Life in Liberated Iraq

[Chris Alger]

Sound familiar? According to Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq0105/1.htm#_Toc93454297) (and since supported by the State Department's own Human Rights survey), throughout 2004 the Iraqi regime installed by the U.S. engaged in <ul type="square">"the systematic use of arbitrary arrest, prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial review, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, denial of access by families and lawyers to detainees, improper treatment of detained children, and abysmal conditions in pre-trial detention facilities. Trials are marred by inadequate legal representation and the acceptance of coerced confessions as evidence. Persons tortured or mistreated have inadequate access to health care and no realistic avenue for legal redress. With rare exception, Iraqi authorities have failedto investigateand punish officials responsible for violations. International police advisers, primarily U.S. citizens funded through the United States, have turned a blind eye to these rampant abuses." [/list] Like they say, there's a long road ahead, so more of this to come. We're just getting warmed up.

[jaxmike]

better than rape rooms and using WMDs on your own people if its even true, or true to the degree they are trying to imply, but i dont believe.

[Warchant88]

Detention facilities aren't supposed to have good conditions.

[thatpfunk]

jax, what sources do you believe then? did u even bother looking? thats ridiculous.

[Il_Mostro]

and why, pray tell, is that?

[Il_Mostro]

I get the feeling that you will not belive anyone who do not think exactly like you. Human rights watch and your own state department, ok, don't belive them if you wish, but who do you belive?

[jaxmike]

i dont believe liberal sources because they have consistently and unremorsefully lied about just about everything. that said, i dont believe conservative sources either, though they are much harder to find.

[KJS]

The US State Department report on Human Rights worldwide echoed these claims by Human Rights Watch. Hardly a liberal source. And not hard to find.

KJS

[jaxmike]

are you actually trying to claim that the US State Department is not liberal?

[TransientR]

Jax,

I can tell nothing is going to budge you from your thick headed opinions, so unlike others, I won't even try. Best of luck navigating with such a faulty compass....

Frank

[bholdr]

I aggree.

but better is not good.
the political culture over there is obviously still really Fed up as a result of so many years of saddam's BS. I think the U.S should be dedicating far more resources to the training and education of the iraqi security forces. esp the eduction.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont believe liberal sources because they have consistently and unremorsefully lied about just about everything. that said, i dont believe conservative sources either, though they are much harder to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human rights watch was set up by the US government to watch Eastern Europe. By their very nature they may attract liberal employees, but I have no doubt what they say is true. Do I have a problem with it? Not really.

"Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared. ....

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. Politics have no relation to morals."

"All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. Sometimes they have learned this the hard way. If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation. The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit."

"Those who seek to achieve things should show no mercy."

Kautilya, Napoleon, Alexander, Niccolo Machiavelli, Ceasar, Cleopatra, Ivan Claulas, and every great leader since the dawn of time understood this most basic principle that the weak find so difficult to either stomach or simply grasp. If we are going to succeed in creating a free, independent, and stable Iraq, it can not be done gently.

-wacki

[bholdr]

wacki, your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the strategies of Napolean, Machiavelli, ceaser, etc apply not only to authoritarian conquest, but to building democracies as well. i think there's a pretty huge difference.

that is, when implementing an authouritarian regime, the 'embers' may rightfully flare up, a natural reaction to oppression. but when a democracy takes hold, the persuasive power of freedonm has the ability to molify it's enemies over time and with the experiences that come with living in a free society. eventually, the recruiting pool of terrorists-to-be will be won over by the freedoms and oppurtunities that democracy inevitably will begin to provide. it is oppression in the name of victory, al la the isreali response to the palestinian terror groups, that fosters the growth of new heads on the hydra of terror and religious fanaticisim.

patience, charity, transperancy in government and an absense of heavy-handed tactics are what is nessesary to defeat the 'insurgency' (i still don't like that label- it's a deliberate miscontextualization of what they really are- rebels- a word that carries too many positive connotations in american english, i geuss.)

[wacki]

I can find countless situations where dictatorships were violently overthrown and replaced with a free replublic. If you can find one instance in history where a dictatorship was overthrown by a foreign power and done so in a peaceful and gentle manner via patience and charity alone, I'd love to hear about it.

[wacki]

Keep in mind I am not saying we have to be ruthless in all areas. I am all for peace and love and all that stuff. But if we are going to successfully and efficiently deal with some of the cruel barbarians, Machiavellian tactics are going to have to be used. And yes he was an expert at building republics. So my arguement still applies. In fact, that is what Machiavelli was best at.

Hell, just look at Fallujah. Do you not see how patience treated us there?

[bholdr]

i wasn't arguing for patience and charity alone. I was pointing out that your post seemed to be advocating a smothering, oppressive approach. to build democratic institutions with authoritarian tools, the likes of which chrisalger posted about and you seem to be supporting is not only counterproductive and inefficient, but costly, and just plain wrong as well.

what's the point of overthrowing a tyrannical dictator if those we leave in his place do the same kinds of things to their opposition? it doesn't build the kind of respect for constitutional democracy that is critical for its long term survival.

it's a cost/benifit thing, IMO, it may do far more damage in the long run to adopt an aggressive/oppressive policy (or let the iraqis do so) than it would to fight the insurgency like a real democracy should, abstaingin from the use of torture, illegal detainment of citizens, coercion, threats, illegal executions and detainment, etc.

when we use and endorse those tactics (even tacitly, like we are doing now by not being outspoken enough in opposition to them) we give the impression that we're all talk about democracy and respect for human rights. Where are the disposessed and disenfranchised to turn? the 'insurgency' appears (to them) to offer a viable option. we need to take that option away by offering a clear alternitive, which we are not doing now. (this is the main reason abu garhib was such a disaster, imo, not because of 'those poor iraqis that were piled in pyramids', but because of the negitive reflection on the american commitment to democracy).

etc, etc...

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
But if we are going to successfully and efficiently deal with some of the cruel barbarians, Machiavellian tactics are going to have to be used. And yes he was an expert at building republics. So my arguement still applies. In fact, that is what Machiavelli was best at.

[/ QUOTE ]

fer crying out loud, wacki! i thought you were above contextually dehumanizing america's enemies! c'mon, man, you're not doing anyone any good by calling people 'barbarians'. geez.

they're all illeterate animals running around in skins eating their meat raw, right? i geuss we've gotta say something to make it easier for our soldiers to abuse and kill their captives...

***

Machevelli was best at giving advice. that advice was NOT conductive to building free societies. I don't have time to dig out my copy of 'the prince' to find the exact quote, but he said something about rule through fear that isn't particularly in tune with trying to build a modern transparent constitutional democracy.

he was an inferior commentator on the subject as well, IMO. I far prefer Lao Tzu for theroies on the best way to run a manipulative, oppressive authouritarian regime.

'fill their bellies and empty their minds...'
his theroies united aincient china in just over a decade. i highly reccomend his work for any student of government.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i wasn't arguing for patience and charity alone. I was pointing out that your post seemed to be advocating a smothering, oppressive approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am, but only selectively.

[ QUOTE ]
(this is the main reason abu garhib was such a disaster, imo, not because of 'those poor iraqis that were piled in pyramids', but because of the negitive reflection on the american commitment to democracy).

[/ QUOTE ]

Abu garhib did cross the line. Abu garhib creates hate for Americans. Machiavelli specifically talks about the dangers of hate.

[ QUOTE ]
i thought you were above contextually dehumanizing america's enemies! c'mon, man, you're not doing anyone any good by calling people 'barbarians'. geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of them are barbarians. Many of them cloak themselves in religion, even though they are not religious, and take advantage of every chance to oppress others and even their own people. I am not dehumanizing all of america's enemies, just some.

[ QUOTE ]
they're all illeterate animals running around in skins eating their meat raw, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No many of them are well educated people that chop peoples heads of with machette's for what almost seems like sport.

[ QUOTE ]
Machevelli was best at giving advice. that advice was NOT conductive to building free societies. I don't have time to dig out my copy of 'the prince' to find the exact quote, but he said something about rule through fear that isn't particularly in tune with trying to build a modern transparent constitutional democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must of missed that. I remember Machiavelli as someone who was very good at building and running republics. It's been a few years since I've read that book though.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
fer crying out loud, wacki! i thought you were above contextually dehumanizing america's enemies! c'mon, man, you're not doing anyone any good by calling people 'barbarians'. geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with calling vicious, ruthless terrorists "barbarians". Everyone should know the term is directed at that specific bunch and not at all Middle Easterners.

And yes, they are BARBARIANS. Sick barbarian cutthroat thugs, who have no excuse for taking their own humanity and turning it into inhumanity, nor for brutally attacking every group of innocents who do not subscribe to their own ultra-narrow worldview.

More people should call them "barbarians". The New York Times should call them barbarians. CNN should call the terrorist insurgents "barbarians". And that rag Al-Jazeera should call them "barbarians", too--because "barbarians" is exactly what those indiscriminate, totalitarian, compassionless terrorist murderers and beheaders are.

Actually, they are worse than barbarians. But in the absence of a term that more aptly describes their vicious and murderous depravity, "barbarians" will fairly do.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, you don't have any problem assuming that all Iraqis who fight against the U.S. occupation are "vicious," "ruthless" "terrorists barbarians," "sick barbarian cutthroat thugs," people who attack "every group of innocents who do not subscribe to their own ultra-narrow worldview," "indiscriminate, totalitarian, compassionless terrorist murderers and beheaders," even "worse than barbarians" guilty of "vicious and murderous depravity." It cannot be the case that some or many of these fighters lost relatives to U.S. bombing or torture by the U.S. or it's proxy forces and object to foreign domination over their country. They all have to all be as you've described them.

After all, it's obvious that there can't be any resistance fighters who fail to meet these descriptions because you aren't committing the sin of applying it to "all Middle Easterners," merely a subgroup. Subgroups of Arabs or Muslims smaller than "everyone" are legitimate targets of your generalized hatred, a model that you contend the world's media should follow as well. Figures.

[MMMMMM]

What a great feature; one no longer has to listen to endless unfounded attacks.

Thanks and kudos to Chuck for making this fine feature available to us all /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jaxmike]

good, keep believing what you want.

[TransientR]

I try to reason, and have little "faith" in belief.

You don't cite sources, or make cogent arguments. I consider it an act of charity that credible debaters took the time they did to respond to you.

Frank

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with calling vicious, ruthless terrorists "barbarians". Everyone should know the term is directed at that specific bunch and not at all Middle Easterners

[/ QUOTE ]

i know that. but, dehuminizing omnes opposition is what leads to things like the abu garhib scandal. we MUST respect and fear our enimies in order to properly defeat them. swallow your pride and accept that our enemies are also educated, smart (or at least cunning and clever) , and ruthless. that's a long ways from being 'barbarians'. the longer we continue to think of the enemy as such, the longer it will take to acheive victory.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, they are worse than barbarians. But in the absence of a term that more aptly describes their vicious and murderous depravity, "barbarians" will fairly do.

[/ QUOTE ]

how 'bout "murderous ideolouges" or "psychjotic, mislead, brainwashed killers". i can think of others if you like. but 'barbarains, and 'animals' are just terms that make it easier to disregard their abilities and will, which are formidable, and it is FOOLISH to pretend otherwise, even in our conversation about them.

[Kenrick]

EVERY time I hear first-person accounts from soldiers in Iraq, they talk about how 95% of every person they meet wants to shake their hand and thank them for helping give them freedom. The typical news story does not report this.

People can think whatever they want about the U.S., but in the end, Iraquis will have more freedom than they have had before.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
how 'bout "murderous ideolouges" or "psychjotic, mislead, brainwashed killers".

[/ QUOTE ]

Too inconvenient for common usage.

How about "savage evil bastards"?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I think some things are more believable than others due to the probability of their being tainted by biasing factors. However, given pictures of Abu Ghraib and documentation by Amnesty International of various abuses at Guantanamo Bay (AI being an organization whose presence was vouched for by the Bushies) perhaps we can presume that such claims of abuse are more likely to be true than false. We don't need to be skeptical of all sources-just be reasonable.

[jaxmike]

k buddy.

you do not reason, this is clear. just THINK about what i am suggesting, does it not seem plausible?

[jaxmike]

liberals say you are a liar and need to watch network news more. the facts are how they are reported on CBS, just like in vietnam.... right....

[BCPVP]

Chris Alger, do you see it as possibly unrealistic to require that all employees of the Iraqi government must behave in accordance to American standards after living under such a murderous, authoritarian regime for the past 30 years?
Do you see it as possibly unrealistic to require that all prisons throughout Iraq (of which I'm sure there are no shortages) must conform to standards set up by HRW? I think that rebuilding schools, utilities, and government buildings has received a higher priority than how clean and nice the prisons are.

Give it some time. No one has ever claimed that Iraq will be the perfect model for a democratic government the moment Saddam left power. Put your partisanship aside, realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, and offer something constructive solutions.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, you don't have any problem assuming that all Iraqis who fight against the U.S. occupation are "vicious," "ruthless" "terrorists barbarians," "sick barbarian cutthroat thugs,"

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep hearing that the majority of those fighting Americans and allies are Saudis, not Iraquis. And, really, why would the majority of Iraquis *not* want Saddam gone? You'd think almost anything would be better than him.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I keep hearing that the majority of those fighting Americans and allies are Saudis, not Iraquis.

[/ QUOTE ]
False, it's almost certainly less than 5%. The White House and the right-wing media, especially Fox, have been peppering the news with "foreign fighter" propaganda, but you won't actually hear them say that the majority are foreign, or even that it's a high percentage. (This is one of those subtle tactics where the media will disseminate implant an idea without actually articulating it, understanding that when the news is couched a certain way, people unconsciously read between the lines).

The U.S. military, however, which has to have accurate facts to do its job, concedes that the foreign presence is minimal. I couldn't find it but there was a story a few weeks back how the U.S. recruited Iraqis by telling them that their opponents would be foreign. When the recruits discovered otherwise during a firefight, they put down their arms. The U.S. general in command acknowledged that the recruiting tactic was a mistake.

Anyway, a sampling from several sources:

"Of the more than 1000 men aged between 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in Falluja last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, General George Casey, the top US ground commander in Iraq, said on Monday."
aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/194BA8A5-2DAF-461A-A101-5965D0156D17.htm ), 11/26/04

"Elsewhere [outside Falluja] in Iraq, U.S. military commanders say foreigners have an even smaller role in the insurgency. In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey has said foreigners account for just 1 percent or so of guerrillas. Of 8,000 guerrilla suspects jailed across Iraq, only 127 hold foreign passports, the U.S. military said. In the south, no one has suggested that foreigners pack the ranks of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army. The group, which has fought U.S. and allied troops across southern Iraq, is made up of Shiite Muslim radicals, many of whom hail from the slums of Baghdad. In March, Dempsey called the idea that foreign fighters were flooding Iraq 'a misconception.'" AP (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resist/2004/0503fighters.htm), 5/3/0

"Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. Most of those detainees were freed after a review board found they didn't pose significant threats. About 5,700 remain in custody, 90 of them non-Iraqis."
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm), 7/6/04

As for your statement that Iraqis should want to be rid of Saddam, that's undoubtedly true for the vast majority. Many of those, however, resent trading a dictatorship for foreign occupation and political domination. Consider, for example, the number of laws that Iraqis must comply with that were nothing more than edicts handed down by Bremer. Look at the amount of Iraqi oil money the U.S. took and can't account for. Think about how U.S. troops shooting unarmed demonstrators and bombing hospitals appears to patriotic Iraqis, even those who hated Saddam.

[zaxx19]

As for your statement that Iraqis should want to be rid of Saddam, that's undoubtedly true for the vast majority. Many of those, however, resent trading a dictatorship for foreign occupation and political domination. Consider, for example, the number of laws that Iraqis must comply with that were nothing more than edicts handed down by Bremer. Look at the amount of Iraqi oil money the U.S. took and can't account for. Think about how U.S. troops shooting unarmed demonstrators and bombing hospitals appears to patriotic Iraqis, even those who hated Saddam.

LOL LOL LOL LOL YOU HAVE DONE LOST YOUR MIND.....LOL LOL LOL /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bholdr]

...anything but death...

[bholdr]

Despite your/my best efforts, i still can't tell if you're joking or not...

[bholdr]

more's the pity; we are unable to even discuss things like rational people anymore.

for shame.

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with calling vicious, ruthless terrorists "barbarians". Everyone should know the term is directed at that specific bunch and not at all Middle Easterners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you call american soldiers guilty of torture barbarians?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
How about "savage evil bastards"?

[/ QUOTE ]

the word 'bastards' conotes people who had unmarried parents at the time of their birth. it's wrong and hateful to describe people's ancestry as such without approiate proof. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif


that'll do just fine.


edit: though i think the term 'evil' is best reserved for slasher movies and religious discussions. thinking in terms of good vs. evil is such a midevil way of looking at things. grey areas. no black and white. all grey areas.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
(This is one of those subtle tactics where the media will disseminate implant an idea without actually articulating it, understanding that when the news is couched a certain way, people unconsciously read between the lines).

[/ QUOTE ]
1) This is probably the biggest problem people have with Michael Moore and his brethern.
2) I hope you're not insinuating that Fox News/right wing media are the only ones guilty of this...

[bholdr]

or, more approiatly, it never existed in the first place. To find real objectivity in news reporting, one must either a: remove the bais through balancing their sources (pay attn to BOTH moore and fox, both the NY times and the WSJ) and b: read the most objective sources out there, the CSM, the AP wire, BBC international, etc..


or go gonzo. R.I.P HST.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the amount of Iraqi oil money the U.S. took and can't account for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't personally researched it at all, but I did hear mention somewhere of Iraq supposedly planning on reimbursing the U.S. for all expenses when all is said and done. I'd think such a deal/offer would be obvious common-sense for Iraq to give back to the U.S.' time and lives, but perhaps I am in the minority on that one.

[Chris Alger]

Michael Moore's "brethren?" Who would these be? How many other filmakers got a large audience top view a film against the war? Moore got two hours, for which people had to shell out seven bucks. Bush his supporters get thousands of hours of free TV time every year, maybe tens of thousands if you include radio, and a dominant, often exclusive voice, in print stories about the war. Futher, the only way the propaganda method I mentioned can work is through repetition and saturation.

You're also flat-out wrong. The original statement said that "most" insurgents are foreign, which is incorrect as a matter of undisputed fact. Aside from silly quibbles (like whether the "vault" where he bought the gun was in the bank, or how Katherine Harris didn't personally "count" votes in Florida but merely supervised those who did), the dominant criticism against Moore isn't that his salient facts are wrong, but that he doesn't give "equal time" to the powers he's attacking. In other words, that he's not another voice in the mainstream saying the same thing.

It's a little ticky distinguishing the right-wing from the MSM. Fox is obviously on the right and the other TV outlets are less strident. What they all have in common, however, is abiding by a set pragmatic rules and standards that effectively compel them to trumpet the U.S. official line while excluding and marginalizing other voices.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Moore's "brethren?" Who would these be?

[/ QUOTE ]
People like Al Franken, Jeneane Garafolo(sp?), MoveOn people. Those kind of people.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush his supporters get thousands of hours of free TV time every year, maybe tens of thousands if you include radio, and a dominant, often exclusive voice, in print stories about the war.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people get free air time. That's because they're invited. And MM has been on a lot of TV shows. Hell, O'Reilly had him on an episode.

[ QUOTE ]
the dominant criticism against Moore isn't that his salient facts are wrong, but that he doesn't give "equal time" to the powers he's attacking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Most of the anti-Moore sources usually complain about his looseness with the facts, often attributed to his making insinuations that aren't backed up by the facts while he sits back and "claims" that he never actually said those things. Take the intro to F9-11 where it shows the sign in Florida that says Gore Victory. Now that's misleading because many think that that was after the election when it was really before. Moore's movies are full of this misleading bs and while you call them "silly quibbles", they add up. Quickly. And a movie full of "silly quibbles" isn't all that great a movie.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a little ticky distinguishing the right-wing from the MSM.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. FOX, a couple of papers, &amp; a lot of talk radio=right. Almost everything else (the rest of MSM)=left.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
FOX, a couple of papers, &amp; a lot of talk radio=right. Almost everything else (the rest of MSM)=left.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense, especially when it comes to foreign policy. There have been a ton of surveys and studies of the MSM and they all come to the same conclusion: the news is dominated by state officials and their supporters. The only contrary evidence is anecdotal with a recurring criticism that any diversity of viewpoints other than official and right-wing critical amounts to "liberal bias." E.g., the Rather scandal, where a pro-government lapdog is offered as evidence of a pervasive left-wing influence over the media.

[ QUOTE ]
People like Al Franken, Jeneane Garafolo(sp?), MoveOn people. Those kind of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your idea of those who get as much exposure as Moore are two comics and a website. One of whom supported the war in Afgahnistan and who's idea of opposing the war in Iraq is entertaining the troops there, and chastising Limbaugh for undermining morale. This just reinforces my argument that the mere presence of criticism or even slight left-wing divergence from the official consensus is increasingly treated as subversive, extremist propaganda. It's a sign of our brainwashed times.

[ QUOTE ]
Take the intro to F9-11 where it shows the sign in Florida that says Gore Victory. Now that's misleading because many think that that was after the election when it was really before.

[/ QUOTE ]
This criticism doesn't even amount to a quibble, so I have to interpret your take as another example of the indoctrination I'm complaining about.

Moore identified the events as happening on "election night," not after the votes were counted. In the space of about five seconds, Moore shows a montage of networks projecting Florida and the election for Gore, all properly identified as calls and projections and not actual results. After a few "Gore Wins" banners from a few networks, Moore shows the "Bush Wins Presidency" banner when Fox projected a different outcome at the same time. This part of the film was absolutely factual, straightforward and correctly understood by everyone that saw it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, no, especially when it comes to foreign policy! How much have you heard about the progress in Iraq besides number of soldiers/civilians killed? You don't hear about schools being rebuilt, or water sanitation facilities being rebuilt and running to better than prewar levels. You don't hear too much about how the Kurds used to suffer, other than a couple token mentions of Halabja. For how long did the NYT run with the Abu Ghraib prison thing on the front page?
How many right-wing columnists are there in the NYT?

[ QUOTE ]
There have been a ton of surveys and studies of the MSM and they all come to the same conclusion: the news is dominated by state officials and their supporters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming this is true (and a source or two would be nice), a state official is not automatically pledged to support the president in office. I bet if we did a survey of all the journalists, the majority if not great majority would be left-leaning.

[ QUOTE ]
So your idea of those who get as much exposure as Moore are two comics and a website.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize that I had to list every single leftist person in Hollywood. People like Barbara Streisand, Michael Douglas, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and on on. Michael Moore isn't the only leftist in Hollywood. Also notice I said MoveOn.Org people, not the website, but the people affiliated with the website.

[ QUOTE ]
This criticism doesn't even amount to a quibble

[/ QUOTE ]
F9-11 is chock full of "quibbles".

[ QUOTE ]
Moore identified the events as happening on "election night," not after the votes were counted.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I understand what you're saying here, you're still wrong. That scene was before the election began. It was misleading in that people thought that Gore was celebrating his victory, when in fact the election hadn't even started.

[ QUOTE ]
Moore shows a montage of networks projecting Florida and the election for Gore, all properly identified as calls and projections and not actual results. After a few "Gore Wins" banners from a few networks, Moore shows the "Bush Wins Presidency" banner when Fox projected a different outcome at the same time. This part of the film was absolutely factual, straightforward and correctly understood by everyone that saw it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is classic MM. It's very misleading.
1) Giving people the impression that EVERYONE called it for Gore except FOX is equivalent to lying to them. FOX projected Gore just like everyone else, and wasn't even the first to retract it's prediction.
2) When Moore says, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’” nothing smells right. The idea that every other major network would change their prediction on the basis of what one other media source said is laughable. One of the few statements I like from Ann Coulter is, "First, and most painfully obvious, network decision teams don’t sit around drinking piña coladas all day and shout out winners when the mood strikes them. Calling elections is a number-crunching process involving scores of analysts both inside and outside the network."

So you're wrong when you say that this was factual and that everyone understood correctly, because it was extremely misleading (and purposefully so). I think you need to take another look at how inaccurate and misleading F911 really is, because its obvious that it's you who are the brainwashed zombie. Nice try though.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Giving people the impression that EVERYONE called it for Gore except FOX is equivalent to lying to them. FOX projected Gore just like everyone else, and wasn't even the first to retract it's prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're lying (misleading?) here.

[BCPVP]

Think so? Perhaps I could refer you to this publication (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/pdf/REPFINAL.pdf) by CBS about what happened on election night 2000. I would refer you to page 12, where there's a chart that shows whent teh various networks made their calls. Ironically enough, CBS was the first to withdraw their call for Gore, while it took FOX another four hours to do so. Then all the major networks began calling it for Bush. You'll also notice that FOX withdrew that call after another two hours along with everyone else. Now FOX isn't just making up predictions. They're all based on the Voter News Services polling data. So Moore's assertion that the major networks all changed their predictions simply because FOX was the first is a flat out lie. Be careful of who you call a liar. I've done a lot of research on F9-11.

[sirio11]

Very interesting article. You say you've done a lot of research about F 9-11. Ok, then please tell me what the movie says in this matter, not what do you think the movie gives people the impression.

If the movie says FOX was the first to call the election for Bush, I think thats accurate, based on your own information.

If the movie says FOX was the 1st to withdraw Gore, then you're right. I'm not F9-11 expert, but I really dont remember the movie saying this.

In any case I think you're not lying and I offer an apology. The difference is between what the movie says, and what do you think the movie gives the impression; but even then, the facts in the movie are accurate, right?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, then please tell me what the movie says in this matter, not what do you think the movie gives people the impression.

[/ QUOTE ]
The movie is technically correct and wrong at the same time.
FOX was the first to call the election for Bush, but that's not why the other networks changed their call. That's the problem with Moore. He leads you to believe things by depriving the viewer of context. And people think that it's a documentary when it's really an op-ed (which Moore admits it is).

[Chris Alger]

My point isn't that Iraq has failed to achieve "the perfect model for a democratic government." My point is that the new government is repressive and abusive, contrary to the impression one garners from the MSM, and much like war opponents like myself predicted, after pointing to other examples of U.S. intervention in poor countries. This report is evidence of that.

The claim that the U.S. bears responsibliity for these abuses is not rebutted by your claim that the U.S.-appointed government is busy "rebuilding schools, utilities, and government buildings" that the U.S. bombed. Nor by your suggestion that efforts over time are a reasonable substitute, especially when the same efforts were deemed pointless to those favoring invasion. For example, Saddam approached the U.S. (even Richard Perle!) to negotiate multiparty elections, greater civil rights, and other reforms in which the U.S. had no interest. These things could at least have been placed on the table by the U.S. but weren't because the U.S. has no interest in the internal workings of Iraq as long as U.S. strategic objectives are met.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My point isn't that Iraq has failed to achieve "the perfect model for a democratic government." My point is that the new government is repressive and abusive, contrary to the impression one garners from the MSM, and much like war opponents like myself predicted, after pointing to other examples of U.S. intervention in poor countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may not have been your point, but I think you've set a bar that is almost impossible for a group of people that have lived under the conditions they have. And I think you're doing it because you want them to fail which you will use to show that Bush has failed. Whether or not you believe that is what your doing remains to be seen, but that is the consistent behavior of the anti-bush left since the man was elected the first time.

So my point is, stop holding expectations that you know can't be met, just so you can nitpick the other side. Understand that even our own authorites can be oppressive sometimes, and we've been a republic for 200+ years! Give Iraq a chance.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you've set a bar that is almost impossible for a group of people that have lived under the conditions they have. And I think you're doing it because you want them to fail which you will use to show that Bush has failed.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you contend, as Bush and his supporters tend to, that the war was justified in part to relieve the oppression of the Iraqi people, then yours is a circular argument where this condition always holds true no matter how repressive the outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think you're doing it because you want them to fail which you will use to show that Bush has failed. Whether or not you believe that is what your doing remains to be seen, but that is the consistent behavior of the anti-bush left since the man was elected the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong. We don't like Bush because he expresses no interest in the lives of ordinary people, including ordinary Americans, and like most U.S. leaders he apparently has no conscience. He's also dumber than most, at least that's the impression he likes to convey. But Bush isn't the problem.

The real problem was that the most powerful institutions in the U.S. are morally impoverished, both in an absolute sense and when compared to other wealthy countries. There was a strong bipartisan elite consensus for a war of aggression and conquest. One condition for the war was a powerful, institutional consensus about an opportunity to expand U.S. geopolitical power. There was more disagreement among elites than usual, but most of this centered on strategy and tactics for prosecuting the war, not whether the war should be prosecuted. Once the consensus became sufficiently clear, everyone in Washington understood that the war would have to be deceptively sold as some combinaiton of self-defense and grandiose idealism (e.g., the same forumla that almost all countries use to sell almost all wars). Another condition was the moral irresponsibility of a large part of the U.S. public, mostly among Republicans but also a lot of Democrats. 9/11 created a new ability for the government and media to exploit "emotionaly potent oversimplifications" that allowed for a critical mass of public support to develop, at least until we could get in. (The fact of being there created another set of variables that makes it easy for our government to stay.)

Bush's role amounted to chief spokesperson for the public case. If Clinton or his wife had been President, they probably would have done the same.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if we did a survey of all the journalists, the majority if not great majority would be left-leaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen plenty of those surveys over the years. They all come to that conclusion. I doubt anyone would be surprised at that.

The part about Moore's "quibbles" is interesting. The one-liner about getting the gun at the bank/vault speaks volumes on its own. Moore's film was as if he just strolled on in, opened a checking account, gave him a gun, and told him to go shoot someone. When in reality, Moore had to pass the same background check he would have had to pass anywhere else in the country. And then Moore leaves out context and does these "quibbles" time after time after time.

Moore pretends to know what he is talking about or that he might have actual facts to back himself up, but when pressed, he leaves himself outs and says, "Hey, I just do comedy."

[sirio11]

Great post Chris, but I really doubt some people in this forum understand it. Well, not really sure if they understand but just dont care about the truth.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem was that the most powerful institutions in the U.S. are morally impoverished, both in an absolute sense and when compared to other wealthy countries. There was a strong bipartisan elite consensus for a war of aggression and conquest. One condition for the war was a powerful, institutional consensus about an opportunity to expand U.S. geopolitical power. There was more disagreement among elites than usual, but most of this centered on strategy and tactics for prosecuting the war, not whether the war should be prosecuted. Once the consensus became sufficiently clear, everyone in Washington understood that the war would have to be deceptively sold as some combinaiton of self-defense and grandiose idealism (e.g., the same forumla that almost all countries use to sell almost all wars). Another condition was the moral irresponsibility of a large part of the U.S. public, mostly among Republicans but also a lot of Democrats. 9/11 created a new ability for the government and media to exploit "emotionaly potent oversimplifications" that allowed for a critical mass of public support to develop, at least until we could get in. (The fact of being there created another set of variables that makes it easy for our government to stay.)

Bush's role amounted to chief spokesperson for the public case. If Clinton or his wife had been President, they probably would have done the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying life in liberated Iraq for its future generations will be a bad thing compared to what it was?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem was that the most powerful institutions in the U.S. are morally impoverished, both in an absolute sense and when compared to other wealthy countries.

[/ QUOTE ] In international politics and foreign policy, this is a very good thing. I'll let others elaborate.