on a regular basis…when I hear that they’re more upset with the media than the government and it’s decisionmaking, it sounds to me like projection.
Ask one of them specifically what they don’t like about the media’s coverage, and see if you get a talking point in return or an actual example of the media having done our troops wrong. I was offended by the media’s non-coverage of the military when I was in, yet whenever we’re losing a war, who gets thrown under the bus first?
I’ve still got people I talk with regularly who honestly believe that the media lost us the war in Vietnam, that we could have won over time. This is utter nonsence, and the same thing is going to happen following the outcome of this war, of which all signs have been pointing towards failure for a while now.
If we do eventually lose the Iraq war (ie: the lives and billions lost never result in payback for our country), who will be to blame? Some will blame the media and that will make them sleep better at night perhaps, but how honest of an assessment is that really?
Donald Rumsfeld made a series of decisions that contradicted the advice of senior military personell prior to the war…he made mistakes. Yet when the subject of ‘civil war’ is brought up, his gripe is with the media’s coverage.
That’s as cowardly as it gets! Shooting the messenger for not painting something incorrectly for the sake of…who? The troops or our political leaders?
Think about it.
I don’t disagree that the initial decisions with respect to the follow up to the main thrust were poor. I also agree that funding for the VA is far too low.
However, when you speak of projection about the media you forget that this generation, unlike the Vietnam generation, are media saavy. They are upset, meaning the veterans, because they see the coverage. They watch things being staged…that is a fact.
I would love to add more but I have a headache.
They’re upset about the coveraqe being staged, and not that the domestic newspapers report on the daily death toll, stories of bombings and mass executions?
People I know feel that the very fact that the American press reports when deaths occur, that it’s biased in some way. That the ‘liberals’ who apparantly control the media are pumping us constantly with stories of people dying over there because they want the effort to fail.
In terms of denial over Vietnam and the ‘media did it’ response to why our efforts over there failed…I take it that’s not what the veterans you’re talking to are going with concerning Iraq, but that the truth isn’t being told by whoever in the government is on the soapbox to talk to us about it on a given day?
Headache…have you tried Scientology? For 5000 bucks, that headache could turn into magic ideas made of pure solid gold…sure, some Advil costs 5 bucks, but…
The Forth Estate in our country is in a bad way and I think a good portion of our people take their findings with a grain of salt.
Now here is something to et upset about:
NEW YORK – Isaac Hayes has quit “South Park,” where he voices Chef, saying he can no longer stomach its take on religion.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hayes, who has played the ladies’ man/school cook in the animated Comedy Central satire since 1997, said in a statement Monday that he feels a line has been crossed.
“There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins,” the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.
Bravo Ike ! The Left and some Liberals in our country give the Christians hell while pandering to the Muslim fanatics !