Ignoring McCain, Wash. Times editorial cited Obama's "wasted lives" remark as example of the left's "ill-advised thinking"
A July 2 Washington Times editorial calling "for exhaustive work to improve the nation's complicated military medical system and veterans' health care" claimed that "the left" has used "the military-health-care mess as a political cudgel whose real aim seems to be to remind listeners of the decision by President Bush to enter Iraq." To support this claim, the Times wrote that the "most egregious" example was "Sen. Barack Obama's [D-IL] February 'wasted lives' remark which the senator said he came to regret, and for which he apologized repeatedly" -- a reference to a February 11 speech in which Obama said of the Iraq war: "[W]e now have ... seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." But in highlighting Obama's comment as "the most egregious" of the "ill-advised thinking ... on the left," the editorial ignored that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made a similar remark during his February 28 appearance on CBS' Late Show with David Letterman. McCain said: "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure [in Iraq], which is American lives."
Moreover, by labeling Obama's remark as the "most egregious" example of the left using "the military-health-care mess as a political cudgel," the Times falsely suggested that Obama's comment concerned the controversy surrounding care of soldiers and veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center as detailed in a series of Washington Post articles. In fact, Obama's February 11 comment was about the war in Iraq: "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Indeed, Obama made his comments before the Post published its first article on conditions at Walter Reed on February 18.
From the July 2 Washington Times editorial:
The flurry of media attention directed at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal has subsided, but not for lack of activity. It is time for exhaustive work to improve the nation's complicated military medical system and veterans' health care inside the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Meanwhile, though, a kind of farce of Washington politics is underway in which the scandal is used by some for political effect, who are then opposed by others who fail to understand the magnitude of the problem and thus sound rather callous.
[...]
Outside such hearings, one hears two kinds of ill-advised thinking which seem to take such facts less seriously than they should, one frequently heard on the left, the other on the right. On the left is the use of the military-health-care mess as a political cudgel whose real aim seems to be to remind listeners of the decision by President Bush to enter Iraq. The most egregious, later retracted, was Sen. Barack Obama's February "wasted lives" remark which the senator said he came to regret, and for which he apologized repeatedly.
The other, from the right, is a kind of misguided fiscal prudence which opposes typically reasonable legislation designed to improve circumstances for wounded war veterans. Most egregious was Mr. Bush's "pork" remark and his veto threat regarding recent Democratic proposals. But last week in a contentious Senate Veterans Affairs Committee meeting, Sen. Larry Craig, Idaho Republican, warned against the fiscal consequences of a hybrid-benefits proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont Independent, in the wake of an Institute of Medicine determination that the VA's means of judging disability is "hopelessly outdated."
Lives ARE being wasted in Iraq. I don't see why that comment is even controversial.
So true, the countless young men and women not to mention the Iraqi civillians. Sad. Disgraceful.
Why do you two hate America, Freedom, the Troops and Victory?
Hey you guys.
Either you're with our President, or you're for the terrorists. Come on now.
It's funny (strange funny, not ha-ha funny) that this article points towards the Walter Reed situation as a political cudgal to be used against the Bush administration. It should be. For not planning properly for the "war", and for not properly planning for what happens in the aftermath of "war", it is entirely the Bush administration's fault. Apparently, they actually believed themselves when they thought we would go in, take over the entire country, depose Saddam, set up a new government and get out. All in about 2-6 months.
I hate to say that I told them so, but I told them that this was going to be a long and protracted mess that we weren't getting out of anytime soon. If only Bush had listened to me before invading. OK, maybe not me, but maybe more reasonable people in his administration, but oh no, march onward.
For not planning properly for the "war", and for not properly planning for what happens in the aftermath of "war"
They didn't plan.
But the treatment of our returning wounded is more than just a failure to plan. Four years later, things were still inadequate. So not only did Bush's administration not plan for this, they also didn't react to a growing problem and take care of our wounded.
Maybe Bush and his people just don't give a crap. Action speak louder than words.
Or, maybeeeeeee....(tinfoil hat time) it's going just as they planned....
Nerzog, I think it's going just as they planned. Planned chaos to disguise the fact that they are stealing resources. The hydrocarbon law the Iraqi parliment has yet to pass that distributes the oil to foreign interests. And that doesn't even take into account all the tax dollars they're stealing to enrich their cronies. You'd think some of these cons that post here would be angry abouth tax dollars being stolen, literally and figurtively.
Apparently not. Wasting their tax dollars to make Halliburton stockholders rich doesn't seem to get their attention. But, don't you dare use a dime to hire more teachers in public schools...or provide insurance for people dumped by Blue Cross.....that's SOCIALISM!
Are you referring to "Blue Cross, Blue Shield"?
The right's consternation over "lives being wasted" comments is just as goofy as their statements that failing to send more troops to die somehow dishonors the ones who have already died.
Lives ARE being wasted in Iraq... - Nerzog
The Conservative's answer to Nerzog's post:
War is good business - invest your sons.
Wow, that's two posts in a row now for Obama, each without a single mention of Hillary. And to think, the troll army almost had me believing MMFA was all Hillary, all the time.
Maybe there's a distinct correlation between MMFA posts and fund-raising totals. ;)
Well, the DLC is noting that Hillary is not as popular as they hoped. Obama is their second-stringer, they'll send him in when her poll numbers drop.
Don't worry , Pete, there's another group that just as sure this is a full-time Obama campaign site, another that thinks it's a John Edwards front, at least one calling it a Ron Paul machine. Just depends on what day it is.
MMFA could have gotten a 2 for 1 with Cokie Roberts' commentary this morning, asserting that the "war on terror" is a liability for the top two Democratic canididates, Hillary for being a woman and Obama for being inexperienced. This followed Roberts' essentially characterizing terror as being Guiliani's compelling issue.
I would like to ask the other half of the question. what are the conditions to exist for american lives being well spent ? And could that ever be possible with a military solution to a diplomatic problem ?
Yes, there are such times, such conflicts. Which ones? Maybe WWII. The American Revolution, most likely. The American Civil War? Depends on which side you ask. VietNam? Probably not.
The Iraq War? How many lives is George Bush's ego worth? How many dollars of profit has Halliburton made per dead soldier?
I would say that all of the conflicts you mentioned were worth the sacrifice of American lives. Vietnam is certaintly an arguable exception but WW II is not a "maybe", the Revolutionary War deserves better than a "?" and the civil war in my opinion, could very well be the most important use of American lives as a sacrifice for the common good. Not trying to be argumentative but I believe you would have a hard time convincing people in the "greatest generation" that their sacrifice was "maybe" worth it. Why does everyone forget Korea? That conflict was by far a worthy engagement.
I agree about Korea. In general, I share your assessments, but, being the pointed-headed Liberal that I am, I have an aversion to absolutes...hence my use of terms like "maybe" and "probably".
As for WWII, the reason I said "maybe" is that there may be some Historians who would argue that the war could have been avoided if Europe had stood firm against Hitler earlier on. Or, if they had challenged him sooner, the fighting might have been less extensive...millions could have been saved...possibly.
AND if we had dealt fairly with the trade issues Japan had. I am saying this is absolutly true just making the point before the rebuttal was what about Pearl Harbor and Japan. This IS an argument I have read. I also understand that aversion to absolutes there are some for me but they are far and few between
Another common argument is that WWII finds its roots in the severly flawed peace of the Treaty of Versailles. In seeking an agreement that extracted an extreme price from Germany, but that the Allies were unwilling - or even unable - to enforce, the Allies created an environment conducive to Hitler's rise. The point isn't to absolve Germans of blame, but to appreciate the Allies' share in culpability.
My point is, that answering the question as to whether the sacrifice of WWII was "worth it" depends on the framing. By '39, it was sadly a necessary evil thrust upon the Allies, but as a price for mistakes 20 years earlier.
Although we're way off topic, I like historical discussions. Christiandemocrat, I understand and agree with your argument that the Treaty of Versailles was, in retrospect, flawed and contributed to WWII. However, I take issue with your criticism of the Allies because I think it is unfair to criticize the framers of Versailles for not being supernaturally prescient, including not anticipating the economic and political turbulence of the 1930's, which contributed far more to the rise of National Socialism than Versailles. Although this is just historical hand-waving, it is likely that the Weimar Republic would have survived had the Great Depression been less severe. Had isolationism in the US not become dominant in both political parties, and, consequently, had the US played a greater role in post-WWII Europe, as Wilson had envisioned, Germany would have been less able to intimidate France and Britain in the late 30's.
Also, if one looks at Clemenceau's motivation for a punitive peace, notably 1.7 million French who died defending their country (proportionally 3 times greater than deaths in the US Civil War), it is not difficult to see why the conditions of Treaty of Versailles ended up as they did.
Salon, I'm not sure where you read that the US-Japanese conflict could have been avoided by dealing "fairly" with the Japanese. I'd be interested in seeing it if you remember where you saw it.
My understanding of events is much different than yours. US actions to prevent or attenuate Japanese aggression in China and Indo-China in 1940-1941, primarily by progressively more restrictive embargos, could hardly be considered unfair. The US never embargoed products that were humanitarian in nature; they only embargoed war materials (oil, iron, aviation fuel, and scrap metal). The US negotiating position was that the Japanese needed to withdraw from the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, withdraw from seized territories in Indochina, and withdraw from seized territories in China. To me, these all seem like fair positions for a country to take in defense of its strategic interests, not to mention the interest of hundreds of millions of Chinese under brutal Japanese rule. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the Japanese felt it was in their strategic interest to "defend" their conquered territories. In the end, it turned out that the Japanese were negotiating in bad faith. Prior to the conclusion of negotiations, the Japanese had sent warships throughout the Pacific for coordinated invasions and attacks, including Pearl Harbor.
I agree that the Treaty of Versailles was not the only cause of WWII. However, it provided the basis for one outlet for German frustration and a rallying cry for Hitler. In that sense, and given the previously mentioned flaws of the treaty, the Allies shared in cupability.
The treaty was the product of the Allies, thus the error lies with them. To imply it was a flawed peace but the fault of none is absurd. (E.g., was the invasion of Iraq a mistake but not the fault of the U.S.?) An analysis of the individual and collective roles was simply beyond the scope of my point.
Clemenceau's position was short-sighted. Pure intentions or a righteous cause isn't sufficient rationale for a particular policy or action. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that is lost on Bush.
You missed my point. I'm not saying no one is responsible for starting WWII; I'm saying the Germans are responsible. With any event there are economic, social, and political contexts, and the Allies may not have drafted the perfect peace. However, the idea that Versailles was unfair to the Germans is ignorant of the facts. Although specific provisions can be argued, in balance, Versailles was fair -- some have even argued favorable -- to the Germans.
You made the argument yourself: the real failure of Versailles was the ability of some of its provisions to be used as an "outlet for German frustration and a rallying cry for Hitler." I find it difficult to understand how culpability, resulting from "error", for WWII can be found in the Allies, when it was the Nazis who used Versailles as a propaganda tool to justify war. Can one be responsible for another's propaganda?
Nerzog,
That is a fair assesment. I disagree, with the WW II scenario, but such ideas are certainly debatable.
Ron Paul has argued that all of the wars listed could have been avoided. I tend to agree, but I think war is so entirely stupid. It's usually just a way for people to make money.
All wars eventually end with a diplomatic solution. So....? Just a thought.
When looking at history honestly, there is truly no unavoidable war if one has the highest hopes for human honor and dignity. If you instead see human nature as crafty and selfish, however, you will see that no war is unavoidable.
It's all a matter of perspective.
BLR,
What you write is certaitnly true. In a utopic world people would always strive for peace and people like Hitler would not exist. The reality (to me) is that regardless of the debatable reasons why destabilizing events happen, they have always historically happened. Unfortunatly, wars are inevitable and sometimes necessary. It's the world we live in. Our job as a nation is to ensure that we are on the right side of history so to speak. I think as a nation for the most part we have done that. But your right, it is a matter of perspective.
JULIAJAYNE,
I disagree, I don't see how WW II ended with a diplomatic solution. It ended because the allies pounded the axis powers into unconditional surrrender. An acceptable conclusion considering the alternate scenario in which Japan and Germany could have remained through their own diplomatic concessions. The Civil War is another example of this. These wars were absolutely avoidable given hindsight, but that is just not how it works.
Is it me or the MMFA staff is getting lazy? It's 4:30 and there are only two articles posted so far.
Possibly recovering from the weekend like many of us. I've seen lots of items appear late afternoon, west coast time.
Well you have a point there. I live in the East Coast. Didn't think about you guys.
Now that we know that 91% of radio news/talk content is conservative, I have heightened my expectations: I expect a lot of misinformation, racism, sexism, etc. exposed by the end of the day.
Here is an example of distortion and no need for any apology:
[To support this claim, the Times wrote that the "most egregious" example was "Sen. Barack Obama's [D-IL] February 'wasted lives' remark which the senator said he came to regret, and for which he apologized repeatedly" -- a reference to a February 11 speech in which Obama said of the Iraq war: "[W]e now have ... seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."]
He means they have been duped into the controls of those who have misused and squandered their potential--the republicans with their privateering cooption of the American government. Our national defense has been wasted on the exploits of robber-barrons, who in turn are destroying America's image around the world, and sewing the seeds for perpetual unrest, chaos and complete stagnation of the economy.
They are going to use oil for a global hostage scenario as climate and energy issues tighten for a strangulation device. Then they will ramp up the attrition vis a vis dirty and deliberate tricks like fluoropoisoning, foods tainting, and release of who knows what. It's why they killed the electric car and had them shredded like office memos. It will also take steps to cover its tracks, shifting blame on spurious attribution lacking epideiological support, vaccine injury and common bacterial "meningitis." Why not use some organism that's ubiquitous to explain cold blooded murder? Can anything else attack the spine in the neck where the brainstem is? How about toxins loaded every time the tap water is consumed? What does it say on the back of a tube of toothpaste, and could it really mean anything?
While the troops fight al Qaida a world away, their loved ones are being chemically incapacitated (especially infants and young persons) right through their water tap by crumbs pushing pencils in corporate ties right here at home--lives that should be here at home evicting political filth by enforcing our laws through the insurrectory states chapters of Title 50 and RICO.
"Vessels on land offending in the territory" is the new corporate definition..."subject to prize and capture"--Supreme Court Digest.
What would Stepford Roberts say to that? ...before he is impeached.
The Times is a waste of paper and its editor a human resources blunder.
Why didn't Obama think of all those wasted lives every time he voted FOR this stinking war crime? He's a two-faced hypocrite.
I thought Obama has opposed the war from the beginning?
He was, and is, and is trying to end it.
Yes, indeed. Obama has only been a U.S. Senator for 2 1/2 years, which is a much shorter time than the war has been going on (alas).
I do wish that Redking would wash all that egg off his face from his recent comments. I'm sure he'd have something useful to contribute.
Obama never voted for this war. In fact, he voted to stop funding it.
He voted for what, and when?
If you're going to criticize Obama from the left, criticize him for supporting the idea that we can batter a sovereign country into a meaty pulp and then act indignant when it can't stand on its own within a couple of years, as if by sheer will a quadrupalegic can find the power to dance a jig on command.
In general, I like the idea of having a fresh face in the white house, but his apparent lack of empathy and recognition of our responsibility to see Iraq stand on its own again is disturbing.
Patriotic congressmen and women are willing in times of national pretense to give what's been really "stinking" the reserving of the question of a doubt.
Then as the withheld infomation gradually builds up, the question of the doubt reveals the same thing that's been 'stinking'.
Is that a reserving of judgement question till further disclosure...kind of pro-America and anti-terror conscious politician..enough for you? How many thousands of innocents did Obama have blown up for his corporate raiding expedition, and on American soil might I beg of you...?
My God!
How is it possible that the Washington Times cannot figure out if Sen.Obama is talking about the Iraq war, or he's talking about the Walter Reed fiasco?
Oh yeah, I forgot, it's the Washington Times.
Lives began to be wasted the day we stepped out of Afganistan, and stepped into Iraq. The war was on terror, not a country of oil. It's so sad that a man like McCain can't see this, or rather won't see this. We have caused a genocide to occur in Iraq because we destabilized the country. Sadam may have been an evil person, but he didn't kill 650,000 people. Even if we didn't kill most of them ourselves, we are still responsible. Obama is right!!!! Wake up McCain!!!! You're living in the Matrix!!!!
when troops are sent into an unnecessary war, their deaths do constitute wasted lives...
Mediamatters rebuttals for the post hoc fallacy of human shields and hiding behind the flag draped coffins to recriminate wrongful death racketeering.
1. They are not for corporations to throw away like some kind of disposable people.
2. Nothing in the compounding of these crimes is cleared of wrong after the fact, because of the fact–that snake oil sell is called post hoc. It’s still snakes, oil, and in business illegally.
3. Hiding behind flag draped coffins, the aggrieved and also protesting their losses too, isn’t a very clever hiding place either for phony interlopers pretending to be politicians or elected anything.
4. It didn’t work when they hid behind the flag and still doesn’t every time they flood it into the country in deluges of paper hanging seditious propaganda to rival that offense, sedition is the subversion and miscarriage also and the worst one, to overthrow for expeditions of private raiding.
5. Aggravated, it is also sedition to play the opposition in order to portray them in a false or worse light than merely protesting the war, by staging protests at military funerals in order to milk that tragedy to sway a vengeful populism uprise against dissent. It is a passee trick that only betrays again, what little regard the military’s keepers, the glorified intel communities, have for their trading coupons at any stage of the product’s life cycle. Feigning a false proposition for sedition by protest, by inventing the stunt to recriminate it, is no less the self accusation whatever its motive. So as long as it’s time to hide behind the bodies and suffering for pathos stealings, for them it’s an open opportunity to literally go out in disguise to hide behind the funeral program in order to manufacture mud to fling at all who disagree with war and make them somehow as unforgivably un-American as possible. Don’t forget the gold in their teeth Major Boner, General Dementia’s needing some more stars.
6. For some reason, our troops are not admired nor regarded by their keepers, those who are worth the intel effort to protect for their utility in control and fealty, the Eukanuba who kiss Bush’s feet and gladly impersonate the uniform, and those in the over dramatized intelligence communities with all the eyes in the sky, tracking the installation of every single roadside bomb ever set up out in the open where it is so obvious even a computer could count and photograph it any time of day or night, rain of shine, and tell you if they had any postage stamps from 100 miles up or more around the clock. That untidy fact is not lost on the public for its omission from all media either, those are wrongful deaths of coordinated intersections and quite possibly ignited by remote from the same satellite equipment.” What else is going to provide that repeat kill ratio with unmistakably, split second precision from the best vantage every time and computers that can run the differential system of equations every billionth of a second and account for the time it takes the firing order to transmit down and the time it took the image to be sensed and measured–where is that firing control to pick one out visually in high speed traffic? They are being counted along with the mutinous chain of support force custody, and will not be forgotten. A waste of trillions of defense dollars to manufacture sympathy killing for rated mass news media insertion, commiseration for a deranged, non-compos bureaucrat We can claim those wrongful deaths if we want to and do, there is no mistaking the short way of putting it, that those are lives counted on the heads of waste and condemnable infamy. There is no way to hide behind the full implicatures in the language, and politicians are fighting a contrived war of soundbyte windows...so read these words well...don’t even go there girlfriend.
I am speechless.... That was perfect!