Major Garrett Says He's 'Militantly Non-Partisan'--But Sounds Like Obama Flack
On Morning Joe, Major Garrett, formerly of Fox News, now with the National Journal, claimed to be "militantly non-partisan" . . . then proceeded to offer a passionate defense of President Obama's Libya policy.
As an hors d'oeuvre during the discussion of the need for the media to acknowledge their leanings, Katrina vanden Heuvel risibly refused to admit that her Nation magazine is left-wing.
View video after the jump.
Garrett repeatedly put his defense of the Obama policy in the mouths of Hillary Clinton and other administration figures. But the passion in his voice, and his occasional personal editorializing, left little doubt that he comes down strongly on the Obama side.
At one point, Mika Brzezinski, who for some time has advocated greater media transparency about its political leanings, tried to get Garrett to state his political orientation. But Garrett willfully chose to misinterpret Mika's question, answering that he was "a reporter." Right.
KATRINA VANDEN HUEVEL: Every human being has a world-view, and I think what Fox doesn't do is that it doesn't acknowledge that it has a very, very, very strong point of view. At The Nation we are up front.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, like you're left--sometimes a lot left.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Independent, trans-partisan.
So Katrina claims The Nation to be "up front," but refuses to embrace Mika's description of the magazine as leftist.
MAJOR GARRETT: I'm at the National Journal now; I'm very proud to be there. [Publisher] David Bradley gives us one mandate: to be militantly non-partisan, and I'm very happy to be there.
Mika then tried to get Garrett to acknowledge his personal political preference. Watch how he deflects the question.
BRZEZINSKI: OK, but you are a [as in Dem, Republican, etc.]?
GARRETT: I'm a reporter. I'm accountable. I've been transparent about my reporting my whole life. Everything I've done is held up to scrutiny, and I invite it.
A bit later . . .
VANDEN HEUVEL: There are a lot of questions here and I don't think this country can afford to be in another, third, war with an Arab country.
BRZEZINSKI: The Arab awakening, though, is another dynamic here.
VANDEN HEUVEL: One that is harmed, I think, by this U.S. intervention.
GARRETT: We don't know if it is harmed, or helped. What we do know is that the administration thought that it had one choice, and one choice only: [note the rising fervor in Garrett's voice] to preside over, silently, a slaughter of innocents in Benghazi. That was the alternative. No mercy meant no mercy, and the administration came to believe, very strongly, that Khadaffi would eliminate an entire city and its populace to prove a point, to prove a brutal dictator's point, which has happened before in history.
Note: by this point, Garrett seems to have abandoned any real pretense of reporting and is making his own impassioned argument in favor of intervention.
GARRETT: If you look at Samantha Power, Susan Rice,Hillary Clinton--all from the Clinton era--who painfully remember--Samantha Power wrote a very important book [Ed.--good blurb material, Samantha!] about what did not happen in Rwanda. They said: forget all these strategic questions, mission creep--we can deal with all that later --
Right! That's what we want: an administration that decides to "forget all these strategic questions" before using military force!
GARRETT: Saves lives now, and make a point, and then move forward.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But the mission has changed, Mika. I mean, it was originally civilian protection. What is it now? Well now --
GARRETT: -- they believe they can figure it out on the fly. On Wednesday of next week, Secretary Clinton, Defense Secretary Gates, are going to brief Capitol Hill. By then, the U.S. role will be much more diminished, the president, I predict, will have said something much more clear about his intentions and what's going forward. So by the time this big briefing happens on Wednesday, the administration will have more answers than it does now, a different military posture, strong NATO control over this, and a different trajectory.
Wow: talk about your rosy scenario! Mika stepped in to ask a good question.
BRZEZINSKI: Is that out of step, though? To have clarity on intent two weeks in, Mike Barnicle? I mean, that is a fair, I think, criticism, that our intent is confused, at least in terms of the message.
MIKE BARNICLE: They're bending over backwards in Washington not to declare this a war, and yet everything visually that Americans see and hear: it's a war.
Garrett would brook no such criticism.
GARRETT: There are American troops, and from the perspective of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Powers and Susan Rice, they deserve an opportunity to fight for their future. Without the intervention from the West, there would never have been that chance.
Major didn't mention himself, but it sure sounds like he shares their perspective.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hurricane vandenHeuvel
Submitted by Texndoc on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:55am.
She's insane. Congratulations for being able to stomach an all-Mika moderated Moaning Joe. I didn't last 5 minutes.
Shame about Major Garrett, who used to be on Laura Ingraham's show all the time.
Anybody notice when Obama is criticized on that show that Mika just now does over-the-top facial mugging if she's on camera? She reminds me of old Chevy Chase skits on SNL when when Jane Curtain was reading the news he would pull the corners of his mouth and stick out his tongue behind her back.
Mika B. is Morning Joe's human emoticon
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:14pm.
As for Hurricane Katrina's refusal to describe her publicatiion is left-wing, I refuse to acknowledge that her magazine is journalism.
quaaaack!! polly supports this action quaaaack!!
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:55am.
Yep. Without a doubt he is championing the administrations position not reporting.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is the
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:59am.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is the poster girl for Bernie Goldberg's spot-on observation that liberals, in both their work and their social lives, are so isolated from views other than their own, that they do, indeed think "everyone" thinks the way they do.
That's why they are blind to their own biases.
They just think that's the default position, and anyone who disagrees is the one who's biased.
I always thought Garrett's
Submitted by Captain Repus on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:02am.
I always thought Garrett's left-leaning was very obvious while at Fox His disgraceful performance this morning certainly re-enforced that to me. I was stunned about how quickly he switched from his claim to be a non-partisan 'reporter' to nothing more than an Obammy flack.
As for Mika's weird facial expressions, I think she is simply on day 5 of a 7 day bout with constipation triggered by too much White House 'soup of the day'.
Captain,
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:34am.
Maybe the Domino's pizza bound her up.....
He used to be a reporter for
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:46pm.
He used to be a reporter for the Washington Times. I felt like he told it like it was during that time. What happened? Is he trying to be another David Brock? What a twerp he turned out to be.
The big question is how do
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:06am.
The big question is how do they know that intervention and support of a rebel military will not kill more Libyans than what Gadhafi would have killed? What will we do if the rebels are successful and the rebels begin to slaughter Gadhafi supporters? Who will we support if the rebels divide and begin to slaughter each other?
This reminds me of an old joke. Just wish I could remember who said it and how it actually went. It was way back either Will Rogers or Bob Hope talking about a civil war among some Chinese factions. The joke was..... the US has sent gunboats up the Yellow river to prevent the Chinese from shooting each other and if necessary we'll shoot them to keep them from shooting each other. THAT pretty much sums up obamas Libya policy.
The proof is in the lack of
Submitted by Captain Repus on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:34am.
The proof is in the lack of pudding. All of the cities that Gadhafi re-possessed from the Al Queda 'freedom fighters' prior to Obammy playing toy-soldier are, I suspect, still quite populated by living residents. Seems to me that it might be a worthy thing for one of these crack news reporters to get out of their hotel suites and check out.
If the cities are instead occupied by slaughtered citizens (not dead armed rebels), then I might believe we are doing a noble thing. Methinks I already know the answer.
Well then, let's get the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:09am.
Well then, let's get the pitchforks and torches ready since he "sounds like [an] Obama flak." Let's get a kangaroo court and hang him.
So our former admiration for
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:19am.
So our former admiration for a straight reporter who showed he isn't one after all devolves into projection? Just because you might resort to such extremes doesn't translate into our disappointment rising to a lynch mob. Perspective is a GOOD thing!!!
Ronald Reagan
He may be an Obama supporter,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:05am.
He may be an Obama supporter, but this supposed example is tenuous at best. I haven't seen anything while he was at Fox that indicates he's an Obama supporter. I think his body of work at Fox overwhelmingly contradicts this one flimsy example.
Don't you have enough poo-fights going on right now, Incestmo?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:23am.
Now get over there and team up with tombaker - he could really use some of your surgically-sharp logic right now.
For cryin' out loud, SoL!!!!
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:32am.
Don't you know attacking the bloggers is a classic troll tell? It's like hanging an "I am a troll sign" around his neck, for all the world to see.
I can't believe Incestmo is still around after THE MOST SHAMEFUL THREAD in all of NB history.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
B:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:36am.
are you implying he's not the arch-conservative we all believe him to be?
My faith in humanity is shattered.
Sorry
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:37am.
:(
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ok guys and gals, now while I
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:23pm.
Ok guys and gals, now while I detest Obama and his decision to involve the US in military action in Libya, I cannot, consciously convict someone for supporting military action in Libya when they also supported action in Iraq. Tho, liberals try to equate them to the same quotient, the formula is different. Now, military action should not be a partisan subject. I know many see it that way. And I am sure that there are a lot of liberals out there that are really against involvement in Libya, but will not say so, only because Obama is one of them.
That said, I was against involvement in Iraq, the second time. I know that the world had changed on 9-11, but still, I was against Iraq II. I am also vehemently opposed to action in Libya. I would be opposed to this no matter who was in office. I also think that this President should be impeached for committing US forces to combat without addressing Congress first.
So I cut Garrett some slack here. He was in favor of Iraq II.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
There was no Iraq II, as you
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:29pm.
There was no Iraq II, as you call it. We were still in a state of war with Iraq. There was a cease fire in place, but that's all it was. Since Saddam did not abide by the terms, we had every right to resume fighting. I would argue that because there was a cease fire, then Bush didn't need Congressional approval since it had already been given 12 years prior.
Satchmo
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:40pm.
I am very well aware of the state of hostilities we were engaged in with Iraq. I am aware of the no fly zones and the constant sniping of the anti-air missiles and the violations of the UN sanctions. I never said anything about Congressional approval for Bush. I never said we did not have the right to go into Iraq the second time. You really need to practice up on your reading comprehension skills. Quit trying to read between the lines and try reading what is there in print on the screen.
I said I was against going into Iraq the second time.
Now after the troops were moved in, I supported the decision, the President(Bush), and the troops.
Man, where do you guys come from anyway?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Where?
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:10pm.
That's easy bass.
That one was Tingles as a new born. : )
LOL, thats great Rukus!
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:15pm.
LOL, thats great Rukus!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No comprehension issue here.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:33pm.
No comprehension issue here. I never claimed you said any of those things. I said that there really wasn't an Iraq II, as you called it; it was a continuation of the war begun under Bush, Sr., and I explained why.
And your assumption that I
Submitted by bassndude on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 9:57am.
And your assumption that I did not know these things? So you had to try to give a history lesson? Why did you feel compelled to respond with comments that were not relevant? No wonder people on here think your a numbskull.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
My response was entirely
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:26pm.
My response was entirely relevant. You really should remove the chip from your shoulder.
No chips on shoulders, SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:49pm.
when it comes to responding to your posts.
If you play the part of a fool, that is how you will be treated.
MD
No need for all that
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:24am.
Let's just lump him in with the rest of the "objective" reporters and question his accuracy from now on.
Hey Phil: any plans for the upcoming 2011 Earth Day?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:30am.
Gonna be tough to top last year.
I second that question, Phil
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:36am.
Maybe you could borrow John Travolta's airplanes or something.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Still thinking about it
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:10am.
I suppose I could execute an innocent tree? Any ideas?
If you are going to execute a
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:30am.
If you are going to execute a tree, may I suggest each member of your family gets their own individual chainsaw and take a cut at the tree. Then feed the tree into a chipper and throw out the remains with the garbage in plastic bags.
Execute a tree
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:14pm.
With a flamethrower! Then roast a pig (or a troll). And lot's and lot's of buttery, salty popcorn. Yum!
How about this, Phil....
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:14pm.
Execute an innocent tree, as you explain to your audience that you are doing it in preparation for next year's bonfire.
Then have a bonfire with "last year's wood", and while you're at it, have a PETA BBQ (people eating tasty animals) for all of your friends and family, who hopefully have nice 4WD vehicles. Then go for a ride, or rather a parade.
Thank mother earth for providing with you with all of the essentials for your Earth Day Celebration. Combustible wood, tasty animals, and oil!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I dunno
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:23pm.
Where would I find these "friends" you speak of? I am a hermit, you know. However, I do have several brush piles ready to torch.
My wife has family around
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:13pm.
My wife has family around Roanoke. Want me to call them?
oh wow.......
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:24pm.
Now that sounds like a perfect weekend. Perfect, I say!
Even though I'm supposed to be watching what I eat, I'm positively salivating at the idea of bbq.
-Jon
A court would be convened---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 6:30pm.
not gotten, and as far as -
"Let's get a kangaroo court and hang him."
A person is hung with a rope, not a kangaroo court.
You, SatchelMouth, stunk up a whole thread over two days time talking crap about punctuation, grammar, and syntax; the whole time berating other posters by saying they didn't know what they were talking about regarding those particular subjects.
Then you type out and post, for all to see, the foregoing nonsense.
You are an idiot.
MD
I'd put money on it
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 6:18pm.
I'd be willing to bet that Major Garrett and his wife are social friends with Samantha Powers and her husband Cass Sunstein. Garrett's comments seem more a defense of Samantha Powers- her policies as articulated in her book, which are the policies the Obama administration is now espousing. I wonder how Garrett will respond in the future to Powers anti-Israel stance? http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/how-attacking-libya-sets-legal-precede...
Disappointing
Submitted by BondPlainBond on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:13am.
Disappointing, wasn't it?
Deleted by bookmark to the National Journal before he even finished talking.
I really liked Major Garrett
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:15am.
I really liked Major Garrett when I saw him on FOX. He seemed to care more about the truth than sides, and the tidbits that help round out a story were part and parcel of his reporting.
After he left FOX and I saw him on MJ {a month or so ago?} I was appalled at how much he had changed. He acted like he had always been on the outside looking in, and looky here, he was sitting with, and being accepted by the MJ crew, and he couldn't be happier - so much so, he reminded me of Joe, and his slide.
Sad. He was one of the few I trusted to hear it straight from.
Ronald Reagan
Ditto
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:45am.
Yeah, I was the same way, I had liked Garrett's style, but I guess he had to drink the kool-aid at gun point or something.
One of the ones that had come into FNC from CNN that I really like in the mornings is Bill Hemmer, especially when he's on there with Martha McCallum and etc. When you watch him, and he's a straight up shooter, you can't help but like the guy.
-Jon
Jon
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:12am.
I'm with you on Hemmer. I was really skeptical when he arrived from CNN. I was the same with Greta. I think they are two of the best reporters on FNC.
Iffy on Greta
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:21am.
I'm real iffy on Greta at times, but that's just me. One thing I have noticed when both her and Hemmer were on CNN, even though they were doing their jobs, they seemed to be hamstrung when came across the screen as being a bit unhappy but doing their jobs anyway.
I wouldn't call Greta a reporter but more of an investigative lawyer since that was her profession prior to being a TV personality and she's good at it too.
In any case, they came from CNN and were allowed to shine. Laurie Dhue was the same way, she had come from CNN and she did good on FNC for a while before she left due to personal problems(later to be revealed she was an alcoholic).
So to the other side of the coin, you had those like Kiran Chetry, and David Shuster who left and went to CNN and MSNBC respectively. Wow......have those two gone off the deep end....
-Jon
I like Jon Scott, too
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:18pm.
He had some liberal moonbat on the other day, who spent the entire segment spouting talking points. After the segment was over, Scott tossed off a comment, I can't for the life of me remember it, but it was hilarious. But basically it was the conservative factual one-liner put-down of all of the liberal talking points he'd suffered through in the last five minutes. I couldn't believe he did that, I wish I could remember exactly what it was he said.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"Major" disappointment
Submitted by Tomorama on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:18am.
Imagine if you will what the public polling would indicate IF they were informed that Oblunder DID NOT go through Congress.
Or IF it was reported that Obama said as a part time Senator that this bullshi& was unlawful.
Or IF it was reported that Biden said he would IMPEACH Bush if he tried something like this.
AGAIN, all the "news" that's fit to OMIT.
Sometimes it is not what IS reported, but what is NOT.
Two set of numbers to use against your liberal friends....
Submitted by Prester John on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:05am.
....518 to 1 (Combined Congressional vote on Afghanistan war resolution)
AND
373 to 156 for Iraq.
Then ask them for the vote on Libya.
That should make their heads explode.
John,
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:10am.
Watched a gal on Hannity last night try to defend against that very point you make about Iraq and Afghanistan. While she tried her best, she still failed miserably.
The fact of the matter is that Bush went to congress for a vote and Obama did not. Obamabots are going to have to accept that as the reality it is.
Ashrak
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:19pm.
That bimbo made me so mad I actually had to change the channel. She just kept talking and talking and talking and talking. Pure Code Pink agitprop, but she dressed a little better. Sheesh!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The bimbo you are talking
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:39pm.
The bimbo you are talking about is Caroline Heldman a Professor at Occidental College. Yes folks, this idiot is teaching YOUR kids!!
She ranks up there with Julie Roginsky in being a dumb ass libturd. No logical thinking, just spew the leftist talking points.
Blonde reported on some place
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:34pm.
Blonde reported on some place where they brainwashed Dems and drilled the talking points into their heads. Did she seem like she had been there?
Watch some of O'Reilly but at 9 Cam and Company comes on radio with the NRA news and all. Got to listen to him.
Rick, she may have been one
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:58pm.
Rick, she may have been one of the ones to set up the brainwashing camp. Last night when the topic of Trump asking for The Absentee Presidents birth certificate she said it was racist!!!!!!!
OMO!!!! How STUPID can one be?!?!?!? These libturds on TV are insufferable, they spew nonsense and expect it to be taken as the truth. And the worst part is non of the others are calling them out on it. I am screaming at the TV when I hear the lies the libturds keep mentioning.
Hey Scoob.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:12pm.
That dingbat also called Juan Williams a racist the other day, when he filled in for BOR. You should have seen Juan's face when she said that to him. I CANNOT believe she is a college "Professor"!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
I forgot about that Begrunt!
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:12pm.
I forgot about that Begrunt! It was last Friday when Juan was subbing for BOR. What a friggin imbecile that libturd is.
I reject this notion that
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:08am.
I reject this notion that this a "third war". It is all part of the same war! As Bush put it, this is a war on many fronts. It is intellectually dishonest to call the Libya action "another war".
All of our military action, and even the vast majority of our para-military action, since 9-11, has had one target -Muslim terrorists.
In Afghanistan, our target was not the general public. In Iraq our target was not the general public and the same is true everywhere else, whether it be Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, or even Somali pirates. All have had the same enemy in the cross-hairs.
Muslim terrorists.
America has tried very hard to draw a line between Muslim and Muslim terrorist. Some have tried to make that mean "muslim" is eliminated from the equation, much the same way they remove the "Illegal" from "Illegal immigrant". They are as intellectually dishonest as those who try to make Libya a "third" war.
It is all the same war.
I don;t so much think Major took "Obama's position" here as he did take the "NEVER AGAIN" position regarding Rawanda. Interestingly, the Libya action, on the level, is much the same as the Iraq action.
It was wrong to not connect the dots before 9-11 (Afghanistan). It was wrong to connect them beforehand (Iraq). It was wrong not to intervene (Darfur). It was wrong to intervene beforehand (Libya). It was wrong to act unilaterally (Tora Bora with Osama "escape"). It was wrong to telegraph for months the coalition (Iraq). It was wrong to take quick action once the diddling about the decision was made (Libya). It was wrong to wait o the U.N. (Iraq). It was wrong to see the U.N. support action (Libya). It was wrong for America to lead (Iraq) and it was wrong for America not to lead (Libya).
See the pattern?
The idiocy of it all is showing. The world is having to confront that no matter what America does or how she does it she is deemed "wrong". They are realizing the foolishness of it and seeing what so many others are - that Obama's version of America isn't quite what they hoped for. Is Major among them? Maybe, I guess well just have to wait and see. I am not willing to write him off over this.
I agree on some accounts,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:12am.
I agree on some accounts, largely that this is not a third war. This is a second war. Afghanistan and Iraq are two fronts of the same war. This current war is not related to the larger war on terrorism begun under Bush.
Satchmo,
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:07pm.
Terrorists target Civilians, especially for political ends.
Gaddafi is doing exactly that and specifically threatened No Mercy upon an entire city of Civilians.
This has everything to do with terrorism and Islamic terrorism at that. Let us not forget, Muslim Civilians are often the targets of Islamic terrorism. This was very true in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it is also true in Libya. It is true all over the Ummah.
Bush started no war. He was just the first President to actually fight back with extensive military engagement in one that has been declared and acted upon against us, multiple times at that, for decades.
I strongly disagree. You are
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:39pm.
I strongly disagree. You are using an expansive definition of terrorism that I don't subscribe to. I think it is more specific. Terrorism is the realm of amorphous, non-state entities - not nation-states. An oppressive, tyrannical dictator targeting his population and not another state is not terrorism. I think the current zeal to label everything terrorism diminishes our ability to truly recognize it (not unlike the liberal zeal to label everything racism) and therefore truly fight it.
Regardless, our current war with Libya has nothing to do witn the war on terrorism that, yes, Bush started. There is nothing wrong with saying that. This is not a third front of an existing war. Not at all.
not part of the WOT
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:17am.
No that's not true.
We are not engaged in a kinetic military operation because of Muslim terrorists in Libya. We are killing Libyans in order to keep Gadhafi from killing Libyans.
Mid America,
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:10pm.
Apparently, you take the same position as Osama Bin Laden - that there is no distinction between a Civilian and non-Civilians.
Are you sure you want to do that?
brother against brother
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:40pm.
- that there is no distinction between a Civilian and non-Civilians.
In a civil war where civilians take up arms that is exactly true.
We don't know who we are supporting in Libya. They may be terrorists or they may be Jeffersonian style freedom fighters. We just don't know. Obama's stated goal is to stop a genocide. (which may or may not occur). We might be supporting members of al Qaeda trying to overthrow Gahdaffi.
The distinction
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:56pm.
There may be a war that's happening, but one thing you have right is that we don't know who we are supporting. Well, yeah, kinda, we do. If the UN(not just the US) is supporting the rebels to fight against Daffy, they also might be supporting the terrorists al-qaida who are fighting Daffy who is also our enemy. We have two enemies over there involved and neither of them would be our friends, even if some of them were trying to help our pilot who crashed over there. I would not want to be aided by either side over there. Al-qaida might think it's a wonderful thing that the US is helping them, and they even might think that the US might go Muslim after all(which is what they want) to do it. Of course the answer would have to be HELL NO!
How much do you want to bet that if DuhOne had actually followed Constitutional procedure(that'd be a shock) and got with Congress about it, would Congress have gone through with this? I'm guessing probably not and that would have been embarrassing to the Chairman. So the Chairman bypasses Congress, blatantly violating the Constitution in the process(never stopped him before) and involves the US in something that may and indeed will hurt us in the long run.
What's happening in Libya is no different than Syria or Iran except you got different countries that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to rebel against while those under Islamic control like Iran has rebels going against them, and the Boy Blunder is showing his hand on how he's picking sides to support(if you call it that), which is more for the Islamic side.
I know you probably know all the above, but the point that I'm trying to make is that all this stuff happening in the middle east is going to be a real sh!tstorm that's going to flare up big and the best thing that the US can do (not trusting the gov't for this) is to stay the hell out of the way and be ready to defend itself and fight back when the time comes after the dust settles over there. They'll be rearing their heads on us before too long.(been trying anyway) Just my thoughts on this explosive situation.
-Jon
Ashrak
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:04pm.
Libya is not the same war. In Libya we are aiding the terrorists. Al Qaeda has equipped many of these so called civilians. This is a reverse roll for the US. Everyone that supports this action will be shocked when all is said and done. Libya will once again be a threat to America.
If you want to know how this is going to work out, look at Egypt. Watch that, see what is happening there, and when the Muslim Brotherhood is in the drivers seat. Rwanda was a slaughter. Libya is a civil war. IF we are justified in action in Libya, then to be consistent, we must take action in Darfur, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Bahrain and every other country where there are up risings.
The argument that this is an extension of the same war is a bogus one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Morning joe's ratings
Submitted by Marsh on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:09am.
have taken a sudden dive and CNN is beating them again. That should take the smirk off of Joe's bulbous face.
It's not just Morning Joe's Ratings...
Submitted by Conservator on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:28am.
that have taken a dive - it's the entire network. CNN has more total viewers than MSNBC and seem to be beating them in most time slots - except at 8 PM:
Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, March 23, 2011
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/24/cable-news-ratings-for-wedne...
That is a big drop. I think
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:42pm.
That is a big drop. I think one day last week he had about 435,000. Don't matter. The Cartoon Network creams both CNN and MESSNBC. I'd really like to see how the ID channel stands up against them.
Garrett's Explanations Are Only Half Reporting
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:55am.
To explain away the decisions of Obama, Clinton and Powers is fine if you also explain the opposition to those actions. "Reporting" requires all of the above. In this segment Garrett sounded like he was sticking up for Obama to Brzezinski's statements. That looks pretty partisan to me.
During the elections, Garrett
Submitted by marpel on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:58am.
During the elections, Garrett was always assigned to the Democratic camp for Fox News. His left leanings don't come as a big surprise.
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Major Garrett was on Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld last night.
Submitted by Rush Fan on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:57pm.
Garrett's choice of working for the left-leaning National Journal after leaving Fox News may be an indication of his political bent. He may feel more comfortable working with fellow liberal "journalists" such as Michael Hirsh, Ron Fournier and Ron Brownstein than with a news organization such as Fox News with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
However, I am still under the perception that Major Garrett is probably more fair and balanced in his reporting than the majority of main stream journalist. With the media today as liberal, biased and agenda-driven as they are, I guess I'm paying Major Garrett a small compliment.
Did Garrett on Morning Joe crew discuss why President Obama has not gotten Congressional authorization, or why President Obama's Libya policy is at odds with both Obama's and Biden's prior utterances?
By the way, if you missed last night's Greg's Greg-alogue than you missed a hilarious video titled Media Matters Runs Boot Camp for Fox News.
I Thought The National Journal Reported Obama's Liberal Voting
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:17pm.
Wait, I thought the National Journal was the source that first reported that President Obama had the most liberal voting record of the U.S. Senate When he was still a senator for Illinois. How are they left-leaning if they would report something like that during the 2008 presidential campaign? Wouldn't they have kept it under wraps if they were fawning over for Obama? (And I say this as a proud supporter of President Obama.)
Minor!........I can't bring myself to call you major!!!
Submitted by Patriot II on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:01am.
I will repeat an earlier comment about your statement..........CRAP!!