CNN's Schneider, Tribune columnist falsely claimed Obama talked about "invad[ing]" Pakistan
On the August 12 edition of CNN's Late Edition, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider claimed that during an August 1 foreign policy speech, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "said that he might invade Pakistan if we could target Osama bin Laden and other known terrorists." In an August 13 Chicago Tribune op-ed, columnist Dennis Byrne went a step further, claiming that Obama "promise[d] that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan." In fact, Obama did not say he would "invade" Pakistan, nor did he "promise" any sort of military action in Pakistan. Rather, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistan] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama has since pointed out that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan."
Schneider and Byrne are just the most recent media figures to assert that Obama proposed "invading" Pakistan. As Media Matters for America noted, after reporting -- based on "some exclusive excerpts and comments" he had received before the speech -- that Obama would propose "going so far as to invade Pakistan," ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper acknowledged in an August 7 blog entry that Obama did not use the word "invade" and reported that he had emailed ABC News national security analyst Anthony H. Cordesman to determine whether "the media (and I) overstate[d] the case by using the term 'invade.' " Tapper wrote that Cordesman, "told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be considered an invasion."
From the August 12 edition of CNN's Late Edition:
JOE JOHNS (guest host): Bill Schneider, obviously you've been at this for a long time. It's been a week now. Was that a mistake for Barack Obama, at least among the people you would consider the base that he's trying to appeal to right now?
SCHNEIDER: Well, I think what he did was, he committed what I call "not supposed to's." He said a number of things you're not supposed to say if you're trying to be president of the United States. Now, a lot of the base thought, well, why not? He's just saying what we all believe.
He said that, you know, he'd be willing -- he would set aside the use of nuclear weapons if there would be civilian deaths, even if we could target known terrorists. You're not supposed to say that. Hillary Clinton was quick to respond.
The base says, well, of course we wouldn't use nuclear weapons if there would be civilian deaths. No president would do that. And Clinton's response was, well, we're not supposed to say whether or not we would or whether or not we wouldn't.
He said that he might invade Pakistan if we could target Osama bin Laden and other known terrorists. Hillary Clinton said, you're not supposed to threaten an ally, particularly one that's in a very unstable situation. So she gets credit for professionalism, but I think with the base that you asked me about, I think they don't understand what you're not supposed to say. And a lot of them like what Obama's been saying.
However, as the text of Obama's speech makes clear, Obama did not say "he might invade Pakistan"; instead, he promised to "act" if Musharraf didn't, leaving open what such actions would consist of:
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
In his Tribune op-ed, Byrne wrote that "Obama's promise that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan sure has a familiar feel; anyone remember the Iraq war?" Byrne then noted Obama's clarification but asserted: "Obama has objected that his remarks have been taken out of context, so, fair enough, let's look at the speech in which he issued the warning." Byrne provided the excerpt of Obama's August 1 speech quoted above -- despite the fact that it in no way supports his claim that Obama "promise[d]" to "invade Pakistan" -- writing that the "Bush White House could have written some of" Obama speech:
But Obama has more going against him than being the spawn of political hacks and hypocrites. His recent statements raise troubling questions about his competence, such as his ham-handed declaration about invading a sovereign ally, Pakistan.
Supposedly an "agent of change," Obama's promise that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan sure has a familiar feel; anyone remember the Iraq war? Who would have thought that within Obama lurked a neocon?
The impact of Obama's threats were immediately apparent, in helping to destabilize Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf 's shaky government and raising the specter of Islamic extremists running a nuclear-armed state. Obama has objected that his remarks have been taken out of context, so, fair enough, let's look at the speech in which he issued the warning.
The Bush White House could have written some of it: "It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action," he said. And: "As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
George W. Bush reborn? A reminder for Bush haters and Obama fawners: Bush also said he had actionable intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq.
In fact, as Media Matters has detailed, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Obama's proposed policy toward Pakistan involve different situations: Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attacks, while a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) -- which Obama cited in his August 1 speech -- indicated that Al Qaeda, which did attack the United States on 9-11, is gaining strength along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Moreover, Obama was highly critical of the Bush administration's foreign policy during his August 1 speech, and the policy he offered regarding Pakistan differs significantly from that of the Bush administration, which, as Media Matters noted, reportedly "reluctantly endorsed" a cease-fire in Pakistan that "intelligence officials and White House aides" saw as one of "the main reasons for Al Qaeda's resurgence" in Pakistan.
Wow. I hate to say I told you so....I'm surprised he left out the part about Obama sitting down to tea with our enemies...that' s part of the script, too.
Any conservatives want to tell us again about the "Liberal Media" again? I heard an NPR reporter repeat the same lie.
This is quickly becoming Al Gore's "invented the internet" and John Kerry's "Flip Flop". The Right Wing Liars Club is hard at work. I'm guessing that Karl Rove is leaving the White House so that he can work on the GOP 2008 Big Lie full time.
You're being disingenuous. While this and other stories have certainly exagerrated the details for dramatic effect, Obama saying "actionable intelligence" within the context of saying "If Musharaff is doing nothing", he AT LEAST means entering Pakistani airspace. At least.
Frankly this is one of the strongest defense policy statements that any of the dem candidates have made...not sure why MMfA is trying to fight it so badly.
Who's being disingenuous? The statement that Obama made "a promise that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan," is a flat out lie. There's no two ways about it. And MMFA is not trying distance Obama from his actual words. In fact, they reprinted them in full.
I know that he didn't say "I will unilaterally invade Pakistan." I hoped that my lines about media exagerration and noting that he could've just meant an airstrike would've warranted a less vehement reaction from you.
Oh, that was too "vehement" for you? You accused Nerzog of being disingenuous, then you make apologies for the lies told by CNN and the Trib (they were just "exaggerating the details for dramatic effect"). So now by repeating the facts, I'm somehow arguing too vehemently?
Yes. I didn't say he was lying, but Obama was clearly insinuating military intervention. Nerzog's defense acted like Obama didn't say anything near an invasion, which is disingenuous.
Hillary Clinton clearly agrees that Obama meant military intervention.
Because there is a huge difference between a targetted bombing raid taking out a terrorist camp and invading a country.
Very true. I think an airstrike is certainly a viable interpretation of Obama's words.
Solon, that's targeted, NOT targetted.
Well thank you. I am an attrocious speller, but thats ok, I type even MORE attrociously
Now who's being disingenuous? You know full well that the Flying Monkeys are using this to portray Obama as an inexperienced "loose cannon". Obama said "If he won't act, we will". Please point out where he said anything about an air strike or an invasion. We can certainly assume any number of possibilities, from nuking the whole country to sending in a covert assassin. What should be up for discussion here are his actual words, not Karl Rove's talking points.
This is GOP bullsh*t spin, and you know it.
Sending in a covert assassin is still disregards a nation's sovereignity. Not that the current administration can be critical.
That being said Nerzog, what do you think he meant? Taking into account not only the context of his words but that he had recently been taking some blows for being soft on national security, why do you think he made a specific point about the Pakistani matter, and even more specifically, talking about intervention?
The exact reason he talks about Pakistan and actionable intel is becuase of the report that came out about a week before his speech saying we had just that type of intel back in 2005. So he was talkign about a high level meeting of Al Qeuda in Pakistan just liek the one that was there just a few years ago. Bush did nothing. He is stating that he would do something. See the difference?
I understand what you're saying about Bush v. Obama, but I think the "I would do something" interp. is really dumbing down what he said.
Exactly what he meant is open to interpretation, and if the talking heads were merely speculating about that, I would have no problem. What they've done, however, is rewrite his words. The standard script now reads that he said he would "unilaterally invade Pakistan", which is simply not true.
Yes, sending in a covert assassin or SEAL team, or even an air strike would technically violate sovereignty, but it is NOT the equivalent of an invasion, politically or militarily.
The press is blatantly lying about what he actually said. You have no problem with that?
So, at what level of troop insertion would you consider it an invasion? By your words, not a single airplane (or cruise missile) nor a squad. Would a battalion constitute an invasion? Sure OHB did not use the word invade, but the intent of his argument that we would act if Pakistan did not certainly leaves those words open to interpretation.
Nerzog,
You can't lay this at the doorstep of the media exclusively. Even Senator Dodd at the AFL-CIO debate said that Obama said he would unilaterally invade Pakistan - so he got it wrong too, apparently it's an easy misinterpretation to make.
Perhaps if these candidates were more specific, precise and clear in their statement, they wouldn't have to spend a week trying to correct all the incorrections of exactly what they said, or meant.
Sorry, I am going to have to call total BS on that one. Read the damn speech, he was clear in what he said. He talked about Pakistan and Musharif quite a bit before this comment. The press has gone so far as to cut out the middle line to make it sound worse, and start riots. I think a lot of the democratic candidates are just trying to score points against him at this point, and that bothers me as well.
So, take it up with your Democratic candidates.......if they weren't try to "score points", perhaps the media wouldn't be so confused either.
More BS. The press was running with this story long before the debate.
His comment about "taking action" if Musharaff wouldn't was clearly the point of his comments on the subject. Clearly.
Clearly? then why did he talk about all of the ways he would help Pakistan? I know, I know, we should just ignore that and concentrate on the part where he talks about taking action. Forget about the point of asking them to help first. Forget about all of the things he says he wants to do to help them. Sorry, I decided to read all of it rather than just the heavily edited comments the press chose to run with.
Nobody is saying he didn't say the other stuff, heh. Why do you think the other stuff nullifies his comments on military intervention?
Nullify,no. Put into context that he was not talkign about invading, yes. the press is making it sound like he would invade Pakistan as soon as he found out where Al Quada was, and that is just not true. He said he would seek Musharif's help first. He did not say he would invade, but take action. People like Limbaugh and Hannity would tell you, "lobbing a few missles" is not the same as "going after Bin Ladin". (Clinton anyone???)
Senator Clinton was quite angry at Obama and rightfully so for that comment.
Well, you have a point. Wasn't it one of the Republican candidates who originally made the "Sitting down for tea" comment? Romney, maybe? It's one thing for politicians to lie...that's what they do. However, I do fault the press for its laziness in this case.
Perhaps Obama should have spoken more carefully, but he shouldn't have to worry about the News Media blatantly misquoting him.
Here is the part where he talks about Pakistan. Please tell me what is so vague about it.
"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally"
So, he is saying we will help Pakistan if they are willing to help us. Sounds pretty damn smart to me.
Well, there's your problem. How can you condense all of that into a 5-second sound bite?
Dude.
"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005."
Obama: If I was president, I would've taken them out.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Obama: If I am president, and there's another situation like the 2005 meeting, I will take them out.
So, he is saying we will help Pakistan if they are willing to help us. Sounds pretty damn smart to me.
Sounds pretty smart to me too. Also sounds like Obama made a point to discern himself from Bush by saying he would militarily intervene in Pakistan if circumstances that have already occurred happen again.
Even if we can make that assumption, where has he said that he would "invade" Pakistan? As Rush Limbaugh loves to say "Words mean things".
Before you accuse me of playing semantics, let's look at an analogy.
When my daughter was young, and misbehaved, I disciplined her. Now you can assume that I beat her with a knotted rope, or that I made her sit in the corner. Either could be true from what I said. However, if you go around telling people that I beat my daughter bloody with a rope, is that not a problem?
Yes, I see the problem. I don't think Obama's "range" of intervention due to "actionable" intervention is as wide as time-out vs. beatings, though.
You are cutting out of the parts where he talks about Musharif being involved, just as the press did. He says if he won't act, we will. In other words, Musharif has the option to act, but we will not stand by (nor should we) and let the high ranking members of Al Qauda get away if we have actionable intel. When the press, or anyone removed the "if Musharif won't" part, they were distorting what he said. They flat out lied.
Also taking out Al Qauda in Pakistan is far from invasion. He is not talkign about occupying the country dispite what some are painting his words to be.
Invasion does not mean occupation, nor should it have when we invaded Iraq.
I think it is safe to say that the commonly accepted definition of "invasion" involves a military incursion with significant ground forces. I don't think Carter's failed rescue attempt in Iran would be classified as an "invasion", nor would Reagan's air strike on Libya.
Besides, as Joe Biden pointed out, what Obama proposed is already U.S. policy. The key prerequisites are "actionable intelligence" and failure to act on the part of Pakistan's government.
You make it sound so simple..."he has the option to act..." Have you ever considered the ramifications of his actions for the stability of his country...have you considered the ramifications to the US of that instability and a change in leadership...have you considered the fact that his country is none-too-pleased with his advocacy for the US......have you considered that if the anti-american factions gained control they would have access to nuclear weapons. It seems many on the lefts thinking has become as shortsighted as Bush's. We can not just go around publically threatening other countries and think we will ever succeed in fixing the damage done by this administration to our standing in the international community. At this point their are alliances being formed and the more we push the stronger those alliances become...to the detriment of US interests.
That's fair. Chasitise Obama for what he actually said. The larger point, at least within this discussion, is that he did not say INVASION. Practically speaking, invading Pakistan with 100,000 troops would have different repercussions than sending in a SEAL team to take out one man....don't you think?
The point is, the press is not doing its job....at least not the job it is supposed to be doing.
I am not sure if my opinion on what he did is coloring my opinion but I just didn't see it as a great issue the way some are summarizing his comments. I think we are arguing semantics. Perhaps if I wasn't displeased with his speaking publically this way I would see it as a greater distinction...I just don't know. I wonder though if a republican had made the comments if many of us wouldn't be summarizing the comments in the same manner. Look at the reaction on the left to some of the comments being made on the right about Iran...I notice many of those make the leap that they mean invasion when they say something must be done. Perhaps it was a clarity problem...what did he mean by "act"...I think it is open to interpretation and I don't think people are way off base to take it to the conclusion of invasion.
I tend to agree. However, I think it is unfair and unprofessional for the press to misquote him, instead of asking the legitimate question "What did he mean?" They are simply filling in the blank with the Republican talking point and proceeding from there.
Your post is one of the few I've seen since this incident was first reported that mentions the ramifications of acting against Pakistan.
I think that both sides ignore the fact that Pakistan is a powder-keg waiting for a spark.
Sorry, I just can't agree. Several experts I have heard recently say that an election would not bring the Al Quada type groups into power in Pakistan. Also I think actaully pressuring these countries is the way we should be going about getting change. It was working with Saddam before we invaded. We had the resolution to use force, he saw the writting on the wall and was letting the UN inspectors in. As has been stated before, it should be the President's obligation to take out high level members of Al Quada. Obama clearly said he would prefer Musharif involved, but will do it anyway if need be. Obama's plans are in my view the right way to bring about positive changes in the Middle East. Diplomacy and assistance to those who want to change, and removal of assistance for those who don't. This is the choice he gives Pakistan.
"our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally." -B. Obama
I would say becareful what you wish for Mr. Obama...It is not always in the best interest of the US to push the democratic gambit...if we learn nothing else from Iraq...please learn that our image of democracy is not always the same as others...and pushing democracy is not always in the best interest of the US. The next person elected in Pakistan may not be an ally...and they will have nuclear weapons. Whatever else his faults Musharif is a known quantity...and when push came to shove he sided with the US against the Taliban...even when we showed favoritism towards India.
"..if we learn nothing else from Iraq..."
Or Palestine, for that matter. We'll see what happens in Turkey.
And, if anyone thinks "invasion" doesn't carry with it a unique set of assumptions and problems, check out the statement made by Dick Cheney in 1994 about the reasons it would be foolish to invade Iraq. Fascinating stuff.
[link to www.editorandpublisher.com]
I saw the video posted on youtube. OMG if it weren't so tragic it would be funny.
I can't wait to see Jon Stewarts take on it.
Why not Eddie Murphy's take? Or Larry the Cable Guy's take? Or some other useless comedian's take? Rosie O'Donut, perhaps? You worship satirists. Very revealing.
J4,
Again, great. You are the most excellant poster ever!
Well, I was looking for a comedian to worship, and it came down to Jon Stewart or Sean Hannity. Since Jon's commentary tended to be more accurate, I went with him.
Just curious, do you derive your family values from The Simpsons or South Park?
No, I was born a degenerate, and just got worse.
j4sonl,
casting the first stone should be beneath you, assuming you are a conservative and with that title usually goes the title of christian.
You know what, you snotty jack*ss, you don't know anything about me, so why don't you flip on over to demunderground and get out of this site.
I know enought to make a educated guess about your condenscending attitude towards others you don't agree with especially when you have nothing with substance to say. Get over yourself and go on down to the recuriters office tomorrow punk.
Been there, done that. 10 years of it. Bite me.
If you ove it so much what is stopping your little smart arse from going back?
That's sick. Why is there some question or vagueness at the beginning of the article though as to what the video really is?
Not sure what you mean. They tell what it is in the first paragraph.
Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
I wonder if the media will ask all the other candidates running for president if they agree or disagree with what Obama said.
And no Democrat is going to invade another nation. The candidates most likely to do something like that are republican (excluding Ron Paul).
Blah, blah, blah......This whole charade is posturing by the democrat candidates. They're trying to lure moderates and centrists into their government-loving clan, but we all know that in the end the democrat party will stick to doing what it does best - NOTHING!
And, btw, if you lefties are so concerned with "context" and "correct interpretation", then why on earth are you sticking to the tired "Bush lied" mantra? Oh, because you're a bunch of hypocrites? OK.
J4,
Thanks for that well thought out and stimulating piece of oratory. You quite grandly laid out your points and backed them up with proven facts.
Excellant!
Skeptical,
Too werds, "spel chec"!
J4,
Not necessary in the posting world!
Now, three words for you,
"Rent a Brain".
"Spel Chec"
You might call me a hypocrite when you see me correcting specific people's spelling, grammatical and usage errors. I do have context however, and those I do correct, know exactly why I am doing that.
The real reason I responded to your post was to illustrate a point about a tactic used by rightwing nut cases such as yourself.
Well, maybe because Bush did LIE.....
1 shrub and cronies told us over and over again that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, contrary to the findings of weapons inspectors that were IN Iraq at the time.
2 We "invade" and guess what? No weapons of mass destruction found.
pretty simple formula if you ask me.
Big difference when compared to the media putting words in Obama's mouth if you ask me.
Gee, be still my heart - the thought of a President that actually would be straight with the people...
You're not going to get that with Hillary...
The President's claims that Saddam "continued to pursue and develop weapons of mass destruction" were NOT contrary to the reports of the weapons inspectors. Strike one.
We "invaded", and guess what? WMD's WERE found, but your types would say they were "planted" by Cheney. Strike two. Do your research and stop listening to the Media Morons.
See how easy this is?
J4,
Let me try to explain something to you. I'll use small words so that you understand.
If you make a statement about something that occured, you need to provide some backup, like a link to a story or some other way to prove your statement, otherwise you can just say anything, even if it is made up.
Just like the statements that you just made!
J4,
See, you have proven my original theory about you. Let me try again, you made the statement, you have to prove it! See that's how it works here. Please try again!
But then you said I made it up. Where's your proof. God, I love a mexican standoff!!
Except he DIDNT say you made it up he said you COULD have made it up.
"DIDNT"
Come on Solon, you're better than this.
It's DIDN'T.
I know but that apostrophe takes a shift and is WAY over there...
J4,
I thought icedog (another thread) was the dumbest poster here, but you took the title. You don't even understand how to have an argument/debate. The person who makes a statement has the burden to back it up. It is impossible to prove a negative (virtually impossible anyway) so if I made a stupid statement like yours, why would anyone believe it if I could not prove.
You are too simpleminded to have a real debate with, but hopefully you will learn something and come back and give it a go again someday.
As for your service, pardon me if I don't believe that either. You don't have the intelligence to have served in any military that I know of. Maybe when you were playing soldier in your mother's basement you hit your head and now you think you were a real soldier, but since you have made seamingly stuff up here already, your credibilty is in question.
I meant "since you have seemingly made stuff up here"
I dont believe you made it up. I dont believe you HAVE the capacity for original thought of any kind. You are repeating what your propaganda parrot masters TOLD you to say.
Leave the poor boy alone. Nothing worse than a chickenhawk. He loves war as long as someone else does the fighting. He buys the propoganda but you don't see him in line to enlist. If it turns out he was there he likely was given some mundane task they give to those with low entry scores. One thing I have learned over the years is that very few people who lust for war have ever seen it and those who have seen it and lust for it are simply insane. Which is J4? I would choose the prior, although the latter would make perfect sense. Either way the lad is far over his head with his senseless Bush Administration talking points.
Which is it? I did 10 years in the military. I helped pick up body parts from the world trade center. I did 2 deployments during Operation Enduring Freedom. But I've never seen war, right? You smug SOB, you think you're so smart. Call me a chickenhawk. I'ts better than being called a democrat.
Yeah, you have never seen war punk. You wouldn't know it if it hit you in the nose. What did you do in Operation Enduring Freedom? Which end of the gun does the round come out of? Don't attempt to quell me with your hapless stances on this war. I stand by my statement as it pertains to the latter then, you are simply insane.
I'll tell you what I did during OEF. I RE-enlisted. I lived in a plywood box for a barracks. I ate nasty food. I watched friends die. I spent 2 years separated from my family. I was administered Antrax vaccinations (6 of them). I SERVED MY COUNTRY. Why do you think that most of the troops believe so whole-heartedly in what their doing. Do you think it's brainwashing? Or do you think that there's something particularly rewarding about freeing millions of helpless people from oppression? Were you there? Could you please enlighten me, seeing as I've "never seen war".
If most of the troops believe so wholeheartedly in what they are doing why do 72% of them think all the troops should be brought home within a year?
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”
Fair enough. You served. I stand corrected as to my statements pertaining to your chickenhawk status. It doesn't change the fact that as a combat veteran you should have some kind of sense of the reality of war. Your apparent lust for it is quite simply insane. By your accounts, I assume you were in Afghanistan, for that I commend you. I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but, I probably saw more death and combat in two months then you saw in two years. That being said it shouldn't take away from the fact you served. Furthermore, I wasn't there because I am over 60 and I am so full of shrapnel I piss rust. Young lad, don't even attempt to tell me anything about war, death, and seeing your friends die. I saw it daily, held them during their last breath, and quite frankly I looked the grim reaper in the eye myself. I have the purple hearts and bronze star to prove it. Take your little war mongering arse back over there is all I can tell ya and while you are at it, take a camera crew from FOX with ya so you can show them the WMD's you know about.
"what their doing"? "Antrax"? Spell check, Jason, Spell check.
"WMD's WERE found"
Oh, that's right...those rotting canisters left over from the Iran-Iraq War. I forgot about those.
Of course it was.
Of course not.
Wow. You really are stupid. No they didnt continue to develop WMDs and NO WMDs were NOT found. Just because you are ignorant enough to keep repeating the long debunked lies rightwing screechmonkeys TELL you to repeat in no way means they have any connection to reality. You are a moron, we understand that, even someone as blatantly ignorant as you are ought to be able to understand that there is no magic number of times you can repeat a lie that will make it come true. Your delusions are pathetic.
Wow. You really are stupid. No they didnt continue to develop WMDs and NO WMDs were NOT found. Just because you are ignorant enough to keep repeating the long debunked lies rightwing screechmonkeys TELL you to repeat in no way means they have any connection to reality. You are a moron, we understand that, even someone as blatantly ignorant as you are ought to be able to understand that there is no magic number of times you can repeat a lie that will make it come true. Your delusions are pathetic.
Wow Solon, and you called me a jerk. Not that I disagree with your sentiment. Just an observation...
Oh yeah, and it's didn't not didnt.
Yes I did. You went ballistic when corrected nicely by a guy that admitted he was being a bit OC. He was NOT trying to embarass you and you just went on and on about it. Jerkson started this calling us media morons. I think you and I are on the same page politically, I dont care how often you correct my spelling, grammer or punctuation, if you start on my typo's you wont have time for anything else. I also know about dont, but its so much trouble to use that appostrophe...Yeah I know it's really it's
I got mad, because he chose to unload his petty little pet peeve on me, for a very common usage error of a word that most certainly exist. That's ok with you, so long as he did it "nicely", right?
Do me a favor, visit the Cillizza thread from Friday, and read the exchange between HBL and myself. The message will be clear in its original context; I will not try to rehash it here out of context.
I am not going back. I dont care that much. Irregardless may be a word because it is used but it is illogical. It is a double negative and it is redundant since it is used to mean the same as regardless. Dont you have any pet peeves. Every time I hear someone end a sentence with a preposition, like saying where are you AT. I just get shivers. It is almost physically painful. Even though I know my grammer isnt up to Harvard standards. . Here's the thing. He wasnt trying to embarass you. That was clearly not his intent, the context of his statement made that obvious, somethings just bug you and its hard to stop from saying something about them. I get the pet peeve thing. I get you were upset, I think you overreacted but thats just my opinion. Anyway feel free to correct my below average spelling, grammer, punctuation and typos till the end of time.
"Don't you have any pet peeves?"
I certainly do. They're not related to other people's grammar, spelling or sentence structure though.
"...sends shivers down my spine"
What, you got some kind of medical condition? Don't you think that's just a tad bit elitist?...
Harvard? WTH are you talking about? In a non-formal, open (minus profanity) environment like this? Nobody is holding you to that kind of standard, OR anything remotely close to that. In fact, what kind of "standard" do you propose we should all adhere to? As long as I understand what was posted. I'm pretty content.
As far as my pet peeves... think chewing gum or food with your mouth wide open, or constantly interrupting people before they can finish a sentence.
So am I going to continue to correct every little mistake you make? The point was to illustrate how it feels to be on the recieving end. You can claim to high heaven that, "you don't care" but clearly you were a little annoyed. As would any other sane, normal person who experienced that. I don't have to read minds to feel the underlying tone or emotion of someone's written words. Just like you feel mine right now.
So the answer is: NO, I'm not going to stoop to the level of Kevino, HBL and others who think it's perfectly ok to unload their so called grammatical "pet peeves" on other people who were just trying to participate on the topics presented here at MMFA and made a simple syntactic, grammatical or spelling error while posting.
When it comes to factual errors, fallacies, misinformation, omissions, downright lies... etc. I'm all for it. Correct the snot out of those people.
BTW, if you have a problem with people ending their sentences with a preposition like you mentioned... e.g. "Where you at?"...
Don't talk to anyone with boost mobile! :)
Yes, Bush lied. I didn't think that was even being debated any more. The only question remaining is whether the Democratic Congress is going to grow a spine and hold him accountable.
Maybe they're not holding him accountable for his "lies" because:
A. There were no "lies".
B. It's a democrat congress, which, by default, does nothing in the first place.
I tend to believe that both are true.
The only possible defense for Bush is that he was too stupid to know that he was lying. Maybe you find comfort in that, but I don't.
J4,
That's why I said you need a brain. That way you could actually think, and then you would see how stupid you sound.
False.
False.
There is no Democrat party only a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party. Bush absolutly lied only the most committed propagandists are still pathetically trying to pretend otherwise.
On Sept 7, 2002 Bush told reporters, I would remind you when the inspectors were in Iraq when they were finally denied access (which could only be 1998) an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months away from a (nuclear) weapon. No such report from the IAEA. Bush pulled it directly out of his ass. Didnt exist. Making up a report that doesnt exist is not a mistake of intelligence, its not a misinterpretation, its a LIE. Bush lied. Leave room for some reality in your life.
Believe me Solon, I agree with every word you said. But you forgot the (') in didn't right again. You know your my brother in arms against all the dittohead fascists wingnuts that come here. I just want you to be perfect from now on when it comes to your spelling and grammar. Is that too much to ask?
OK, that's too much to ask I know, I am sorry. No sarcasm, really. I think you get the point. I don't think anyone likes to be stalked and taunted with every little typo, or grammatical error they make. Remember MichaelSavage4President? Feisty little correcter wasn't he?
I know, its too much trouble feel free to correct every mispelling or dropped apostrophe you ever see in any post I ever make. I couldnt care less. I make NO claim on being an even decent typist nor a very proficient speller. Have at it.
"I make NO claim on being an even decent typist nor a very proficient speller"
Funny how you, Kevino, HBL and some others hold this standard for yourself but not for LIL old me? What did I ever do to you? HBL, if your reading, you know that wasn't the first time you've nazi'd my post on spelling or grammatical errors. It's guess its all good so long as it's done in the name of the almighty pet peeve, do I have it right?
"HBL, if your reading, "
Your = You're!
"It's guess its all good so long "
? syntax
Your = You're!
"It's guess its all good so long "
? syntax
Yes, and your point is..? I made some mistakes, is that that your point?
Try to pay closer attention to the underlying message from the various posts I've made on this thread, the Cillizza thread and the one right below that. The message should be clear: Stop correcting other people's spelling, grammatical and syntactic ERRORS.
It's annoying, and even worse, it's a known trolling tactic.
Goose -> Gander
Not trolling. Just annoyed buy all the petty corrections. Don't care about other threads or context. Childish behavior interrupts debate.
"Just annoyed buy all the petty corrections. Don't care about other threads or context. Childish behavior interrupts debate"
I don't think you get it. THIS IS THE EXACT MESSAGE I AM TRYING TO SEND HERE. It's called, a taste of you're (not YOU) own medicine. The context is simple. Someone corrected me, in a petty, annoying but "nice" way. Others piled on. Solon, was one of the "others" in this case.
OK! sorry for adding to the distractions!
No problem. :)
Actually IF I had done so, which I didnt, it WOULD have been the first time. I ONLY correct people for their spelling or grammer in a post where they are calling someone else stupid which I dont ever remember you doing. I gave the opinion you were overreacting and what I thought. I think you are a good poster. I like reading your posts. I thought and still think you were being way too hostile considering what was said. Clearly this is a sore point for you, I didnt see how much of one, if I had I would have stayed out of it.
Your right, you didn't actually correct me. You fell under the "pile on" section. That's what I said. By default, anyone who "joins in the fun" automatically becomes a target if the person on the receiving end of this "fun" backlashes. And I agree... I overreacted. My point is that it doesn't matter how "nice" someone tries to correct someone else's grammar or spelling errors in a non-formal mostly open forum such as this. It's annoying. Period.
That being said, I completely agree with your criteria for using the "nuclear option" aka correcting. My criteria is when someone does it, typically right wingers (not exclusively though), whether it's directed at me or not, I return the favor or lambaste the offending party.
Actually, it the DEMONic Party.
Good one, Oscar. If you were five.
This from a ReNAMBLAcan?
There is no Democrat Party only a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party. The reason we are still saying Bush lied might have something to do with the FACT HE LIED. HE lies like most people breathe.
A Symphony of LIES
Any second now, Jason is going to tell us that EVERYBODY thought Saddam had WMDs and was an imminent threat. Jason, have you ever heard of Laurie Mylorie? She was one of the leading cheerleaders for making war on Saddam. She had a great impact on the thinking of the NeoCons. Well, it seems that she wrote a book in 2003, before we found out what a monumental F*ckup the Iraq War was. The name of the book is "Bush vs. the Beltway. How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror". In it, she basically vilifies the CIA and the State Department for their attempts to stop the Iraq War. I bet Rush Limbaugh never said much about that, did he?
I think you can still buy the book at Amazon, but you won't see it on the bookstore shelves, and you never see Laurie on any talk shows any more. Isn't that interesting?
Person with common sense: "President Bush didn't lie."
Bush-hater: "Yes he did, Bush is bad!! He lied about WMD, he lied about Saddam!"
Person with common sense: "Well, no, as you can plainly see in these publicly availabe reports, several hundred WMD's were.."
Bush-hater: "That's all lies, made up by the BuchCo machine!! It's all fabricated! Bush is bad!!"
Person with common sense: "I assure you that these reports were made by Pentagon officials that don't have any connection to the adminis..."
Bush-hater: "No, you listen, Bush is evil. He just wanted to finish what his Daddy started and he'll tell any lie to avoid being exposed for the war monger that he is."
Person with common sense: "Ok, I can see that you fail to live in reality. Now what about the record low unemployment levels and the strong economic performance under the Bush administr..."
Bush-hater: "The economy is wrecked!! Bush gave his rich oil buddies a huge tax cut and raped the working class. We're on the brink of a monumental depression because Bush is bad!!"
Person with common sense: " How do you figure that we're heading towards depression? Every economist in the country is forecasting..."
Bush-hater (with fingers in ears): "La, la, la, I can't hear you, la, la, la, Bush is bad, la, la, la, Bush lied. I don't care about FACTS and OFFICIAL RECORDS and EXPERT PREDICTIONS because that doesn't support my views that Bush is bad!!
Person with common sense: "Nevermind, you're helpless."
Why didin't the Bush Administration scream from the mountain tops that WMD'S were found. Why has Bush himself admitted that there were no WMD's? Is your daddy Bush lying when he says there were no WMD's?
Person marginally aquainted with reality :there were NO WMDs in Iraq.
Moron: Yes they were.
Person marginally aquainted with reality: Not according to Kay and Duelfer you know the two people who INVESTIGATED THIS VERY THING.
Moron. Let me make up a fictionalized and highly delusional dialogue where I clam again without ANY evidence whatsoever that they WERE found.
Give it up moron. The only things found were leftover 80's degraded scraps which Kay HIMSELF claimed were NOT the WMDs we were looking for and that most Americans have more dangerous things under their kitchen sink. YOU are an idiot
yes, j4sonl33, that's right, you're the one with all the common sense. Especially with all of thos links and backup you provided.
I mean, the voices in your head. Seriously, that was the longest post without anything factual squeezed in that I've ever seen. Congratulations.
And I wonder who Sean Hannity's audience is.
OK, it's been fun, guys. I gotta go (pick one) listen to Hannity/Rush/Boortz/Levin/O'reilly/Savage/Beck, then I gotta go get my white house talking points off of the top secret fax machine, then I have to oppress minorities and the "under-privileged" (lazy), and then go party and laugh all night long with my fat, rich, white friends.
See ya punk.
Oh yeah, one more little thing. Did Bush lie when he indicated there were no WMD's in Iraq? IF he lied about no WMD''s then did he lie about Iraq having WMD's. He has now claimed both. Which lie do you believe?
J4,
Ha, Ha Ha, That's the funniest thing you said yet, you have friends. Oh, that's right you were being sarcastic.
My Bad!
I think he has a mommy. She might think he's got common sense, and she might think he's handsome too. Is that a friend?
Oh really, he didn't say he would invade Pakistan for terroist? Here is the quote:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
Here is a link to Chicago Tribune article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,1,7725440.story
Loki6898500450775774884388399393, please point out the word "attack" or "invade" in the quote you posted. Stupid as I am, I just can't find it.
Here is the actual speech. I suggest people should actually hear what Obama said. He NEVER said attack Pakistan. He would never say that.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1126056719/bctid1125863588
This is what the real truth is instead of all the distortion.
Let's not forget that Bill Schneider is not a journalist. He's a commentator. More importantly, given his background, he's a conservative with a strong political activist motivation. He's a member of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington which counts Lynne Cheney among its members, and he was considered for the number 3 position under Rumsfeld when Bush came into office in 2001. The position was taken by Doug Feith who was later suspected of giving secrets to two members of American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) who were also identified as Israeli agents and later convicted of this. Incidentally, Wolf Blitzer was a former (?) member of AIPAC.
I can't understand why Hillary is attacking Obama for his comments on acting on intelligence on Bin Laden IF Musharraff did not...I mean, CNN showed the clip of Hillary agreeing with Obama(even though at the time she did not know it). She was asked about what she would do if as president she was given actionable intel on Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan and she said : "If we had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden and other high-value Al Qaeda targets insise Pakistan, I would make sure they were either killed or captured."
The next day, she started to attack Obama for saying the exact same thing, and no one in the "liberal media" called her on her apparent selective amnesia.