Why should we listen to these conservatives on foreign policy?
SUMMARY: When considering what kind of platform to offer conservative commentators' criticism of President Obama's reaction to events in Iran, the media should remember these commentators' previous discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about other foreign policy issues, particularly the Iraq war.
On newspaper opinion pages and in recent appearances on cable news, conservative commentators have criticized President Obama's reaction to unfolding events in Iran. However, in considering what kind of platform to offer these commentators' criticisms, the media should remember their previous discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about foreign policy issues, particularly the Iraq war.
One prominent example is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which stated in a June 18 editorial: "Now the President who likes to say that 'words matter' refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control." And in a June 15 editorial, the Journal wrote, "President Obama came to office promising the world's dictators an open hand in exchange for an unclenched fist. ... [Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has repudiated the President's diplomacy of friendly overture. It turns out that the 'axis of evil' really is evil -- and not, as liberal sages would have it, merely misunderstood. The [Iranian] vote should prompt Mr. Obama to rethink his pursuit of a grand nuclear bargain with Iran, though early indications suggest he plans to try anyway." The editorial asserted that if a report in The New York Times was correct, "then Mr. Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter and the mullahs will play him for time to get their bomb."
However, the Journal editorial page has a record replete with discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about foreign policy:
Iraq
We don't have much time for the argument that President Bush's Iraq policy is about "blood for oil." But if anyone is looking for reasons to doubt his stated commitment to bring democracy to that country, they need only look at the way his Administration has been handling the Iraqi opposition.
The Iraqi National Congress is by far the most significant player in that movement. It's an umbrella organization led by Ahmad Chalabi, a University of Chicago-educated mathematician and banker. Its professed goal is a unified, pluralistic and democratic Iraq -- which is why it draws support from among all Iraqi ethnic groups, including the two Kurdish factions. In 1996 it succeeded in unifying the Kurds and actually taking ground from Saddam's army only to be turned back after the Clinton Administration denied air support. The INC has since brought out scores of defectors and tons of information on Saddam's weapons programs.
All in all a good set of allies -- to everyone but the State Department. Back in November we reported that Foggy Bottom was nickel-and-diming the aid requests of the INC, contrary to the spirit of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and Mr. Bush's statements about helping Iraqis liberate their own country. Our editorial apparently got some White House attention and the group's 2002 funds were finally released.
But 2003 finds State still trying to micromanage the INC budget, balking at funds to help the INC cooperate with Defense Department efforts to train Iraqi exiles, to restart the group's satellite TV channel, and even for the post of Arab media coordinator. We could go on. But the truth is that much damage has already been done. If the U.S. invades, the INC won't be the military or public relations asset it might have been.
We hope Messrs. Bush and [Tony] Blair understand that the ultimate political endorsement for disarming Iraq is not a nine-to-six Security Council vote, if by some miracle that can be achieved. It will be the nasty weapons and the cheering Iraqis the coalition finds when it liberates the country. And if the President continues to bow to the U.N. rebuffs much longer, Mr. [Richard] Holbrooke won't be the only Democrat attacking him from the right.
With the Pentagon declaring the end of "major combat" in Iraq, most Americans are responding with relief and pride. Our troops have performed with skill, courage and even honorable restraint in deposing a dictator half a world away in less than a month. The puzzle is why some Americans, especially media and liberal elites, continue to wallow in pessimism about this liberation.
Two weeks ago these elites were predicting a long war with horrific casualties and global damage. Then at the sight of Iraqis cheering U.S. troops in Baghdad, they quickly moved on to fret about "looting" and "anarchy." Now that those are subsiding, our pessimists have rushed to worry that Iraqi democracy and reconstruction will be all but impossible. What is it that liberals find so dismaying about the prospect of American success?
In discounting these gloomy new predictions, it helps to consider their track record. Among the anticipated disasters that haven't come true: a "nationalist" uprising against U.S. troops, a la Vietnam; the "Arab street" enraged against us; tens of thousands of civilian casualties and a refugee and humanitarian crisis; bloody house-to-house urban combat; Iraq's oil fields aflame, lifting oil prices and sending the economy into recession; North Korea ("the greater threat") using the war as an excuse to attack; the Turks intervening in northern Iraq and at war with the Kurds; and all of course leading to world-wide mayhem.
[...]
We don't write this in any spirit of gloating, because in fact this union of American left and far right may pose a long-term problem for liberated Iraq. Nation-building will require both patience and political consensus to succeed. Looking for vindication, these voices may too quickly look for reasons to call every mistake or difficulty a disaster -- and demand a U.S. retreat. As optimists ourselves, we'll hold out hope that the sight of free Iraqis will cause at least some of them to revive their faith in American principles.
Other misinformation
WSJ falsely claimed that FISA court approved "warrantless wiretapping program" exposed in 2005
WSJ defended Bush domestic surveillance program with falsehoods -- again
Salon.com executive editor Gary Kamiya also noted the recent Journal editorials on Obama and Iran and the paper's past record on foreign policy issues.
Other prominent media conservatives also strongly supported action against Iraq in the time leading up the war, yet are now criticizing Obama for his response to Iran and North Korea. Media Matters for America has also provided examples of misinformation from those figures:
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post columnist
Current statements on foreign policy:
On June 16, Krauthammer said of Iran on Fox News' Special Report: "What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways -- suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world. And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as [Ronald] Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1980, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it." Later, Krauthammer said "there is no way [Obama] is going to sweet talk Iran out of its nukes" and that "the only chance, short of a military attack, of stopping this program is with a revolution in the street, which would change the orientation of Iran and change it away from an existential enemy of America, Israel, and the Arab states. That's what's at stake."
Also during the show, Krauthammer said of North Korea: "Long-range missile tests, the explosion of a nuclear weapon probably a third the size of Hiroshima, the declaration that the plutonium the Bush administration had frozen will be weaponized entirely, the entire stock, and the declaration that the uranium program which the Bush administration talked about, which Democrats had said was an invention of the Bush administration, the uranium enrichment is going to start up. All of that and the seizure of two Americans. If that is not a repudiation, a humiliating repudiation of the Obama policy on North Korea, then nothing is."
Past statements:
Iraq
In a February 1, 2002, Washington Post column (retrieved from the Nexis database), Krauthammer predicted that an invasion of Iraq would lead to the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East, saying: "Iran is not a ready candidate for the blunt instrument of American power, because it is in the grips of a revolution from below. We can best accelerate that revolution by the power of example and success: Overthrowing neighboring radical regimes shows the fragility of dictatorship, challenges the mullahs' mandate from heaven and thus encourages disaffected Iranians to rise. First, Afghanistan to the east. Next, Iraq to the west."
On the June 1, 2004, edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, Krauthammer said, "[I]t's the beginning of the end of the bad news. I mean, we're going to have lots of attacks, but the political process is under way."
In addition, in a March 7, 2005, Time column, Krauthammer wrote:
Two years ago, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, I argued in these pages that forcefully deposing Saddam Hussein was, more than anything, about America "coming ashore" to effect a "pan-Arab reformation" -- a dangerous, "risky and, yes, arrogant" but necessary attempt to change the very culture of the Middle East, to open its doors to democracy and modernity.
The Administration went ahead with this great project knowing it would be hostage to history. History has begun to speak. Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, men only, but still a first. In Egypt, demonstrations for democracy -- unheard of in decades -- prompting the dictator to announce free contested presidential elections, a historic first.
And now, of course, the most romantic flowering of the spirit America went into the region to foster: the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, in which unarmed civilians, Christian and Muslim alike, brought down the puppet government installed by Syria. There is even the beginning of a breeze in Damascus. More than 140 Syrian intellectuals have signed a public statement defying their government by opposing its occupation of Lebanon.
Other misinformation
Krauthammer's claims about Bush's "steely" resolve against Al Qaeda conflict with reported facts
Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard
Current statements on foreign policy:
Also on the June 16 edition of Special Report, Barnes said, "Look, here is one of my objections, and that is President Obama says it's meddling if we support the democratic forces in Iran. Meddling. That's not meddling at all. That's supporting the people who see America as a model that they like to emulate." Earlier, he said there is a "totally false choice between on the one hand, if we talk tough and we support the democratic freedom forces in Iraq -- rather in Iran, that are in the streets, that want to have fair and honest elections, if we support them that somehow we will alienate this regime." He continued: "But it never works that way. Actually, you strengthen your hand, as Ronald Reagan found out in dealing with the Soviets. All of a sudden, they were making concessions on nuclear arms deals and so on that they had never even considered before. ... Obama talks about, well, we had this election campaign, and there was a debate, and so on. And now we're going to check to see if the vote was counted correctly. He acts like it is Florida in 2000 between Bush and Gore. The question here is the survival of one of the most hideous regimes in the world. And that's what's important."
Past statements:
Iraq
On the January 18, 2003, edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Barnes said, "[L]ook, the problem is not winning the war in Iraq. That's going to be easy. The problem right now is Hans Blix, the United Nations inspector in chief in Iraq, who seems to think his job is containment. You know, he says these inspections are a form of containment, and he wants to keep the inspectors there as long as possible, it seems to me, and has even said so."
On the April 10, 2003, edition of Fox News' Special Report, Barnes said: "[T]he good news is contrary to what you hear in the media, it gets easier now. The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war. ... Hezbollah is a part of the war on terrorism. Syria harbors terrorists in the Biqa Valley, Hezbollah and so on. The Saudis export terrorism in terms of Wahabi Islam, and things can be done to crack down on that. It doesn't mean sending troops into Riyadh or into Damascus or things like that. But certainly the U.S. now has leverage that it didn't have before winning this triumph in Iraq. ... [L]ook, it is clear what victory in the war is. When you see those statues topple and you know that's victory."
On the October 27, 2003, edition of Special Report, Barnes said, "But these terrorists are hitting soft targets. I mean, the U.N., the hotel, the Red Cross -- these are relatively soft targets. And I think they have a bad strategy. What do they gain from killing a lot of Red Cross personnel and a lot of U.N. personnel? I don't think they warm the hearts of Iraqis. They certainly don't build up more support in Europe or the United States. It is a last-ditch -- I think it is a desperate effort by these terrorists. It's not representative of a significant guerrilla force that's fighting the United States there."
In addition, on the November 17, 2005, edition of Special Report, Barnes said, "I think he [Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)] is just plain wrong in some of the things he said. And I certainly disagree with some of the others. But here is what he is wrong about, Brit [Hume, host]. You raised one of them. And that is, he says the war is intensifying. It's not intensifying."
Other misinformation
Barnes: Guantanamo is "kind of a country club"
On Fox News' Beltway Boys, Barnes denied that humans are a cause of global warming
Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard
Current statements on foreign policy:
On May 31, Kristol said on Fox News Sunday that "it might be worth doing some targeted airstrikes to show the North Koreans -- instead of always talking about, 'Gee, there could be consequences,' to show that they can't simply keep down the -- keep going down this path." And in a June 16 Weekly Standard blog post, Kristol wrote of Iran: "Question for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs: As 'things' have continued to unfold, is President Obama now willing to condemn the brutal actions of a violently illiberal regime? If not, what would the regime have to do to generate clear moral and political condemnation from our 'deeply troubled' president?"
Past statements:
Iraq
In testimony delivered February 7, 2002, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Kristol said: "[A]s in Kabul but also as in the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions of Iraq in 1991, American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators. Indeed, reconstructing Iraq may prove to be a less difficult task than the challenge of building a viable state in Afghanistan." Kristol continued: "The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity -- one President Bush sees clearly -- to transform the political landscape of the Middle East."
In an April 28, 2003, Weekly Standard column, Kristol wrote: "The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states."
And on the April 1, 2003, broadcast of WHYY's Fresh Air, Kristol said, "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
Other misinformation
Kristol falsely claimed Dems "renounce[] the use of force" against "jihadist Islamic threat"
The Washington Times
Current statements on foreign policy:
On June 17, a Times editorial stated that "American dithering radiates weakness and indecisiveness. It tells the Iranian regime that the United States is so eager to make a deal that it will not even defend its principles. The crisis seems to be an inconvenience that risks delaying the implementation of the vaunted 'engagement' plan. The administration would like to see this messy situation go away so the stately process of diplomacy can continue its march, unburdened by annoying freedom seekers with their banners, their chanting and their ideals." It continued:
The president should make a strong statement of support for the Iranian people to make clear that the world's greatest democracy approves of their actions. The United States must stand for the ideals that have been the hallmark of American idealism since the country's founding. We must take a strong stand against arresting opposition politicians, killing peaceful demonstrators, harassing and intimidating the press and perpetrating election fraud. It is our vocation as a nation to take a stand for freedom of speech; freedom of assembly; the right to redress grievances; free, fair and transparent democratic processes; and the aspirations of human liberty."
The Iranian people are fighting to create change they can believe in while the Obama team is sending a signal that says "No, you can't."
A May 27 editorial also asserted, "While President Obama pushes soft power, the North Korean dictator plays hardball. North Korea's underground nuclear test and missile trials show that the regime is probing Mr. Obama's resolve. Pyongyang apparently has concluded that the president's rhetoric of conciliation and understanding betrays serious weakness as a global leader. Like all tyrants, Kim Jong-il sees an open hand as a weak one." It also stated: "So far, the United States and other countries have failed to press North Korea to the limit of these U.N. measures, preferring diplomacy over action. This has only served as a means for North Korea to pursue its nuclear ambitions while the West mouths empty words." It argued that "President Obama should order the U.S. Navy, acting under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, to inspect all shipping in and out of North Korea. Measures also should be taken to inspect all aircraft and ground transport. If more resolute action is not taken, North Korea will hold a knife to the throat of the world -- forever blustering demands into its frightened ear."
Past statements:
Iraq
From a June 16, 2003, Times editorial:
From the beginning, Mr. [Colin] Powell pledged to promote foreign service officers wherever possible, a promise he has fulfilled. Though there are many talented and qualified FSOs, in the Foggy Bottom lingo, many more are disdainful of President Bush and have worked at cross-purposes with the White House. Career FSOs have pushed for "engagement" with Iran and North Korea, directly undermining the president's demands for tough stands against the two remaining "axis of evil" regimes. Nowhere has this insubordination been on greater display than in Iraq and the preparation for a democratic government.
State Department careerists have installed Saddam Hussein loyalists into key positions in the new government, while at the same time trying to shut down the pro-democracy Iraqi National Congress. Only because of Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator and one of the "good" career diplomats, have Baathists been banished from public life. Replacing Mr. [Richard] Haass with someone loyal to President Bush ideally someone as loyal as Mr. Powell himself and committed to the President's agenda will not be a panacea that cures all of Foggy Bottom's many problems. But it will be a start.
In addition, from an April 7, 2003, Times editorial:
Now that Saddam's Hussein's dictatorship is coming to an end, Capitol Hill supporters of Iraq's long-suffering democracy movement are more determined than ever to force the State Department to halt its efforts to deny assistance to the Iraqi National Congress, the main umbrella group for pro-democracy forces in Iraq. As Joel Mowbray reported Thursday on the op-ed page of The Washington Times, Secretary of State Colin Powell's department is working to undermine the INC by placing pro-Saudi individuals, some of them friendly to Saddam's Ba'ath Party, into key positions in a transitional Iraqi government.
[...]
As part of its longstanding effort dating back to the Clinton administration to marginalize and undercut Mr. Chalabi and the INC, the State Department has been blocking $7 million in aid for Liberty TV which is supposed to have been the main vehicle for broadcasting factual information into Iraq. Five senators have sent a letter to President Bush, made public last week, criticizing State Department stonewalling and urging the administration to free up the money for the station.
[...]
In an interview with this newspaper on Saturday, [Sen. Jon] Kyl [R-AZ] emphasized that the next important battle in Washington over the future of Iraq could take place this week, when a House-Senate conference considers a $2.5 billion Iraqi aid package. A key question is whether State or the Defense Department will administer the lion's share of the assistance to post-Saddam Iraq. So long as State continues to try to make life unpleasant for the INC, it can count on growing questions about its fitness to manage the Iraqi aid program.
Other misinformation
Wash. Times misrepresented Obama's position on Iraq war funding bills
Stephen Hayes, The Weekly Standard
Current statements on foreign policy:
Discussing Obama's response to the postelection protests in Iran on the June 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Hayes said:
We have moved, I think, from the Bush administration's policy of soft regime change to a policy now of de facto regime preservation, which I think is deeply disturbing and shameful.
The president has failed to really offer his support for the protesters at any time, and he has failed to directly question the results of the election.
Then, last night in an interview, he said, "Well, it doesn't really matter whether Mousavi is declared the victor or Ahmadinejad. There aren't major policy differences between the two."
I think that may have been true before the election. We don't know whether that would be true going forward.
But in any case, it was an awful thing to say. Because the protesters who are on the street right now are there largely for one of two reasons -- either they are supporters of Mousavi or they think the election was fraudulent.
So, by him saying that, he is, in effect, saying, "What you are doing doesn't matter that much." And I think that is shameful.
Past statements:
Iraq
Media Matters has identified instances in which Hayes advanced falsehoods and distortions to defend attempts by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. For example, on the December 9, 2005, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Hayes defended Cheney's December 2001 claim that 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. According to Hayes: "If you look at the front page of The New York Times in the days surrounding the vice president's claim, The New York Times was reporting the same thing." But as Media Matters noted, even after the Times and numerous other news outlets subsequently reported in May 2002 the FBI and CIA's finding that "no evidence" existed to substantiate the claim, Cheney continued to raise the possibility that such a meeting took place.
Additionally, in an article in The Weekly Standard's November 24, 2003, issue, Hayes attributed to "a top secret U.S. government memorandum" -- which Hayes identified as a memorandum produced by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- the conclusion that Saddam and Osama bin Laden "had an operational relationship." Hayes wrote of the memo: "Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources." In a January 9, 2004, interview with Denver's Rocky Mountain News, Cheney cited Hayes' article, claiming that "[i]t goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and was forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago." Cheney added: "That's your best source of information." However, following the publication of Hayes' article, the Pentagon released a statement asserting that "[n]ews reports" about the memo "are inaccurate," and that the portion of the memo to which Hayes' article referred "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."
Other misinformation
Cheney biographer Hayes' pattern of falsely defending the Bush administration's Iraq policy
CNN's Blitzer failed to note Hayes' false Iraq-Al Qaeda reporting, Cheney connections
Stephen Hayes: Conservatives' favorite authority on "The Connection"
From the June 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Well, officials in Iran told the media there -- or the word got out that they were accusing the U.S. of meddling in internal affairs, calling it "intolerable." That's the response you heard from the White House press secretary.
And you also saw just a glimpse of some of the cell-phone video that we're getting from some of those protests, many of them violent. We just don't know the extent of them because the reporting on the ground is still sketchy.
Let's bring in our panel. Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard. Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief for Fortune magazine. And syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Steve?
HAYES: We have moved, I think, from the Bush administration's policy of soft regime change to a policy now of de facto regime preservation, which I think is deeply disturbing and shameful.
The president has failed to really offer his support for the protesters at any time, and he has failed to directly question the results of the election.
Then, last night in an interview, he said, "Well, it doesn't really matter whether Mousavi is declared the victor or Ahmadinejad. There aren't major policy differences between the two."
I think that may have been true before the election. We don't know whether that would be true going forward.
But in any case, it was an awful thing to say. Because the protesters who are on the street right now are there largely for one of two reasons -- either they are supporters of Mousavi or they think the election was fraudulent.
So, by him saying that, he is, in effect, saying, "What you are doing doesn't matter that much." And I think that is shameful.
Let's take a vote - are POV and his ilk being unfairly targetted? I'll vote first.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which of those conservatives in the article has a good track record and grasp of foreign policy in your opinion? Why? What accurate predictions has that person made?
Which of these conservatives listed in the article would you feature if you were producing a show on foreign policy? Why would you pick them?
TB, you may think PoV made a slient point, but it's utter nonsense relatvie to anythign being discussed in this article. MMFA points MANY out errors that these men have made on the very subject their talking about and asks whetehr we should consider them credible. Then PoV yells CENSORSHIP.
If you think that legit you're an idiot. If PoV really believe his own BS in this case, then he is. If you want to argue, try making an defesinble relavant claim. We're not going to academically refute every bit of nonsense you guys vomit up. Say something halfway intelligent, and we'll put some effort into to showing you why you're wrong. Spout nonsense and we're going to point it out as such.
So, POV, tell me again why incompetent Neocons should still be given credence when history has proven they don't know what they are talking about.
I believe the point was why should we follow their plan when they've been so wrong before.
Not, they shouldn't be allowed to say what their plan is.
Keep waiting and get comfortable, snoop. Remember, these were the same idiots who asked what the Democrats' plan was when the Iraq War and the economy went south -- AND THEY WERE IN POWER!
Hey, Pavlov, that's pretty good; you dismiss the "silly straw man claim" and follow it up with a big honking Straw Man.
That's nimble, even for you. Congratulations on your audacity.
Secondly, as has been noted, the article asks "Why should we listen to these pundits with records unblemished by accuracy", not "Why do we let them speak?"
Straw men? Oh, yeah. Step away from the stove, you'll catch fire.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Seriously, this ought to be the case every time some whiny d-bag screams "OMGZ FREA SPEACH" when someone tells them to shut their piehole.
I guess you'll agree then that Fox stands for Full of eXcrement?
I am glad Obama is being criticized by his base. It shows that our party just won't go along with whatever he says, you know, like some with Bush?
Again, to the point of this thread, what valuable foreign policy insight has been gathered by any of the pundits listed above in your mind? What have they added to the debate?
Guess he's never seen John Stossel, either.
"MMFA is publicly endorsing censorship"
Unless you can show us that this is true it is simply a strawman argument. I understand that the 3 of you do not understand what a strawman argument is ("fair"-liberal, T-Bone, POV). But that is what defines a strawman argument. You are refuting an argument that no one is making. You are arguing against censorship while MMFA is arguing for accountability. If you want to argue against accountability, feel free. That is certainly the stance that "fair"-liberal takes for your fearless hero O'Reilly on a regular basis.
Do you even know what the word censorship means? Let me give you a clue. It isnt censorship to criticize any conservative. There was NO CALL for censorship. There wasnt anything close to a call for censorship. Your post couldnt have been any dumber or more irrelevant.
Maybe it was too big of a generalization, but of those listed in this article, who has a good recent track record?
This is just another 1st Amendment straw man.
Where is MMFA calling for the "shutting out" of Republican or right-wing voices?
All I see is MMFA asking WHY media outlets give them access if they are consistently and continually WRONG about almost everything.
How exactly does MMfA want the media to remember, what does that mean?
I am not arguing these people are right and don't disagree with their lack of expertise when it comes to foreign policy matters of late, but what precisely is MMfA asking be done here?
"However, in considering what kind of platform to offer these commentators' criticisms, the media should remember their previous discredited claims, predictions, and analysis about foreign policy issues, particularly the Iraq war"
Sounds to me like they want media outlets to give at least some consideration to truthfulness, competence and credibility when they decide who to give a podium.
This is not an anti-First Amendment stance.
There is a difference, and as Mousavi's spokesman answered; how would Obama like the same to be said about him and Bush?
In any event, we don't need a pundit-in-chief entangling himself and our country in every foreign policy affair as it's unfolding, especially another country's election.
Freedom of speech works better than censorship does. Not only will none of our readers trust Scientologists, they will know why they shouldn't.
MMFA isn't suggesting that neocons should be censored, they're encouraging a heartily skeptical appraisal of them.
If there was a group of Dems that were as far off as this group of Republicans, I wouldn't want them on my shows at all, would you? If you wouldn't, why would you ask these guys on the air?
Do you really mean using past success as an indicator of the usefulness of these commentators opinions is not valid? I do not understand that defense. Please explain.
Also, these guys apparently have no point of reference, going back to the 50's, when we installed the tyrannical Shah as our puppet in Iran, which caused the Islamic Revolution in the late 70's. How did our support end up working out for us then?
Also, they ignore the fact that progressive leaders on the ground in Iran are driving these protests, and this uprising on their own. Their movement is getting bigger day by day. They don't need our help. We always talk about regime change from within Iran itself, and this could be a start.
In other words, the neocon pundits don't need to have a defensible foreign policy of their own, as long as they simply continue to snipe at the president's.
They'd hang the deaths around Obama's neck and push for impeachment.
Wise beyond your years, Mag.
The last thing the U.S. government should do is openly or even covertly endorse or support Mousavi. Just the concern over the safety of his supporters in Iran should be more than enough to justify staying out of it.
September 9, 2007: From an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what you said in Iowa last week. “If we do not change course in Iraq soon, you’re going to see, two years from now, helicopters hovering over our embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad with people hanging” onto “the ladders just like Vietnam. Mark my words.”
SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that. Look, let me tell you, Tim, there is no possibility—no possibility—of a central government governing Iraq in any near term…
Or
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/why_surge_wont_work/
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0021
and remember...
all the leftist/progressive/socialist/democrats who said that Ronald Reagan's telling Gorbichov to "tear down this wall" would cause WW III by offending their pals in the USSR?
PS to the thought czars at mm(fvl), I have counted about 100 postings that have not been obscene. What's the number needed to become progressive-worthy?
Robert Kagan
Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
Fred Barnes
Stephen F. Hayes
Why should they be on my TV?
We let the Neoclowns take care of that. Their continuous hatred is nothing but obscene.
The Central Government in Iraq is not controlling Iraq now.
So why shouldn't we listen to Joe Biden, who hasn't been proven wrong yet?
(What I don't understand is, Superman just stood there while bullets bounced off him, but dodged when the gun was thrown. Strange.)
The thing referred to as Foreign Policy is always 'nation specific' (we have a relationship to specific nations, and not to anything as abstract as 'the world')... our relationship to every single nation in this world is first and foremost about our National Security: if we are threatened by another nation, then our relationship to them is primarily a matter for the U.S. Armed Forces, and the CIA and everybody else we rely upon for our National Security... and if we are not threatened by any particular nation, then let the Trading and the Tourism and the Treaties begin, let's all be warm and fuzzy and happy and dumb with our good friends and neighbors the nations that do not threaten us.
What about Iran?
There's two things about Iran to note here.
One, whatever threat Iran might pose to the American People, is a threat that our federal government, and most particularly the CIA, must evaluate for us... we have not the resources or the information to make this evaluation on our own, as individuals, outside of the resources and information collected and known by our federal government (CIA)... and so we defer in this question of what if any threat Iran poses to the American People, we defer and look to our federal government and to the CIA, when we believe they are being directed by and in the hands of trustworthy people.
And two, every single media hack mentioned above in the MMFA item, not only has no insights or special knowledge about Iran, but they are also every last one of them a part of the media front of the most untrustworthy administration the American People have ever had to suffer from their federal government and the CIA, namely the Bush Cheney administration...
They have zero credibility on the subject of Iran and IRAQ and Afghanistan, you name it.
Worse than zero credibility, they seem maliciously bent to spurring the American People any way they can, into a hostile and antagonistic stance with the nation and people of Iran... this was a mark of the Bush maladministration, and is a mark of their media front.
I defer to President Obama as to what (if anything) to say or do about Iran's recent election.
I absolutely mistrust and pay no mind to anything these hacks of the media front say on this or any other matter...
As the item above notes to us, they are the cheerleaders of the IRAQ invasion, and the liars about WMDs and 'al qeada links' and "yellow cake uranium" and you name it.
Wherever we truly stand in our relationship with Iran, you can bet money on the fact that these media hacks have no more information about it than do you or I, and that your and my safety and well being are the furthest things from their hack self-interested liar minds.
;o)
There is no non-biased, non-partisan watchdog. There's MediaMatters on one side and there's Accuracy in Media on the other, and both of them often offer conflicting reports. Which one is right and which one is wrong? Both have been proven wrong on multiple occasions, and often they're both right but they each give the story a slobbery partisan slant that makes them look so different they appear to conflict. So while all of you are here eating up your daily propaganda, there are people on the other side doing the same and criticizing your beliefs just as venomously and apparently solidly as you criticize theirs'. It's sick and filthy what politics have devolved to, two brainwashed slag pits full of partisan pitbulls, neither group of them in possession of the truth but both believing to be.
Don't just read news off of a site like this, it's the most intellectually robbing thing you can possibly do. Get the conflicting reports too, figure out what the facts are, and decide what's what.
There are several partisan watchdog groups. There are watchdog groups on the left, like Media Matters, that are fact-based. There are groups on the right, like AIM, that aren't. AIM tries to assert that they can determine motive and bias. MMfA doesn't.
The overwhelming majority of voices on TV are the same extremist rightwing minority imbeciles that got us bogged down in Iraq, made Iran a super-power in the Middle East, made Osama Bin Laden a victorious hero throughout the Middle East, killed & wounded tens of thousands of US troops needlessly in a war that weakens US national security, made the USA justifiably reviled the world over for it's arrogance, war-mongering, concentration camps, and torture policies, not to mention decimating the US economy to levels not seen since the Great Depression- and who does the "liberal media" turn to for thoughts on how to dig ourselves out if this nightmare created by conservative policies? Conservatives!
The "liberal media" in a nutshell!
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/obamas_first_100_days
The economy was not worse in the 70's when you take everything into account.
Mr. News
I just thought they should be brought up again. I don't know when, if ever, we'll have as dumb a president as Bush again. We should relish how utterly stupid he was. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.
Oh, and you aren't defending the MSM for this decision to prioritize this weekend's news? Good to know.
If this is your metaphor, tell us how many times Bush was out clearing brush in Crawford when Americans died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell us how many times a protester anywhere in the world died when Bush was taking his record number of vacation days. Keep in mind, Bush took his record number of vacation days despite two wars and a sinking economy. He was on vacation and celebrating McCain's birthday when New Orleans was under water. He was briefed on Katrina and went to San Diego and then claimed no anticipated the breach of the levees when there is film to the contrary.
So, eddie, is this the best you've got?
Here's the difference: Bush could have done something to prevent quite a bit of what happened in New Orleans, and chose not to, so he could reinforce the GOP meme that government is incompetent (funny that it's most incompetent when the GOP put their idiots like "Brownie" in control way over their heads). Obama cannot stop the killing in Iran without America being accused (mostly by the traitorous right in this country) of intervening in another country's political business (just as the traitorous right in this country is currently accusing him of not intervening in another country's political business).