The network anchors have found their new favorite Republican: Senator Richard Lugar, whose call for a change in policy direction on Iraq led the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Tuesday. Referring to Lugar's remarks Monday night on the Senate floor which were later echoed by Republican Senator George Voinovich, ABC anchor Charles Gibson engaged in some hyperbole as he teased: “Tonight, a Republican rebellion over the war: More Senators say the mission in Iraq is no longer in America's best interest.” With “Tipping Point?” on screen, Gibson bucked up Lugar's credibility: “There is no more respected Republican Senator in the area of foreign policy than Indiana's Richard Lugar. Senator Lugar took the floor of the U.S. Senate last night to say for the first time that he feels the U.S. Iraq policy is not working and U.S. troops should start coming home.”
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams matched Gibson's esteem for Lugar: “He's been around a long time, he doesn't speak out often, and so when he does, people listen up. Last night, in the U.S. Senate chamber, Senator Lugar gave a speech in which the respected Republican broke with the President on the Iraq war. Today, another Republican Senator did the same, and so tonight many are wondering if we're witnessing the beginning of some kind of turning point?” Williams earlier teased the newscast with the same formulation: “Is this a turning point in the war?” NBC, however, has a poor record of picking Iraq war “turning points.” In 2005 the network hailed Cindy Sheehan's protest near Bush's ranch as a “turning point” and last October Williams heralded comments from Senator John Warner as he asked: “Is this a new turning point?”
On the August 25, 2005 NBC Nightly News, reporter Carl Quintanilla asserted:
Quintanilla: "Sheehan, say some historians, may be evolving as an icon in the war's turning point, if this is one. For three weeks, she's dominated headlines, mobilized protesters-"
Man: "She's taking a stand."
Quintanilla: "-both with and without relatives in Iraq."
Cindy Sheehan: "They don't have what I like to call skin in the game, but we are all affected."
Quintanilla: "Making it safe, her supporters say, to voice doubts about the war, just as Walter Cronkite did on the Evening News in 1968."
For the entire story check the 2005 NewsBusters posting, or MRC CyberAlert posting with different screen shots, both of which noted how on MSNBC's Countdown that night, fill-in host Amy Robach framed Quintanilla's story around how "there are those who wonder if attitudes toward the war could be reaching a tipping point and whether the Gold Star mom could be the driving force."
A little over a year later, on the October 6, 2006 NBC Nightly News, Williams highlighted Republican Senator John Warner's warning that Iraq is drifting "side-wise," a comment trumpeted by Williams in his tease:
"When a key Republican Senator comes home from Iraq and says the U.S. has to re-think its strategy, is this a new turning point?"
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth took down how the anchors led the June 26 evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC:
Charles Gibson on ABC's World News (see first paragraph above for his tease):
Good evening. When it comes to the war in Iraq, President Bush needs reinforcements. There is no more respected Republican Senator in the area of foreign policy than Indiana's Richard Lugar. Senator Lugar took the floor of the U.S. Senate last night to say for the first time that he feels the U.S. Iraq policy is not working and U.S. troops should start coming home. Then, today, Ohio Republican George Voinovich expressed similar sentiments. And there are signs other Republicans might soon follow suit. Our Jake Tapper is joining us tonight from Capitol Hill. Jake?
Fill-in anchor Harry Smith teased the CBS Evening News:
Tonight, pressure on the President from his own party. Two respected Republican Senators tell the President flat out it's time to start leaving Iraq.
Smith then opened:
Good evening. Katie is off. Tonight, President Bush finds himself increasingly isolated on the Iraq war. In the past 24 hours, two more Republican senators have told the President in blunt language they believe the troop surge is not working, and they want American troops to start coming home. More now on this major development from our chief White House correspondent, Jim Axelrod.
Brian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News:
Tonight, the President loses two key Republican allies on Iraq. Is this a turning point in the war?
Williams led:
Good evening. In this current media age of nonstop sound and fury and videotape, where sometimes it seems like everybody in Washington steps in front of a camera every day to make their opinions known, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana is decidedly old school. He's been around a long time, he doesn't speak out often, and so when he does, people listen up. Last night, in the U.S. Senate chamber, Senator Lugar gave a speech in which the respected Republican broke with the President on the Iraq war. Today, another Republican Senator did the same, and so tonight many are wondering if we're witnessing the beginning of some kind of turning point. We begin our coverage here tonight with NBC's Chip Reid on Capitol Hill.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
Yeah ... I'm sorry but Lugar,
June 26, 2007 - 21:18 ET by drillanwrYeah ... I'm sorry but Lugar, and now that "piece of work" from my state, George Voinovich, need to be taken to the wood shed and thrashed.
Both crying wimps of so-calle
June 26, 2007 - 21:22 ET by bigtimerBoth crying wimps of so-called men...
Pathetic.
I have watched both for years.....liked neither.
When the last republican deno
June 26, 2007 - 21:31 ET by fenderteleWhen the last republican denounces the war in Iraq, the neocons will still call him a coward or a wimp.
Now, the only republicans left that support the war are either ignorant or evil.
Yeah, Voinovich is such a man
June 26, 2007 - 21:46 ET by drillanwrYeah, Voinovich is such a man's man ... He wept on the floor of the Senate in opposition to the Bolton nomination.
fenderbender, they really are missing your smarts over at KosPo
drill...Yeah...then wited for
June 26, 2007 - 22:13 ET by bigtimerdrill...
Yeah...then wited for a couple months and wept again on the senate floor saying he woudl now support him (Bolton)....
Of course Chafee had a hold put him there about the same time....
What a guy...
I cringe when close votes are taken, I never know how he is going to vote unless he stated so first with a floor speech that I caught...he is right there with Collins and Snow, Spector, Hagel.... ect.
fendertele, Just for clarif
June 26, 2007 - 21:47 ET by hydrodynDMfendertele,
Just for clarification, does your characterization of "ignorant or evil" include the vast majority of American soldiers who support the war and consider themselves Republicans?
Oh, I just can't wait for his
June 26, 2007 - 21:53 ET by drillanwrOh, I just can't wait for his reply to that ...
So, you think we should just
June 27, 2007 - 02:19 ET by zfSo, you think we should just leave the Iraquis to the anti-freedom wolves or that we should have left them alone to begin with to continue to be bled by Saddam? No, my friend, it is you and your ilk if anybody who is ignorant or evil.
Cool. You managed a rare doub
June 27, 2007 - 08:09 ET by Roger the ShrubberCool. You managed a rare double-whammy here: you stereotype Conservatives by talking like a stereotypical Liberal.
What will you do for an encore? Hug a tree?
Same position Lugar Always Has Had
June 26, 2007 - 21:33 ET by PawpawNWhy is this news! This is same position Lugar has always had!
Exactly Paw...I know I posted
June 26, 2007 - 21:41 ET by bigtimerExactly Paw...
I know I posted that elsewhere yesterday...
He was making another speech on the Senate floor tonight....I saw his face and raced for the clicker.
They love being the darling of the msm when it is convenient.
Sickening..all of the RINO's.
Btw for those who do not know....Lugar is up again for re-election..anyone wonder what part of his so-called low-life treasonous wimpy strategy is?
Lugar and Voinovich care not
June 26, 2007 - 21:37 ET by jdhawkLugar and Voinovich care not a wit about the millions of people that will lose their lives due to the power vacumn that will be created by our pulling out of Iraq. However, the difference between Vietnam, a country of little national interest, where millions of people's blood was shed with nary a US politician one being blamed for their demise and Iraq are immense. While millions are sure to fall, who cares - these two politicians don't - the national interest is quite high.
Should Iran hold sway over the region the greatest oil reserves on the planet will be held hostage not just from the US, but the entire planet. That is just the economic impact. The islmofascists will surely conclude that we are indeed a paper tiger and throw everything at us up to and including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
If the above isn't scary enough for you, think of a world where as a US citizen no matter where you are on the planet, you walk around with a bullseye on your back and every murdering islamists that dreams of 72 virgins in his or her after life has you in their sites.
Meanwhile, the spineless Lugar and Voinovich are only thinking of the next election and how they may remain in power following it.
I apologize for the length, b
June 26, 2007 - 23:14 ET by KC MulvilleI apologize for the length, but this one ticks me off. I’ve read Lugar’s speech, and I strongly encourage everyone on NewsBusters to read it. Our current policy is that the American forces have to keep civil order until the Iraqis can maintain order themselves. Lugar thinks we should change policy for three reasons.
Notice that Lugar’s whole argument isn’t against the mission itself. It’s much more of an assessment of our political situation. The whole difference between liberals and conservatives is based on how we order these factors. Liberals believe that (1) causes (2) which causes (3). Conservatives believe exactly the opposite. The domestic opposition to the war from the liberals and the media is driving the lower recruitment, and whereas it didn’t cause the Iraq intransigence, it doesn’t help, and it certainly fuels the fire. The Iraqis won’t reconcile unless they have to, and since they calculate they can wait us out, they have no motive to reconcile.
How can we tell which perspective is correct? I argue that the mission was going to be difficult, no matter what happened. But if it was ever going to succeed, it demanded time and patience. I remember all the speeches, by the president, and also Democrats, at the very beginning of the war. They all proclaimed that this was going to be a long term commitment. Remember the talk of World War III, or that this was the new Cold War? It would be a struggle for generations, they all soberly proclaimed. They promised endurance. But within weeks of the invasion, after the media’s overblown reaction to the looting of the Iraqi museum, and the fact that we didn’t find chemical or nuclear weapons, the media turned. The terrorists launched attacks every day, and every day the media reported that the plan wasn’t working. The 2004 elections gave the Democrats a year-long forum to attack Bush, and they accused him of losing the war. Then they argued that going to war was a mistake in the first place. Then al-Qaeda blew up the mosque, all hell broke loose, and the media proclaimed it a quagmire.
So, how can anyone reasonably argue that the struggle for generations was already a quagmire within two years? A long term strategy doesn’t fail in two years. There is no question that our domestic opposition drove the other two factors, and not the other way around. And yes, I’ll say it openly: the liberal media drove the opposition, and drives it now.
KC,Yup.
June 26, 2007 - 23:17 ET by drillanwrKC,
Yup.
Yup squared,Our lawmakers, th
June 26, 2007 - 23:35 ET by upcountrywaterYup squared,
Our lawmakers, those on our side,watch WAY TOO much TV. For some reason they buy into the bs of it all. What ever happened to consistency, standing on some solid foundation, saying NO to EVIL for as long as I live?
Why is everyone soo squishy?
The brain uses less energy watching tv, than doing nothing at all!
I agree with you about stay
June 26, 2007 - 23:28 ET by shawn228I agree with you about staying until the Iraqi's have sense of stability. I do not agree however with some on this site that people like Colin Powell, Richard Lugar, Senator Brownback were considered patriots and now that they say the war was not worth the price, they are now considered traitors.
KC,Recruitment is down b/c of
June 27, 2007 - 09:12 ET by LeonKC,
Recruitment is down b/c of the 3,500 + dead American soldiers and those that are added to this number daily. People don't want to join the military when they know they will have to go to Iraq.
Just curious. Do you have any actual quotes from any actual politicians before the invasion of Iraq that proclaimed this would be a long-term engagement
I don't remember anyone saying that and this seems to be the crux of your argument. People don't understand that this is going to take time? Well, maybe because they were told the exact opposite before the war began.
First of all, recruitment is
June 27, 2007 - 10:13 ET by drillanwrFirst of all, recruitment is NOT down. It's steady and meeting yearly quotas, with many of those already in "re-upping". I just heard a report on this the other day. Can't recall the source (was on the radio news), but you search for it yourself.
Second, I HAVE heard politicians (and military - who I'd imagine you wouldn't allow credit) stress Iraq was going to be a long process. You can Lexus-Nexus it yourself. Most especially the President and VP have continually said it was going to be a long-term commitment with hard sacrifices in military lives. But in today's culture of over 50% divorce rate, politicians who not only in the 1990s agreed Iraq and Saddam were a major threat (and now, thanks to the MSM, are not reminded of it so the public can drink in the hypocracy because they take full advantage of the public's trained ADD and ADHD) but agreed this was going to be a long process.
You google it or look it up, but I'm not doing the leg-work for you. If you were really interested in the facts you would have done so and not posed the question for someone else to convince you.
You make the low recruitment claim, posting NO site with your information source ... Yet, you expect everyone here to provide you with evidence of politicians claiming Iraq was going to be a long-term commitment by our country.
recruitment figures are not down
June 27, 2007 - 11:10 ET by RJMay is often a low month, and the May figures were slightly down for the Army, but this is the first time since last September. The Army remains ahead of it's goals for the year.
Overall figures for the year remain ahead, but some media outlets (and some posters) gleefully pretend the May figures mean "recruitment is down." In fact, the other branches ended the month exceeding their figures.
***And, while we're at it, retention rates remain above expectations***
Drill,Yeah when Cheney said i
June 27, 2007 - 12:33 ET by LeonDrill,
Yeah when Cheney said in 2005 that the insurgency was in its last throes, I definitely interpreted that to mean this was going to be a LONG process.
Here's the administrations Iraq war predictions that I remember off the top of my head:
1) Rumsfeld, “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” (2/7/03)
2) Cheney, “I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months (3/16/03)
3) Daniels, “The administration’s top budget [Mitch Daniels] official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion… Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs…The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid…” [New York Times, 12/31/02]
4) Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]
Now reading these quotes, I find it hard to argue that the administration claimed this was going to be a long war. Might just be me, but I don't see the LONG part anywhere.
I have examples, you don't. Don't tell me to google it and look it up. Debate works like this. If you make a claim, you back it up. You don't make a claim and then tell the person you're debating to do YOUR research. Ha.
Leon: You are confusing (I ho
June 27, 2007 - 13:34 ET by KC MulvilleLeon:
You are confusing (I hope not deliberately) the insurgency that came after the war (and that no one foresaw at the time) with the attitude of people who were preparing to fight a war against the Iraqi army. Those quotes all refer to the upcoming war against Iraqi military forces.
There was no insurgency at the time.
Those quotes addressed whether we could defeat the Iraqi army. And for your information, that war only lasted a few weeks … they were correct in that. The only quote that has any chance of an argument is the phrase that we “will be greeted as liberators.” That’s it. One quote. The Iraqi people, as a matter of fact, did not greet us as liberators. They did what any oppressed people do. They hung back and didn’t stick their necks out. Cheney was wrong about the aftermath of the war. But as for the war itself, it lasted less than they predicted.
From the same article you quote: "Now, the president has pounded the podium when asked how long the war will last -- "However long it takes," he replied Thursday with open annoyance -- and Myers said Sunday, "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory."
The article you refer to was written 13 days after the war started.
KC,I really can't take this p
June 27, 2007 - 14:31 ET by LeonKC,
I really can't take this post seriously. I am not confusing anything. The war that was packaged as the Iraq war includes the insurgency that came afterwards. It was anticipated (see Cheney's quagmire comments in the early 90s).
The war did not last less than predicted. It's still going on. It's entirely absurd to claim that their comments didn't indicate the war would take a long time because the insurgency that ensued is not part of the Iraq War.
Sorry but you're really stretching on this one.
Leon: "The war that was
June 27, 2007 - 15:03 ET by KC MulvilleLeon:
"The war that was packaged as the Iraq war includes the insurgency that came afterwards." It's intellectually dishonest to use quotes intended for attacking a military force to accuse Bush of "selling us" on a short insurgency. The administration didn't say anything about the length of the insurgency, because the insurgency didn't start until after the war.
Again, in other places you demand direct quotes, and yet all you offer is a vague "(see Cheney's quagmire comments in the early 90s)." You made the point, so you provide the proof. Let's see the quotes, and let's see the context. Of course, if those comments were made in the early 90s, they referred to the aftermath of the first Gulf War, which was a different situation from the Iraq of 2002.
When you say that you can't take this post seriously and that I'm really stretching, you're just trying to exit the argument with minimal strained feelings. That's fair enough. If you want to stop, fine.
KC,Please I didn't post the C
June 27, 2007 - 15:17 ET by LeonKC,
Please I didn't post the Cheney quote b/c it's common knowledge. You don't know the quote?
Sigh. Sorry for wasting space for everyone that's seen this quote 1,000 times:
This is from a speech in 1991:
Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.
They were made after the first Gulf War but they are still applicable today. Iraq in 2002 was not so different from Iraq 1992 in terms of the ethnic make-up and the problems inherent in trying to secure a country with such extreme sectarian vitriol.
I am not trying to exit the debate. Your initial argument/rational is disingenuous. It's founded on a false argument. By trying to claim that the pre-war comments don't apply to the insurgency b/c it wasn't anticipated is ridiculous. Those comments show the administration predicting A SHORT IRAQ WAR (which includes the insurgency we're now enduring - they weren't specifically talking about the Iraqi Army - that's simply revisionist wishful thinking on your part). They were wrong. Way wrong. You're trying to argue that they weren't talking about the insurgency. I don't get it at all.
September 11 changed everythi
June 27, 2007 - 16:10 ET by KC MulvilleSeptember 11 changed everything. The risks we weren't willing to take, and the mess we weren't willing to clean up in 1991, we felt we had to risk it. We knew there would be an insurgency, but we felt we could pacify the area until these issues could be worked out. We certainly didn't anticipate that al Qaeda would be inciting the civil war, or that Iran would supply enhanced IEDs, etc.
(Update since first posted): I used the wrong word. We knew there would be an <strike>insurgency</strike> ... no, we knew there would be a mess. We expected the former Baathists to try a guerilla war, but as Rumsfeld said, we expected most of the Baathists to be dead after the invasion. We didn't foresee this kind of civil war.
It's just unfair to claim that in 2002, Bush was selling us on a short insurgency, and that he knew about how the insurgency was going to be because of a speech that Cheney made in 1991. Two different situations.
Leon: As for the quotes, I ga
June 27, 2007 - 10:50 ET by KC MulvilleLeon:
As for the quotes, I gathered a couple of representative ones. Remember, the administration presented Iraq as a part of the war on terror, and therefore whatever they say about the war on terror applies to Iraq. You can disagree about that, but you can't disagree that they believe it ... and therefore, the quotes below apply to Iraq as much as the rest of the war. Secondly, on the theory that you were an adult in 2002 (I don't know your age), please don't tell me what "they" were told. What were you told? What were you thinking at the time? Would you have agreed to the war only if it was going to take a month or so? The left is proclaiming the myth that they only agreed to Iraq because it was going to be over quickly, but no one believed that at the time. At the time, the military and media were expecting Saddam to vigorously defend Baghdad, and we'd endure a long siege, and maybe lose 5,000 men or more. Read here from the New York Times.
We’ll start the quotes with these …
The war began March 20, 2003.
By the way, another media myt
June 27, 2007 - 12:19 ET by KC MulvilleBy the way, another media myth: that the Bush Administration deliberately argued that Saddam was behind 9/11. Here's a quote from Bruce Morton (no conservative by any means) from March 11, 2003. Italics mine.
At the time, the media never argued that the administration was misleading us. At the time, the media clearly acknowledged that the Bush administration wasn't pushing that argument. That's all revisionist history.
Frankly, it scares me that the American public forgets so quickly. I'll also repeat what I've said elsewhere ... after 9/11, the American public was screaming for the administration to do something. Retaliate. Attack. Now the media tells us that before the war, the public was reluctant and unwilling, and that the administration's war on terror was a secret plot to trick the public into accepting war. It's time that we admitted that "the public" is not some faceless group of others ... it's you and me. I'm tired of being told what "the public" (you know, those other people who fell for the lies) believed at the time. I remember what I believed at the time, and I stand by it.
There's a difference between your motive for going to war and your realistic assessment of how the war develops. Lugar may be right. Maybe the Iraqis will never see the forest for the trees. Maybe they are so focused on their narrow grievances that they'll unintentionally lose everything by trying to settle old scores. Maybe they really are that stupid. Maybe we will have to get out. But when we started this war, reasonable adults thought we could establish a stable government. Not perfect, but stable enough to prevent national implosion. That was a reasonable assessment at the time. But we all knew, or should have known, that it wasn't going to happen overnight.
KC,To say that when the admin
June 27, 2007 - 12:21 ET by LeonKC,
To say that when the administration talked about the War on Terror, this included Iraq is absurd. Securing Iraq and winning the war on terror are two completely different missions. As such, your (few) quotes have nothing to do with Iraq. And it's disingenuous to attempt to claim that these quotes somehow show the Bush administration emphasized that securing Iraq would take a long time.
You are correct, that NOW we need to secure Iraq because WE turned it into a terrorist training ground. But this was not the case prior to the war. Prior to the war, the War on Terror was the war on terror, and the War against Iraq was the war against Iraq. They were different missions with different goals. Of course, now Iraq is a bit more closely tied to the war on terror, even though Al Qaeda makes up a minute fraction of the insurgency (if you have any data disputing this FACT, please feel free to share it)
Everyone knows defeating terrorism in general will take a long time (most likely forever). However, all of the language leading up to Iraq and in the early stages of Iraq asserted this would be in and out. Hell, over 2 years ago Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes. Did you listen to anything Rumsfeld said? If you did, you would have thought Iraq was ship-shape, alll accounted for. All of the early rhetoric of the war coming from the administration was that we were just about done in Iraq, our mission was just about over. The fall of Saddam's statue was supposed to be the beginning of the end. We would be welcomed with open arms. Argue all you want but the Mission Accomplished banner meant just that to the Adminstration. They were proclaiming victory in Iraq with that speech.
With all of this last throes talk, once we have a constitution, once people vote, we're almost there talk convinced people that we were indeed close to our goals. Now 2-3 years later you expect people to understand that this is going to take a long time, when everything they heard in the first 2 years of the war was the exact opposite?
"Remember, the administr
June 27, 2007 - 12:50 ET by KC Mulville"Remember, the administration presented Iraq as a part of the war on terror, and therefore whatever they say about the war on terror applies to Iraq. You can disagree about that, but you can't disagree that they believe it ... and therefore, the quotes below apply to Iraq as much as the rest of the war." That's what I said. It's right above. You argue that Iraq is separate from the war on terror. As I say, what you think now doesn't matter on this issue. What matters is whether that's what the administration thought. Did you miss that point?
You write: "Of course, now Iraq is a bit more closely tied to the war on terror, even though Al Qaeda makes up a minute fraction of the insurgency (if you have any data disputing this FACT, please feel free to share it)"
Your argument method is backwards. Remember, we call it the "burden of proof," and NOT the "burden of disproof." You introduced the FACT, so it's up to you to substantiate it. Go ahead, find the statistic that supports your point (other than relying on someone's talking points), and keep it in context. We can wait.
While you're at it, answer this question: When you were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and supported terrorist organizations (if not al-Qaeda specifically), and they would likely distribute such weapons to be used against us ... did you really take the attitude that "OK, go in and take them out, but if it lasts more than a couple months, it isn't worth it?" I mean, seriously, did you only agree to address a threat if it was going to be quick and painless?
And if your answer is that you only would have agreed to a painless war ... may I ask you what universe you live in? I'd love to live there.
Leon:Quiz ... Who wrote: &quo
June 27, 2007 - 13:38 ET by KC MulvilleLeon:
Quiz ... Who wrote: "I have examples, you don't. Don't tell me to google it and look it up. Debate works like this. If you make a claim, you back it up. You don't make a claim and then tell the person you're debating to do YOUR research. Ha."
How does this square with your comment: "(if you have any data disputing this FACT, please feel free to share it)"
By the way the answer to the quiz is some fellow named Leon ...
KC, I simply said if you had
June 27, 2007 - 14:44 ET by LeonKC, I simply said if you had numbers showing a different proportion feel free to let me know. I didn't post the link (although you're right I should have) because I've posted it on this website approx. 25 times.
Here's the link. CSIS estimated in 2005 that approx. 4 - 10% of the insurgency were foreign fighters. Here's a summary of the report by the CS Monitor.
The actual report can be found here.
I wasn't challenging you to do anything as that point was incidental to our conversation, I was actually curious b/c I'm yet to see anyone that claims that we're fighting terrorists (and not insurgent Iraqis) in Iraq actually post any sort of stats or numbers.
Oh man. I think I've finall
June 27, 2007 - 15:34 ET by drillanwrOh man. I think I've finally seen someone who could fail an open book test.
<sigh> First of all, I know several Marines who have done multiple tours in Iraq, and WERE there in the invasion. Every one of them has actually had face to face encounters with these "insurgents" you so enjoy pointing out. Not only were they Iranians, but Syrians, Turks, Jordanians ... Some they actually captured coming over the boarder, in addition to "busting" (up) in the towns and villages in Iraq. As for the Iraqi "insurgents" well, yah! duh! the Baath Party and Saddam's supporters weren't too happy about us killing their golden goose.
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/26/us-troops-target-bomb-networks-south-of-baghdad/ http://patdollard.com/2007/06/26/how-long-are-we-going-to-remain-too-politically-scared-to-face-our-resposnsibility-and-attack-iran/ http://patdollard.com/2007/06/24/iranian-missle-shot-down-british-helo/
As for the lame argument that the Iraq war isn't part of the whole war on terror ... How the bloody Baghdad do you figure? It's a battlefield in TWOT. Just like Vietnam was a battlefield in the Cold War. Yet, liberals seem to be able to grasp the vast and near abstract concept of "Cold War" or "WOT" better than they can actually seeing the battle in action (Vietnam ... Iraq). Exactly where do you think the war is being fought?
(Oh, and I might dare suggest you don't post over on Dollard's site, as the military boots who read and reply there, in addition to the civvies who support them, won't put up with your mode of logic ... I'm just sayin'.)
Leon:I'm just a dopey compute
June 27, 2007 - 15:38 ET by KC MulvilleLeon:
I'm just a dopey computer guy. I have no current statistics on the exact percentage of the membership of the insurgency. Unfortunately, I only have two sources: the mainstream media and the administration, neither of whom I trust completely. I probably wouldn't trust the numbers even if I had them.
As I understand it, mutatis mutandis, the Iraq mess is really a civil war between the majority Shiites and the Sunnis. The original mission was to hammer out an agreement between the Shiites and Sunnis and the Kurds. That was tough enough, but then al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria (and others) are also there. Those foreign groups are dedicated to making sure that no democratic, American-friendly government succeeds in Iraq. So, while these foreign groups are small, they're fully capable of disrupting any hopes of a political reconciliation between the three majority groups of Iraq. A forest fire can start with a single match, and al Qaeda is lighting matches all over. Those foreign groups are trying to convince both Sunnis and Shiites that they shouldn't bother with reconciliation. To accomplish that, they say that the moment the Americans leave, they can win against the other side. All they need to do is wait until the Americans leave. So, normally, you'd expect that our counter-argument to the Iraqis is that we won't leave unless and until they have a secure agreement.
I mean, the only trump card we have is our credibility that we'll support them until they can secure themselves. That's all we have. So, anything that convinces the Iraqis that we're going to leave takes away our credibility.
It's a completely self-fulfilling strategy. How do you stop it? This is a game of chicken, like the scene in "Rebel Without a Cause." (Two cars drive straight at each other. The first to swerve loses.) Essentially, the terrorists are telling the Iraqis that the Americans are going to swerve. So, what's the best way to play chicken? You tie your hands. As someone said, you remove the steering wheel and show it to your opponent, so that the opponent knows that you couldn't swerve, even if you wanted to. That's the only way to win this game. But instead, liberals tell us that it's too dangerous. The problem is that we can't change the game, so we better use the only winning strategy.
KC,Great Post! You managed
June 27, 2007 - 16:12 ET by LeonKC,
Great Post! You managed to summarize the situation perfectly.
I don't know what to do. We've created a mess that needs to be cleaned up and I really have no solution. My main fear is that we messed it up so much in the beginning, the current situation is unsalvagable, and keeping our troops there is simply delaying the inevitable.
The foreign influences are just stoking the fires that were already roaring. They're just a bunch of instigators, but even if there were no terrorists in Iraq, there would still be attacks on American troops and extreme sectarian violence. My point is that they are a minor player. We don't secure Iraq by defeating the few al qaeda in Iraq. It takes much much much more than that.
Our main point of contention was what people were told about Iraq before and during the early years. I'm hearing all this talk from the right claiming we knew it was going to take a long time, but this is a lie. I was disputing that claim. I think I made it clear that the American people were led by this admin. to believe this would be an easy war. Now we know that this is not the case.
Furthermore, people wonder why the general public is clamoring for troop withdrawal, clamoring for a solution NOW. That's simple. They were led to believe it would be over quickly. I don't see how you can argue against the direct quotes I posted. The admin's prediction was way off. Why is that so hard to admit?
Leon:"The admin's predic
June 27, 2007 - 17:19 ET by KC MulvilleLeon:
"The admin's prediction was way off. Why is that so hard to admit?"
I don't dispute that they were way off. I dispute that it was a deliberate act of deception. I honestly think that they proceeded as reasonably as they could, under the circumstances. And, when military experts tell the public that once war gets started, no one can control it ... they weren't kidding, were they?
I guess, Leon, that my bottom line is this: since I never thought it was going to be quick, I find it difficult to grasp that others did. I'm a news junkie, and I soak up every opinion I can find. I may only post at NewsBusters, but I read whatever I can: MediaMatters, RealClear, Slate, Salon, Washington Post, etc. They didn't all exist in 2002, but I read other stuff then. Before the war, I remember the experts who said that the best way to attack terrorists is to dry up their resources.
The lesson of 9/11 was that we can't dismiss terrorist threats as just a bunch of unwashed, harmless peasants blaming their poverty on The Great Satan. The attack on 9/11 proved that we can't entertain that prejudice anymore. These are capable people, well financed, and they will kill us unless we stop them.
And here's the key point that sold me at the time, and I still believe it. Al Qaeda is not alone. There are other groups that hate us, and just because they don't get along with each other doesn't make them any less dangerous. I never thought Saddam was funding al Qaeda. I was worried about the other groups that he was funding. They all had leaders who wanted to be the next bin Laden. We didn't take bin Laden seriously enough, and I thought we can't afford to make the same mistake twice. Saddam had a lot of money, he hated us, and (at the time) we thought he had weapons of mass destruction that he was willing to distribute. Nobody said that al Qaeda was our only terrorist enemy.
Things went badly. I don't dispute that. We tried to have a Lite War, so that the diplomats could convince the Iraqis that we aren't horrible invaders. I think we learned a valuable lesson: the only thing worse than an occupier is an inept one. As Junior told Tony Soprano ... "next time, come heavy or don't come at all."
KC,I never implied that it wa
June 28, 2007 - 08:19 ET by LeonKC,
I never implied that it was a deliberate act of deception. In fact, I don't think I ever commented on the intent behind their speeches.
My only point is I'm tired of the Right lying and claiming that nobody ever said this was going to be a short war. I'm tired of hearing that the American people were prepared for a long, drawn out engagement prior to and during the first 2 years of the war. I'm tired of hearing, "Nobody said this was going to be easy"
Oh yeah? Well they did.
Well now, Leon, I'm still wai
June 27, 2007 - 15:02 ET by drillanwrWell now, Leon, I'm still waiting on you to give me proof my Kent State University conservative student/daughter is gonna turn liberal while in college.
She addressed you herself last week on that thread where you made the bogus allegation, informing you how completely and sadly wrong you are.
So, you give me solid proof my daughter will grow a yellow stripe down her back and drop her brains out of her head in order to become a liberal while in college (and med school) and I'll take the time to google for you because you're so lame at answering your own questions.
BTW, the vast majority of posts on this site do not offer sources for their educated comments. Most of us share the knowledge. Educate yourself.
If you think I'm being hateful just have Mrs. Ann Leon Edwards or your Mommy Edwards call me ...
Drill,Man, I missed your daug
June 27, 2007 - 15:09 ET by LeonDrill,
Man, I missed your daughter's comments. Would have loved to have responded to her. Do you remember the name of the thread? Or the date?
She'll give you all the proof you'll need in 4 years when she graduates.
PS It's just my predicition. She could be one of th 3% of college students that graduate still believing the tripe their parents force-fed them their entire lives.
Leon - Were your parents stupid also?
June 27, 2007 - 15:17 ET by florida_chadWere your parents stupid also? Have you educated them about the tripe they feed you?
3%?? Your post is the dumbest I have seen today.
So are you sure you want to stand by your statement 3% of college students graduate still believing the tripe their parents force fed them??
So what happens Leon, do republican kids goto college and come out democrats ? Do democrat kids goto school and come out republicians?
Chad,I wasn't being facetious
June 27, 2007 - 15:21 ET by LeonChad,
I wasn't being facetious at all. Not at all.
Sweet personal attacks though.
Way to dodge the question Leo
June 27, 2007 - 15:44 ET by florida_chadWay to dodge the question Leon.
No personal attacks here, just responding to your tripe.
Care to actually answer the questions?
See, there you go. No proof
June 27, 2007 - 15:21 ET by drillanwrSee, there you go. No proof.
No proof for what? My hyper
June 27, 2007 - 15:22 ET by LeonNo proof for what? My hyperbole?
Sorry didn't realize I needed to prove an exaggeration used to over-emphasize a generalization.
Wow! Now that was a loopty-lo
June 27, 2007 - 15:36 ET by drillanwrWow! Now that was a loopty-loop a Disney roller coaster could be proud of <puke>
Look it up leon...you know ve
June 27, 2007 - 15:43 ET by bigtimerLook it up leon...you know very well how to do that.
It was perfectly delicious.
I even commented.
If the American people were t
June 27, 2007 - 07:50 ET by AntiMediaIf the American people were told 10, 20, or 30 thousand terrorist were killed in Iraq, would we still think we lost the war?
Anti -Those numbers can be se
June 27, 2007 - 10:24 ET by drillanwrAnti -
Those numbers can be searched and found ... by the MSM too. But they choose not to, or choose not to give those numbers in their reports.
Also, when the media (including bad-mouthy celebs like Rosie) does insist on giving Iraqi death tolls they are including those numbers, the killed enemy, and the numbers upon numbers of innocent Iraqis killed by said enemy ... No, the MSM leaves it just hanging out there so that the public thinks it is OUR military who have killed all those people.
Headline: Manhattan Left Finds New Liberal Media Proxy
June 27, 2007 - 08:37 ET by nythatesusaThere is no way Lugar would receive the "respected Republican Senator" honorific from these media-center-leftist outfits if he had called for staying the course in Iraq and/or keeping the military option on the table regarding Iran.
So What happens when the Dem
June 27, 2007 - 09:03 ET by LeonSo What happens when the Democrats propose a plan that pushes for a phased withdrawal and the Republicans calls them cowards relentlessly. Attack their patriotism. Say they don't support the troops. BUT then the Republicans start to push for the same exact strategy?
Do the Republicans apologize? Do the Republican's consituents realize they were supporting a plan that their representatives have now admitted is not working? Do they finally see through the republican congressional stubborn insistence on a failing status quo?
This is all very interesting. For the Republicans to now echo what the Democrat's have been saying for over a year is pathetic. For all the trash they talked, it's now clear that they were simply playing politics and didn't really care about the future of Iraq. How selfish.
What are you all going to do when the entire Republican party admits they were wrong about Iraq? When they admit the President's strategy is not accomplishing anything? Then what? What's happens to a group of people that have no political leaders, no political representation?
Hmph. Get used to it. Democ
June 27, 2007 - 09:08 ET by sarcasmoHmph. Get used to it. Democrats AND Republicans want to blame child prostitution on those of us who'd legalize the sex business for adults, and I want to blame it on the various wars the Republicans & Democrats tend to support instead. Neither side is anywhere near convincing the other.
JMR
Leon, First off: You say that
June 27, 2007 - 11:12 ET by jpatchLeon, First off: You say that President Bush's strategy has accomplished nothing? Funny, but I thought the U.S. military deposed a dictator named Saddam Hussein? And how many times has America been attacked since 9/11? I'm pretty cettain that our invasion of Iraq worked to scare the h*ll out of every rogue leader in the world, and our efforts to interrupt terrorist funding and organizing has greatly weakened Al Qaeda. Moreover, the invasion of Iraq has created a battleground where we can fight terrorists. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people are caught in the crossfire, but let's set the record straight - it's the terrorists at work in Iraq that are causing this bloodshed. And lastly, are you serious when you talk about Republicans not having any leaders, or any political representation? I have a feeling that the Democrats are going to be crushed in the '08 election, so you can get back to me after that happens and tell me what its like to have no leadership or political representation.
Moreover, the invasion of Ira
June 27, 2007 - 11:19 ET by drillanwrMoreover, the invasion of Iraq has created a battleground where we can fight terrorists.
In addition to being one hell of a military base of opperations base for kicking the crap out of Iran WHEN that time comes ... and it ain't that far off:
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/27/gasoline-shortages-causes-riots/
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/26/us-troops-target-bomb-networks-south-of-baghdad/
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/26/how-long-are-we-going-to-remain-too-politically-scared-to-face-our-resposnsibility-and-attack-iran/
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/24/iranian-missle-shot-down-british-helo/
Strategically, there’s no d
June 27, 2007 - 11:17 ET by KC MulvilleStrategically, there’s no difference between a “staged” withdrawal and an immediate withdrawal. To the terrorists, they both mean exactly the same thing. If we withdraw before we have a stable security apparatus behind us, it doesn’t matter if we do it in stages or tonight. Politicians add in the “phased” or “staged” because they think it makes the policy sound better, but it adds absolutely nothing to the strategy.
From game theory, we know that any strategic situation that has no definite end creates a set of strategies; but the moment you declare an endpoint, a different set of strategies takes over and all the iterations in the meantime are locked into that result. The indeterminacy of the game is what gives you the advantage. By declaring a withdrawal, you declare an endpoint that locks in the result. If the terrorists know we are going to leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves, that’s all they need to know. They can wait. That’s why a call for withdrawal before the mission is complete undermines the mission itself. Undermining the mission of the troops in the field is, by definition, not an act of patriotism.
My own belief is that the liberals who advocate withdrawal aren’t intentionally trying to hurt the country. Instead, they’re calling for it out of a misguided lack of patience. They may be deliberately ignorant, but I’ll give them more credit than to accuse them of national suicide. I also believe that since we’ve been so strong and relatively secure as the world’s lone superpower, it has lulled us into believing that there are no real threats against us. That is a very dangerous attitude. It invites small attacks that don’t immediately threaten the nation’s existence, but they still get our citizens killed.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It was true for Jefferson, and it’s true for us now.
And who was saying that he ha
June 27, 2007 - 11:54 ET by jpatchAnd who was saying that he hasn't heard from any of our politicians that this war was going to be long? Was it Leon? I mean, give me a break. Did you listen to any State of the Union addresses? I've heard a thousand times that this war was going to be more about resolve that military might. We know that our military can do anything we ask it to, but it's our politicians that need to display courage and tenacity.
Terrorism works to feed off of weakness and fear, and to create chaos and distrust. We can't be terrorized - we're the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. We won't let cowards and defeatists take control of our country. Eternally vigilant is how us true Americans will remain.
"There is no more resp
June 27, 2007 - 09:22 ET by MightyMouth"There is no more respected Republican Senator in the area of foreign policy than Indiana's Richard Lugar"
Oh Yeah?? How come I've never heard of this guy before?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...