Letters to the Editor
-
Enter Petraeus, stage left, lying
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm
The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.
As I expected, absolutely no substantive evidence offered for this accusation. Just a predictable, baseless lie.
The Man Called Petraeus is Above Reproach! He even has medals!
-
casual_observer.
Weird `~` in a yucky way. The word 'weird' is very interesting.
Maybe L.G. is a mommy figure? The creeps sleep with a mommy sub?
On the road GOPS get scared. Neocons crawl under moo-cow Lindsey's G.'s covers?
-
GC
OT? I want to know if my e-mails go anywhere besides to the YKW? The NSA.
Glenn, just a yes or no? On Saint Patrick's Day, I sent a farm Shepherd Pie recipe.
I read all of the emails I get, including the one you sent. Due to volume and time constraints, I don't always have the ability to answer them all, including many I really wish I could answer (including even ones that I flag with a little red Outlook flag signifying my intent/desire to answer).
-
bebop @ udder neocons
I mean, he was even at the infamous press BBQ. There were the ladies and gentlemen of the press, swinging on swings, playing frisbie, eating ribs, laughing and twirling in the sun, and there was Graham, sitting on the patio with this bizarre grin on his face. It's just wierd, I tell you.
-
Slightly OT - An ill wind needs a draft to notice it?
I was going to remain in satire mode all day, but found myself getting sick over a smokescreen.
One comment on topic: Foreign policy expertise could be objectively defined as having conceived and implemented foreign policy for a long period of time with successful or positive results. Sorry, McCain, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bush, Feith, Yoo, Kristol, Perle, etc. don't fit that bill.
Now I go OT:
As most know, we passed the 'milestone' of 4,000 Americans officially killed in combat in Iraq yesterday. As many also know, the media coverage of the Iraq conflict has been measurably down, to the point that people are unclear of what is happening there and how many soldiers have lost their lives, over the months since David Petraeus' much publicized testimony before Congress.
Now for my rant:
The poll that showed the above fact correlated it with decreased coverage in the media. Of the comment that's come out on the subject, Richard Pérez Peña does mention the poll. But even he, and even though he discusses it
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24press.html
blames the lack of media coverage on lack of public interest. From there, as USA Today, CBS, LA Times, and other outlets have done, it's a hop, skip, and a jump to blaming lack of public interest to lack of shared sacrifice and from there to the lack of a draft. Since a draft is completely politically unfeasible, not to mention not well discussed from all angles in the press, these articles essentially deem public apathy inevitable and absolve the press of any role in that apathy whatsoever. Just a fly on the wall of a draftless ill wind.
We all know (or hopefully anyway) of the measurement/statistical flaws with post hoc ergo propter hoc. But when the press coverage sank first and the lack of public knowledge came later, we don't even have enough post hoc to ergo, do we?
The draft is an enormous smokescreen for an invisible war: a war that was conceived with the purpose of creating war time powers for the executive, and has at every turn been made purposely invisible: no photos of coffins, no expenses in the budget, total control over the footage of 'embedded journalists', shelling foreign journalists or sending them to Guantanamo, investigations of Abu Ghraib and the WMD farce suppressed or extended, no clear goal or mission statement, classifications upon classifications and night and day appeals to the concept that questioning implies questions of one's patriotism.
USA Today makes the following statements:
That feels somehow wrong. So reporters ritually ask leaders why the broad mass of Americans have not been asked to sacrifice. [...]
[...]
The real answer is that if most Americans were asked to sacrifice in serious ways, their support for the war -- already weak -- would likely erode even more. Only by asking very little has the administration been able to sustain a war that was supposed to be over in weeks or months.
Only that and relying on the remarkable sacrifice of U.S. troops. And they, no matter what anyone thinks of the war, are deserving of the deepest respect -- a fact that should be marked by all at these tragic milestones, even if it is not in everyday life.
No. The real answer is that the media needs to do more than 'ritually ask leaders why the broad mass of Americans have not been asked to sacrifice'. The broad mass of Americans are not responsible for content decisions in the American press, they are not responsible for softball questions and a total refusal by the media to examine even the most basic question about the Iraq war: What are we fighting for there and why did we go there? If you can't ask that and demand answers, don't babble about a draft. You, and not the American public, are the problem.
Americans don't need a draft to pay attention to Iraq. They need it covered in their media. Viewer apathy didn't drive the decision to take Iraq out of the news last September. Something else did. And until that something is identified, spare us the 'only a draft will save us' bullshit. Only a real, truth to power, independent fourth estate will put American attention on Iraq. Maybe these outlets should spend their editorial space telling us why they can't do that. And apologizing to the dead for it.
[Sorry for the OT, but not for the rant.]