On Fox News Sunday, Wallace failed to challenge Gates' claim that troop withdrawals will be based on "successes"
SUMMARY: Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace did not challenge Defense Secretary Robert Gates' assertion that troop drawdowns "between December [2007]and July [2008]" will be due to "successes" in Iraq. In fact, due to strain on the military, the troop reduction would have been necessary regardless of conditions on the ground.
While interviewing Defense Secretary Robert Gates during the September 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did not challenge Gates' assertion that troop drawdowns "between December [2007] and July [2008]" will be due to "successes" in Iraq. While discussing the possibility of further drawdowns -- in addition to Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation to decrease the number of troops to levels that were in Iraq before this year's escalation of troops -- Gates told Wallace that for future drawdowns to occur "you'd have to see, first of all, the same things that you're going to have to see for the drawdowns between December and July, and that is not only continuation of the successes that we've had now but additional success, additional security in Iraq." In fact, Petraeus acknowledged during his September 11 Senate testimony that due to a "strain" on the military, the troop reduction would have been necessary regardless of conditions on the ground.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), during Petraeus' appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asked whether constraints on the military "virtually lock[ed]" him "into a recommendation of reducing troops by 30,000 beginning in April and extending through the summer -- regardless of what's happening on the ground." Petraeus replied, "[D]epending on what can be taken out of the Reserves. ... I do know that the active Army in particular, that the string does run out for the Army to meet the year-back criteria" -- the rules requiring troops to be home for one year between their deployments. Reed then stated that it was "[his] sense" that "unless tours were extended, 30,000 troops were coming out of there beginning in April next year, regardless of the situation on the ground." Petraeus agreed that "certainly the active brigade combat teams were going to come out of" Iraq.
Petraeus also stated that "I think that's the case, but I don't know because I have not asked" in response to Reed's assertion that "the [Army] Reserve and National Guard forces are not available to replace" the troops being withdrawn. Additionally, during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee later the same day, Petraeus said that "the strain on the force ... was very much one that informed the recommendations" to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq.
As Media Matters also noted, Petraeus' testimony echoed statements he and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made in the past about the need to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground. For instance, the Associated Press reported in an August 15 article that, during an interview, Petraeus stated: "We know that the surge has to come to an end. There's no question about that." He continued: "I think everyone understands that by about a year or so from now we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that ... so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going."
Moreover, USA Today reported on September 4 that "Pentagon officials have said they cannot sustain this year's buildup of about 28,000 additional troops past next spring because of the stretched personnel demands on the U.S. military." The Los Angeles Times also reported in an August 24 article that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half." The article continued: "Administration and military officials say ... Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."
From the September 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, welcome to Fox News Sunday. You made news Friday when you said that you hoped we can get down to 100,000 troops by the end of 2008. What would it take? What would the situation on the ground have to be for that to happen?
GATES: Well, first of all, what didn't get covered was the fact that I indicated very strongly that that depended very much on what happened on the ground, and that if we were to continue drawdowns, it would be because the situation in Iraq had continued to improve dramatically. The key here, it seems to me, is what kind of conditions we will have in Iraq in March when General Petraeus makes his re-evaluation.
WALLACE: What is it we'd have to see, in terms of improvements on the ground there?
GATES: Well, I think you'd have to see, first of all, the same thing that you're going to have to see for the drawdowns between December and July, and that is not only continuation of the successes that we've had now but additional success, additional security in Iraq.
WALLACE: Also additional political or as some would say the beginnings of national political progress?
GATES: Well, there's so much going on below the national level that we didn't expect that has had a big impact. For example, the turn in Anbar, obviously, that everyone's been talking about. But there also, it seems to me, is growing unhappiness in the Shi'a areas with the excesses of Jaysh al Mahdi and -- the Shi'a extremist group. And so you may see some political developments on that side. But the other part is what the president has talked about, what we've all talked about, that although some of these laws haven't been passed that we've put as part of the benchmarks and so on, things are actually happening in terms of oil revenues being shared, provincial empowerment, Baathists from Saddam's army being brought back into the army, and so on. So there -- some of these things that we've referred to as reconciliation are taking place on the ground.
WALLACE: Now, you made it very clear that this was your personal view about the 100,000 troops. But you're also a pretty careful guy. Fair to say that the president also shares this hope that, if things continue, you could get down to 100,000 by the end of the year?
This is a perfect example of "anti-Journalism", or what is otherwise called Public Relations and Press Agency and even "media activism".
The question is actually as good and as brief as it can get, where wallace asks the Secretary of the DOD:
[With regard to the conditions in Iraq, under which we would have a withdrawal of U.S. Troops from that place]
"What is it we'd have to see, in terms of improvements on the ground there?"
That's great. Of course, the Secretary made nothing but a vague and meaningless answer, containing nothing specific, or even sensible:
"...not only continuation of the successes that we've had now but additional success, additional security in Iraq"
So how did the hack wallace follow up, and dig away at and get specifics, and make the matter clear?
By saying (or asking?) this:
"Also additional political or as some would say the beginnings of national political progress?"
Holy Cow! The hack wallace, he acts like he's an aide or assistant to the Secretary; he doesn't seek a clarification or any specifics to what the Secretary said (or "challenge" the Secretary, as MMFA prefers it); no, the hack wallace just adds to and makes even more vague and meaningless, what the Secretary said, when he adds (asks?):
"Also additional political or as some would say the beginnings of national political progress?"
Just perfect. It's like he was the Secretary's assistant, sitting there helping the Secretary tape a sales video; he helps the Secretary along on his sales pitch, by adding to the Secretary's meaningless nonsense:
"Also additional political or as some would say the beginnings of national political progress?"
I can just see the Secretary, after the filming of the sales video wraps up; and he thanks his hack wallace for the help he provided and the good job he did; and especially notes:
"I like how you jumped in there, when I gave the vague and meaningless answer to 'What is it we'd have to see, in terms of improvements on the ground there?', and helped me out, by not asking me for specifics or 'challenging' me, but adding to the nonsense I made, by adding 'Also additional political or as some would say the beginnings of national political progress', and making it almost appear as though it were a follow-up question, instead of an add-on comment."
"Good job hack. Have you ever given any thought to helping our administration out, as an appointed player of some sort, in our final 15 months?"
Dem02020,
The answers to the questions are pretty obvious and those were the answers that were given. Anyone, including you folks on MMFA especially, who’s paying attention knows that the answers given were the right answers: You have to see more progress both in terms of security and in terms of nationwide reconciliation.
No elaboration needed. Most of the folks in Iraq who want Iraq to succeed (and not Iran or Al Qaeda) are working their butts off to make that happen. The trouble with you on the other side of the political fence is that you’ve been reduced to nit-picking - something we didn’t have to worry about in WWII in spite of much worse and more costly military mistakes.
Don’t worry. When the Iraqis think they can handle it by themselves, they’ll be only too happy to let us know. That could take six months. It could take three years. It’s the central front in the GWOT. Hell, even the enemy is telling you that. We have to win it or they will.
Uh, the Iraqis have already told us to take a hike. That province that you all talk about so splendiforously was won because we took a hike and let them handle their own security, gave them weaons and everything. Yes, these were the guys killing our troops but we gave them weapons. They didn't want Al Quada there any more than we did and they took control.
The central war on terror (terror is a tactic) will be won with cooperation/diplomacy with other countries and intelligence. We have no military options left and our military is worn out. If you have been listening to other generals, they say we can not sustain this occupation. This isn't a war, it's an occupation and we won't "win" anything by being an occupying force.
You'd better update your vocabulary, old man. This ain't your pappy's war nor your war. Heck, it isn't even a war. The GWOT is a rightwing talking point, no elaboration necessary. Telling the truth doesn't take long and they've been lying to us for almost 5 years now. Quit lying to yourself and making their sales pitch easier.
JuliaJayne,
No they have not told us to take a hike. They want us to stay until they think they’ve got it under control, and they’re getting a little po’d with Democrat congressman nit-picking their progress (especially when these same Democrats can’t get their own legislative act together - Do you want to compare Iraqi government polls with those on the U.S. congress?). The MSM will scrape every barrel to find either a former Baath party Iraqi or some kid in the U.S. military who will speak the “action line” for the left, but if the Iraqis in charge told us to leave, we’d be out of there. They’ve made that clear and so have we.
And I see that you are right in step with Chuckie where’s-the-nearest-TV-camera Schumer on the Sunnis joining us not because of anything we had done, but because they’d had enough with Al Qaeda’s tactics. Hell, our people over there have been reaching out to Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds ever since they’ve been there and they are totally po’d with the lack of appreciation for their efforts from you people on the left over here.
We have plenty of military options and ‘yes: “Our people are worn out”. What they are most worn out about is the crap from the MSM and the left here at home. What “other generals” are you talking about? Certainly not Patraeus, because he doesn’t speak the Democrat party line of defeat. We must be talking about those “other generals” that are near and dear to the hearts of upstanding senators like Barbara Boxer.
As for not winning anything with an occupation force, what do you think the aftermath of the fighting in WWII was all about? The socialists in this country and their buds in the media, who had total domination of the media at that time by the way, did five-plus years of hand-wringing (sound familiar?) regarding how screwed up our occupation of Germany and Japan was and how these two countries would never ever become democracies, that we were wasting our time and national resources, and all of that. Well, there’s a good illustration of the difference between you on the left and those on the right when it comes to PROBLEM SOLVING. There are those who get the job done and now, more than ever, there are those who nit-pick and lie through their teeth for political advantage.
You WISH this war was a “right-wing talking point” because then you people on the left might have some meaning to your lives. You won’t recognize that it’s a war until someone actually sets off a bomb on the same block you live on. This IS exactly like my pappy’s war in terms of the basic element: an enemy convinced that he must dominate the world and especially the U.S.A. as we are the only thing standing between him and his goal.
Finally, I note your prescription for how to win is right out of the left wing playbook and one which is a proven loser: diplomacy, cooperation with allies (meaning when said by those on your side of the political aisle: cooperation with the socialist wing of democratic governments). We paid a terrible price for diplomacy without the threat of military action in the late 30’s with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Diplomacy without strength and a demonstration of the will to prevail militarily has never won a war in the history of modern civilization. We won WWII because Roosevelt insisted on unconditional surrender and we won the cold war because Reagan insisted that it was either them or us.
As for telling the truth, check out a few history books and try to get a grip on what you think you know. Maybe you’re lying to yourself.
Hey, Old Marine...guess what?
THIS ISN'T WORLD WAR TWO!
If you think it is anything like WWII, then you either don't understand history, or have been totally brainwashed by GOP talking points.
By the way, read this:
[link to www.cnn.com]
Would this be categorized as a success...or, is that too "nitpicky"?
Yo, Nerzog, Thanks for the laugh. I knew I could count on you.
THIS IS WAR. I think it’s you who don’t understand history. Where did you learn history by the way - from some liberal American-hating professor?
As for the link to CNN, you gotta be kidding. THAT’S where you get your perspective on history?
This gets funnier by the minute.
Yo, Old Marine...did you even bother to read the article? Apparently not. It has nothing to do with history...it happened yesterday. It's called "news". Of course, FOX won't cover it, nor will Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, speaking of history...did you come up with that casualty count for U.S. troops in Postwar Japan and Germany? I'd love to know.
Actually, it's an occupation. War's over, Marine.
And what happened to those 18 points of progress? Three were met. The idea was we had to make all those benchmarks and if we couldn't then we'd start the drawdown. Instead, for Bush, the lies continue and nothing changes. Except the casualty count.
While you're at it, read this, too:
[link to www.rigzone.com]
If you don't grasp the significance, let me know, and I'll try to explain it.
Hey, Old Marine History professor...how many U.S. servicemen were killed in the postwar occupations of Germany and Japan?
Can I just butt in here and call you a hypocrite and a liar? The moslems are NOT out to get us and take over the USA (yet you want to take over their countries). And every poll has shown Iraqis demanding we leave. You're real eager to KILL people, aren't you?
Hey, Old Marine...READ THIS. You'll hate it, I promise.
[link to www.clarksvilleonline.com]
"See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda" President Bush
It looks like he's done at least this job well.
Hey Old Marine, 80% of the country (Iraq) wants us out.
"catapult the propaganda"
I've always thought that this was one of the more telling "Bushisms".
Apparently, George meant "vault" the propaganda, as in jump over. A catapult is a device used to hurl things. When he says his job is to "catapult the propaganda", he's admitting, albeit subconsciously, that his job is to hurl bullsh*t.
"... an enemy convinced that he must dominate the world and especially the U.S.A. as we are the only thing standing between him and his goal."
The latrine's right down the hall--I mean, before you let it all go right in your camos.
Old Marine,
I have to disagree with you here. You, with all due respect, are looking at this geo-political situation through the lenses of the late fifties. Seems to me that you are failing to realize that this is the 21st century, this GWOT that you speak of is nothing like the dire situation we faced with Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. You may not realize that but George Bush has said so. Remember after 9-11 he encouraged us to go shopping. Did Roosevelt do that after Pear Harbor? Do you really feel that the punks we are fighting in Iraq are as dangerous to world freedom as was Hitler? As a veteran of the Korean War (if I read your posting correctly) you are aware of the horrors of war. You seem to be certainly one of a few who would gladly march right back into hell for something that someone else tells you to believe in. I say that with respect sir. I just don't understand your eagerness to have our young boys fight and die for lies. Was Bush lying when he told us that Iraq had WMD's or when he admitted that they probably didn't have them? Which statment is a lie sir?
As a man who has seen death and sorrow you should know better. Shame on you, sir.
Perhaps I don't understand military issues, but what exactly would constitute progress, much less victory? What constitutes success?
Less overall violence?
Fewer Al Quada (do they come with tattoos?)
No major terrorist attacks in this country? (Then it seems we have already won.)
The capture of Ben Laden? (He is in Pakistan by the way.)
In WWII it was easy to measure success. What are we using in Iraq? (This is the question that Wallace should have asked and which you seem prepared to clearly answer.)
I await your response.
I think Old Marine pictures Osama Bin Ladin signing an unconditional surrender on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Hey, that would be cool.... I wonder if President Numbnuts would wear a tux for the occasion? Problem is...OSAMA ISN'T IN IRAQ.
I think his idea of victory is a US flag waving over every arab capital, surrounded by huge mountains of corpses. Genocide is the right-wing concept of "victory".
Apparently. I was masochistically listening to Rush Limbaugh last week. He had a caller who claimed to be an Iraq vet. He vilified the Liberals for "handcuffing" the troops in Iraq. I've heard variations of this charge, and the only thing I can think of is that he's complaining about our concern over civilian casualties. I guess, in his mind, if we loosened up the rules of engagement so that they could kill anything that moves, we'd finally "win". I doubt that many American soldiers feel this way...at least I hope they don't.
Oldmarine,
In George W. Bush's "global war on terror", you say (as he does) that Iraq is "the central front".
I have a question about that; and I will admit right up front, that my question is meant to either expose you as an insincere fraud simply repeating the Bush administration's rhetoric...
...or to find out instead, that you are a Good and Patriotic American, who actually believes in and would sacrifice for, George W. Bush's "global war on terror".
Oldmarine, will you sacrifice your life in Iraq?
And if you are too old (or not, either way it doesn't matter), will you sacrifice the lives of your Children, and the lives of your Grandchildren, in Iraq on "the central front" in the "global war on terror"?
I anticipate you saying yes to both of those questions, and so would ask you to please tell me (and I cannot over-emphasize how sincere this question is):
How do you think the sacrifice of your life in Iraq, serves the National Security of the American People?
If you could make a sensible answer to that question, I would appreciate it.
And I'd add, that your answer, if sensible and understandable enough, could change not only my idea about Iraq, but most if not all of the American People's...
...because I am under the impression that the American People never shirk their National Security, and yet an overwhelming number of Americans want our Troops out of Iraq, primarily for the reason that they see no National Security purpose being served to us, by the sacrificing of U.S. Troops there.
So again, if you would sacrifice the lives of yourself and your Children and your Grandchildren in Iraq, on George W. Bush's "central front" in his "global war on terror", then please tell me how your sacrifice serves U.S. National Security?
It's a good question, and I'm thanking you up front, for taking the time to answer it.
Dem02020,
These are good points and something that you and I can get our teeth into. Thanks for the opportunity.
“The central front on the GWOT”. It’s not just Bush saying that. Ahmajinidad has, in effect, said that. (Of course, it’s complicated for the guys in charge in Iran: They could use Al Qaeda’s help but Al Qaeda is a Sunni deal and funded primarily by the Saudis whereas Hezbollah and Muhtada Al Sadr are supported by Iran - a competition that does not work in the favor of either if they want to defeat Israel and the U.S.).
What do you think: central front or NOT the central front? If Iraq is not the central front, what do you think it is?
I am certainly repeating the Bush doctrine because I think it is the right doctrine: “Freedom and liberty are worth fighting for” and, moreover, those governments which repress freedom and liberty are natural enemies. Thus, it is in the best interests of the U.S. to promote and defend freedom and liberty.
Yes. If I were a youngster again, I’d volunteer for the USMC just as I did in December 1950 at the age of 17 (inspired by the Chosen Reservoir retreat when the PRC joined up with the North Koreans). I personally know people that I work with who have sons and daughters in Iraq and I actively support them, the wounded Marines foundation, and the Disabled American Veterans. It’s not a big deal. There are many who do the same and don’t make a fuss about it.
As for George W. Bush, I’ll make you a standing bet, assuming I live that long, that in about thirty years he’ll be recognized as one of the best presidents the country has ever had - in spite of the fact that he is short on rhetoric talent - right in there with Harry Truman in that regard.
“How do you think … People?” Dem02020, I don’t understand your question. Most of those who volunteered for the military have more of a sense that there is something larger in life than themselves and want to serve that greater good. Obviously, the U.S. military has served the national security.
Now, you go on to argue that “an overwhelming number of Americans want our Troops out of Iraq, …” etc. I question that. The only poll that matters is how you vote in an election or what you do when the chips are down. My sense is that the MSM makes news in a large part from their own polls and the Democrat party bias of the MSM is well established. I would stake a large bet that the American people do not want defeat in Iraq, are sick and tired of hearing just the bad news, and are ready to make the Democrat party pay the price at the polls come Nov 2008.
Okay. Enough about me and my opinions. How about you? I’m curious as to how you developed the political opinions that you have. Thanks for being a gentleman.
Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.
I asked you a simple question, and you responded with several hundred words, and it appears you made a qualified answer of:
Yes. If I were a youngster again...
To the question of:
Would you sacrifice the lives of yourself and your Children and your Grandchildren in Iraq, on George W. Bush's "central front" in his "global war on terror"?
Great.
You neglected to tell me if you would sacrifice the lives of your Children and Grandchildren, on "the central front" in George W. Bush's "global war on terror".
As for my question of:
How do you think the sacrifice of your life in Iraq, serves the National Security of the American People?
If you answered that, who could know, from the senseless rhetoric you made.
So what, and never mind that... as for sacrifices, if you could answer whether or not you'd sacrifice the lives of your Children and Grandchildren, on "the central front" in George W. Bush's "global war on terror", I'd appreciate it.
And also, could you give a simple answer, without the senseless and windy and empty rhetoric, to this important question:
Are you volunterring the Sons and Daughters of the American People, for their lives to be sacrificed in Iraq, as "the central front" in George W. Bush's "global war on terror"?
I don't need an evasive sales pitch, just a simple answer to the all-important question:
Are you volunterring the Sons and Daughters of the American People, for their lives to be sacrificed in Iraq, as "the central front" in George W. Bush's "global war on terror"?
Please just begin with a yes or no, and then launch into whatever rhetorical argument you wish to make.
Thanks.
I fear that Old Marine is too deeply mired in the John Wayne myth of American History. Most likely, he's a subscriber to the Limbaugh Letter; his talking points are very Limbaughesque in their absurdity. He reminds me of my late father, who was a staunch Republican and Clinton hater. On his deathbed, he introduced me to the doctor as his son who "voted for Clinton". It was a goodnatured dig, but we were on hopelessly opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I suppose that members of that generation feel compelled to compare all conflicts to WWII. It's great jingoism, but lousy history.
I know in my heart that all of us here --left or right-- would sacrifice and do anything we could for the cause of defending of our homes and our country. The noble wannabe WWII-like rhetoric is a fantasy-- a square peg that doesn't fit into the round hole of Iraq.
You're right, of course. They keep telling us that this is a "global war"..."a clash of civilizations"..."good vs. evil"..."the defining struggle of our generation"...etc.
Yet, they're trying to "win" it with 160,000 troops, soon to be 130,000. We sent three times that many just to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Bush won't even consider suspending his tax cuts for billionaires to pay for this "generational struggle". They won't even consider a draft to relieve our overtaxed military, because it would kill them politically.
Simply put, we're there for the oil, and 9/11 gave them the perfect excuse. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look.
Nerzog, Dave Chicago,
Just trying to get caught up here.
Nerzog,
Your Dad and I would have agreed on Clinton. I understand the father-son pain wrto political differences. On a couple of occasions, I had email exchanges of a political nature with my son and his buddies (actually several of my friends doing email debates with my son and his). My son and I now avoid political discussions but we do respect each other as good human beings.
The WWII thing is a worthwhile history lesson. Ignore it at your peril. I and others on this forum have attempted to point out the similarities with what is going on now –vs- militant Islam. I hope it doesn’t hit you too late to do any good.
Dave Chicago,
The same general comment on your square peg – round hole analogy. Rather than think about the analogy or lack thereof, consider what is really going on in the heart of Bin Laden, Ahmajinidad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Putin, etc. These guys are DOMINATORS. In every case, they have muscled the government structure and bribed, intimidated and/or murdered others to support them such as to allow them to dominate their citizens and the citizens of other countries.
As for the draft, I would dread such a thing for one simple reason: it gets the Democrat party closer to that Viet Nam situation wherein they can tear down an excellent military organization from within. Except for the fact that multiple deployments and criticism from the American left (that would include the MSM) have sapped their energy, they have been up to the task.
OIL! Yes. A lot of this is about oil. That’s one of the main reasons we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein (he threatened the entire Middle East oil supply) and why we can’t let the Iranians develop a nuclear weapons capability. Oil is the life blood of commerce.
Okay. So, what are you young pups doing to get these problems solved? ;-)
Pretending this is WWII Redux works for you, obviously, for whatever reason. But it's a fantasy.
There is no "front" in your GWOT(tm). No flags, no troops, no country. And there will never be a Victory-- no USS Missouri, no V-GWOT Day.
You don't do yourself or your aspirations any good by slamming those opposed to this war as somehow unpatriotic. Every one of us would rise to defend our country which we love just as much as you do. I'm a Vietnam vet. But being a vet or an "old Marine" doesn't make you any more patriotic or more understanding of sacrifice than the next person.
Much needs to be done for sure. Where we're at now, and what we are doing, isn't helping -- it's making things worse.
The Bush administration is setting us back every day he's in office. (And that claim is backed up by hard statistics showing the majority of Americans agree he and his Iraq policy are both being rejected.) I only hope that the damage he's doing can be fixed and our course changed before it's too late.
Demo02020,
I’ll work my way through your response as I read it and try to be more attentive to the questions:
Other lives are not for me to sacrifice. Whether or not a grandchild or child joins up (two grandchildren are old enough but have not joined up and none of my kids enlisted when they were young enough to do so - their ages range from 43 to 50). Needless to say, I would be very proud of any grandchild who enlisted in these times but I’ve not said a word to either of them regarding this. If they ask, I certainly will. As for anyone who has sacrificed their life in this war and especially for their family, I am very humbly grateful to them and will help them in some small way, as I’ve done, and express my gratitude to them.
So, if you think my rhetoric is “senseless”, then we don’t have much more to discuss. Too bad. I thought we were giving it a try but it didn’t work out. You’ve heard what I had to say. I have not yet heard where you come down on these questions you’ve posed.
"Other lives are not for me to sacrifice."
Glad to hear it.
Of course, you evaded saying whether or not you'd sacrifice the lives of your Children, and your Grandchildren, on "the central front" of George W. Bush's "global war on terror".
I wonder why you wouldn't unequivocally sacrifice their lives?
It doesn't matter, now does it.
"Other lives are not for me to sacrifice."
Not on "the central front" in George W. Bush's "global war on terror"?
Not in Iraq?
Good.
You should consider that well... have in emboidered on a pillow, or made into a bumper sticker...
"Other lives are not for me to sacrifice."
But you do know that 3,781 lives of U.S. Troops have been sacrificed so far, in Iraq, on "the central front" in George W. Bush's "global war on terror", you know that, right?
I suggest you heed your own words:
"Other lives are not for me to sacrifice."
...and stop volunteering and cheering on the deaths, of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, for something that has nothing to do with the National Security of the American People.
Well said, Dem.
It seems that Old Marine has a narrow rhetorical comfort zone, and if your questions pull him off of his talking points, he just ignores them.
Dem02020,
So much for dialogue. You just lied about what I said less than two hours ago: “cheering on the deaths, of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq”. Based on how you started your dialogue I assumed we were going to have a serious thoughtful exchange but you busted it, brother, when you flat out lied about what I said.
What is it about “something larger than yourself” that you don’t get? Why do YOU think American youth volunteer for military service? I’d love to hear your answer if you think you’ve got one. Come to think of it, you haven’t answered your original questions - as I very politely requested you to do.
What say you? Are you up for some serious discussion or just happy being where you are on this subject, i.e. nowhere?
"I assumed we were going to have a serious thoughtful exchange"
My expecations of that from YOU were met above with your "Democrats would want to tear down the military".
Serious, thoughtful.
"If Iraq is not the central front, what do you think it is?"
You really must let go of the WWII paradigm. There is no "central front" in the "War on Terror". Terrorism is a tactic used by pissed off people who don't have an army. At best, it's a loosely knit network...they don't have a "headquarters" or a home base. All they need is money and a shared ideology.
It's like proclaiming Cincinatti as the "Central Front" in the war on cancer. It's nonsense.
I'll never understand why people like Old MArine aren't angry that GWB is using our troops to make a business deal for oil. This spreading freedom stuff is just one of the many sales pitches when another wasn't working. Gee, how many rationalizations have there been. GWb has cynically used our troops. This is a travesty, yet OM says he'll be the "greatest president ever" in 30 years. Yeah, right.
"This spreading freedom stuff is just one of the many sales pitches when another wasn't working."
That's right. According to the book "Hubris", Wolfowitz is even on record admitting that WMD was the one issue they settled on that could be used to sell the war to the public.
I watched Bill Moyer's Journal yesterday on the 9/11 commission findings. The first thing on 9/12 that Bush and Cheney were asking is what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Richard Clarke told them on repeated occasions that it had nothing to do with 9/11 but GWB wouldn't hear of it and kept asking him to find something. They were not interested in finding and or punishing the actual perpetrators of 9/11, although 5 years later they finally got at least KSM. Now the OBL un it is defunct. Why is that?
Yes, and Paul O'Neil commented on the same thing in his book. In fact, several people have reported that the Bush administration was intent on overthrowing Saddam before 9/11...they just needed a pretext. In the rampant fear and jingoism which engulfed the country following 9/11, they found it easy to sell their ill-conceived adventure using manipulated intelligence.
Unlike our buddy, Old Marine, I don't think history will be very kind to President Numbnuts and his puppeteers.
You got your information from Bill Moyers!
That explains it all. The guy is a Democrat party hack who has lied through his teeth on numerous occasions.
Really? When?
Since you are so wise and mature, OM, a few questions:
1) Why the childish insults in your post? No one has stooped to your level, but its the "Democratic" party and no one here wants to get rid of the military.
2) You have said a few times that the troops have been worn down by the Dems "nit-picking." Are they not fighting for our rights to dissent/discuss? When you fought, would you have been discouraged that every single citizen was not behind you? When you were in a foxhole fighting bravely, did your thoughts go to those at home who did not completely agree with your mission?
3) Since you think Moyers is a hack, but you will not provide evidence for your claim, please list the websites/media outlets where we should be receiving our news and information.
4) I saw in later posts that you don't agree with having a draft. Do you think we have enough troops to perform the possible genocide you may (I know its not definite, but you did say that this struggle could lead to the end of the Quaran) be advocating.
5) How is your rhetoric different from the people you say want to "dominate" us? If we removed the word "Quaran" and substituted "Bible" you would sound an awful lot like those trying to "dominate" us.
Oldmarine, I have a suggestion, suit up and go over to Iraq. Heck they lowered the standards to take felons in the service I'm sure they would take you as well since they're kind of stretched thin. Heck I know of 7 soldiers, unfortunately 2 have died and one is suffering from a gun shot wound to the head (sorry I don't know if it's front or back of the head) who would love for you to get a true picture of Iraq. Just think you can get the real story and take their place working with all those Iraqis who love us sooooo much. That's sounds like a win win situation since you think it's going so well and there are plenty of soldiers who are more than ready to come home. After all, "Mission Accomplished" according to "the decider" occurred back in May 2003 and major combat efforts have ceased.
See that's the problem with some on the right, they don't deal in reality.
"when the iraqis think they can handle it themselve they'll be only too happy to let us know". and why would they do that? when they can have our soldiers there dying to keep order? like john kerry said yesterday, that kind of position leaves us with no leverage with the iraqi government. perhaps you are happy to let the iraqis dictate to us, but i'm not.
I wish MMFA had a community Chris Wallace doll to stick pins into so that at least we might get that ubiquitous smirk off his face. Poser.
Wow, Wallace has really ticked MMFA off this week, twice the exposure (picture wise) of any of the other subject matter today. (And twice as much publicity for FOX.
I think all 4 of us already know about Fox "news."
Yeah, baby. I'm going to find Fox "news" on my telly tonight just because of the exposure here at MMFA. What a crack up ;-0)
What is this Fox News I keep hearing about here? I think I'll start watching it, along with the other hundreds of liberals who visit this site and have never heard of it either. Lord knows how much we want to watch right-wing propaganda.
And those numbers will make the difference between Fox News staying up or shutting down, and won't MMfA feel stupid then for giving them the publicity! Oh, the irony!
oscar, are you taking tommy's place today? don't discuss them because it gives them publicity.
Nope, I just noticed when I posted that MMFA had shown the Wallace video clip on both this and the Stossel post. Trying to figure out the reason as I know the people at MMFA never make mistakes. Maybe the webmaster had too much to drink at the virtual party Friday afternoon. :)
Oh yeah. Until Media Matters gave Fox News all this publicity, thousands returning from Mars were unaware that Fox News existed.
They defame foxes everywhere. I'm partial to stunned germanshepard "news."
Nothing new, more of FOX and its propaganda pieces for this illegal war.
Old Marine, here's another question for you to ignore. If, as you say, Bush's "War on Terror" is like WWII, what are the specific similarities? Where is Al Qaeda's army? Where is their air force? Where is their navy? What territories have they conquered and occupied with armed troops? When we "win", from whom will we accept surrender?
Here's your chance to ecucate a pointy-headed liberal; knock yourself out.
That should be "educate". See? I can't even spell.
Nerzog,
(Just multi-tasking as are probably most on this thread. I was concentrating on what I had hoped would be an argument with Demo02020, but it didn’t pan out.)
I’ve pointed out the comparisons today and numerous times in the past (although you may have either missed the posts or ignored them). I’ve also defined victory in the GWOT.
So, since you brought it up again, here’s a twist: How’s about you telling me where the GWOT differs from WWII?
Ciao!
WWII v. Wars of today
1) The enemy wore in WWII uniforms and we could identify it.
2) We were fighting countries in WWII not extreme ideologues who hid out in certain countries.
3) In WWII, when a country attacked us (Japan) we did not attack a neighboring country based on trumped up reasons.
4) In WWII, we were not attacked on the mainland of the United States.
5) In WWII, we rationed goods and made sacrifices as a country and there was a draft. Today, we have lower taxes, a volunteer army and no rationing. We also took care of our wounded veterans and made that a priority.
6) WWII was over less than four years after we became involved. The Iraq "war" has no end in sight.
7) WWII ended when we toppled governments. Our occupations of those countries has been largely peaceful unlike Iraq.
8) In WWII, victory was easy to define. Today the goal posts keep moving.
9) In WWII, we truly had a leader as President.
10) In WWII, our freedom was truly at stake. Today, we may be attacked, but the size of the enemy "armies" (and I use that term loosely) could never occupy our country.
I am sure there is more.....
That's a good list. One of the most important is that we had a well defined enemy whose resources could be exhausted. They were defined "nation states" with borders and a finite population. They had leaders who could surrender to us. The "Global war on terrorism" is a fight against a tactic, not a specific group of people. Their membership is fluid, and can be of any nationality. As you point out, they are more like criminals who hide amongst the population, not an army that represents that population. We brought Japan and Germany to their knees by bombing their factories and their cities (total war). If you declare "total war" against the terrorists, what are you going to bomb?
One HUGE difference is that Al Qaeda does not have the manpower or resources to defeat us in a standup fight. Germany and Japan did, at least potentially. If Hitler hadn't invaded the U.S.S.R., or had developed the Atom bomb first, it could have turned out differently.
Al Qaeda can sting us, for sure, but they can't conquer us.
Nerzog,
I pretty much agree with everything you've said here.
Friedbergboy1422,
1) Uniforms: True in some areas of the GWOT but not in all; exceptions noted below.
2) Countries –vs- Ideologies: We’re up against governments in the GWOT also: Iran and Syria. Iran is probably the foremost supporter of anti-US/Israeli groups which employ terror as the principle means of achieving their objectives: Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, and the Mahti Army in Iraq. Incidentally, both of these forces wear uniforms, i.e. they don’t slink around in Middle Eastern civilian garb much of the time when they’re on offense.
As for ideology, their ideology is comparable to the ideologies of the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists in that it’s their way or the highway. My own sense is that the ideology of fanatical Islam is the more deadly in that it has a “divine” component to it which is beyond any living figure: Allah as opposed to Hitler and the Emperor (who was sort of divine himself, I guess).
3) Attack a neighboring country: Right. We did attack Iraq in what is called “preventative war”, just as Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as an act of preventative war. The reasons were not trumped up. We’ve been through that argument over and over again.
4) Mainland of the U.S.: True although the Japanese did send bomb-bearing balloons on the jet stream hoping to hit Seattle and points south and the Germans did send saboteurs who were fortunately caught.
5) Rationed goods, personal sacrifices, and the draft: Right on the first two. We do today take care of our wounded veterans with high priority. Are you implying otherwise?
6) Length of the War: So what? The revolutionary war took 8 years and the cold war lasted (beginning with the Berlin airlift) 40 years (culminating in Yelstin’s take over of the parliament building in Moscow). It just seems like forever to you because it’s been 4 years since the invasion of Iraq and 6 since 9/11. Hang in there. With your help, we could probably get it over a lot more quickly than you might otherwise imagine.
7) WWII ended when these two government unconditionally surrendered - and that is how this one will end (IMHO): when little kids are no longer taught that infidels must die. That could mean the end of the Quran but that’s just telling it like it is.
8) Definition of victory: I just did it.
9) Roosevelt was great and inspirational. His insistence on unconditional surrender was the key to a completely transformed Germany and Japan. I think George Bush is also inspirational and he is dead on in what is known as “The Bush Doctrine”, i.e. that freedom and liberty are craved by all and that those who dominate others through one form of tyranny over another are our natural enemies.
You made some good comparisons; but you missed the essential similarity: war against those who would dominate us and change our way of life.
"2) Countries –vs- Ideologies: We’re up against governments in the GWOT also: Iran and Syria. Iran is probably the foremost supporter of anti-US/Israeli groups which employ terror as the principle means of achieving their objectives: Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, and the Mahti Army in Iraq. Incidentally, both of these forces wear uniforms, i.e. they don’t slink around in Middle Eastern civilian garb much of the time when they’re on offense. "
So, if we are at war with all of these countries, why not invade them? Do you begrudge this administration for not invading Iran or Syria? How on earth are we going to muster up the forces to fight these battles? Why did Bush not listen to one of his generals (his name escapes me) and not send 300,000+ troops to the region if his doctrine is to be taken seriously? Do you blame him for not sending more troops?
"As for ideology, their ideology is comparable to the ideologies of the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists in that it’s their way or the highway. My own sense is that the ideology of fanatical Islam is the more deadly in that it has a “divine” component to it which is beyond any living figure: Allah as opposed to Hitler and the Emperor (who was sort of divine himself, I guess)."
Biggest difference here is manpower. There are simply not enough forces on the other side for war on that scale.
"3) Attack a neighboring country: Right. We did attack Iraq in what is called “preventative war”, just as Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as an act of preventative war. The reasons were not trumped up. We’ve been through that argument over and over again."Pre-emptive war goes against everything this country has ever stood for. We can agree to disagree here.
4) Mainland of the U.S.: True although the Japanese did send bomb-bearing balloons on the jet stream hoping to hit Seattle and points south and the Germans did send saboteurs who were fortunately caught. (Big difference)
cont. in next post
5) Rationed goods, personal sacrifices, and the draft: Right on the first two. We do today take care of our wounded veterans with high priority. Are you implying otherwise?"
Yes, I am.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19916581/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19916581/
Also, check to see how your representatives voted in many measures that would favor giving our troops the care they need:
http://www.iava.org/full-ratings-list
Since you believe the enemy is more dangerous than WWII, why is there no draft? WHy is the country as a whole not asked to do anything for these brave men and women who are fighting for us? You had to be offended when Rumsfeld said "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want," right?"6) Length of the War: So what? The revolutionary war took 8 years and the cold war lasted (beginning with the Berlin airlift) 40 years (culminating in Yelstin’s take over of the parliament building in Moscow). It just seems like forever to you because it’s been 4 years since the invasion of Iraq and 6 since 9/11. Hang in there. With your help, we could probably get it over a lot more quickly than you might otherwise imagine."
My help? If I believed this war (Iraq, not the war on terror), was as important as you say it is, I would be there in a minute. The enemy in this case has no capacity to dominate us or rule our country."7) WWII ended when these two government unconditionally surrendered - and that is how this one will end (IMHO): when little kids are no longer taught that infidels must die. That could mean the end of the Quran but that’s just telling it like it is."
So, you think killing people, some of them innocent will convince later generations of those same people that we shouldn't die? And you are against diplomacy? With that end of the Quaran quote, I am wondering why you are not advocating invading Saudi Arabia, India et al. If this is truly what you think may need to happen, you should be advocating EVERY able-bodied, man and woman to sign up now. This sounds like potential genocide and puts our side (if we were to follow your advice) at the level of the other side. If you truly think that the "end of the Quaran" is a possible outcome, you are advocating killing the "infidels" in a different manner, but saying the same thing."8) Definition of victory: I just did it."
Yes, and it sounds like potential genocide. If someone killed your father and you only knew that your father was dead, would you fight back against that enemy or would you say "Oh, he wanted death to all the infidels, I better surrender." The same tactics you abhor from the enemy you are embracing."9) Roosevelt was great and inspirational. His insistence on unconditional surrender was the key to a completely transformed Germany and Japan. I think George Bush is also inspirational and he is dead on in what is known as “The Bush Doctrine”, i.e. that freedom and liberty are craved by all and that those who dominate others through one form of tyranny over another are our natural enemies."
If you think that Bush is great and inspirational, why not advocate your grandkids to sign up? You think the enemy is potentially more dangerous than WWII, correct? We need them. You should also be for mandatory service in the armed forces by everyone in this country. There are more believers of Islam than any other religion. Do you propose that we get rid of those in this country who practice the faith?
"You made some good comparisons; but you missed the essential similarity: war against those who would dominate us and change our way of life."
How would they dominate us?
OM, thank you for your service, but if we truly are to keep our identidy as the beacon of liberty and hope, we should act like it.
"change our way of life"
The "enemy" has already succeeded in doing that--beyond their expectations. Terrorism worked, courtesy of George Bush & his enablers.
There's a reason why Bush's approval rating is 35% and it isn't because of the your whipping boys, the "MSM" and America-Hating Democrats. We are smart enough to smell gross incompetence.
Of course, this is all in reference to the Global War on Terrorism, in which the War in Iraq is only a costly diversion. Imagine the outcome if Sherman had taken his army into Mexico instead of through Georgia.
Nerzog,
You couldn't be more wrong. Iraq is the central front in the GWOT.
Don't make me bring up the Guadal Canal analogy again. ;-)
Guadalcanal? I fail to see any parallel...I must have missed your earlier post on this subject. At Guadalcanal, the enemy wasn't hiding within a major city...the enemy had naval and air support...the enemy wore the uniform of a foreign nation...where's the relevence? Maybe you're referring to it as a turning point for the Japanese? Do you think our "winning" in Iraq will be a major turning point for Al Qaeda?
Here's a major difference...at Guadalcanal, Japan lost valuable men and equipment which couldn't be replaced. What will Al Qaeda lose in Iraq that cannot be replaced? They have no navy or airforce...all they have are lightly armed people, and they can get fresh recruits from anywhere.
You also implied earlier that to win this we have to wipe out Islam. Are you serious?
Paraphrasing a WWII song, 'there'll be hot time in 'ol Baghdad, when we go marching in'. Into the HQ of the GWOT!! With our allies, the Russians, French, British. And the Iraqis lining the streets, kissing our GIs.
Oops, wait. I forgot that we did that. Five years ago. And I guess we're pretty much alone there now, too.
Nerzog, great what if! Perhaps if Sherman had turned right in Tennessee instead of left through Georgia, we wouldn't have the border problems we have today, but on the flip side, we could be singing "Dixie" instead of the "Star Spangled Banner" at sporting events, etc. Maybe we need to get Newtie working on a boook with the above premise.
That would be a great flick. I think someone did a movie a while back that examined how things might be different if the South had won, but I don't remember the name of it.
Hmmm... He must be taking lessons from the liberal media.
just a short note, please do call fox news and if you want to please you the correct term Faux news.
According to Old Marine, in reference to our troops...
"criticism from the American left (that would include the MSM) have sapped their energy"
Old Marine, do you really think our troops are that fragile? They're dodging bullets and roadside bombs, and you think their effectiveness is diminished by what the Media says about George Bush's policies? If offending their political sensibilities incapacitates them, we need to revisit their training. What if a Democrat wins the next election? Will conservatives like yourself refrain from criticizing the new commander in chief so that our troops won't be offended?