This is well said, IMO:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10623

MSNBC has been running nothing but a 5 hour (and presumably it will go until 11 pm or beyond) marathon of Russert remembrance. CNN has done their due diligence, and Fox news has spent at least the last half hour talking non-stop about him.
But let’s get something straight- what I am watching right now on the cable news shows is indicative of the problem- no clearer demonstration of the fact that they consider themselves to be players and the insiders and, well, part of the village, is needed. This is precisely the problem. They have walked the corridors of power so long that they honestly think they are the story. It is creepy and sick and the reason politicians get away with all the crap they get away with these days.

Tim Russert was a newsman. He was not the Pope. This is not the JFK assassination, or Reagan’s death, or the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. A newsman died. We know you miss him, but please shut up and get back to work.

bed-wetting liberals

Now, there is a phrase likely to encourage reasoned debate.

71. Jim Furtado Posted: June 14, 2008 at 01:01 PM (#2819557)
Alex Perros, please update the email address associated with your account and contract me through the site's email mechanism.

I thought that would be more in Bud Selig's job description -- or Rob Base's.

And you mention NPR. Please tell me that you're excluding The News Hour from whatever you're trying to suggest about that network's agenda. I'll let the rest of NPR speak for itself, though most of what I see when I channel surf there are endless reruns of Antiques Roadshow, British sitcoms and plays, geriatric rock and roll, and some blond telling us how to get rich.

I think you're referring to PBS, not National Public Radio. Both services are the definition of vapid.

Of course I stand corrected. I admit I often think of them interchangably because they're so often attacked in tandem by the same people.

But this aside, tell me what news program has more depth of reporting and is more evenhanded and nonpartisan than The News Hour. You can reach back as far as you wish to come up with an answer.

Now The News Hour may be about the only thing on PBS truly worth watching on a regular basis, but even that's more than you can say about any other network news show, cable or otherwise.

----------------------

The real role of Meet The Press, Face The Nation, etc., is to serve as a measurement of a politician's standing in official Washington- attract an audience and thereby help the advertisers sell cars, brokerage services and mouthwash.

Fixed

True enough about the latter, Srul, but they're not mutually exclusive.

If we're generally agreed that "Meet the Press" was never intended to be a venue for fearless, hard-hitting journalism, maybe we shouldn't be hearing so much about Tim Russert being the foremost journalist in the country?

...there seems to be a serious misreading of that "MTP... control message" notation. All that meant was that the White House thought it would have an opportunity to get its own message out by putting a high-level official, the VP, on the #1 rated interview show, which has a ripple effect on other media coverage. To read it as suggesting that the WH thought it could control Russert or MTP, or expected kid-glove treatment, is not an accurate reading.

Not control, handle. And not kid gloves, but love taps. An appearance on "Meet the Press" delivers the cachet of having endured pointed scrutiny without the inconvenience of having actually done so.

which is why the US, and not the tyrants of the world, always gets slammed by Amnesty International

Actually, they slam everybody. It only makes news here when they slam the U.S., because we are supposed to be better than that.

Incidentally, Edward R. Murrow's television career was a non-reproducible 4-year comet. Murrow brought his influence with him to TV, as opposed to minor figures like Tim Russert or Keith Olbermann, whose reputations are entirely bestowed BY television. Murrow was never replaced, whereas Russert and Olbermann represent an infinitely renewable resource.

Not control, handle. And not kid gloves, but love taps. An appearance on "Meet the Press" delivers the cachet of having endured pointed scrutiny without the inconvenience of having actually done so.

Excellent, excellent point and well said. I'm stealing that when I talk to all my friends so I can seem smarter.

If we're generally agreed that "Meet the Press" was never intended to be a venue for fearless, hard-hitting journalism, maybe we shouldn't be hearing so much about Tim Russert being the foremost journalist in the country?

No, the sad thing is that he probably was the foremost journalist in the country, because this is what journalism has devolved into.

The move NETWORK came out 32 years ago. Ignoring some of the excesses needed to push the point across in an entertaining matter, it was extremely prescient about the morphing of news from the public service ideal referenced by salfino, to the branch of money-earning entertainment it is today.

I think it's important to point out that the reason people become so harsh and vitriolic in their criticisms is because so many other people reflexively pretend that the person who died is some sort of saint. I really don't understand why we have to pretend that the deceased aren't humans with human failings that can't be discussed within x days of their death. It would be fine if we all set a period where you don't discuss their merits or faults as anything other than a family man and friend, but it's a bit much when we're all required to fawn over someone's career and ignore any faults they might have.

Of course, the reality is that none of these faults really are native to Russert. He wouldn't have had his job if he had asked better and harder hitting questions, and the person replacing him would almost certainly have been weaker and worse. The nature of "journalism" these days is to be a stenographer primarily. Sure people sometimes ask tough questions, but they never insist that those questions actually be answered and never call people out for lying. Russert could have tried doing things differently but then no one would have paid any attention at all-at any rate it's certainly unclear whether doing anything else would have made things better or worse.

How exactly did Russert do this? Did he plant the IEDs himself?

Worse: he helped get the country into the war in the first place.

Sweet Jeebus, what a load of crap. Either you (a) really believe this, which makes you utterly contemptible, or (b) are pretending to believe this to stir the sh!t, which makes you even more contemptible. Either way, f@ck off.

Incidentally, Edward R. Murrow's television career was a non-reproducible 4-year comet. Murrow brought his influence with him to TV, as opposed to minor figures like Tim Russert or Keith Olbermann, whose reputations are entirely bestowed BY television. Murrow was never replaced, whereas Russert and Olbermann represent an infinitely renewable resource.

By coincidence, I got a Borders 40% off DVD coupon yesterday and picked up this 4 DVD Murrow Collection. I could have gotten it slightly cheaper on Amazon but I'm still partial to real book stores and Borders is still hanging in there, if not for long.

-----------------

If we're generally agreed that "Meet the Press" was never intended to be a venue for fearless, hard-hitting journalism, maybe we shouldn't be hearing so much about Tim Russert being the foremost journalist in the country?

No, the sad thing is that he probably was the foremost journalist in the country, because this is what journalism has devolved into.

That's not even close to being true if you include print journalists. Russert was the best at what he did, but what he did was of marginal social value. But you certainly can't say that about the likes of Tom Ricks and John Burns, among many others. For better or worse, a good newspaper (of which there are now exactly three remaining in the entire United States, and one of them is in danger) is still far and away the best source for in-depth reporting and information.

Jesus god. Russert was a celebrity. This country worships celebrities. When celebrities die, people act like it's had some sort of impact on their horribly empty lives. I'm sure he was good to his family & puppies, & good for him, but he had no more impact on anything than any other celebrity, in my humble opinion.

And let's get this straight -- having been a journalist for most of my adult life, I like to think I hold few illusions about them & know one when I see them. (For what it's worth, by the time they get to Washington, they're pretty much whores. If they're not, they don't stay there.) For better or worse, Tim Russert was no more a journalist than is this cup of water sitting on my desk. He was a guy who asked questions that someone else typed up. Which is nice, but it doesn't exactly make him Edward R. Murrow.

My impression of Russert comes mostly from his show (which I enjoyed, though didn't catch every week) and his election night coverage. (Some from his CNBC show. And I did see him speak at a professonal dinner two years ago and found his speech to be very interesting.) I had a measure of respect and appreciation for him, but I'm not sure exactly what to call him. "Journalist" and "analyst" don't quite seem to fit; rarely did he seem to take a side or give his opinion on an issue, or break a story. I don't think one could tell from Meet The Press what he really thought about an issue. That is to his credit in some ways, as it means that his interviewing was likely fair and objective; in other ways, I'm not sure words such as "analyst" fit.

I liked how he challenged people with their words. Changing one's mind on something is not always bad, as the press pretends, but it at least should be explained -- especially if it appears that one is being hypocritical or intellectually dishonest. I liked how he asked the question and then asked it again if necessary, and maybe again, and then moved on to the next question once it was clear he had gotten all he was going to get as an answer. (Except when before the 2004 election he forced Hillary to say about 100 different ways that she was not going to run in 2004; that was silly.)

He seemed like a likeable guy, and energetic. I think he has earned a place in the history of this country. It feels odd that he's gone, since Meet The Press with him as moderator pretty much spanned my entire adult life to this point. I didn't know him personally so I shed no tears, but the suddenness in which he left is a bit unsettling.

This is just silly. Russert's job was to provide a forum, ask relevant, sometimes tough questions, and report on the debate. It wasn't his job to tilt the outcome one way or another.

"Tilt the outcome"? How about finding out the veracity of administration statements?!

An appearance on "Meet the Press" delivers the cachet of having endured pointed scrutiny without the inconvenience of having actually done so.

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winnaah!

Reduces his stock, and if done in a timely manner, prevents a catastrophe in the making?

You can't be this naive. Russert could've lit himself on fire outside the Pentagon in protest, ala the Buddhist monks of Saigon, and it wouldn't have stopped the march to war.

Worse: he helped get the country into the war in the first place.

You standing by this? That Russert and his Sunday interviews were morally inferior to those blowing up U.S. troops? Really? That's rich.

Just thinking of some of the more "wow" moments of the last 20 years or so. I think Russert's death qualifies, as do these below. Obviously each of these isn't equal in significance, and there are many others I haven't listed:

* Christopher Reeve being paralyzed;
* OJ Simpson police chase;
* JFK Jr.'s death;
* Phil Hartman's death;
* John Ritter's death;
* Magic Johnson AIDS announcement;
* 9/11

OJ Simpson police chase

The only thing "wow" about that was that they wouldn't let me watch the NBA Finals game I was trying to see. Nothing happened and they showed it to me for something like an hour and a half.

Wow, was I pissed.

Sweet Jeebus, what a load of crap. Either you (a) really believe this, which makes you utterly contemptible, or (b) are pretending to believe this to stir the sh!t, which makes you even more contemptible. Either way, f@ck off.

Is Russert a journalist? If yes, he should have done his homework and actually reported on the facts. If no, he is merely a tool of whoever happens to be in power. Either way, he was complicit in spreading lies that started that a war.

You standing by this? That Russert and his Sunday interviews were morally inferior to those blowing up U.S. troops? Really? That's rich.

Answer yes or no, Dayn: have you stopped beating your wife? The real issue is, why is the U.S. in Iraq when the individual who claimed credit for an actual attack against the United States is still at large in Afghanistan? That is where the primary focus of the U.S. military action should be. One of the many reasons why Iraq was such a catastrophe is precisely that it eliminated resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

U.S. troops are being needlessly blown up in Iraq precisely, in part, because of his gutless "journalism". He allowed the administration to get away with its anonymous leaked nonsense that turned out to be complete fabrication (those weapons of mass destruction, hah!) from sources who were known to be unreliable at the time. And because the American public was bombarded with this lazy, cowardly journalism, not just from Russert but from virtually every major media outlet, the country stupidly marched off to war.

My wife's brother-in-law runs a rehab ward at a VA hospital. If you want, I can give you his phone number offline and you can talk to him about what a great idea this war was, and the complicity and callous disregard in which this government holds its casualties. Russert and his colleagues have some of that blood on their hands.

And by the way, regarding this --

You can't be this naive. Russert could've lit himself on fire outside the Pentagon in protest, ala the Buddhist monks of Saigon, and it wouldn't have stopped the march to war.

I recall the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Let's suppose everything you said is true. To go from there to actually rejoicing at the man's death is beyond contemptible. It's devoid of any class whatsoever.

Bra-vo.

Is Russert a journalist? If yes, he should have done his homework and actually reported on the facts. If no, he is merely a tool of whoever happens to be in power. Either way, he was complicit in spreading lies that started that a war.

You have a strong misunderstanding of what Tim Russert's job was. Beyond that, you need serious psychological help. Wow.

Russert did his job -- TV interviewer of politicians -- as well as anyone has ever done that job. I would put him on a pedestal alongside Jim Lehrer, Brian Lamb, Gwynn Ifill and Ray Suarez, among those I watch on a regular basis.

Russert's greatness rested on the fact that he was 1) always very well prepared; 2) did not show political or personal bias toward his political guests; 3) was tough, yet polite; and 4) he was very likeable to everyone who is not in severe need of psychotherapy (scareduck).

There are biased TV interviewers who do a good job of baiting and debating their guests, in order to expose a perceived failing in the guest's opinions. Those interviewers -- Olbermann, Matthews, Beck, Moyers, Hume, O'Reilly, etc. -- have a place in the game. However, I tend to find all of those people far less likeable over time and, when they don't share my point of view, tiresome. I suspect that they simply count on the fact that they will attract a like-minded audience which is uninterested in hearing a fair interview.

And then there are most of the others, Larry King most notably, who don't ask the tough or probing questions and don't seem well prepared to or capable of following up. They just want their guests and audience to like them. Russert stood well above this crowd.

My wife's brother-in-law runs a rehab ward at a VA hospital. If you want, I can give you his phone number offline and you can talk to him about what a great idea this war was...

If you haven't yet crossed the line from offensive to just plain pathetic, then that last line did it.

The real issue is, why is the U.S. in Iraq when the individual who claimed credit for an actual attack against the United States is still at large in Afghanistan?

I must have missed the part where Bush announced he was going into Iraq to find Osama bin Laden.

Bush gave reasons for going into Iraq; whether you believe them or not, whether you think Bush lied or not, whether you agree with them or not, doesn't change what the reasons he gave were. And the reasons were not "to find bin Laden."

That is where the primary focus of the U.S. military action should be. One of the many reasons why Iraq was such a catastrophe is precisely that it eliminated resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Actually, we're capable of doing both; there's no reason the US military can't multi-task.

But the "hunt for Osama bin Laden" is secondary to the broader goals that Bush has stated.

My wife's brother-in-law runs a rehab ward at a VA hospital. If you want, I can give you his phone number offline and you can talk to him about what a great idea this war was, and the complicity and callous disregard in which this government holds its casualties. Russert and his colleagues have some of that blood on their hands.

You're jumping the shark here.

Russert and his colleagues have some of that blood on their hands.

We really do have a mental illness problem in this country (or at least on this thread).

You standing by this? That Russert and his Sunday interviews were morally inferior to those blowing up U.S. troops? Really? That's rich.



Answer yes or no, Dayn: have you stopped beating your wife? The real issue is, why is the U.S. in Iraq when the individual who claimed credit for an actual attack against the United States is still at large in Afghanistan? That is where the primary focus of the U.S. military action should be. One of the many reasons why Iraq was such a catastrophe is precisely that it eliminated resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

This is NOT an answer to the question. You claimed that Russert's behavior as an interviewer is morally worse than planting explosive devices designed to kill American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. Do you or do you not actually believe that to be the case? This isn't a have you stopped beating your wife question, this is a yes/no question about whether you actually believe something you wrote.

Answer yes or no, Dayn: have you stopped beating your wife?

Well, you said what Russert did was worse than planting an IED. Did I make that great of a logical leap?

The real issue is, why is the U.S. in Iraq when the individual who claimed credit for an actual attack against the United States is still at large in Afghanistan? That is where the primary focus of the U.S. military action should be. One of the many reasons why Iraq was such a catastrophe is precisely that it eliminated resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

U.S. troops are being needlessly blown up in Iraq [snip]

Up to this point, we're in complete agreement.

precisely, in part, because of his gutless "journalism".

Here's a transcript from Russert's 2003 interview with Cheney. YMMV, but by my reading he asks the right questions of Cheney. That's the format of the show. Russert asks, his guests answer. It seems to me you're confusing Russert's role with that of a partisan commentator like Olberman or take your pick on FNC. I'd be curious to see whether anyone else in this thread sees Russert's questions of Cheney as somehow enabling the folly in Iraq. If you're referring to some other interview, please advise.

My wife's brother-in-law runs a rehab ward at a VA hospital. If you want, I can give you his phone number offline and you can talk to him about what a great idea this war was, and the complicity and callous disregard in which this government holds its casualties.

You should probably extend this offer to someone who, you know, actually supports the war in Iraq and doesn't regard it at as the worst foreign-policy mistake of my lifetime. I am not that person. Try Beano instead.

For better or worse, a good newspaper (of which there are now exactly three remaining in the entire United States, and one of them is in danger) is still far and away the best source for in-depth reporting and information.

I stand corrected. I meant to say television journalism.

By the way -- name your three, and specify which one is endangered.

For extra credit, you may explain what steps you would take to preserve the endangered one.

This will count for 20% toward your final grade.

You can't be this naive. Russert could've lit himself on fire outside the Pentagon in protest, ala the Buddhist monks of Saigon, and it wouldn't have stopped the march to war.

Exactly. If you want to heap blame in this regard, the New York Times is probably a far worse offender.

I recall the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

And I recall the words of scareduck: "I am a total moron who hates Bush and Cheney so much it makes my peener hurt."

As Kelsey Grammer put it in that lawnmower commercial: "Seek professional help!"

Bush gave reasons for going into Iraq; whether you believe them or not, whether you think Bush lied or not, whether you agree with them or not, doesn't change what the reasons he gave were. And the reasons were not "to find bin Laden."

No, it was to get bin Laden's "accomplice", Saddam Hussein, was in league with the 9/11 bombers, or worked with them, or gave them aid, or something like that. Bush, and particularly Cheney, continually conflated the Iraq objective with 9/11, in an effort to whoop up the war sentiment. Along with all their other lies.

And 90% of the Dems, and 95% of the media, just went along, like the ineffectual tools they are. To single out Russert for this, is merely to take advantage of the man's death to do a little venting, when others are far, far more culpable.

De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.

I'd have to assume that the big 3 are NYT, WAPO and WSJ with WSJ being endangered by the recent takeover. Though frankly I personally tend to think WAPO sucks and NYT has been in decline for some time. WSJ has always had excellent news coverage and so far that hasn't changed. It is the only newspaper I read regularly.

But the "hunt for Osama bin Laden" is secondary to the broader goals that Bush has stated.

What were those? Bringing opprobrium upon the administration and the world while wasting resources in an effort to turn Iraq into a reliable ally of Iran? If so, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

You claimed that Russert's behavior as an interviewer is morally worse than planting explosive devices designed to kill American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. Do you or do you not actually believe that to be the case? This isn't a have you stopped beating your wife question, this is a yes/no question about whether you actually believe something you wrote.

Actually, yes. He was complicit in making it possible to put those soldiers in harm's way for a war of aggression. Russert opened the door to the subsequent outcome.

You should probably extend this offer to someone who, you know, actually supports the war in Iraq and doesn't regard it at as the worst foreign-policy mistake of my lifetime. I am not that person. Try Beano instead.

Well, there's that. But really, Dayn -- I don't get holding Russert harmless here. He had the biggest microphone in the country and chose to use it as a mouthpiece for naked propaganda. Just because he wasn't unique in that regard doesn't get him off the hook. "Everybody was doing it" doesn't qualify as an excuse when the result is many, many deaths.

And 90% of the Dems, and 95% of the media, just went along, like the ineffectual tools they are. To single out Russert for this, is merely to take advantage of the man's death to do a little venting, when others are far, far more culpable.

I've never really understood the claim that the media just went along. Wasn't there plenty of opposition to the war in the media or am I misremembering? Did they really suspend their typical "Bush is doing it, so it must be stupid/criminal" mantra?

What were those? Bringing opprobrium upon the administration and the world while wasting resources in an effort to turn Iraq into a reliable ally of Iran? If so, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Well, I did support the war at the time, but I was wrong, obviously; it couldn't have gone worse, and I don't claim to know what to do now. (Thankfully, I'm neither the one who decided to go into Iraq, nor the one responsible for the prosecution of the war.) I don't support it or not support it anymore; I'm fine with any reasonable course of action that the next president wants to take.

At the same time, I think people are not giving enough appreciation to the circumstances Bush was operating under in the aftermath of 9/11, and rather than saying that the Democrats who voted for the war "just went along," I'm inclined to believe instead that they also felt the war had merit. And weren't just casting a vote to "go along," which wouldn't speak very highly of them at all.

I think it's a testament to how fast history works that there's already been a hell of a lot of revisionism of what went on in 2002-2003.

I'm probably the least familiar with the American media in the lead-up to the Iraq war, since I was a both a Canadian and a first-year university student more concerned with the Simpsons at the time, but my impression was that it was tremendously obvious to everyone (ie. media) that the Bush administration was manouvering America into a war and laying all the popular opinion groundwork necessary for declaring war in a democracy.

Of course, as I say, there are several strikes against this interpretation in that

A) I wasn't watching the news intently every day
B) I have a terrible memory
C) Most of the news I was watching was Canadian, not American

But I did watch some dollops of CNN, and I don't seem to recall the same blind acceptance a lot of people seem to remember. I'm sure the media could have done a better job, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. I mean, if a guy in a different country who was barely paying attention could figure it out...
Sure the media should take some blame, but how about the public at large? It's one of my favourite aspects of democracy...you can always blame the people!

I've never really understood the claim that the media just went along. Wasn't there plenty of opposition to the war in the media?

There was, and there is. Considering how negative the press has been on this war (rebuilding power grids and reopening schools = not a story, a US soldier stepping out of line = front page), it's amazing anybody in this country is still in favour staying in Iraq at all.

But for loonies like scareduck that ain't enough: they want the media to Super Liberal Channel, a place where the correspondents break earth-shaking stories about evil Republicans every night, so that all wars will cease and everybody gets free health care and a puppy. Instead, we have tools like Russert who insist on treating the vice-president like an actual human, instead demanding his resignation right then and there. At gunpoint.

I don't get holding Russert harmless here. He had the biggest microphone in the country and chose to use it as a mouthpiece for naked propaganda. Just because he wasn't unique in that regard doesn't get him off the hook. "Everybody was doing it" doesn't qualify as an excuse when the result is many, many deaths.

Scareduck, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big hand...!

The media, with few exceptions, mostly cheer led for the war until it became apparent that it was a complete failure. A lot of that was due to the fact that few prominent politicians ever bothered to speak out against the action. No one wanted to put themselves out there and face the wrath of a public that still wanted to see a lot of dead Arabs in the aftermath of 9/11. People were angry and Iraq was a convenient target on which to release pent up rage. If you opposed it then you were branded as a sissy who supports the terrorists.

There was, and there is. Considering how negative the press has been on this war (rebuilding power grids and reopening schools = not a story, a US soldier stepping out of line = front page), it's amazing anybody in this country is still in favour staying in Iraq at all.

Given all the power plants and schools the GOP has claimed have been built in Iraq, I'm surprised Baghdad isn't the biggest, most brightly lit college town this side of Boston.

For better or worse, a good newspaper (of which there are now exactly three remaining in the entire United States, and one of them is in danger) is still far and away the best source for in-depth reporting and information.

I stand corrected. I meant to say television journalism.

By the way -- name your three, and specify which one is endangered.

As PreBeane said, the only three remaining first rate papers are Times, the Post, and the Murdoch, the last of which is in danger for the obvious reasons. Murdoch's already putting pressure on the news room to put more emphasis on shorter, political articles, and cut down on the whimsical front page pieces that have always attracted the general reader to the paper. He's right in tune with the current round of fretting about newspaper readers' "attention span," which apparently shouldn't be put under too much stress.

Note that I'm not saying that he's politicizing the paper in any partisan direction. The editorial page is about as far to the right as you can get, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's not his conervative politics, it's his whole tendency to meddle that makes him suspect. He's like the Dan Snyder of Big Media.

For extra credit, you may explain what steps you would take to preserve the endangered one.

This will count for 20% toward your final grade.

The only sure way to prevent the WSJ's inevitable deterioration would be for Murdoch and his entire posse, including all of his children, to take a nice vacation in Switzerland, where they would all wind up killed in an avalanche. And if you could lure Dan Snyder into the cabin before you set off the explosion, I'd increase your reward by 30%.

Short of such a blessed reprieve, it's going to take an awful lot of whistleblowing, some loud public resignations, and a general refusal by reputable journalists to play along with his schemes, in order to foil him. And there's no guarantee that any of that will work, since Murdoch didn't get where he is today by paying attention to any journalistic value other than his own whims.

The Post and the Times aren't guaranteed long range survival, either, but at least they've thankfully resisted those classic hostile takeovers by "shareholders" who want to make them slaves to the stock market. You could pretty much say that the Sulzbergers and the Grahams are about all that's left in print journalism. And even at that, once you get past the front section of the Post, it goes downhill pretty fast.

The problem with newspapers in general is nothing that hasn't been noted a million times already. The internet and cable TV have peeled off so many casual readers that all they'll soon have left are the hardcore ones. And there simply aren't enough of them / us left to sustain them in the long run. The Times and the Journal can keep raising their price without too much resistance, as they're essential papers with national circulation bases, but the circulation of the print edition of the Post is 99% local, and if they tried any price hikes like the Times they'd lose the sizeable percentage of their readership that buys it more out of habit than out of conviction.

But then the Post now has over a billion bucks salted away in its stock holdings (thank you Warren Buffet), and so whatever hits it takes are likely to be more cosmetic than truly life-threatening. The real danger to the Post would be if the gradual dumbing down of its back sections were gradually to wind its way up to the A section, but for whatever reason I can't see that happening as long as it remains under family control.

Here's a transcript from Russert's 2003 interview with Cheney. YMMV, but by my reading he asks the right questions of Cheney. That's the format of the show. Russert asks, his guests answer.

What the transcript tells me is that Russert does ask many of the right questions of Cheney. Where MTP was often weak was in the followup. It was, indeed, the format of the show, but Russert had the power to change that, and didn't. It's reasonable to criticize him for that.

As for the question of whether someone who helped sell the war, and intentionally did not ask the tough questions, and supressed information, has blood on their hands, sure they do. Russert wasn't that guy, though. scareduck, I'm probably more sympathetic to your views than most at BTF, but your criticism of Russert is vague. Care to take a couple of examples from the interview Dayn linked, and tell us how Russert should have handled things differently, and how, specifically, Russert's failure to do so makes him complicit? That might aid the dialogue, or what's left of it.

But I did watch some dollops of CNN, and I don't seem to recall the same blind acceptance a lot of people seem to remember. I'm sure the media could have done a better job, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. I mean, if a guy in a different country who was barely paying attention could figure it out...
Sure the media should take some blame, but how about the public at large? It's one of my favourite aspects of democracy...you can always blame the people!

The public at large was extremely incurious. As one of those naive enough to stand on a street corner through a midwest winter along with about 60 other people, holding a sign protesting Bush's impending war, it sure as hell was clear to me that Bush and his administration were lying, forging intelligence, and so on. That so many bit on Powell's disgraceful and hilariously unconvincing dog and pony show at the UN was and is unfathomable to me. Powell presented, literally, no actual evidence, of the kind you'd need to convict a recidivist junkie of burglary, never mind of the kind strong enough to allow initiating pre-emptive war.

Generally: It can be instructive to go back and look at Powell's presentation to the UN. Imagine you're the member of a jury, looking for guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not there, and it's not close.

I was against the war, but if I had known that Arkitekton was against the war at the time, I think I would have supported it.

I'm probably the least familiar with the American media in the lead-up to the Iraq war, since I was a both a Canadian and a first-year university student more concerned with the Simpsons at the time, but my impression was that it was tremendously obvious to everyone (ie. media) that the Bush administration was manouvering America into a war and laying all the popular opinion groundwork necessary for declaring war in a democracy.

Simply put: no. Judith Miller at the (supposedly liberal bastion) New York Times and most every serious television and newspaper journalist absolutely did not question the "sources" they were fed by the administration. They reported inaccuracies such as the connections between Bin Laden and Hussein and the nonexistent WMDs in Iraq based on an uncritical reception of White House sources, specifically Chalabi.

For what I think so far is the definitive account of the media's response to the war, listen to Bill Moyer. I think anyone would be hard pressed to call this report advocacy or partisan.

Also, Michael Massing has written extensively on this. I guess as a contributer to the Columbia Journalism Review he counts as a liberal academic, but he seems to me to exemplify exactly what journalism should be.

media and Iraq.

Between Moyer and Massing, I think these two pieces express exactly what was going on while you were watching the Simposons ;-) (Hey, I was trying to pay attention too, but I was watching the Phillies, having grown bored with the Simpsons pace season 8!)

Between Moyer and Massing, I think these two pieces express exactly what was going on...

Seconded. The MSM was startlingly uncritical, and Moyers especially has done a sound job describing that.

I was against the war, but if I had known that Arkitekton was against the war at the time, I think I would have supported it.

Oh, good! Then let's try this one: I'm for not jumping off the roofs of skyscrapers.

Dayn,

Thanks for linking that interview transcript. I read it all and it confirmed what I had thought: Russert did a great job and asked all the necessary questions. However, when you read Cheney's responses, especially in light of what we know transpired, the VP looks like a total idiot.

Seemingly, the morons (scareduck, etc.) who are attacking Russert for doing a poor job would only be pleased if Russert, rather than interviewing Cheney, had verbally fought with him. And in holding that opinion, they expose their ignorance about what an interviewer's job is.

Seemingly, the morons (scareduck, etc.) who are attacking Russert for doing a poor job would only be pleased if Russert, rather than interviewing Cheney, had verbally fought with him. And in holding that opinion, they expose their ignorance about what an interviewer's job is.

Actually, they simply feel that Russert should have made a citizen's arrest and turned Cheney directly over to the Hague.

However, when you read Cheney's responses, especially in light of what we know transpired, the VP looks like a total idiot.

Not really. He sounds like a liar through and through. It's clear that he's saying plenty he knows is not true, or is simply making up.

...would only be pleased if Russert, rather than interviewing Cheney, had verbally fought with him. And in holding that opinion, they expose their ignorance about what an interviewer's job is.

This is a narrow opinion of what the interviewer's job is. Plenty of other interpretations of what that job entails are possible, and legitimate. There's nothing wrong with relentlessly challenging the interviewee, although as I would have been surprised to see Russert do that--it's not the way he saw his job.

This is a narrow opinion of what the interviewer's job is. Plenty of other interpretations of what that job entails are possible, and legitimate. There's nothing wrong with relentlessly challenging the interviewee, although as I would have been surprised to see Russert do that--it's not the way he saw his job.

I don't see how anyone could watch Russert interview someone and come away thinking that he was Larry King.

I also don't see what the hell good "relentlessly challenging" the interviewee is, in the way you're using that term. Russert asked challenging questions, repeated them until he felt it was clear that was all he was going to get, and moved on.

It seems like people wanted Russert to repeat the same question for a half hour and then scream "You're a filthy liar!!!" at Cheney before moving on to the next subject.

OJ Simpson police chase

The only thing "wow" about that was that they wouldn't let me watch the NBA Finals game I was trying to see. Nothing happened and they showed it to me for something like an hour and a half.

Wow, was I pissed.

I was watching, or trying to watch, the NBA Finals as well that night. Game 5? I flipped around, at one point that night, 22 of my 46 cable channels had live feed of the white bronco. This was a time, early in the era abundant live video access, where not every network knew what its role should be. I swear, PBS, E!, NBC, EWTN, History and Weather Channel had that bronco live.

That was possibly the beginning of the end of the greatest run in the NBA's history. And possibly the last time I tuned in to watch the NBA Finals out of habit. It has not yet reached the level of fandom it had before that date. The NBA's 911.

The real issue is, why is the U.S. in Iraq when the individual who claimed credit for an actual attack against the United States is still at large in Afghanistan?

From today's news.

Intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden is sketchy, but some analysts believe he is in the Bajaur tribal zone in northwest Pakistan.

I don't think Bin Laden is believed to have been in Afghanistan since 2001. From all of the talk I am hearing, Obama is going to go nuts dropping bombs in this area of Pakistan. If only I could believe him, maybe I would vote for him.

Good Riddance, Tim Russert

As someone upthread commented, even if all your claims regarding Russert were accurate, that headline is ###### up.

Should we blame your editor?

Well, I did support the war at the time, but I was wrong, obviously; it couldn't have gone worse, and I don't claim to know what to do now. (Thankfully, I'm neither the one who decided to go into Iraq, nor the one responsible for the prosecution of the war.) I don't support it or not support it anymore; I'm fine with any reasonable course of action that the next president wants to take.

Actually, I think it obviously could have gone worse. I think many would agree that popular opinion of this war has now swung too far in the "we lost" direction, from where it started, "we are going to disarm iraq" point of view at the beginning.

We did win. Saddam is dead, we replaced the iraqi government and installed a democracy and ensured WMDs would not be used by Iraq against the US. (obviously we now know WMDs didn't exist, of course only after our Marines inspected the country) We are now struggling to maintain peace.

The biggest failing in this war was intelligence. Our intelligence has a terrible track record that has shown no signs of improvement. Had WMDs been found, I bet the impression of this war would be completely different. Yet, intelligence is an art; it is all about trying to draw hypotheses without all of the fact, even with few facts. It is not easy, certainly more difficult than doing a photo shoot for Vanity Fair. Either way, the Iraq could have been much worse. In fact it was. 18 months ago it was much worse. Things have really improved that much.

Long term, it is impossible to tell what trajectory this war set the world on. I feel it has set back the efforts of radical Islam quite a bit. Of course, we risk a lot by even fighting this war, we could have been defeated in Iraq, or we could pull out quickly in 2009, this of course would we be a victory for radical Islam and is an enormous moral boost for the terrorists. (spare me the talk that Iraq and radical Islam are not related) Al Qaeda has taken a massive beating in Iraq. This story has not been told. Tens of thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists have been eviscerated and sent to hell. Their morale is low, we are outlasting these #######.

Our soldiers have done marvelous work and the lives that have been given have made a difference, their efforts have made our world safer. But we are "this close" from giving it all back. We have to remain focused and keep our foot on their throats for the foreseeable future; otherwise we can loose all of our gains overnight. I can’t think of a better place in the world for a US military base, right now, than Iraq. That will be the most important strategic location for US in the coming years.

So yes, the war didn't look anything like we expected, but then again, this is quite common in the history of war.

The real issue is, why is the U.S. in Iraq when the individual who claimed credit for an actual attack against the United States is still at large in Afghanistan?

There are 5 people that were considered central planners of 9-11. 4 of the 5 were captured, killed, or presumed killed in the 18 months post 9-11 and before the Iraq war.

Osama bin Laden (man vs wild - since 12/2001)
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (captured - considered 9-11 "mastermind")
Mohammed Atef (dead - killed 11/01)
Abu Turab Al-Urduni (presumed dead - 2001)
Ramzi Binalshibh (captured - 9-11, 2002)

Al Qaeda has developed few prospects from within their system over the past 6 years with any management ability.

#140 got it right. That is exactly what happened.

The left, amazingly, has been reduced to saying they were duped. To believe that, then you have to believe the Democrats and the media are some of the most dim-witted people on earth. While I have no problem believing that, I find it fascinating the left has no problem portraying themselves in such a low light. There are congressional Democrats that had committee access to the classified intelligence leading up to the war said next to nothing. What is their excuse?

None of this makes sense. #140, you got it.

We did win. Saddam is dead, we replaced the iraqi government and installed a democracy and ensured WMDs would not be used by Iraq against the US.

Thank God, too. I remember that summer before we invaded and how terrified I was every night as I lay in bed, thinking of what the Iraqi government and Iraqi military might do. Those were frightful times.

Don't forget Paris Hilton's and Pamela Anderson's (numerous) porn videos being published on the internet.
161. kevin Posted: June 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM (#2820028)

Thank God, too. I remember that summer before we invaded and how terrified I was every night as I lay in bed, thinking of what the Iraqi government and Iraqi military might do. Those were frightful times.



And now it's been replaced by all those nukes the Iranians are planning to build and what they intend to do with them and what the Iranian military might do.

Ever notice liberals are some of the most un-serious people you meet?

I thought this was a balanced obit of Russert.

I always had mixed feelings about the guy. I cheered him on when he asked the question I thought really needed to be asked, but as has been revealed, he was soiled by his insider status in the political world. The journalist, like the politicians he covered, was an inherently flawed individual.

Ever notice liberals are some of the most un-serious people you meet?

That would explain the 1/2 Hour News Hour.

This is a narrow opinion of what the interviewer's job is. Plenty of other interpretations of what that job entails are possible, and legitimate. There's nothing wrong with relentlessly challenging the interviewee, although as I would have been surprised to see Russert do that--it's not the way he saw his job.


I don't see how anyone could watch Russert interview someone and come away thinking that he was Larry King.

I also don't see what the hell good "relentlessly challenging" the interviewee is, in the way you're using that term. Russert asked challenging questions, repeated them until he felt it was clear that was all he was going to get, and moved on.

It seems like people wanted Russert to repeat the same question for a half hour and then scream "You're a filthy liar!!!" at Cheney before moving on to the next subject.

Thanks for playing, Ray. The non-Bizarro world interpretation is that I was disagreeing with Rich's implicit claim that only certain kinds of interviews are legitimate. I also explicitly stated that Russert did not see his job as involving relentlessly challenging his interviewees. And, you don't think there are some occasions where relentlessly challenging someone highlights their lies, or obfuscations? Really?

We did win. Saddam is dead, we replaced the iraqi government and installed a democracy and ensured WMDs would not be used by Iraq against the US.

We installed a democracy? Is it 2108 already? Am I Rip5x vanMcCain Winkle? And thank god all Saddam's nasty WMDs are safely stockpiled in the New Mexico desert, where they can do no harm to our empir...er, democracy.

'Fess up--who made up this quote!?

That would explain the 1/2 Hour News Hour.

Uggh, don't remind me of that. I barely sat through one episode and I'm less liberal than 90% of BTF.

If our government was as unprincipled and overconcerned about politics as some believe, they would have planted evidence of WMD. I don't see how it would have been so difficult to accomplish.

'Fess up--who made up this quote!?

Someone who's bad enough at comedy to write for the aforementioned 1/2 Hour News Hour?

If any supporters of the war want to go to Iraq, join the Guard or Army Reserve. You can enlist all the way up to the age of 40.

Our intelligence has a terrible track record that has shown no signs of improvement. Had WMDs been found, I bet the impression of this war would be completely different. Yet, intelligence is an art; it is all about trying to draw hypotheses without all of the fact, even with few facts. [SNIP]

And you'd think that, given said track record, the Administration would be more responsible about launching a war based on it. The rest of that post was cheerleading dressed up as sober analysis. I've heard those talking points before, and I'm not buying. I say this as a strong, staunch supporter of the initial Iraqi invasion (a liberal one, at that), based on what my President told me, based on Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N., based on the NYT reports (that we know know was straight propaganda). Like Ray, I have no idea what we should do now in Iraq, but the people who foolishly got us into it, then once there dug us deeper and deeper, are the last people I want in charge of any future decision-making WRT Iraq.

And you'd think that, given said track record, the Administration would be more responsible about launching a war based on it.

Stunning to think that after the Downing Street memos and all the rest of it that anyone still wants to debate whether the administration had made up its mind to go to war, then rigged the intelligence to fit the facts. What do you suppose the defenders of the administration here get out of defending mass murder--what's the payoff?

There's nothing wrong with relentlessly challenging the interviewee, although as I would have been surprised to see Russert do that--it's not the way he saw his job.

And thus my problem with him.

What do you suppose the defenders of the administration here get out of defending mass murder--what's the payoff?

Clear consciences. See also, "The United States does not torture."

If any supporters of the war want to go to Iraq, join the Guard or Army Reserve. You can enlist all the way up to the age of 40.

You too can join the military, if you really support the troops but oppose the war. You can get non-combat duty as conscientious objector, noncombatant (1-A-O).

You too can join the military, if you really support the troops but oppose the war.

What sort of idiot joins the military during a war to not fight? By that moronic definition, anyone who hasn't joined the military doesn't support the troops. Of course, you could always invent your own little group, give yourself a quasi-military nickname (a la the Fighting Keyboardists), and just say that you support the troops by paying lip service to duty.

You too can join the military, if you really support the troops but oppose the war.

Stop! You're killing me!!

If any supporters of the war want to go to Iraq, join the Guard or Army Reserve. You can enlist all the way up to the age of 40.

In the famous words of Seth Grossman, the former Duke University head of the "Young Americans for Freedom" during Vietnam, they "support the war," but they "like it better on TV." Which is what Grossman was at least candid enough to admit about himself in that long gone and unlamented era.

A conversation I've had a few dozen times in the last five years:

"Hey, RMc, if you love this war so much, why don't you join the army?"
"For the same reason you didn't volunteer to be a human shield, Mr. Peacemaker."
"..."
"Drive home safely."

Beano made some excellent points. As I read them, though, I could already see the rebuttals: "It doesn't matter that Saddam is dead, things still suck in Iraq! You're a warmongerer! Bushitler! Plastic turkey! Halliburton! Waaahhhhhhh!!!"

The Left is free to mock our efforts in Iraq/Afghan because they know they have no stake in this war: win, lose, it doesn't matter to their tiny little lives of being perpetually offended. But for the rest of us, it's important: victory in Iraq not only gives the Iraqi people a chance to live in a Country That Doesn't Suck, but it gives the US a bulwark against Islamic fascism in the region. That's big. Where once there was a vicious despot (Saddam) and bunch of murderous thugs (Al Qaeda), both free to make mischief all over the world, there is now something resembling a functioning democracy. And that's good.

the 1/2 Hour News Hour.

Boy, when you have to bring up this, you know you've run out of arguments: "This stupid little show sucked, therefore all conservatives suck. And I did I mention Halliburton?"

I want the war over with in Iraq as quickly as possible. How do we do that? Win. Win, and bring our people home.

The Left is free to mock our efforts in Iraq/Afghan because they know they have no stake in this war: win, lose, it doesn't matter to their tiny little lives of being perpetually offended. But for the rest of us, it's important: victory in Iraq not only gives the Iraqi people a chance to live in a Country That Doesn't Suck, but it gives the US a bulwark against Islamic fascism in the region. That's big. Where once there was a vicious despot (Saddam) and bunch of murderous thugs (Al Qaeda), both free to make mischief all over the world, there is now something resembling a functioning democracy. And that's good.

The question remains: If it's so important, why do so many of its military-age supporters avoid signing up for it? Why does the military have to keep extending tours of duty and pressing National Guard units into overseas assignments?

These aren't questions that the war's supporters like to confront, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth asking, especially at a time when the "sacrifice" of this war is being directly borne by nobody but the military and their families.

Stripped of all the spin, these chickenhawks past and present have one thing in common: They have no qualms about letting others do all this "important" fighting for them, in spite of the fact that they're of the same age and in presumably good health. And if they don't like being mocked about it, they can always sign up. It's still likely that there will be several more years of opportunity for them to get shot at in the cause of freedom.

And RMc shows once again that he is incapable of discussing anything in terms other than caricatures of liberals and conservatives. He lives in an imaginary talk radio world of ideological good guys and bad guys.

They have no qualms about letting others do all this "important" fighting for them


The war against terror is a long hard struggle that has to be won one baseball site at a time.

The people who are strongly against the war hardly get points for courage either. We have a group of people who believe that the current administration is a bunch of evil, ruthless mass murderers and their reaction is what? Armed rebellion? Nope. Civil insurrection? Nope. Standing around with signs once in a while if the weather's nice and making snarky anonymous comments on blogs? Yup! What would the sayings have been if today's left had been the left of the 1770s? "Give me Liberty or Give me the Patience to Hang Around for A New Monarch Who Supports Incremental Policy Change!"

The Weathermen and similar organizations may have done some reprehensible things, but at least they, unlike the chickenhawks and chickendoves today, put what they believed into practice and valued those beliefs over living their cushy, comfortable lives. The idea that beliefs are great but leave the fighting for others is a trait shared by Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

And RMc shows once again that he is incapable of discussing anything in terms other than caricatures of liberals and conservatives. He lives in an imaginary talk radio world of ideological good guys and bad guys.

Read what scareduck or arkitekton wrote in this thread?

Where once there was a vicious despot (Saddam) and bunch of murderous thugs (Al Qaeda)

Politics aside, I'm really surprised about the endurance of the myth that Al Queda was operating in Iraq when Saddam was in power. Not only did it represent a complete misunderstanding of both groups politics/religion/goals in the leadup to the war, but it was simply wrong. They were not there.

In fact, it was the opposite. There was no Al Qaeda operation in Iraq until after the invasion.

The Weathermen and similar organizations may have done some reprehensible things, but at least they, unlike the chickenhawks and chickendoves today, put what they believed into practice and valued those beliefs over living their cushy, comfortable lives. The idea that beliefs are great but leave the fighting for others is a trait shared by Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm not sure which is worse here: The slanderous comparison between our soldiers and the murderous group of nihilists known as The Weathermen; or the idea that there should be comparable expectations between people who want to send other young people to war, and people who don't want to send other young people to war.

It's true that war supporters and war opponents have an equal obligation to develop political support for their respective sides. But there's a big difference between a war opponent who works to bring all troops out of harm's way, and a war supporter who works to keep them---but not himself---in the line of fire.

At that point the debate ceases to be about the merits of the war, and becomes one more case of bribing someone else to do the fighting for you. Which, stripped of all the bogus libertarian rhetoric about "slavery," is exactly what eliminating the military draft was (and is) all about. There are way too many war supporters (granted, not all of them) who want the fruits of victory, but who don't want to sacrifice a single thing in order to bring it about. The Bush administration's refusal to put the war on a pay-a-you-go basis is the perfect expression of this sorry attitude, which passes the buck not only to the military alone in this generation, but to taxpayers in future generations.

The left, amazingly, has been reduced to saying they were duped.

Some of us thought it was a load of shite from the get-go.

or the idea that there should be comparable expectations between people who want to send other young people to war, and people who don't want to send other young people to war.

I'm not talking about the people who simply don't want to send other young people to war. I'm one of those. I'm talking about the people who are talking about Bush as if he were Pol Pot and his administration, the Khmer Rouge. It's one thing to think the Iraq War is a disaster, which it is, but if one actually believes that the country is run by mass-murderers and their response is to sit on the couch watching Family Guy, then yes, they're a chickendove.

or the idea that there should be comparable expectations between people who want to send other young people to war, and people who don't want to send other young people to war.

I'm not talking about the people who simply don't want to send other young people to war. I'm one of those. I'm talking about the people who are talking about Bush as if he were Pol Pot and his administration, the Khmer Rouge. It's one thing to think the Iraq War is a disaster, which it is, but if one actually believes that the country is run by mass-murderers and their response is to sit on the couch watching Family Guy, then yes, they're a chickendove.

I'll let those people defend themselves, because I'm certainly not going to, but you might note that their ranks are vastly outnumbered by the sort of chickenhawks I'm talking about. You can talk about "extremists on both sides," but at some point you have to acknowledge the relative srength and influence of their respective armies. One commands Air America, a few marginalized weblogs, and a random congressional district or two, while the other merely runs our government.

A conversation I've had a few dozen times in the last five years:

"Hey, RMc, if you love this war so much, why don't you join the army?"
"For the same reason you didn't volunteer to be a human shield, Mr. Peacemaker."
"..."
"Drive home safely."

I haven't volunteered for Iraq because I'm not prepared to lose life and limb for a ######## war.
That's your reason too?

Don't be too hard on these guys, ian. Why, some of them have even sacrificed golf for the duration.

spare me the talk that Iraq and radical Islam are not related

They are now. Thanks a lot, neocons. *sigh*

If you make new enemies faster than you are killing or neutralizing your existing enemies, you are not making progress. Extra minus bonus points for blowing a shitload of money on this operation, and extra extra minus bonus points for doing everything you can to cover up these costs and pawn them off on our children.

Chickendove?

I will admit that I have done little beyond expressing my opposition to the war publicly and talking about it. You do have a point that war opposition costs no more than war support in this regard.

But the similarities between the two end there, as has been pointed out.

The Left is free to mock our efforts in Iraq/Afghan because they know they have no stake in this war: win, lose, it doesn't matter to their tiny little lives of being perpetually offended. But for the rest of us, it's important: victory in Iraq not only gives the Iraqi people a chance to live in a Country That Doesn't Suck, but it gives the US a bulwark against Islamic fascism in the region. That's big. Where once there was a vicious despot (Saddam) and bunch of murderous thugs (Al Qaeda), both free to make mischief all over the world, there is now something resembling a functioning democracy. And that's good.

I'm neither a leftist nor a dove, but this war is killing us as a country in the same way 4000+ young men have been killed and many times that permanently disabled. It's a bankrupt, bankrupting war that is draining resources that could be used to put this country on the rise again. As Katrina and the current flooding illustrate, our infrastructure is collapsing from neglect, and monies are being diverted from investment in the future.

Saddam was a bastard, but most of Iraq sucks more now than it did before the invasion. I wouldn't support it even if our stated goals had been achieved, but they haven't. Personally, I don't believe the stated goals are meant to be achieved. We never took any real steps to rebuild Iraq, have taken no real steps to secure the country against internal threat -- steps which would have required a greater commitment of troops and money that we've already spent. From the get-go, the war has been a complete disaster for both the US and Iraqi people.

Seriously, how could we rebuild Iraq when we can't even rebuild this country?

A conversation I've had a few dozen times in the last five years:

"Hey, RMc, if you love this war so much, why don't you join the army?"
"For the same reason you didn't volunteer to be a human shield, Mr. Peacemaker."
"..."
"Drive home safely."

I think you might be misjudging why this argument leaves the listener in stunned silence.

Chickendove?

I will admit that I have done little beyond expressing my opposition to the war publicly and talking about it. You do have a point that war opposition costs no more than war support in this regard.

But the similarities between the two end there, as has been pointed out.

I'm not talking about simple war opposition which I'm a part of, but the people on the extreme end of war opposition, who casually throw terms like psychopath or war criminal or mass murderer. I expect the former to vote against the people in charge of the war, which I did.

The latter, however, if they truly believe that the current administration is made up of psychopaths, war criminals, and mass murderers, have a moral obligation, as Americans, to take steps to overthrow the dictatorship. If they don't believe it, then it's just irresponsible rhetoric of the kind Republicans used to get us into war. So they're either chickendoves or neocons. I'll let duck and ark decide which group they're in.

Boy, when you have to bring up this, you know you've run out of arguments: "This stupid little show sucked, therefore all conservatives suck.

You just don't care about context, do you?

What sort of idiot joins the military during a war to not fight? By that moronic definition, anyone who hasn't joined the military doesn't support the troops.

Wow, you are quick mr softball player. Exactly the point behind me suggesting those that "really support the troops" yet don't agree with this war, can join too.

It is absurdly suggested by the left that if you support a war, you can only grab a gun and enlist, otherwise you are a hypocrite. So I made the suggestion that you are a hypocrite if you "support the troops" yet oppose the war but refuse to enlist. You don't have to pick up a gun in the Army, to be in the Army.

I admit I am impressed with how quickly you shouted me down with this suggestion. Maybe it is because you are busy volunteering to sand bag rivers in Iowa and needed to get back to work.

Boy, when you have to bring up this, you know you've run out of arguments: "This stupid little show sucked, therefore all conservatives suck. And I did I mention Halliburton?"


He didn't say that. He said the show wasn't funny. It wasn't, it was sub-Two and a Half Men.

1/2 Hour News Hour indeed sucked. But if it makes you feel better 90% of comedy shows suck.

Yikes. One of my favorite BTF posters is now in country. He's spent a ton of time putting hurt kids back together before going there. I hope he contributes to this thread, because some of the posters here have their head so far up their butts that I'm surprised they aren't black holes.

Stripped of all the spin, these chickenhawks past and present have one thing in common: They have no qualms about letting others do all this "important" fighting for them, in spite of the fact that they're of the same age and in presumably good health. And if they don't like being mocked about it, they can always sign up. It's still likely that there will be several more years of opportunity for them to get shot at in the cause of freedom.

Andy, what percentage of liberals complaining about "chickenhawks" got off their asses, went down to New Orleans to help evacuate, to help clean up, to help rebuild, or to offer help to relocate those that lost homes? Now what percentage did that compared to those that only mailed money somewhere and complained about all of the work that needed to be done or the things Bush needed to to or failed to do?

I'm sure it was more than half, right? Probably not. Otherwise that would have been the cleanest looking city in the world.

I love this entire line of argument. "Liberals" are just as much to blame for messes created by a bunch of incompetent rightwingers as those who support those rightwingers, because they aren't taking it upon themselves to clean up those messes themselves.

"Party of personal responsibility," my ass.

Suggestion for right-winger response to enlistment question: "I'd love to go to Iraq, but I've signed up for providing counterfire against those liberal traitors at BBTF for the duration."

I'd definitely like to hear any voices of the people who have/are serving in Iraq.

I work with a guy who was there, and I know secondhand of the suffering of a good many National Guard families whose middle-aged fathers have been sent there.

Beyond that, I'd like to see some kind of evidence that shows we're achieving the stated goals of the war, that's it's not destined to become an never-ending occupation designed to get and keep a foothold to secure oil.