Imagine, if you will, a newspaper whose editors so hated the owner of the town’s baseball team that when publishing articles on its games, they headline all stories by highlighting the number of runs the opposing team scores. Deep in each article, they might bury the news of the home team’s victory. Now, imagine that the local TV networks, whose producers, anchors and sports department, all have a beef with this owner, so they join the paper in focus on the opposing team’s score and downplaying the home team’s success.
Local sports fans who attended the games would surely protest this biased coverage. They would know that there’s more to the games than the opposing team’s score — especially as their team was enjoying a winning season. And if the paper and the TV stations continued to highlight the opposing team’s scores, most local sports fans would cancel their subscriptions (unless they so liked the paper’s news and features section) to the paper and would no longer turn to those stations for sports news.
People in town who didn’t go to the games would assume their team was having a losing season. They would surely be surprised when they learned that, the local media notwithstanding, the team had made it to the playoffs. Just as the naysayers are surprised that the Iraqis this weekend swore in its first elected constitutional government in well over a generation.
Perhaps you now understand why I let my subscription to the Los Angeles Times lapse. I was fed up of reading negative headlines (& articles) on the war in Iraq. It seemed that every piece of bad news there found its way to the front page (above the fold) of the paper while the good news was buried at the end of those front-page articles (with negative headlines) or hidden in the middle of the paper — if it was reported at all.
Like that hypothetical baseball team, we are winning in Iraq even if we are not shutting out the opposition in every skirmish. Whenever they face or troops (and now when they face the Iraqi army) in open battle, they lose and lose decisively. They are left to planting bombs and sending suicide bombers to murder the civilians they are supposedly fighting for. To be sure, we have suffered setbacks, but we have had many more successes.
While it’s not yet certain that our enterprise in Iraq will succeed, there are increasing signs of progress. It’s too bad that the MSM has focused on the negative, preventing most Americans from getting an accurate picture of what is going on there.
Let’s hope the White House’s Cincinnati Kid does a better job than his predecessor of promoting the home team’s winning record. Because just like me, he wouldn’t want biased reporting to tarnish the great record of The Big Red Machine.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.comImagine, if you will, a newspaper whose editors so hate the new owner of the town’s baseball team that when publishing articles on its games that they headline all stories by highlighting the number of runs the opposing team scores. Deep in each article, they might bury the news of the home team’s victory. Now, imagine that the local TV networks, whose producers, anchors and sports department, all have a beef with this owner, so they join the paper in focus on the opposing team’s score and downplaying the home team’s success.
Local sports fans who attended the games would surely protest this biased coverage. They would know that there’s more to the games than the opposing team’s score — especially as their team was enjoying a winning season. And if the paper and the TV stations focused on the opposing team’s scores, most local sports fans would cancel their subscriptions (unless they so liked the paper’s news and features section) to the paper and wouldn’t stop tuning into those station for sports news.
People in town who didn’t go to the games would assume their team was having a losing season. They would surely be surprised when they learned that, the local media notwithstanding, the team had made it to the playoffs. Just as the naysayers are surprised that the Iraqis this weekend swore in its first elected constitutional government in well over a generation..
Perhaps you now understand why I let my subscription to the Los Angeles Times lapse. I simply got too tired of reading negative headlines (& articles) on the war in Iraq. It seemed that every piece of bad news there belonged on the front page (above the fold) while the good news was buried at the end of articles (with negative headlines) or buried in the middle of the paper — if it was reported at all.
Like that hypothetical baseball team, we are winning in Iraq even if we are not shutting out the opposition in every skirmish. Whenever they face or troops (and now when they face the Iraqi army) in open battle, they lose and lose decisively. They are left to planting bombs and sending suicide bombers to murder the civilians they are supposedly fighting for.
While it’s not yet certain that our enterprise in Iraq will succeed, there are increasing signs of progress. It’s too bad that the MSM has focused on the negative, preventing most Americans from getting an accurate picture of what is going on there. Let’s hope the White House’s Cincinnati Kid does a better job than his predecessor of promoting the home team’s winning record. Because just like me, he wouldn’t want biased reporting to tarnish the great record of The Big Red Machine.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
If in early 2003 the American people were told that by May 2006, the War In Iraq would be in its third plus year, carrying a price tag of 250 billion dollars, with the CBO estimating a price tag of 600 billion by the end of 2010, the American people would have never given their consent to the war.
Thus, because of that reality, the Iraq War will remain unpopular until it ends.
For after three years, all the War In Iraq has accomplished is the trading of one lunatic for another. In getting ride of Hussein, we got Amadinejad next door in Iran. It’s like that game at carnivals where u wack the mole and it pops out another hole.
Of course, all the neo-cons will disagree that the American occupation in Iraq had anything to do with Amadinejad being elected in Iran. But come on, you neocons are the same people who thought the Iraq War would only last 6 weeks.
On a completely different note, the increasing violence in Afghanistan is of great concern, as it now appears the Taliban has adopted the same tactics Afghans used against the Soviets – disappear for awhile and then begin a guerilla campaign. At the time, the American war strategy looked so brilliant. Now it is looking less so. While the situation in Iraq is debatable, a victory in Afghanistan still remains an absolute nessecity.
Dan, we’ve all heard of the “perfect storm” –you’ve just come up with the perfect metaphor. Great job; good insights. I wish W would use it on air when blowhard HarryReid goes to the well of the Senate and pontificates the next time.
What Erik misses above –as do his college of fellow W critics– is that Americans never “like” war nor do they see war as “popular”. The Gulf War was only tolerable because of its low American losses and speedy conclusion. VietNam, Korea, WWII in the Pacific and Europe and nearly every war to “the rear march” of American history has never witnessed a popular war.
The intellectual dishonesty of the Iraq critics –coupled with those on the Left who see opposition to those efforts as a way to score poltical advantage over their opponents– is never more clear than when people like Erik use the “popularity” test as an appropriate hallmark.
Erik writes “It’s like that game at carnivals where u wack the mole and it pops out another hole.” I dont know about you, Erik, but in the Midwest, we call that the Democrat Underground.
Splurt! LOL!
You owe me a new keyboard!
perhaps we can send eric off with this guy… and maybe they can take murtha and dean along to put us out of their misery
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/vw-suicide-bomber-p1.php
#3 – I know. They actually think war has to do with “liking” it or “popularity”! Such a weird mindset. War is hell. Everyone ALWAYS hates war, and rightly so.
We (as a country) go to war when, and only because, the alternative is even worse. In this case: the alternative was to leave Saddam in power as the French and Russians sold him all kinds of weapons and equipment he wasn’t supposed to have.
“In getting ride of Hussein, we got Amadinejad next door in Iran.” – That’s another thought I can only describe as, well, bizarre. Erik I am not out to insult you but I have to be honest here that I am shaking my head in amazement. I mean, “as if” the Iranian regime hasn’t been a visibly Islamist, gay-killing, and terrorism-sponsoring regime for 26 years now, despite whatever temporary propaganda fig leaves of “moderation” you bought into.
Soon after 9-11 and the success of the Afghanistan war, President Bush identified 3 major obstacles to world peace: Iraq, Iran, North Korea. He was right about all 3, and he and Blair were right to move on Iraq in 2003. One down, two to go. Of course, we can’t do squat about North Korea with Chinese permission and involvement. I expect Iran is next.
#0 – Dan, at the moment I’m getting a mis-formatted post. I don’t know if you need to look into it.
Dan, what took you so long? When I lived in L.A I was sorry to see the
demise of the Los Angeles Examiner. For two years I had a subsciption to the Times on Sunday. The pro left and anti right tenor of the articles in the opinion page would anger me so much that I found it difficult to go to church. I began reading the Wall Street Journal and found most of it to my liking. Once in a while the Times cold called to offer me a subscription I told them I don’t want their “leftist” rag under my roof.
The only thing the Times is good for is the classified ads if you’re seeking employment.
What Erik doesn’t mention is how he and his fellow leftists have sabotaged any attempts to tell the truth about what Ba’athist Iraq was really like.
The reason is simple; they know that the American public would never tolerate, for instance, Saddam’s imprisonment and torture of the toddler-age children of political dissidents — so they cover it up in the name of “dealing peace”.
Of course the American people “oppose” the war; they’ve only been told one half of the story. CNN and the leftist media openly admitted that they HID the brutality of Saddam’s regime in order to keep their “access” — and thus act as his propaganda network.
Its not all “media bias”. Whats more interesting to a newsreader or viewer? Conflict or placidity? Newspapers and news shows are always going to run with the most interesting and action-packed segments and stories. Thats just human nature, conflict is always more interesting than its absence.
GPW – not sure you noticed but negativity sells.
My problem with the war, as someone rightly pointed out Saddam was a pain long before 9/11. We failed to deal with the situation when he was gasing oppositions by the city back in the 80s. That and of course Bush lied. Had Bush just said I want his evil *ss out of power that would have been “freshing honesty from a politician.”
A lot of you focused on the semantics of my post, focusing in on the word ‘popular’.
My point was this: THERE WILL NEVER BE MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR THE IRAQ WAR AGAIN. It will go on until the American people get so fed up, that they elect a government that will end it.
Living in fantasy land there again, Erik.
We know how you love to come here and gloat about future triumphs for your viewpoint (or future crushing defeats for the Iraq war, evil Republicans, etc.) that haven’t happened yet, and to more realistic people, won’t happen quite the way you predict – if they happen at all.
Even left-liberal journalists are now starting to admit Iraq is turning out better than they thought all along – I could give you some articles – but would it do any good? (Hint: google William Shawcross’ latest)
P.S. And as for whether the “official” polled support for Iraq will ever hit 50% again or not – Frankly it doesn’t matter. The people working in (or on) Iraq are quietly continuing their good work; the rest of us should be discussing Iran now.
(the Shawcross piece is hard to google – here’s what I had in mind: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2189891.html )
The Revolutionary War wasn’t all hearts and flowers, either. There were times when it looked like we might lose. Had this same defeatism taken hold we may still be a British colony today.
See this is one of the main reasons I’m in a funk about the country and conservatives. Republicans control 3 arms of the govt. in DC. And we cant control….sell our message better. Things are not that horrible! I hate that spending is outta control. But as a % of GNP it is dropping. This war is going as well or better than almost any in our history…but we have a HUGE pansey class in America that wasnt around during WW1 or WW2. I’m a history buff and during the revolutionary war, a third of the country was pro brittish and a third was indifferent. It’s only after some of these conflicts that the masses come round and “follow” their leaders. Remember how Roosevelt had to gradually take us to war? Because a majority of Americans were against getting involved in stopping the Nazis even thought they were invading parts of europe and Hitler had started exterminating Jews. But since we control so many of the power levers, its amazing to me we cant educate the people about what the administration is trying to do. The MSM is against the message but do something different. Something creative.. to get the message out.
I’ve said it before, liberals never want to go to war. There isnt a war that theyd ever want to fight. They prefer we were the Swiss. We should take pride in the fact that Iraq and Afganistan are free. The MSM will never praise conservatism. And it is maddening that Republican and conservatives always feel the need to show how balanced they are by attacking their own. How nice.
Again, Gene, you make too much sense.
Pictures coming soon (I hope you like pictures of my last vacation or my pets(or my pets on my last vacation) ).
Its not all “media bias”.
The hell it isn’t.
Whats more interesting to a newsreader or viewer? Conflict or placidity? Newspapers and news shows are always going to run with the most interesting and action-packed segments and stories. Thats just human nature, conflict is always more interesting than its absence.
Normally, your post would be true. The difference here is that the media has NO intention on reporting ANYTHING that might show Bush in a positive light. They don’t stow the gear necessary to be honest in this case.
OT – but in keeping with the baseball metaphor….
Wishing to rub shoulders with the common folk, Vera ventured out to a baseball game the other night.
Questionable hot dogs, watery beer and pretzels the size of roofing shingles aren’t her idea of fine dining – but the ball player’s sure are easy on these old eyes. I committed a fashion faux pas when I remarked, “the players are adorable – I love their costumes!” and was immediately told “they’re not costumes – they’re uniforms”.
Athletes? Entertainers? Vera always figured they were one in the same: over paid, under performing and, as Hitchcock advised, “should be treated like cattle”.
Which got me thinking – do ball player’s uniform designate the rank or level of the player – like in the military? Are Johnny Damon’s Yankees strips equivalent to that of a Sergeant in the Army or a Petty Officer in the Navy? Is there a pecking order visible by their dress? Would one be able to glance at a certain player and immediately know his position, rank and superiors? His batting average? His pay grade?
Sadly, no. Apparently, it’s all for show.
Unlike the men and women in the US military.
Today, lots of civilians can’t distinguish the branch of the military by their uniforms, never mind what rank they hold. Vera fondly remembers enlisted men dressed in khaki pants and shirts (Army), olive green suits with brass buttons (Air Force), officer whites (Navy) and dress blues (Marines). Black shoes that shinned like marble. Stripes, stars, chevrons and bars; all used to designate rank within the group. That’s what Vera really loves about the military – they’ve never been afraid to be hierarchical and they’re snappy dressers, too.
As Vera’s dear friend, novelist Barbara Cartland put it; “The man in women’s sexual fantasies is not nude – he’s wearing a uniform.”
You dont think a half hour show a couple nights a week from Iraq and Afganistan, showing the remarkable things going on would get viewers?
Air it at 11pm ET when so many of these cable news channels start re airing their 7pm stuff. Show me interviews with female grade school and HS students in Afganistan. 3 yrs ago they werent allowed to learn to read. Interview the new Iraqi legislators…male/ female, Sunni and Kurd. What are their plans for upgrading their power grid? How do their markets and street life compare to 5 yrs ago. Interview Kurds and Shiites about the freedom of worship compared to 5 yrs ago. Count the number of satellite dishes and fax machines and personel computers compared to 5 yrs ago. Let me see the new leaders of the local police. And the officers of the new Iraqi Army. Who is the Iraqi Army spokesman? Let me hear from him/her. Yeah it might be a her.
Instead Chris Matthews goes to an American liberal college campus to see if the spoiled American elite class has anything to bitch about. “oh,ah, gas prices are too high and my student loans are toohard..ummm what’s the govt doing for me?” Republicans should buy the air time to get the good news about 40 million free souls, out to their liberators…the American people.
#1 Yo Erik, look up how much blood and treasure the USA spent to free Germans, Japanese, Panamanians, Granadans, French, Phillipinos, Russian (ho the cold war),Italian, should I go on? Liberals go to the cash we spend in this and other wars. Because they figure they can prey on peoples selfihness. If only we spent that money on my neighborhood playland or paying down my student loans. Selfishness. Erik if you and your family were held in a horrible tyranny, how much would be too much to free you and your loved ones? Freedom is what we do.
“The Revolutionary War wasn’t all hearts and flowers, either. There were times when it looked like we might lose.
We didn’t do very well through most of the war. Had Cornwallis not shifted his strategy to capture the south, a HUGE tactical mistake, we might be singing “God Save The Queen” at baseball games today.
I’d heard a ballpark once to the tune of 1/3 of the colonists favored England, 1/3 favored independance, and 1/3 didn’t care one way or another.
Knowing people, it seems likely to be true.
The only reason our troops are doing so poorly in Iraq is because of Clinton. His “don’t ask, don’t tell” lie is ruining the armed services. The fact is that homosexuals completely and utterly decimate unit cohesion in the military. And the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allows homosexuals to infiltrate and infest the military services –all branches INCLUDING the USMC! I have no doubt that had our President gotten rid of don’t ask/don’t tell at the beginning of his first administration, Iraq would be pacified and it would be a peaceful democracy by now. Our troops are being destroyed from within by the homosexual flying “under-the-radar”… there’s one way you homosexual boys can help this country (if you truly love it, as you say you do)… and that is to let the President and Congress know that homosexuals should NOT be destroying unit cohesion in our military! Why are the PC policy allowing this to happen to the U.S. military? Why? It’s shear craziness… it’s the insanity of the PC police run amok!
Dan in Baltimore
“Take me out to the ball game…”
Instead of a dude ranch, why not vacation in Iraq since things are so good there?
You’re kidding, dan, right? Even if someone *entirely* believed that homosexuals should never be in the military and even if it were true that homosexuals destroy unit cohesion and EVEN if DADT meant that there are more homosexuals in the military now than before… and even IF our soldiers were doing poorly in Iraq by any measure, the idea that we’d have a pacified and placid democracy in Iraq if only DADT were abolished is… really bizarre.
Are you a troll? Or just highly original?
Because I know people who are firmly against homosexuals in the military and I know people who think our soldiers are performing poorly… and they aren’t the same people. But someone who was anti-military pretending to be a pro-military homophobe might get it mixed up.
Of course he’s a troll. He’s presented no empirical evidence on any of his claims. He just wanted to announce some opinions that he knew that the bloggers and its readers would find objectionable, without any backup or even an attempt to engage the discussion at hand. This is textbook trollism, lacking only personal ad hominem attacks to be a truly classic example.
#24 dan the man in baltimore….wow,
Straight people in San Francisco,SoHo, Royal Oak Michigan, Ft Lauderdale, all are hurting the continuity and cohesion of the gay communities there. It’s time for the straight ppl to leave and let gay people live without all the undermining straights can bring to any law abiding community of gays and lesbians. It’s shear craziness to assume straights can “fly undr the radar” in a predominently gay town without it being destroyed from within. Man…that’s how you sound. You happy wit dat?
Poor baby. I guess you’d rather hear about all the brown people our good white christianists are murdering, ey?
We had NO RIGHT to invade that country. NONE whatsoever.
If you’re talking about Iraq, catnapping: I call ‘bull’ on you.
We had not only a right, but a moral duty. Check your U.N. resolutions, from 678, 687 clear up to 1441.
What was it John McCain said last week? “I feel sorry for people living in a dull world where they can’t listen to the views of others.” Thank God for FOX.
From the post
Just as the naysayers are surprised that the Iraqis this weekend swore in its first elected constitutional government in well over a generation.
Actually, it was since 1953. Interesting year–that was the year that the CIA overthrew the elected constitutional government in Iran.
Actually, I guess that the vote of confidence in the al Maliki government in Iraq was something of a success. It would have been more impressive, though, if al Maliki had submitted a complete cabinet. He didn’t, of course–the portfolios regarding defense, interior and national security have yet to be filled. They are being provisionally filled by himself–a Shiite–and his two vice prime ministers–one Kurd and the other Sunni. It strikes me that those ministries are among the most important, and al Maliki’s failure to fill them before the vote of confidence was taken is something of a surprise. Al Maliki has promised to fill them with a few days–but if it were the case that he would be able to, one seriously wonders why he didn’t actually wait a couple of days to be able to present a full cabinet.
Otherwise stated: it ain’t over.
Also from the post
Let’s hope the White House’s Cincinnati Kid does a better job than his predecessor of promoting the home team’s winning record…
By “Cincinnati Kid,” I presume that you are referring to Tony Snowjob. Whatever. It’s cute that you keep referring to Ohio, Southwestern Ohio and Cincinnati in your posts, but it makes me wonder–why do so many people who grew up in Ohio leave. You obviously did–notwithstanding your family’s political connections there. I did as fast as I could, and I had no political connections there. (I was in Ohio when Jim Rhodes–the five-term governor of Ohio–praised the Ohio National Guard for its manslaughter at Kent State–and that was just during his first reign.)
Let’s look at some other people who have left the Cincinnati area. Well, there’s obviously Tony Snowjob. There was also Doris Day. There was also Rod Serling–you know, the guy who wrote and/or produced many of the Twilight Zone episodes, among many other things. They did–or in the case of Tony Snowjob, do–fiction.
There was also Charles Keating. Keating was he of the Keating Five. Chuck first gained his claim to fame by heading Cincinnati’s Citizens for Decent Literature. The CDL (which still exists, but under a different name) with the connivance of the Cincinnati prosecutor, significantly oppressed gay people. Chuck hi-tailed it out to Arizona to head Lincoln Savings & Loan, which, with his connivance, defrauded old people out of their life savings. He was convicted of something like fraud, but got off on a technicality. Typisch fuer die Republikaner.
There was also Donald Lukens. Oh, my, a Republikaner sex scandal–he was convicted of having had sex with a 13 year old. Too bad he wasn’t a Mormon. And too bad he didn’t do it outside of Ohio. It appears that sh!t of more than a few Cincinnatians really does stink.
Ah, well, rest assured that your Ohio Republikaner ethics will be distributed throughout the Untied States of America. One might seriously wonder, though, why you choose not to live in the backwaters that your forebears have created and that you champion.
why not vacation in Iraq since things are so good there?
I’m sure that we can find enough GP members to contribute to a kitty to send you.
Frankly I wouldn’t mind going myself, but I’m not able to get the time off what with hurricane season around the corner.
catnapper aka odd neighbor writes “We had NO RIGHT to invade that country (Iraq). NONE whatsoever.”
Suggestion for you cat: stick to embroidery and doll-making because it’s clear your political insight is seriously flawed. The world had the right to invade Iraq and took it. Bush has the right to advance a Doctrine of Pre-emptive Action in the aftermath of 9-11 and I’m glad he didn’t consult the peace-niks and appeasers before invading.
Remember, all the way up to invasion, Saddam could have capitulated and solved the problem. He chose not to. Once the Human Shields for Saddam left Baghdad, the effort began in earnest.
Stick to things you know, catnapper, ’cause at least on those issues your opinion would hold some value.
Humm catnipper must be a Jew hater as well as an America hater. Just a reminder: Sadaam was paying the families of Palestinian homicide bombers $25,000, a kings ransom, for killing Jews. So much so, that Palestinian mothers were strapping bombs to not one, but two of their beloved children so they’d be on the fast track to heaven and the 72 virgins. But Killing innocent Jews has rarely caused a loss of sleep for some. America had no right to invade Iraq eh? Again, tell me a war liberals would want to fight.
#32 raj, is your point: those damn Arabs are too stupid to govern themselves? They have accomplished evey goal along the way to self government. Representative government. Sometimes missing a timetable by a week or two, but always moving forward. Does that make you happy or sad? Are you hoping they succeed or hoping they fail in their drive for a representative democracy in the middle east?If they succeed America will have another free country to push back the factions of tyranny in the world. We’ll have a trading partner for our goods and millions of lives will continute to improve. Would that make you happy or sad? Are you so hell bent on any embarrassment for our President, that you ‘d sacrifice the hopes and dreams of millionsof Iraqi’s? I think we know the answer.
Gene, do you know what the word “obtuse” means?
You have very strong opinions about issues, yet the insight you bring to those issues is so meager that you might embarrass yourself a little less if you weren’t so hung-ho on your positions.
You seem to really believe that the Iraqis have “accomplished every goal along the way of self government”. Let’s review…. they voted for a constitution, then they voted for a government . . . sounds kind of democratic. Then the prime minister that was voted in was booted because he didn’t have the support of a foreign leader (George W. Bush). Remember, Gene, that the Iraqi people voted in Mr. Al-Jaafari as PM… (PM stands for Prime Minister). But remember that your President Bush, who SOOO loves democracy wasn’t happy with Jaafari (who expressed an interest in nationalizing Iraq’s oil)… so suddenly the PM of “democratic” Iraq had to be replaced by someone acceptable to a foreign invading power. (that does NOT sound very democratic to me).
And now the PM is…. (do you even know, Gene?)…. his name is Maliki…
Mr. Maliki is the American-approved leader of the new democratic* Iraq. Does it make you happy to know that Iraq is a democratic country that can’t have the leader of its own choice unless George Bush approves?
Let’s continue down the path of this wonderful, self-governing Iraq.
Now that Maliki is the Prime Minister, he rules the democratic* Iraq like the leader of any other country. So what country is he really leading?
The country that he’s the Prime Minister of is about 3 square miles in size. It’s called the greenzone, Gene. It’s walled off from the rest of the city of Baghdad, and it’s walled off from the rest of the country of
Iraq. Geniune control over the streets and farms and countryside in Iraq is NOT under the control of Mr. Maliki. In fact, it’s not really under anyone’s control… because control keeps shifting . . . . does it make you sad, Gene, that I am telling the truth about what’s happening in Iraq? Can you handle the truth? Or does Gene want to propagandize
for Mr. Bush?
Gene, do purple fingers make you happy? Because all those people who voted and got their fingers purple are wondering what’s so great
about “democracy”… the “democracy” taht you are only too happy to tell them they have. They live in fear every day. 1/3 of the middle class has already fled the country. They have less electricity and potable water than before the war. Their “democratic votes” have brought neither stability, nor prosperity, nor peace nor clean water and reliable electricity. Death squads roam the neighborhoods and kiddnappings happen to anyone who even has the slightest appearance of wealth.
Gene, how superficial and OBTUSE does a person have to be to celebrate this kind of “democracy”? Does your mind only work at the level of sloganeering? All one has to say is “they’re free” and that means they’re better off?
You’re a simpleton who believes EVERY LIE the DOD and the administration wants you to believe. You appear to be incapable of thinking beyond the level of slogans and spin-doctoring. You strike me as one of those tarted up Fox anchors who just never stops talking probably because even if you were to stop to listen, you don’t have the depth of character and insight into the human condition to learn anything from what you see and hear.
Superficial. Superficial. Superficial.
Michael the Archangel of Truth
Hmmm, the dictionary I consulted says
“obtuse. See any post from Michael the Archangel of Truth.”
I think Gene knew that, already, Michael. Now, go get those wings clipped.
Remember, Gene, that the Iraqi people voted in Mr. Al-Jaafari as PM… (PM stands for Prime Minister).
WRONG.
Perhaps you should educate yourself to understand Iraq’s governmental structure:
Under the Iraqi Transitional Government, the Members of the Iraqi National Assembly choose the Presidency Council; including the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
The Presidency Council then shall name a Prime Minister unanimously. According to this, the Presidency Council must agree on a candidate for the post within two weeks. In the event that it fails to do so, the responsibility of naming the Prime Minister reverts to the National Assembly. In that event, the National Assembly must confirm the nomination by a two-thirds majority. If the Prime Minister is unable to nominate his Council of Ministers within one month, the Presidency Council shall name another Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister cannot be appointed to any other position in or out of government. Because of this, no member of the Armed Forces, National Assembly, Minister, or member of the Presidency Council can be elected to this position unless the individual has resigned his commission or rank, or retired from duty at least eighteen months prior to serving.
This is the explanation for what actually happened to Mr. al-Jaafari:
In the national election of December 2005, the UIA once again won the majority of the votes, which according the the new Iraqi constitution, gets to pick the Prime Minister. UIA members voted for the Prime Minister with only two main candidates. Al-Jaafari was one and the SCIRI member Adel Abdul Mahdi, a secular economist. Jaafari won the vote only by one (64 – 63). His win was credited to the support of Muqtada Al Sadr’s members of UIA, who all voted for him.
However he became increasingly associated with the failure to end the violence in Iraq and to improve services. Because of this the Sunni, Kurdish and secular groups in the parliament refused to agree to him continuing as Prime Minister leading to deadlock. His refusal to stand down began to alienate even those who had till then backed him but it is believed that only when Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that he finally gave way.
You see, Michael, what you claim as “truth”…..isn’t.
Like others ,Michael the Arch cant stand that the tyranny is gone. Remember when everyone was questioning how many Iraqis would risk their lives to vote. On a day when all had to walk to vote. Amazingly over70% did vote. Was that a happy day for you Michael? It was for me. Freedom is an amazing thing. Sloganeering…sure I’m guilty. I’m thrilled when others can enjoy freedom. It’s not perfect. It can be messey and you have to earn it.But it’s better than Communism and tyranny. Would you agree Michael? Every step of the way the Iraqis formed a representative govt FASTER than we did. The terrorists in Iraq are much more anti freedom of religion than they are anti American. They know we arent staying. No more than we occupied Japan, Germany, Granada or the Phillipines for more than a few years.
#36 Gene in Pennsylvania — May 24, 2006 @ 12:12 pm – May 24, 2006
#32 raj, is your point: those damn Arabs are too stupid to govern themselves?
I can only conclude that you did not read the comment. I recognize that conservatives often suffer from RDD–Reading Deficit Disorder–but your response to my comment is mind-boggling.
Downthread:
#37 Michael the Archangel of Truth — May 24, 2006 @ 2:22 pm – May 24, 2006
No, al Jaafari was not elected by the populace. In most parliamentary systems, the selected candidate of the party (or coalition) with the plurality of the votes in parliament gets to try to form a government (that is, a group of cabinet ministers) that can pass a vote of no-confidence. If he can do so, he becomes PM. On the other hand, if he cannot, someone else is selected to try to form a government. That is what happened with Jaafari (who was the initial selection, who failed to form a government) and with al Maliki (who was the next selection, who formed a partial government–as I mentioned, three important posts are yet unfilled).
I don’t know who selected the president (the head of state) who was to select the candidates to form the government, but, regardless, neither Jaafari nor al Maliki was elected by the populace.
Regarding
#39 North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 4:34 pm – May 24, 2006
It’s rather amusing that you link to Wikipedia, given its notoriety for being wrong. I’ll refer to it for science and math issues, but not for political issues. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that they haven’t been sued out of existence for defamation, given their track record for misinformation.
Regarding
#40 Gene in Pennsylvania — May 24, 2006 @ 9:47 pm – May 24, 2006
Like others ,Michael the Arch cant stand that the tyranny is gone. Remember when everyone was questioning how many Iraqis would risk their lives to vote. On a day when all had to walk to vote. Amazingly over70% did vote. Was that a happy day for you Michael? It was for me.
That’s nice. Apparently you, like many others, are unaware of the fact that democracy and freedom are oftentimes antithetical. If the democratically-elected Iraqi government imposes more than a few aspects of Sharia (Islamic) law–which is decidedly anti-freedom–on Iraq, are you qoing to whoop for joy?
#24 Dan in Baltimore. What evidence can you offer to support your contention that gays in the military destoy unit cohesion? I am a gay Viet Nam vet (Sgt. E-5). I knew other gay troops and in my experience there was no destruction of unit cohesion and it was fairly well known who we were. Not exactly the best kept secret in the world. My last duty station was Ft. Mead, Md. One saturday night at about 10:00P.M. in my favorite gay bar The Club Bar in B’more on Franklin St. a small
beer bar with about 18 seats I counted 24 patrons of which 7 were military personel with ranks from E-4 through Captain. We were from Ft. Mead, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and one from Ft. Holobird and he was CID. The next highest profession were the beauticians of which there were five. To learn more about gays in the military during WW2 I suggest you watch the documentary entitled BEFORE STONEWALL. It probably will air next month on your local PBS station celebrating Gay Pride Month