Don't you just love the MSM? They can't even report good news without interjecting their doom and gloom, agenda driven verbiage into any report. This time it is the Associated Press with the good news that the Marines and the rest of America's armed forces have reached their recruiting goals. In fact, many branches of the service exceeded them. All good news, right? Well, naturally the AP had to throw some cold water on the good tidings. You see, according to the AP the Marines fulfilled their recruiting goals because of a "slow economy" and despite Iraq being an "unpopular war." They just can't let it go, can they?
After giving us the details that the Marines surpassed their recruiting goals the AP had to remind us that U.S. forces were "stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that those joining the service are doing so because -- and here is that old canard again -- "other job possibilities" are limited for them.
Recruiting is easier in a slow economy, which limits other job possibilities that are available. But officials also noted that the Army and Marines have added recruiters as well as bonuses and other special benefits to attract more recruits in the midst of the unpopular war in Iraq.
How "unpopular" can it be if the services are finding it so easy to fulfill their recruiting goals, anyway? And how many times do we have to prove the they-can't-get-a-job claim made against our recruits is not true?
As Major Garrett of Fox News said on an episode of Special Report a while back:
Now what about the charge that an all volunteer force is poorer, less educated, and more minority? Well a Heritage Foundation study last year, analyzing census data on income, race, region and education, found there that military recruits before and after 9/11 were more middle class than poor, more rural than urban, better educated than the general public, and that whites joined in higher proportions to the general population than all minority groups.
Fortunately, and to their credit, the AP does show that the Marines realized 142 percent of the number of recruits they were looking for. But that isn't the whole story. If you want a more detailed report, the DOD has a page up on it, too. There you'll see that the Army got 101% of their desired numbers and the Navy and Air Force 100%. You'll also see that the Army Nat'l Guard got 112% of their goal, the Army Reserve got 120%, the Navy Reserve and the Air Force Reserve both got 100% and the Air Nat'l Guard got 130% of the needed numbers.
But, this success can only be because the economy is soooo bad as far as the MSM are concerned, even though this is such an "unpopular war." You can just sense they are reporting this good news through clenched teeth, can't you?
Nope, they just can't let go of a favorite meme even when proven wrong and good news certainly cannot stand alone.
(Photo credit: usmilitarystuff.com)
Comments Policy
hep mee steeven king and
May 12, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Blazerhep mee steeven king and jon cary, eye joyned thu militerry coz i kant reed orr aford gazz for my kar
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
LOL
May 13, 2008 - 16:38 ET by wizardjrit never gets old mirroring these dorks that trash the military, thanks
Semper Fi! The media just
May 12, 2008 - 21:28 ET by JerrySemper Fi!
The media just can't seem to understand that there are people who PROUDLY serve their country and don't just enlist as a last gasp move of desperation. To the MSM, the only fathomable way that someone would join the military is if they are too dumb, or too poor, or too uneducated, or too desperate, or too ethnic, or too oppressed to do anything else.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
sheesh...
May 12, 2008 - 21:35 ET by MightyMouthAP Reports Slow Economy and Unpopular War: Despite Recruiting Goals Reached by Military.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
LOL
May 12, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Warner Todd HustonGreat headline rewrite MM.
Women and children hit hardest... right?
If this is a job offer...
May 12, 2008 - 21:45 ET by MightyMouthI humbly accept! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well
May 12, 2008 - 21:49 ET by well99AP:Reports Military Hits Recruiting Goals Despite 'Media Bias,' and 'MSM Propaganda'.
Follow up story:Code Pink fills their attends at the news of it.
Now what about the charge
May 12, 2008 - 21:49 ET by bigtimerNow what about the charge that an all volunteer force is poorer, less educated, and more minority? Well a Heritage Foundation study last year, analyzing census data on income, race, region and education, found there that military recruits before and after 9/11 were more middle class than poor, more rural than urban, better educated than the general public, and that whites joined in higher proportions to the general population than all minority groups.
Uh-Oh...whites joined in higher proportions than all minority groups...
There is that racism again.... Bad...very, very bad of the whites...how dare they!
I just had to throw that in here.
We all know the msm would be nothing but pleased if the military recruits were down...way down and never reached their goals for recruitment...nothing would make their day more.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
WHOLE Story is Needed
May 12, 2008 - 21:52 ET by the curatorMr. Huston,
I understand your complaint that the AP brings up facts which are unpleasant to proponants of the war. But, they are necessary facts to tell a complete story.
The armed services are given all the credit in the world for meeting their recruitment goals right in the headline. But, by mentioning the economy and the war, the writer gives context to those recruitment goals.
Meeting recruitment goals during peacetime and a surging economy present very different accomplishments than the situation we have now.
And, its not the AP's (or any other media outlet) to simply report good items in a story. They provide all the nuances that make the story significant. In this case... the circumstances surrounding the recruitment goals make them MORE significant. So, I would argue the story is more positive than you'd believe.
Yes, it is harder right now and the military admits that. That's why they've added the special bonuses. I've done several stories on the recruitment efforts, and not one recruiter has told me its easy right now. In fact, every one says its a challenge.
So, its a testament to the men and women we have signing up that they are willing to make that committment.
And, I'm assuming your skeptical of the phrase "unpopular war," sense you put it in quoatations. If that's the case, I would direct you to any recent poll (FOX, CNN, Reuters), to show you just how true that statement is at the current time.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
curator...come forward about 7 yrs
May 12, 2008 - 22:14 ET by JayTeethere is a 7 yr record of military recruiting goals since your Bush quote...that IS A TREND to be recognized & acknowledged....even if u & THE AP can't see the whole truth...It's still there .
The story doesn't
May 12, 2008 - 22:19 ET by AJThe story doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's the title. Since most people (myself included) only read the title, that's what is more important.
Along the same lines, it isn't that news articles should strike a "perfect balance" between the positive and the negative-- what is important is that you report what should be reported-- if it is negative, then let it be negative, and likewise, if it is positive, let it be positive.
What the heck does the economy have to do with recruitment numbers? If you're trying to shoehorn something that obtrusive into this kind of an issue, then it's obvious that you have an agenda. And then what does approval of the war have to do with recruitment numbers? It seems a contradiction to mention high recruitment numbers and then remind the readers of a war with falling approval. Does that not also seem to imply an ulterior motive?
Maybe I am wrong, but given the number of articles I read everyday, just the site of a TV report or newspaper/magazine article with that title is enough to make me do a double-take.
I don't try to make an article sound on way or another. I read what the author wrote.
I think what you have done is you've tried to make it sound good-- just read the title again and you'll see.
curator
May 12, 2008 - 22:21 ET by BlondeThe unpleasant "fact" for you liberals...is that the armed forces of the United States continue to meet the needs of the force (our force, lest you forget).
Of course the biased media would attempt to frame this accomplishment in the same old sorry liberal way.....no jobs, hey....all of you illiterate unemployed trash.....join up! "Yay....we met our recruitment goals....cause all the white trash has joined up". Filthy liars.
You are such a silly, silly liberal.
But keep it up....we need to be reminded of your mindset. Lest we forget.
P.S. Nice use of "nuanced". Thanks. You just reinforced the liberal stupidity of the "blah blahs" for me.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
blonde
May 12, 2008 - 22:50 ET by shawn228At the risk of getting a tongue lashing from you I was wondering if I could as a few questions if you don't mind me being bold.
Why is he a silly liberal? I mean there are always two sides to every story. I mean how often do we hear Clinton had a great economy, there is always a a but.
: It was bettter under Bush
: Clinton did not deserve credit
: Tech boom bubble,
What is wrong with the curator putting a but in there?
Also why would it be a sad fact to liberals if we are not making our military goals? You truly believes all liberals want to do is lose? I know I don't. I feel we should stay until we win.
Only from
May 12, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Clear thinkerOnly from shawn.
"Abstain from McCain"
Hi clearthinker
May 12, 2008 - 22:57 ET by shawn228Come November, your going to have to donate a US dollar to Newsbusters for me "wink"
Not so fast... I already
May 12, 2008 - 22:59 ET by Clear thinkerNot so fast...
I already have a small frame picked out for the dollar bill you will have to send me.
"Abstain from McCain"
lol:_
May 12, 2008 - 23:07 ET by shawn228You will get off easy, Noel will have to buy me two appetizers and a round of drinks if Obama wins.
sh228, This is what your hope and change want, to bad it's been
May 12, 2008 - 23:34 ET by upcountrywaterdone before Newt 69 sec.
Win a bet lose a million lives...
Oh yea, one death is a tragety, a million deaths is a statistic
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Come on UCW
May 12, 2008 - 23:45 ET by shawn228First of all, you are preaching to the choir when it comes to retreating from Iraq. Just because I feel it was a mistake to invade in the first place, I in no way shape or form think it is the right thing to do at this moment.
Second, comparing us to Stalin?....Nice.
Third, so somehow we think it is a good thing if the military does not meet their goals. Yeah I want soldiers to serve their tour of duty longer, so they can apart from their family for a little while longer. Yep I thats what I want.
shawn yawn, you are voting for a...?
May 13, 2008 - 00:13 ET by upcountrywaterDEMOCRAT !
I rest my case.
Stalin ; MSM whats the difference?
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Rest your case?
May 13, 2008 - 00:17 ET by shawn228How can you be so sure I am voting for a Democrat?
Stalin murdered many people in cold blood.
Democrats have done this? Oh wait for it .........Roe V Wade reference. Anything else you can think of?
shawn yawn do I need to post newt 69 sec AGAIN!
May 13, 2008 - 01:26 ET by upcountrywater3 million POST BIRTH people, I'm talking about, and the future MILLIONS in iraq that sided with your
YOUR CUT AND RUN AMERICA.
Oh i get IT ! just turn that channel, and watch a movie!
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Wow UCW
May 13, 2008 - 09:54 ET by shawn228Your so lazy, you can't find a different link? You still have not shown how Democrats murdered millions in cold blood.
Chg the channel and watch a movie? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Interesting way you have of backing up your points.
By your comment, you didn't LISTEN or view the clip
May 13, 2008 - 16:42 ET by upcountrywaterSo i posted it again.
What don't you understand about cutting off funds and support?
ohh EVERYTHING
Wiping out free governments is what the left does.
Saigon
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Well UCW
May 13, 2008 - 22:25 ET by shawn228The fact that you use a few links from interviews and speeches with Newt Gincrich does not prove your claim.
All you examples are hearsay about what might happen. Furthermore you waited until one of your fellow conservatives answer for you about FDR murdering 100000 people.Was in cold blood? I thought conservatives pretty much agreed that it was a necessary decision.
Also, if you want to get real technical, you did not say the Democrats were like Stalin, you implied there is no difference between Stalin and the msm. Can you kindly point out the comparisions in a serious manner?
shawn, Those that fail to learn from history,
May 14, 2008 - 22:17 ET by upcountrywaterare doomed to repeat it. - Winston
Churchill
We are in a chat room here, I'm happy that my fellow NBers, see the crap you are pulling here and add their HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE to the mix.
TMTC. heres one
If you scrool to the top (the very top) of this page you will find:
NEWSBUSTERS Exposing and Combating Liberal Media BIAS
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Well upcountrywater
May 14, 2008 - 23:30 ET by shawn228I hope you can tell me what posters say I am posting crap. I fully realize what Newsbusters is UCW, I simply asked you to point out the comparisions between the MSM and Stalin.
I appreciate you cute little clips, but they really don't answer the question.
Are you going to be clever enough to do this yourself, or wait for another poster to bail you out again?
We're in a chatroom? Really?
shawn, Covering for your bubbies ( the MSM) it's a good start
May 15, 2008 - 00:30 ET by upcountrywaterSome of Newt's tally is in this grand total of
100 million
Your petty nit picking it's all you got!
Weak very weak
You REALLY need to read this book!
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Lets recap UCW
May 15, 2008 - 00:43 ET by shawn228I was having a conversation with Clear Thinker, you decided to bud in and throw a few accusations including t there is no difference between the msm and Stalin.
I first asked you how liberals were like Stalin and who they killed in cold blood. All you could do is link a speech with Newt Ginrich"twice" and use that as proof, even though it was all hearsay.
Then a fellow conservative brought up the people killed with the atomic bomb. Most conservatives do not agree that was in cold, blood, but you decided to agree because you could use it against me. You still post little cute clips but refuse to speak for yourself. Maybe your just lazy.
So now I asked you how the msm and Stalin are similar and you link a article about the msm not reporting 100 million deaths? That is pretty weak on your part. UCW. If you cannot speak for yourself and all you can do is post links, then, that is just fine. I'm bored and i'm looking for intelligent debate. Have a nice night.
can you say President Truman?
May 13, 2008 - 16:51 ET by wizardjrThe only man on earth to order the extermination of over 100,000 people with the only drop of a nuclear bomb in history - A DEMOCRAT.
World War II, President Roosevelt presided over the deaths of millions - A DEMOCRAT
Korea, President Truman presided over the deaths of millions of Koreans and Chinese - A DEMOCRAT
Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy welches on supporting the Cuban rebels, thousands died on the beach or in captivity - A DEMOCRAT
Viet Nam, President Loser Boy Johnson escalates a brush war into a full scale war with a final result of millions dead across Southeast Asia - A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
post bellum Dixie, the KKK murders hundreds - SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS
[there's more, but that will do]
wizardjr, I forgot that lefties start history in the year 2,000
May 13, 2008 - 17:32 ET by upcountrywaterand they feel , man oh those feelings...
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Well, I wouldn't call the
May 13, 2008 - 17:47 ET by CortillaenWell, I wouldn't call the dropping of the a-bomb a bad thing, compared to the projected casualties for Operations Olympic and Coronet. Though it just goes to show, Democrats haven't always put up pansies for office. Can you imagine Carter at that juncture? *cringe*
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
No worries, Shawn
May 12, 2008 - 23:07 ET by BlondeMy first response to curator's "but" was in response to armed forces recruiting. There is absolutely no problem there. As much as the twit would like to infer. John Kerry got toasted for making such an idiotic inference....as do many liberals...hmmmm...who, exactly, is STUK IN IRAK?
Oh, Shawn...I know you are all for VICTORY!!!!!! The problem with you liberals (i.e. DEMS) is you keep changing the bloody goal posts. Every time victory is within our grasp....ya'll change it to...yeah, yeah....BUT...."we need a politcal solution....yeah...that's the ticket".
Sheesh!
Shawn, you are more than welcome to view your world, as you see it....and if you continue to view it through the liberal prism....so be it. I've tried to educate you. But if you persist....it's not on me.
I could hardly care less about Clinton, nor his whorish has-been harriden of an ex-presidential candidate wife.
So....go campaign for Obambi. Whatever.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Very Quickly
May 13, 2008 - 14:35 ET by the curatorTo clarify my statement from last night...
Explaining the current economic situation and popular opinion of the war provides context that, in my view, makes the military look better.
"Recruitment goals are up."
Great, I think.
"Recruitment is up despite an unpopular war and a down economy."
Wow, I think... even more impressive.
As for dems changing the goalposts all the time. I'm no so sure.
Although, I am sure this administration is famous for changing the reasons for getting into the game. (WMD's, threat to us, freedom for Iraqis.)
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Curator: You made the
May 13, 2008 - 15:36 ET by BDCurator:
You made the statement "Although, I am sure this administration is famous for changing the reasons for getting into the game. (WMD's, threat to us, freedom for Iraqis.)"
Which is factually inaccurate.
I invite you to read the transcripts of the Presidents address to both Congress and the UN pre-war regarding our rationales for the invasion to remove the saddam regime.
In both of those addresses, he presented 16 seperate rationale, all of which called for the removal of the Baathist regime. These rationale ran the gamut from the fact that Saddam was targeting US airmen overflying the UN mandated No-fly zone and had put a bounty on the head of any captured aircrew forced down all the way to the fact that saddam was a thugish brute who had threatened other countries and denied democracy to his nation.
Of these sixteen rationale, he used "1" to discuss WMD.
But guess what? The weak minded press who cannot hold what they consider competing story lines boiled it all down to "We are going in for WMD." It is the press who stated that as the primary rationale, not the administration.
So, please cease telling us we changed our reasons for getting into the war, and an apology will be accepted.
WMDs
May 13, 2008 - 15:51 ET by CortillaenNever mind the fact that we found them. A lesson for everybody thinking otherwise: All nukes are WMDs, but not all WMDs are nukes. Chemical, biological, and radiological are also in that category. We found plenty of chemical weapons and sufficient material to quickly and easily produce radiological weapons.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Reasons for War
May 13, 2008 - 18:55 ET by the curatorSo, please cease telling us we changed our reasons for getting into the war
Here's a link to a great round-up of the reasons President Bush gave to go to war...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679
A few highlights include:
To prevent the proliferation of WMDs.
For regime change
To further the War on Terror
Because of Iraq's links to Al Qaeda
A warning to other terrorist nations
So, we've proven the president gave multiple reasons for going to war.
And while dems may be "changing the goalposts"... the president keeps giving us different criteria by which to win.
As for WMD, the CIA says none were EVER found.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
The criteria for winning
May 13, 2008 - 19:19 ET by JerryThe criteria for winning fluctuates with the reactions of your enemy. Even in sports, if you do not adjust your gameplan (criteria for winning) during the course of the game, you will get your butt handed to you on a platter.
PS. Tell the thousands of dead Kurds that Sadaam had no WMD. They can't hear you, but you'll probably say they just won't listen to reason.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
That was then...
May 13, 2008 - 19:31 ET by the curatorTell the thousands of dead Kurds that Sadaam had no WMD
That was in the late 80s.
So, why didn't we take Saddam out in the Gulf War?
Well, according to Dick Cheney... we would have gotten stuck in a "quagmire."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgDIylwPlM
According to your logic, it would have been smarter to take him out then (Gulf War)... instead of now (this war).
But, we didn't. And our VP seems to think it was a pretty good idea to stay out of there back then.
And, just because he had WMD in '88 doesn't mean he still had them.
Which the CIA says he did not.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
I think we should have
May 13, 2008 - 23:20 ET by JerryI think we should have finished the job in Gulf War I, but the "highway of death" led to a premature cessation of hostilities. So we completed the job in Gulf War II.
Dick Cheney's "quagmire" statement was from the late 80's. BEFORE 9/11. That little event has a way of changing opinions on whether it is worth it or not.
On the topic of WMD. First of all, EVERYONE said he had them. The UN, the Russians, the Brits, the French. Secondly, I couldn't care less what the CIA says about the lack of WMD, because we did the right thing for the right reasonS (PLURAL). Besides, this is the same CIA who tried to undermine the whole effort from the start (Plame/Wilson).
Sadaam is gone. Good thing.
Fighting terrorists on foreign soil. Good thing.
No more attacks on U.S. soil. Good thing.
Iraqis voting in free elections. Good thing.
Khadafi toeing the line. Good thing.
The corrupt "Oil for Food" scam exposed. Good thing.
Democrats with their panties all in a wad. Good thing.
Maybe if Bush had started the war to stall an impeachment vote, the democrats would be okay with it.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
You Make Great Points
May 14, 2008 - 14:53 ET by the curatorI think we should have finished the job in Gulf War I
Honest opinion and I appreciate it.
Dick Cheney's "quagmire" statement was from the late 80's. BEFORE 9/11.
It was actually from 1994. And, while 9/11 did change a lot... I don't think it changed what we would have (did eventually) get when we invaded. A prolonged occupation with no real plan for getting out.
On the topic of WMD. First of all, EVERYONE said he had them.
I agree completely. But, we're the only ones who went charging in. Others wanted to play it more conservatively. Granted, anyone can Monday-Morning-Quarterback... but, I think we went in too quickly (I know the argument is "he was breaking UN resolutions for years," but, I don't think the benefits have outweighed the losses.)
I couldn't care less what the CIA says about the lack of WMD
Who would you believe about WMDs? Besides the president. A larger question... why do some conservatives believe blindly anything the president says as absolute truth? Is there no part of you that thinks he ever lies? (same can be applied to liberals and dem. presidents).
this is the same CIA who tried to undermine the whole effort from the start (Plame/Wilson).
I dont' think its appropriate to characterize an entire government agency as trying to undermine the war based on the actions of two agents.
Sadaam is gone. Good thing.
Fighting terrorists on foreign soil. Good thing.
No more attacks on U.S. soil. Good thing.
Iraqis voting in free elections. Good thing.
Khadafi toeing the line. Good thing.
The corrupt "Oil for Food" scam exposed. Good thing.
I agree on all points. But, again, it becomes a matter of opinion as to was it all worth it. I understand that you do.
Seriously, I enjoy the debate... but, can you please leave the potshots about "dems and panties" and "warring to avoid" impeachment out. Has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Sorry about the "panties"
May 15, 2008 - 00:44 ET by JerrySorry about the "panties" quote, but you can't fault me for the "impeachment" bit, especially if you review the timeline.
For years, Scott Ritter was begging Clinton to do something about Sadaam and his WMD (yes, the same Scott Ritter who later did a 180 with Bush). Yet Clinton did nothing until the eve of the impeachment vote, and then suddenly it was imperative that we go to war with Iraq (a non UN sanctioned war I might add). We start bombing and Congress delays the impeachment vote because they didn't want that distraction during a time of war. The press asked Clinton about the "exit strategy" and Clinton said there was no exit strategy, and the bombing could go on indefinitely. After a couple of days, Congress decided to go ahead with the impeachment vote and presto, Clinton calls off the war. If that's not a "wag the dog" war, there never was one.
Apparently, this is the type of war that the MSM and the democrats can support wholeheartedly, because their questions and criticisms were almost non-existent. On the other hand, they've been critical of every single step of this war. Thus, I will stand behind my last quote.
This war's primary objective, IMO, was to establish an offensive against the terrorists. Think about it, immediately after 9/11, Bush identified 3 countries that were harboring and enabling terrorists, Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea (axis of evil). We HAD to strike and the only logical place to start is Iraq, already in violation of 14 UN resolutions concerning WMD, already in violation of the terms of surrender from Gulf War I, etc. So, IMO, the payoff of protecting American soil and fighting them on foreign soil make it well worth the effort. We should stay there as long as they continue to focus their efforts on trying to stop us there, period.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I Don't Argue
May 15, 2008 - 17:14 ET by the curatorI don't argue your historical events nor do I begrudge your opinion on the reasonings behind them.
But, when we're having a discussion on one topic - entirely separate - and a productive discussion at that, it just doesn't do anyone any good to fan partisan flames. Leave that to the politicians if they want. I'm more concerned with an enjoyable conversation.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Curator,
May 14, 2008 - 01:06 ET by RESTLESS 1Some reading for you. Please refer to ppg 76-78 and see the U.N.'s assessment of the WMD in Iraq. The CIA may say no wmd, but the U.N. is not.
"And while dems may be
May 13, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Cortillaen"And while dems may be "changing the goalposts"... the president keeps giving us different criteria by which to win." Rather, the president gave us multiple criteria to complete. First, your tense is off. The criteria have been in place from the start. Second, completion of a single criterion does not constitute completion of all but does constitute at least partial success in the overall mission.
I'd like to see the actual statement that was made, rather than read MSNBC's spin on it. I note that they don't quote the inspector as ever saying anything to the effect of, "We found nothing." Instead, they quote him three times to the effect of, "The inspection is done." I'd also like to know what working definition of WMD both MSNBC and the inspector were operating upon.
Now, I suggest you check a few of the links here. Even operating under the assumption that WMDs have never and will never be found there, there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq had WMDs prior to our invasion. For example, Saddam admitted to the production of VX, a nerve agent. Chemical weapons such as mustard gas were also used against Iran and Iraq's Kurdish population. In addition to the tons of uranium and uranium enrichment program, there is even evidence that Iraq was only a year away from developing true nuclear weapons.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Please
May 13, 2008 - 19:48 ET by the curatorPlease don't refer me to links to THIS site.
NB is not a journliastic organization. It references stories from other sources then subjectively critiques them. Thus, it can't really be used as a factual reference.
And, sending me a link to this site to corroborate something on this site... that's kind of like a man saying to a woman, "I'm a nice guy. Just ask me, I'll tell ya."
UPDATE:
My apologies... I see now you were providing a link - which had links to stories from various news outlets.
Sorry for that.
That said, I think I've spoken to these links before. Many of the stories involve small amounts of sarin gas and the like.
Nothing on the level of WMDs the govt was talking about in the lead up.
Remember, we were being led to believe Saddam could launch at us at any time.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
.
May 13, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Cortillaenwww.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
OK
May 13, 2008 - 20:06 ET by the curatorHere's the big question...
If WMD were actually found... then why hasn't the Bush administration touted them out and gone, "Here they are!!! See, we were right!!!"?
I'd think if they were found, Bush would be putting them in front of every TV he could find.
But, he hasn't because he knows that every supposed find of WMD has been marginal.
The 500 WMD FOX touted out... all decades old and of no threat.
Many of the other articles talk about the Kurds he killed in the late 80s.
Again... nothing new.
I'm sorry. But, if the WMD stash was found, Bush would make sure its headline/lead story EVERYwhere.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
"Many of the stories
May 13, 2008 - 20:15 ET by Cortillaen"Many of the stories involve small amounts of sarin gas and the like.
Nothing on the level of WMDs the govt was talking about in the lead up."
Okay, this is just... *sigh* Do you realize what you just said? "He only had a little bit of WMDs!" Riiight, let's try applying that to some other crimes: "I only had a little drugs." Still illegal. "I only stole a little bit." Still illegal. "I only killed a little bit of people." Still illegal.
Next up, did you notice the bit about the VX agent? Take a look at how much was involved. I'll give you hint, it was measured in tons. That's not "just a little bit".
Besides, did he use "just a little bit" of toxic gases against the Kurds and Iran?
Last, your "just because he had them then doesn't mean he had them now" bit. Do you honestly believe he wasn't still developing more? The guy was a militaristic monster historically proven to have warmongering expansionist tendencies, so what, exactly, would suggest that he abandoned weapons he already had, much less refrained from developing more?
Honestly, I don't know why Bush hasn't been putting this out at every chance. What I do know is that the evidence found, and even an admission from Saddam, overwhelmingly indicates that Saddam had WMDs prior to the war, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe he gat rid of them. The conflicting information after the fact is considerably less important than the absolute information before the fact and an understanding of Saddam's nature.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And
you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near
to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Then...
May 13, 2008 - 20:22 ET by the curatorThen why didn't we take him out in the Gulf War and why did our now-VP think it was a good idea NOT to go in then... but, it was OK now?
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
I'll answer your off topic
May 13, 2008 - 20:29 ET by CortillaenI'll answer your off topic question when you answer my on topic ones, pal.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
OK
May 13, 2008 - 20:42 ET by the curatorFirst, when you say Weapons of MASS destruction, yes you are dealing in amounts. There needs to be enough to be a credible threat to the US homeland. Which is what they were scaring us into believing.
Next, the VX story from the Worldwide Standard says the VX was "unnacounted for." Meaning, they couldn't find it.
There was a belief they made 200 tons and, I believe, trying to bring in 600 more... but, it was never found (unless I'm reading the wrong article.)
Lastly, I don't know if he was building them or not. But, if that's the case... why haven't we bombed N. Korea yet? Or Iran? Where's the gung-ho attitude with which we went into Iraq?
There was only speculation (now proven false) that WMD's existed.
But, in N. Korea and Iran, they're trumpeting their efforts to build them.
By your logic, we should have invaded them already.
Well, part of the answers I
May 13, 2008 - 20:55 ET by CortillaenWell, part of the answers I want... However:
"First, when you say Weapons of MASS destruction, yes you are dealing in amounts." Wrong. To quote the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, WMDs are "Weapons that can produce devastating results when delivered in a single strike." This means small amounts produce big results. This also renders your "he only had a little bit" argument even more absurd. We "were scared into" believing he had enough to slaughter a major city. "Just a little bit" is sufficient for that task, as per the implicit purpose and definition of a WMD.
"There was only speculation (now proven false) that WMD's existed."
I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on that. I've already shown you where
WMDs were found, and yet you shrug them off because "there wasn't
enough", then proceed to claim that there were none? No, you won't. As for the VX, did you read the .pdf? Saddam admitted to manufacturing tons of it.
Now, some unanswered questions:
"did he use "just a little bit" of toxic gases against the Kurds and Iran?"
"The guy was a
militaristic monster historically proven to have warmongering
expansionist tendencies, so what, exactly, would suggest that he
abandoned weapons he already had, much less refrained from developing
more?"
I know, these judgement calls are so hard to make, but please try.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With
your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you
can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to
you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Response
May 13, 2008 - 21:01 ET by the curatorI'm not interested in the literary definition of WMD. I'm intersted in what President Bush tried selling us in the lead up to war.
He implied we were about to be bombed by Saddam Huessein. This was not the case. So, that's what I'm getting at when I say, "only a little bit."
But, to your point, yes, the weapons inspectors said their findings technically fit the definition of WMD... but, what you leave out is where they said those weapons were not a threat.
And, he used a TON of stuff on the Kurds. But, again... this is 1988. I'm not going to war in 2003 for weapons someone had 15 years ago.
Again... I understand the WMD argument fine. I just don't agree with the underlying facts. And, again - this was one of multiple reasons the president gave for going to war.
Would you answer my question now, please.
Dick Cheney said in 1994 that it was a good move that we didn't invade Iraq during the Gulf war. We would have been locked down in a "quagmire."
Why was it not OK to invade then... but, not now. (I realize Mr. Huston has provided an attempt to answer this question, but I'm interested in yours.)
And, Mr. Cheney's answer at the time had nothing to do with agreeing to stipulations by other government agencies. He was talking specifically about the logistics ivolved in an insurgency.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
"Would you answer my
May 13, 2008 - 21:13 ET by Cortillaen"Would you answer my question now, please." Nope. I've still got my two other questions awaiting answers. Just so you know, I've got an answer for you, but I did ask first, and my questions actually go to the issue (Did Saddam actually have WMDs?).
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Last Q
May 13, 2008 - 21:16 ET by the curatorI believe this was your last question... what would lead me to believe that he gave up the weapons we know he once had?
The fact that we can't find them.
Please answer mine now.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Wow... just wow. I have to
May 13, 2008 - 21:35 ET by CortillaenWow... just wow. I have to ask, is something wrong with your brain? I'd like to understand where this is coming from. We've already established that some WMDs were found, regardless of quantity, and yet your answer to my question is "The fact that we can't find them"? This is going nowhere. You've already decided that he didn't have anything, facts be damned, so you'll just cite your own belief as justification for itself. Well, "Do nothing which is of no use" is another quote from the source of my sig, and I like it quite a bit.
Still I'll be nice and answer your completely irrelevant question about whether we should have invaded Iraq after Desert Storm: Yes. Why didn't we? I'm not sure, but I suspect Bush Sr. believed breaking the agreements we had with nations in the area would have had possibly military consequences. Maybe he thought we could afford to wait a bit. Still, I'm and engineering student, not a historian, so my opinion probably isn't worth much.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Disagree
May 13, 2008 - 21:38 ET by the curatorNo, I appreciate your opinion. Otherwise I wouldn't ask.
We disagree. But, I respect your opinion.
The flip side to everyone of my arguments is "what if we were wrong and he launches before we do anything?"
So... I'm aware of the drawbacks to my theories. I just don't think the threat was there. If I'm ever proven otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong.
But, I appreciate the exchange.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Please provide a link to an
May 14, 2008 - 11:15 ET by BDPlease provide a link to an actual quote where anyone in the administration indicated a specific amount of WMD in gallons or litres or individual binary munitions.
Once again, you will find it is the PRESS that leaped to that conclusion all on their own.
Curator?
May 15, 2008 - 17:26 ET by BDCurator?
Why didn't we take him out
May 13, 2008 - 20:29 ET by Warner Todd HustonWhy didn't we take him out in the Gulf War? Are yous erious with that? Now, aren't you the sort that says we should live up to international agreements and the UN?
Well, the Gulf War had a narrowly defined mission parameter. The Arab allies said if we went into Iraq to take out Saddam that such an action would violate our coalition. George HWBush, then, abides by that agreement and let Saddam retreat back into Iraq.
Or are you saying that we should only abide by agreements, treaties, and UN decrees when YOU think it's good?
And, what about Mr. Cheney?
May 13, 2008 - 20:46 ET by the curatorSo, you don't think Mr. Cheney's remarks about "getting lost in the quagmire that would be Iraq" are telling in any way?
There's not one part of you that thinks, "Gee, maybe they knew it was a bad idea to go in there because they wouldn't be able to get us out?"
All due respect, Mr. Huston, I think Mr. Cheney was right from there very beginning. We shouldn't have gone in. (thanks for taking time to answer responses, too... I enjoy the conversation)
UPDATE
Sorry... to answer your questions, no... I don't think we should be selective about which UN resolutions to enforce. But, there needs to be discretion with HOW they're enforced.
You don't shoot someone in the head for speeding. Really rough analagy, I know... but, in my opinion... the threat was not so great where the losses we've sustained were worth going in there.
You think differently, I respect that. Time will tell which view is right and wrong.
And, I've said many times... 10 years from now or whatever, I'll say I was wrong a million times if I'm proven as such. I'm obviously skeptical now, though.
As for abiding by UN decrees only when I want to... I'm not the one who unilaterally invaded Iraq.
Where is your criticism for his actions without UN authority?
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
More dishonesty? Come, now...
May 13, 2008 - 21:34 ET by Cortillaen"I'm not the one who unilaterally invaded Iraq." Give it a rest. Your constant spin is really bugging me, especially when it borders on (or becomes) outright lies. Lest you forget (or ignore), I give you The Coalition. By the way, how's the koolaid? It's always too sweet for my taste.