I had just received an email from a buddy over there when the speech came on. I was pretty stunned by it and this is what I wrote him. I have checked the news over the last ten hour news cycle and the only thing over the AP wire mentioned, is that the Arabs and Iranians think we are a direct threat to thier ‘way of life’ and that speech really shook them into a new reality. Anyway, here it is in its entirety.

Its funny, but I just read this after I watched the presidents speech live. I had alot of thoughts while I was listening to him and I am not sure if I can make enough sense out of them in order to write it down coherently as to how it played for me, in a live kind of way.

I wouldn’t write it exept that I think that it has a great deal of bearing as to why you are over there with the thousands of my country’s servicemen and women, so I am going to try. If only because I saw it first hand, sort of.

I think that he has alot of weight on his shoulders. I think that he means it when he says that he feels that the decisison to start this thing in Iraq was very difficult for him, that he really means that he thinks of you all somehow everyday. I’ll be damned but I think that he really, REALLY cares about how you all are doing. I also felt that he cares very deeply about how I am doing personaly. I sensed that when our country loses a serviceman, that he really grieves for their loved ones loss as well as his own loss for having to make the decision and hold the ultimate responsibility for that decision.

When asked about whether or not he felt that he had made mistakes, he seemed at a loss to explain a deeper meaning about being all to human in such a terrifying time in our countries history. I know that I will be reading some crap somewhere criticizing his answers tonight, trying to make out that he was clueless, but they did not see the same press briefing that I did. I think that I saw for the first time in my life, a president stand before the American people naked, in the psychological sense, that he had stripped all of the politics out of his speech and let the American people know that he cares about the scenes of the mutilated bodies coming into all of our living rooms and he is just as sure that he was as uncomfortable with those images as I was.

But it was also the first time that I have ever seen a president of America state that freedom does not come from the government, or the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, but comes directly from the Almighty. And we as Americans have an obligations to help feed the starving people in North Korea, lead the way on AIDS research, to help spread freedom and liberty around the world. He believes that it is America’s calling.

Well, buddy. You haven’t been here to see the absolute malevelance that masquerades as news, the utter disregard for all human dignity that even our own countrymen stoop to to attack this president and everything you fine men and women are doing there for not only us, but the future of the world; you would want to throw a brick through your TV screen. I literally cannot have civil conversations with people at my work and even simple seemingly innocent comments can precipitate an extremely bad day for all persons within earshot… It is literally that bad. I wonder sometimes that the country can pull itself together, but that is what the terrorists want and are fighting for. I have to learn to let go and let God take over. Only He knows what is the outcome. It is up to us to stay the course and do what is right. After this speech tonight. I would follow the president to the gates of hell. He is the first Politician I have ever seen that spoke the absolute truth as he see’s it.

It looks pretty dark to be him. The weight that hangs on his shoulders is palpable. I pray that God lifts up his burden and blesses him as I do for all of you over there and in afganistan. He said that if supporting you guys is wrong; in so many words, he dont wanna be right.

God bless that guy!

And yes, you too Barney. Sorry I haven’t written you a real letter in a while. I have let it sizzle in nag mode for too long. I treasure your letter and thank you very much for it. Your Pal

Sunami

Posted by: Sunami at April 14, 2004 08:57 AM

“President Is Long On Resolve but Short on Details”

Yeah, just like every damn coulda-woulda-shoulda whining second guesser is long on complaint but short on details. The difference is one must remain as veiled as possible—to save lives and ensure effective military strategies.

The other set of details remains “secret” because it is non-existent.

Let’s hear details like the August 8th 2001 reactions of the Media, the ACLU, World Leaders etc. to the indefinite grounding of ALL US, and foreign flights on August 7th—based on the memo of August 6th. I see no reason to listen futher to any complaints absent that information.

Posted by: Stephen at April 14, 2004 10:40 AM

CLAIM:
“But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”
- George W. Bush, 4/13/04

FACT:
In the very same press conference, President Bush said “part of [the reason I requested the PDB] had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going to attend” in 2001, where he was warned that Islamic terrorists were potentially plotting to fly airplanes into buildings.

CLAIM:
Iraq “refused to disarm.”
- George W. Bush, 4/13/04

FACT:
“The Bush administration’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.”
- CNN, 1/26/04

more at:
http://www.davidsirota.com/

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 14, 2004 11:49 AM

At this point in their first terms, President Clinton and President George H.W. Bush had each done 72 press conferences.

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 14, 2004 11:53 AM

BESIDES the fact that the summit was on 8/02/2001 and the PDB was not dated until 8/06/2001…

Gee, DAMN HIM for not protecting EVERY building in the US then huh…?!

Hmmm, no flaw in logic on #2 there either huh…?!

Please.

Nice try though…elvis, AND any semblance of intelligence, has DEFINIETLY LEFT THE BUILDING (AND the left for that matter!).

I’ll give you one point for the SPAM though.

Posted by: TrollPatrol at April 14, 2004 12:09 PM

Do you have a link to that AP story about the response of the Iranians and Arabs to the Bush speech? Thanks.

Posted by: U.S. Cavalry at April 14, 2004 12:13 PM

Last night I saw Hitler, in the shape of GW Bush, attempting to rationalize the genocide of the untermenschen in Iraq. He seemed oblivious to the fact that, at the current rate, he is killing more Iraqis per annum than Saddam did during his time as dictator. He seemed blinded by an imperialist ideology, and deaf to the word of God as he claims to be inspired by the all mighty.

Last night I watched a man pretend to feel compassion for tens of thousands of young people, those not yet dead or physically or mentally scared, that he has transformed into murderers.

Last night I watched the abdication of the fourth estate, unable to defend the national interest in the face of entrenched commerial imperatives.

Last night I caught a reflection in the presidents eye - Grozny, Jenin, Stalingrad.

Posted by: Patriot at April 14, 2004 12:16 PM

French Patriot,

I posed this question to another MORON, but since it has yet to respond maybe YOU will…

A question:

I am EXTREMELY curious…just HOW does Terry McAuliffe get his hand SO FAR up your ass as to make your mouth move (OR, your hands move to type in this case?!)??

You know, considering HOW FAR your head is already up there and all.

Posted by: TrollPatrol at April 14, 2004 12:21 PM

BTW- Just HOW DO you watch television with your head up your ass?!

Never mind, since you are so OBVIOUSLY a ‘mouth breather’ you just watch through that hole at the top of your neck.

Posted by: TrollPatrol at April 14, 2004 12:22 PM

Patriot: You must work for MoveOn.

Posted by: popd at April 14, 2004 01:20 PM

I just love the Orwellian names some of these blindly idiotic Bush haters use: “Patriot”, “Truth”, etc. Maybe they’re the same Women’s Studies Professor using different aliases? The reference to Hitler is always good. It shows a total lack of perspective and judgment coupled with a hysterical need to vent half-baked, buzzword-laden, bumper-sticker slogans. Thank God (or Al Gore) for the internet. Just imagine if we had to actually listen to people like this!

Posted by: TL at April 14, 2004 02:26 PM

Trollpatrol,
With regard to your point: “BESIDES the fact that the summit was on 8/02/2001 and the PDB was not dated until 8/06/2001…”

Of course it was after Genoa. The brief was requested after seeing the summit’s organizers seriously considering a hijacked plane used as a missile a very real threat.

I’m not damning Bush, just showing how the threat was very real and well known before 9-11.

And:
“Hmmm, no flaw in logic on #2 there either huh…?!”

Bush used “Saddam did not disarm” as an excuse for the invasion. Now we know (conclusively) Saddam had no weapons. Why is he still using this excuse as an invasion pre-text?

I’m sorry you consider this spam. I thought readers might be interested in seeing a pertinent critique.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 14, 2004 02:49 PM

elvis,

Sorry, perhaps I painted you with a roller rather than a brush.

I STILL have not seen evidence…SPECIFIC evidence…that could have POSSIBLY been actionable PERIOD, much less within one month.

Second, the part that you are missing is that the onus was on Saddom to PROVE that he had disarmed based on what he ADMITTED that he had to the UN! The was a CONDITION of the cease fire, umpteen resolutions, etc. etc….! If he truly HAD disarmed (which I STILL highly doubt!), then he is a bigger moron than even the laughable left (such as “truth”, non-patriot, etc.!)! He played bluff and lost. PERIOD.

So, this is not NOW, nor was it EVER an “excuse”…and CERTAINLY not one dependent on US finding WMD #1!!!

Posted by: TrollPatrol at April 14, 2004 03:00 PM

Of course it was after Genoa. The brief was requested after seeing the summit’s organizers seriously considering a hijacked plane used as a missile a very real threat.

What?
My understanding is that the threat being discussed at Genoa was the use of small aircraft loaded with explosives, and had nothing to do with hijacked aircraft (which the PDB mentioned, but only about traditional hijacking methodology.)

Take off your hidsight glasses.

Posted by: monkeyboy at April 14, 2004 03:05 PM

can bush just be president of iraq, and let us have a real leader?

Posted by: x at April 14, 2004 03:14 PM

Evan Thomas, of Newsweek, opitimized the media elite’s disdain for Bush this morning on Imus as he sneered that “I doubt Bush even knows who Chalabi is”.

How does one respond to this level of stupidity and deliberate disinformation by those who claim to serve our interests?

Posted by: feste at April 14, 2004 04:16 PM

I think there are a couple of things we can do to alter the media landscape:

First, vote with our wallets. I don’t have cable or a dish or any other form of broadcast TV in my home it just not worth the time, much less the money. As we stop buying the product the ability to ignore the customer will dissapear.

Next we need to be actively refuting the nonsense we see around us. We need to take on thoughtless comments like the one Feste shared. The people at the networks and in washington need to hear us. The misguided anti war crowd needs to see us and understand our loathing for them.

Today Rush talked about an article in The Boston Globe that dealt with the disconnect between the media and the customer. But given the liberal tilt on college campuses (campii?) its gonna be tough to get back to some semblance of credibility for reporters in general.

I didn’t watch or listen to the presser last night. I read the transcript and I simply cannot beleive that these reporters think these questions are what WE would like to ask. The disrespect they show is insulting and I for one am tired of it.

It’ll be a great day when congress finally grows enough gonads to pull the plug on NPR!!!

Posted by: skip at April 14, 2004 04:30 PM

“It’ll be a great day when congress finally grows enough gonads to pull the plug on NPR!!!”

and it’ll also be a great day when the book burnings begin!

and it’ll be a great day when we jail those who speak out against us!

and it’ll be a great day when we can make dissenters just disappear!

and it’ll be a great day when we burn the constitution!

“First, vote with our wallets.”

how do you think NPR gets its funding?

Posted by: x at April 14, 2004 04:52 PM

*****
I have not seen evidence that could have been actionable PERIOD.
*****
Whether the Bush administration was too complacent, negligent, or just plain incompetent cannot be proven either way. Could Bush & Co. have done more? Yes. Could Bush (et. al) have prevented the attacks from happening? Not likely.

*****
this is not NOW, nor was it EVER an “excuse”…and CERTAINLY not one dependent on US finding WMD #1!!!
*****
WMD was not a reason for invasion? It definitely was, and unfortunately, all WMD evidence to this point has only been illusionary. Sorry, maybe I’m not understanding you.

******
What? My understanding is the threat being discussed at Genoa was the use of small aircraft loaded with explosives, and had nothing to do with hijacked aircraft
******
Egypt’s president has stated this. But the Italian secret services spoke of a possible hijacking and crashing of an airliner at the summit. Either way, the suspected M.O. was using a plane as a weapon.

****
Take off your hidsight glasses.
*****
Mb, please, at the very least, spell your attacks correctly.

Posted by: elvis2k at April 14, 2004 05:00 PM

Just for the record, skip, if you think you are avoiding media bias by ignoring network and cable news coverage, and presumably NPR as well, and then rely on a blowhard with an axe to grind like the-soon-to-be-convict Rush Limbaugh, you are truly trading some objectivity that happens to disagree with your view of the world for the complacancy of being a Rush yes-man. Enjoy your isolationism.

As for relying solely on the transcript, you missed much of the bubling Bush show. Bush was very forceful on some issues, and I thought offered some great defenses, although he gave no details and, in all honesty, evaded the tough questions. I don’t think the questions were insulting at all. I cant wait for this year’s presidential debates.

Posted by: Todd at April 14, 2004 05:02 PM

Give it a rest Todd. First, why should bush have to defend himself? What’s the issue here? do you see your own bias in the words you choose?

And don’t mistake agreement for objectivity. There’s a theory in science that says that nothing can actually be seen because the very act of viewing it changes it. That is sooooo true in today’s 15 seconds of fame media world. The camera lights go on and the S heads start chanting. So yes, I’ll ignore it.

Another thing: Rush doesn’t hold himself out as an objective reporter. he is what he is: a conservative commentator. I don’t expect objectivity from him. I expect commentary and criticism and yes a bit of entertainment.

Contrast this With Rather Biased, or the Viacom bunch.

As for the mindless extrapolations of the X factor. Please do us a favor and grow up. I didn’t say anything about book burnings or jail or whatever your fevered mind cooked up. NPR receives some of its funding from the taxpayers and I want that to stop. NPR is not only biased toward the left they are mean spirited and arrogant thrown into the bargain. So let them go find funding and I wish them the same luck as the soon to be defunct air america (which got bounced today). Its’ time for Bob Edward to remove his lips from the public tit.

And time for X and Todd to come up with something valid and save the slogans for the next earth day celebration.

Posted by: skip at April 14, 2004 06:27 PM

You seem to like quieting dissent, but with such rich fodder, I just can’t “give it a rest”.

Why should Bush have to defend himself? Well, because he is the President of the Untied Sates and, last I checked the Constitution, he is answerable to the People. If you prefer a regime that doesn’t have to answer to the people, I hear the Baathists and the Taliban are recruiting for comebacks (They like to quiet dissent, too).

The issue, sir, is that thousands of the “Iraqi people” and hundreds of U.S. service men and women lie dead on Bush’s orders, and many more are wounded and disfigured, permanently. For that and that alone, the media has every right to ask the President if he thought he had made a mistake by invading Iraq. If he didn’t think he had made a mistake, he should have knocked that one out of the park. But he fumbled and whined that he didn’t have time to prepare (or have someone else prepare for him) a response. That was pathetic.

So enjoy your Rush love affair. You deserve each other. And incidentally, if you read my comment, I didn’t suggest that Rush is objective. You call him a commentator, I call him a blowhard. (In reality he is a snake oil salesman who has gotten rich off of fools. Not the first, won’t be the last.)

My point was simply this: if it is objectivity you seek (which was your original claim), Rush is not your refuge. Your posting reflected the logic of the following statement: “I hate racists, so I’m going to join the KKK.” (Not suggesting you hate racists or want to join the KKK, btw).

Posted by: Todd at April 14, 2004 08:05 PM

The Lefties are all uptight because Bush does something that they can’t get their heads around: He doesn’t pretend to know what he doesn’t know. All of these criticisms about lack of specifics suggest a rationalist premise whereby the future is planned by those in power. Bush is then judged against this tacit (and impossible) standard and found wanting.

Bush’s strategy of deference to those on the ground (on both the US and IGC side) suggests that he knows that those in the thick of it will always know more than he will, so he views it as his job to make sure he is able to empower them as needed and to provide for enough flexibility in the force structure to allow it to respond as it sees fit.

But this of course is beyond the Lefties; they essentially demand that Bush know the future and create the peace in Iraq in the same manner that the Soviets used to try to make soap. The results of this strategy almost always involve bugging out in the end when the planners plans are overtaken by events on the ground.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at April 14, 2004 09:55 PM

yes, JZ, leftists have good hind sight - theyre always glad to attempt to banish risk by forfeiting freedom. blind to their own limiting biases which indeed renders many of them to be well meaning but false altruists like al-Kerry who btw had a way to go to war without losing lives. the press is absurd.

Posted by: hound at April 14, 2004 10:23 PM

X wrote,

“can bush just be president of iraq, and let us have a real leader?”

Sure. President Bush will be President of Iraq and Condoleeza Rice will be President of America. She is a real leader.

Not some ‘Janet Reno’ Alligator Wrestling twit.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 14, 2004 10:33 PM

Jackson,

I think you are correct on many points. Bush doesn’t pretend to know what he doesn’t know (which, we found out last night, is a lot), and his M.O. is to let those who know run the show.

So here is what I can’t get my head around. Why do the conservative forgive Bush for being an idiot?

The war in Iraq ain’t his fault, cuz he ain’t runnin the war.

He could not have done anything about bin Laden before 9/11 because the CIA and the FBI didn’t write him a script of what to say and what to do.

I don’t know the answer to your question, Mr. reporter guy, because my handlers didn’t write one out for me on your specific question which I should know the answer to if I’m runnin the show.

This may be a strategy, but it sure as hell ain’t leadership. And is sure as hell ain’t inspiring.

So, I ask, what value is Bush adding to the leadership of the country, when he expects everone else to assume responsibility for leadership?

Hey, I know the salary for Prez isn’t that big, all things considered, but I think we should demand a better deal.

Posted by: Todd at April 14, 2004 10:45 PM

So here is what I can’t get my head around. Why do the conservative forgive Bush for being an idiot?

There’s nothing to forgive, Todd. By your definition—- he who doesn’t know the future is an idiot—- we’re all idiots, including you.

The idiot Bush knows something you don’t know, Todd: he knows where his knowledge starts and where it ends. You, on the other hand, are wholly ignorant of human ignorance in general, and your own ignorance in particular.

By the way, I find it ironic that you chastise Bush for failing to do with Al Queda precisely what you simultaneously chastise him for doing in Iraq. That doesn’t make you an idiot in my book, but it is definitely a sub-genius argument.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at April 14, 2004 11:03 PM

“Why do the conservative forgive Bush for being an idiot?”

Because being intellectually challenged means that he can be manipulated by the like of Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and many other lobbyists who are making a fortune under this administration.

Truth

Posted by: Truth at April 15, 2004 09:41 AM

OK, let me start with the Todd dribble first:

The press is rapidly losing it’s credibility. Increasingly people are turning away from the traditional sources of “info” as more and more of it’s internal bias is exposed. Alas, given the sorry state of our colleges and universities we’ll have to live through at least another generation of Jayson Blairs before some semblance of evenhandedness returns. It’s just a question of time before people will begin to recycle lawyer jokes substituting reporters.

How many reporters does it take to screw in a lightbulb. Reports don’t screw in light bulbs they screw in newspapers.

The media has no inherient right to anything. Nothing in the constitution grants them a free pass. They behaved in a boorish and unpatriotic manner and deserve to be exposed to the hisss of the world for it. They aren’t serving us well and that’s what the article I mentioned pointed out.

Thank God for people like Rush, sean Hannity, Lileks and others who finally give voice to the rising tide of rationality in our country. The media’s been too liberal for too long. Time to get back to the facts and leave the smarmy editorialising for the congress.

and my comment reflects no such “logic”. What do you actually know about me anyway? Aren’t you committing the very un PC act of profiling me? Where’s your open mind?

And Truth, I believe that you are not actually a person. You’re simply a random response generator that takes a few key words and slogans and spews them out in response to any posting.

You need to reboot pal or maybe get you a whole new bunch of words to use because it’s starting to look like a pattern. What’s next: Cheney started the war so the Iraqi oil could be used by an evil jewish cabal to take over the world? I can hear the rotors of the black helicopters even as we speak.

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 10:19 AM

REUTERS REPORTS ON MORE BUSH MISTAKES DURING NEWS CONFERENCE.

President Bush has once again provided the American people with false and misleading information about weapons of mass destruction as reported by the Reuters News Agency.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=4837048

The continuing pattern of false and misleading statements has come to characterize the Bush presidency. As also reported by Reuters, the continuing deception is begining to erode Republican support in key battleground states such as Ohio.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4829479&section=news

A growing number of voters are questioning not only the credibility of this administration, but its competence in handling of the issues facing the American people.

Posted by: sgposs at April 15, 2004 10:45 AM

Perhaps the neocons like Bush the idiot because they can identify with him.

e.g. skip

Truth

Posted by: Truth at April 15, 2004 11:11 AM

Skip,

I agree with many of your criticisms about the media. I don’t subscribe to the theory that The Media is biased, but there are certainly examples of elements within The Media that are both liberal and conservative. But when elements within the media reveal their bias, they undermine their credibility, and need to be judge accordingly. I, for one, can not stomach listening to a public network broadcast, and increasingly find CNN dumbing down their coverage in a simialr vein.

My point was, you solution is counter productive, unless by unbiased you mean “agrees with me,” which is presumably what Rush and his ilk offer you. But make no mistake, it is not rationality. It is sensationalism, logical fallacy, cherry picking of facts and circumstances, hyperbole, bigotry, partisanism, and a host of other less savory elements that are antithetical to rationality. But have at it; that is your right.

In all seriousness, go read the Constituion. The media does have an inherent right to some things. I think you will find it in the First Amendment. But don’t just skip to the good part; the rest is interesting reading too.

Posted by: Todd at April 15, 2004 11:45 AM

Oh toddy boy, look how wrong you can be. Which amendment guarantees a reporter the right to poor behavior?

And what I am speaking to is this: leveraging the media back to its senses. the current situation cannot stand. It’s not good for the country.

So for my purposes, Rush is the perfect tool. By ignoring the so called main stream and tuning in to alternatives (Like this web site) we are voting with our wallets. CNN is losing Share so is MSNBC. Fox is growing but without my help.

At some point the profession of journalism has to recognize that they’ve been derailed and are in danger of becoming totally irrelevant. They are approaching that point rapidly.

and yes, I will state this publically, I question the patriotism of those journalists who asked those snide sneering questions. I do this for two reasons:

First as outlined above thier focus on themselves diminishes their ability to provide what our democracy needs: valid information on which to ponder. Next, many of those questions give sucor to our enemies.

The left is doing its part to relive vietnam, only this time there are more grown ups around and we’re not going be so easily duped by the likes of Tom Brokaw and Bob Edwards.

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 11:59 AM

Skip,

Your patronizing tone serves to underscore your ignorance. The First Amendment guarantees a free press, and they are free to behave poorly. Seriously, go read it.

But, keep in mind, your judgement of “poorly” carries with it a host of presumptions.

I will disagree with you to the death that such reporters are being unpatriotic by asking tough questions. Voltaire wrote “the price of liberty is eternal vigilence.” Reporters can be unpatriotic by doing some things, such as revealing troop movements. But I fundamentally disagree that the President is immune from being asked if he made a mistake. Such action can be borne, I submit, by the highest form of patriotism. (Admittedly, in this country, the love of money often outweighs the love of country. And that comes from both sides of the aisle, and from all walks of life.)

But here is were we find fundamental agreement: Rush is definitely a perfect tool.

Posted by: Todd at April 15, 2004 12:32 PM

Well, when you manage to attract twenty million readers I’ll remember where I heard about you first!

Ernie Pyle must turn over in his grave every time one of these smarmy self important snobs asks a rude question.

Further, how many times have I heard “don’t believe what you see on CNN”? Hell, I heard it today on NPR!

The press has lost its status in the eyes of way too many. Too many scandals, too many obviously biased statements, too much coverage of the sensational and not enough actual information.

They, the press, need to hear that we simply don’t buy it anymore.

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 12:37 PM

“So for my purposes, Rush is the perfect tool”

he’s a tool alright. who will you listen to when he gets locked up like the loser junkie addict that he is?

Posted by: x at April 15, 2004 12:58 PM

“CNN is losing Share so is MSNBC. Fox is growing but without my help.”

But none are loosing money. They receive money from advertising and aren’t really affected by whether viewers agree or disagree.

Rupert Murdoc (=FOX) is pro-Bush, because Bush backs policies that give Murdoc leverage to operate in an Asian market that would otherwise be more restrictive to his interests without beneficial US intervention in trade and telecommunications policy. Of course it should be noted that Bush- administration supports tax policies that shield his offshore income sources from taxation (taxes that incidently are now taxed at a lower rate thanks to the Bush tax cuts, and now subsidized by those of us who make roughly $250K or less per year) . When he goes or if tax policy on offshore holdings changes, other elements in the FOX corporate hierarchy will follow the time tested path to making money used by other US media conglomerates. Don’t think they won’t change the cue cards all those announcers read from when “reporting the news”, because of righteous political conviction. If you don’t buy this, go back and look at how Murdoc turned on the Thatcher government.

Nonetheless, I like the Command Post for some of the reasons you state. It removes the “middle-men” like Murdoc and allows others to communicate about the news directly, even if we often strongly disagree. This is good for democracy. Unfortunately, it still has somewhat of a Stalinist ideological legacy in that it doesn’t let ALL who wish to open their own topics for discussion (subject to some reasonable restrictions and some consideration of costs), so that the larger community sets the news agenda, rather than an elite few. In this sense the Command Post fails to differentiate itself from the rest of the “media”. This in my opinion lessens the credibility of the site as an impartial arbitrator of human activity. But then this is too be expected given the close ties of many of its bloggers to Karl’s Rovers.

It would be better if they would be more forthright about who has the permissions (in the web-development sense) to create new topics. It would also be more open (impartial) if there were some sort of stated policy regarding how and who can create new topics. I note that there is virtually no coverage with respect to science and environmental issues.

One can only hope that democracy is more than the liberty to maintain one’s own preconceptions.

BTW. Can someone explain to me why so many find being told what to think every day by an admitted drug-addict that has been high (low?) on drugs for the past several years is preferable to thinking for themselves? I’ve never really understood this. My theory is that critical thinking is difficult and the world is a scary/mystifying place for those who do not regularly exercise their grey matter in this way. Ever wonder why Rush never talks about the importance of mathematics?

Posted by: sposs at April 15, 2004 01:02 PM

And speaking of loser junkies, here’sssssss X, that bastion of deep thought and careful rhetoric.

Did your victims study class get out early today? Are are skipping school to honor Gaia this fine afternoon?

Actually, I work with addicts, I’m in the business end of the rehab business. And there’s one thing recovering addicts have that you don’t: hope.

by engaging in such thoughtless name calling you clearly show us who you are. Nothing wrong with being a tool at least for the thoughtful generation. For those here with pearced everything and their hats on backwards, wait, what do we care what those guys write?

So prattle oh worthless one.

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 01:04 PM

Ah sposs, another bigot heard from. It takes more than a PC and thesaurus to produce valid writing.

So let’s see, after biting the hand that feeds you by whining about the fact that the people who pay for this site actually retain control of it, you move on to spewing thoughtless insults.

first there’s this:BTW. Can someone explain to me why so many find being told what to think every day by an admitted drug-addict that has been high (low?) on drugs for the past several years is preferable to thinking for themselves? The bigotry here is two fold: first you are saying that anyone who has admitted to a drug problem must be unfit for any human activity.

As I said to that wonder of the American educational system X, recovery implies hope. didn’t the nice people of DC re elect Marion Barry after he was released from Jail? Or are you just showing us at long last the old liberal double standard?

next, the underlying assumption is that anyone listening to Rush is doing so to obtain instruction on how to think. Again, such bigotry on display. It’s a wonder that some PC aware college professor doesnt’ give you a good scolding!!! You’ve engaged in profiling, for shame for shame.

I’ve never really understood this. My theory is that critical thinking is difficult and the world is a scary/mystifying place for those who do not regularly exercise their grey matter in this way. Ever wonder why Rush never talks about the importance of mathematics?

Yes critical thinking is tough and yes the world is complex so hang around here and learn something.

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 01:14 PM

that doesn’t change the fact that RUSH IS A JUNKIE and a hypocrite for trying to take some sort of moral high-ground against his opponents when he’s no better of a person than your average NYC crackhead.

“by engaging in such thoughtless name calling you clearly show us who you are.”

pot, this is kettle!

Posted by: x at April 15, 2004 02:47 PM

So again we see the very acme of intellectual acheivement as portrayed by X.

And again, we see the liberal double standard. How very unPC of you dear X.

So only a perfect person can discuss morality? Only a perfect person can say “This is right and that’s wrong”? And since perfection is the exclusive province of God, no moral judgements can be made, therefore everything is acceptable.

did I get this right X?

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 02:51 PM

it occurs to me that i owe an apology.

i’m sorry, nyc crackheads, i shouldn’t compare you to such lowlife scum as rush limbaugh. please forgive me.

Posted by: x at April 15, 2004 02:53 PM

“So only a perfect person can discuss morality?”

no — but when you’re BREAKING THE LAW you certainly are in no position to discuss the morality of the law that you yourself are breaking.

like me— i don’t choose to complain about people who drive too fast because that would make me a hypocrite. i speed like a motherfucker.

skippy, did you take a few too many of the blotter papers in the 60s, is that why you can’t understand?

Posted by: x at April 15, 2004 02:58 PM

What others have written about you is clearly true.

Beneath contempt, you are beneath contempt.

Suddenly I find myself in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Hey, X, how’s puberty coming along?

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 02:59 PM

One of my favorite lines from the film animal house comes to mind. And it fits our dear friend X:

Fat drunk and stupid is not a way to go through life son.

Posted by: skip at April 15, 2004 03:09 PM

Ok, skip, there’s another thing we agree on.

Posted by: Todd at April 15, 2004 03:19 PM

“you are beneath contempt.”

You misspelled “always correct”. Hope this helps.

“Fat drunk and stupid is not a way to go through life son.”

You mean like Rush? Oh I’m sorry, he wasn’t drunk, he was HIGH. Well, at least he still has the fat and stupid bit going for him.

Posted by: x at April 15, 2004 04:04 PM

Hey Elvis, Patriot, X:

You’re smarter than me so explain to me if we’ve “conclusively” found that there were no WMDs in Iraq, how the hell does this happen?

Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe
The Washington Post, by Colum Lynch

April 14, 2004
UNITED NATIONS — Large amounts of nuclear-related equipment, some of it contaminated, and a small number of missile engines have been smuggled out of Iraq for recycling in European scrap yards, according to the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog and other U.N. diplomats.

Look it up, boys and girls…help me out with this, OK?

Posted by: chris at April 15, 2004 10:45 PM

A bigot is one who is intolerant. Since I’ve been tolerating Rush and his army of “dodo heads” for quite some time in relative silence, I hardly think that this qualifies me as a bigot. Perhaps the pejorative might be more appropriately applied to Rush himself.

It is interesting that Rush and his herd rant endlessly about political correctness (a relatively meaningless pejorative) when it suits them, but expect an impeccable docile Victorian civility when there own ideas are held up to scrutiny. Wasn’t it was Rush who coined the often parroted phrase “femi-nazi” when speaking about women who advocate for a more female-centric perspective to the nature of political dialog?

Personally, I find all the recent expressions of compassion for the drug addicted a bit hypocritical considering all the compassion Rushie the Limpblah showed for these folks prior to his own too human foibles. For those who lament (should we say whine?) about this, I would shed the same alligator tears for this Rushie as Rushie himself has for those he has shown no respect for over the years.

I simply made an observation that from my perspective calls out for an answer and more serious discussion about the nature of contemporary political discourse. You can hardly deny that millions and millions of dodo-heads still wax proud that they get their political inspiration from Rush even though he was high (low?) when spouting his goofiness. Was it that they simply didn’t know what kind of rush it was?

The defensiveness of the response to the fundamental question is understandable, but really begs a more satisfying answer than the limp response on this point. One can only suspect that there is some comfort in numbers that draws the herds in. I suspect it may only be something like “ten million flies can’t be wrong”, but I’m open minded, there could be other explanations. There are pathways in the human brain that are designed to short-circuit thinking, such as those that blotting out continuous sound, or those, such as seen in the lateral colliculus, that trigger the head to move rapidly to the side when a loud sound is heard, interrupting any activity in the cerebral cortex. Could it be that such pathways are simply better developed in some?

Why should it bother dodo-heads to be on the receiving end of what “The Rush” has been dishing out for so long? He has changed the nature of political dialogue. Guess we all just have to get used to it. Why, should those of us who detest his sloppy thinking now shudder, lest some among his flock might offended? Is another alligator tear in order?

As to biting the hands that “feeds” me, I have a different perspective, since I obtain relatively little true sustenance from any website (save a few that I was contracted to create). Yes, my point is critical, but it remains a constructive criticism. The basic idea is sound even though I certainly don’t agree with most of the perspectives on contemporary events as my colleagues here. I don’t expect the Command Post to be more open to other points of view. Nonetheless, as I pointed out before, the choice of a stalinist model of command and control over a more democratic format that would provide greater openness with respect to control of the “headlines”, limits the forum from attracting a larger audience. In its current format, it will remain a niche market, unable to compete with media conglomerates who provide a broader range of perspectives and topics. That would be a shame, since the basic idea is a good one.

Posted by: sgposs at April 15, 2004 11:16 PM

Question: What do you get when you cross a Reporter with the Truth?

Answer: Someone that’s just been fired.

Question: What do you call 500 reporters on one end of the Titanic and 500 reporters on the other end of the Titanic as it is sinking?

Answer: News thats Fair and Balanced.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 16, 2004 12:06 AM

Chris, regarding Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe:
So far it’s being characterized as large quanitities of contaminated scrap, not weapons or weapons making equipment per se. Some of it is also junk left from the reactor sites Israel bombed in ‘81.

It’s unknown (at this point) whether actual working equipment/weapons were smuggled out of Iraq. It’s also unknown whether this was a Saddam regime obfuscation or an act of looters looking for some quick/dirty profits.

I’m not a Saddam apologist. World experts disagreed with the Bush administration’s pre-invasion claims. Bush & co. said the evidence was incontrovertible. It wasn’t. Saddam was/is a horrible tyrant. I’m ashamed the U.S. supported him for such a long time.

ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 16, 2004 09:52 AM

Elvis, you’re correct, the jury’s still out on the stuff found in Europe…JUST as the jury is STILL OUT about the whole WMD issue…David Kay never said his findings were “conclusive”…there are a lot of folks who would like it to be conclusive, but it isn’t and it won’t be, probably for years…wishing don’t make it so…the only thing that’s “conclusive” is when people use “conclusive” to push an inconclusive result, it’s “conclusive” that they’re either in denial or they’re lazy or both…you can do better, and I’ll expect to see better from you.

Posted by: chris at April 16, 2004 10:34 AM

Hey Chris,
I for one expect much better from this current administration who were so vehement about their rather circumspect evidence (in the face of world experts who discounted it as false).

Bush & co. (including the Brits) mischaracterized/misread intelligence data about Iraq, which we now know (fairly) conclusively posed no immediate threat to the United States.
They got it wrong. How wrong? We’ll have to wait and see.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 16, 2004 10:52 AM

why don’t you just shut up already scumbag.

You don’t have a clue whats going on in the world.

Posted by: ElvisSUCKS at April 16, 2004 12:07 PM

line up the names of those world experts for me, will ya Elvis? give me facts, not chest-beating…you see, this is the kind of lazy-mindedness that passes for argument…I’ll be waiting patiently for that list.

Posted by: chris at April 16, 2004 12:59 PM

These lefties will sell out America, because it’s “anyone but Bush”.
Rememer when Arnold was running? We heard all the rants, Rich hollywood actor, immigrant, blah blah blah.

But when it comes to John kerry, all that doesn’t matter. The Guy is filthy rich, not that he earned any of it, he married it.
His wife’s fortunes comes from her South American apartheid Negro slave owning family. She doesn’t even like America, or Americans, and these idiot lefties want to make her a first lady? She is no “lady” by anyones standards, just a filthy rich snob, a role Kerry loves as well.
She doesn’t even like being called Mrs. Kerry.
Mrs. ketchup, or Mrs. Pickle will do I guess.

Testy Teresa Tirade: I Can’t Believe I Came to America

It didn’t take long for the rigors of the campaign trail to sour first lady-in-waiting Teresa Heinz, who fumed yesterday that she “can’t believe” she moved to America and married an American politician.

“I can’t believe my family left Africa and came to this (edit) country,” Heinz Kerry complained to the New York Post’s Cindy Adams. “I can’t believe I ever even married an American.”

Anything but Bush indeed. The Loony left has no pride at all. It’s one thing to hate the president. But it’s quite another to violate the honer of the “First Lady”.
That role belongs to an American, not a low class south African baroness, who can’t even stand to be in this country.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 16, 2004 01:09 PM

OOps south African I meant

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 16, 2004 01:12 PM

Don’t be bothered with that fat elvis impersonators rant. It the same old tired Loony left Bull shit.
There isn’t a word of truth to it. It’s the same old tired democrat underground script.

If he knew the truth he would know that:
A) Saddam had WMD’S
B) they are still missing
C) The materials counted by inspectors in the previous round of inspections, are now missing.
D) Saddam was active in world terrorism, arming them, training them, supplying them with funds.
E) was in violation of Resolution 1441 and several others which made action by ANY UN member country legal.
F) Saddam was a mass murderer, and was a fan of Hitlers.
G) the world and Iraq is now a better place now that he’s gone
H) Iraq was and is the Hub of terrorism, as we can now see
i) Iraqi people are GLAD Americans are there, and only the tyrants aren’t.
J) The loony left are traitors to America, alot of the noise makers you see online are in fact muslims.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 16, 2004 01:23 PM

Wow. I’m amazed at the ad homs that pass for debate in this discussion!

Chris:
Blix, ElBaradei primarily. (Tenet. Ritter was outspoken too, but their “expert” status is debatable.)

Al-Lat:
a.) Sure at one time. The U.S. even sold stuff to him.
b.) You know this how?
c.) See b
d.) “World terrorism”? Any specific terrorist group? Remember, no plausible Al Queda link exists.
e.) That’s curious. Richard Pearle seemed to think the invasion violated international law.
f.) Indeed, and the Reaganites loved him for it. Saddam was a bigger fan of Stalin.
g.) Amen.
h.) Same as d? Anyway, the CIA called the Saddam regime support for terrorist groups, “weak, non-existant”. Bin Laden and his ilk disliked Saddam for being such a secular, westernized monkey-boy. SH did support the PKK to some extent (perhaps to piss off Turkey?) Of course, the U.S. armed the Turks against these Kurds, enabling Turkey to commit numerous human rights violations (with U.S. attack helicopters primarily). As I understand it, Al-Ansar al-Islam operated in protected Kurdish territory, out of Saddam’s sphere of influence.
i.) Some are. Some aren’t. See the recent Oxford study.
j.) ad hom

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 16, 2004 03:34 PM

Editing after a re-read…

Al-Lat:
c.) Sorry, yes some of the stuff previously inspected has gone missing (and has shown up in european scrap yards). These aren’t WMDs though (at least not as of this morning).

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 16, 2004 03:52 PM

The U.S. even sold stuff to him.

The US did not sell Saddam WMDS. Give your head a shake.
More democrat loony left BS.
What the US sold Iraq was bio samples for university education. And insecticides.

Funny, how when the troops find barrels of the stuff buried in the sand, you say “thats not WMD’S” but now it s? make up your mind.

I know this how? because in 1994, the UN weapons inspectors had tagged and listed the stuff, and now it’s missing. As well as other stuff he had to produced, documented, tagged and now missing.
And no, it isn’t in European scrap.

What you are referring to was some older, magnetic type centrifuges. They dug up a newer model in a iraqi’s backyard. where are the others? Who knows.

There is stuff there, and it will be found eventually. The unfilled warheads are found, so the stuff to put in them are around somewhere.
And, they did find 50 tons of mustard gas as well. uried under a turkey farm.

Terrorist groups he supported? how about Hamas, Al Qaida, Islamic brotherhood, PLO, etc.
Al quada was even set up in northern Iraq.

And where do you get the Idea Saddam supported kurds? He hated them, which is why he gassed them, made their villages vanish.
Saddam was evil, now he’s in prison, looking at Bush’s picture on the wall, waiting for death.
He’s a mass murderer, guilty of genocide. reasons enough to be invaded and removed.
Iran next, then Syria, and joradan, maybe even Saudi’s if they don’t clean up their shit.

Bush was right, Democrats wrong, as usual. The democrats caused 9/11 by their neglagence and cutting CIA and FBI budgets.
Now we have a president willing to do what has to be done. There is no appeasing terrorists, and fundamental Islamic jihadists who have their own vision for the world.
It sounds like your one of them. “Allah” is a rock, not a god. God’s name is Yahweh, not Allah And no, Allah isn’t arabic for god. Ilah is.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 16, 2004 05:01 PM

Elvis, thorough answer but insufficient.

Muhammed el Baradei gets a huge qualifier because IAEA said Iraq was clean of a nuclear program in the early 90s, and then lo and behold, an Iraqi defector said they had a strong nuclear program underway right under IAEA’s nose at the time…that’s a weenie shrinker for El Baradei.

Hans Blix has admitted himself (reluctantly) that Saddam had weapons and weapons programs as recently as 1998, and I will never forget Blix saying in front of the Security Council that all those thousands of liters of chemical and biological stuff WAS STILL UNACCOUNTED FOR...and the Iraqis were refusing to cooperate to help him find out what happened to them.

But the ultimate killer to your argument is the repeated (dozens of times) statements by 11 of the 13 members of the Security Council that they believed Saddam had WMD and wasn’t cooperating…it’s a matter of record.

I’ll go on record today and assert my belief that there are still WMDs in Iraq. They are there. As sure as the nose on your face, Elvis. It will take time, probably years, maybe even decades, to find all of it…but they’ll find it.

I just pray to my God that the right people find it first. God forbid we get hit here with WMDs discovered and smuggled out of Iraq by terrorists.

You see, Elvis…some of us (actually most of us) in this country believe we’re at war…and no amount of well-phrased talking points from Moveon.org or ANSWER can change that reality.

Time to get serious, Elvis. Get with the grownups on this one…

Posted by: chris at April 16, 2004 05:50 PM

Hi Chris,
Regarding Saddam’s possession of wmd:
I said “sure” he had it. It was well-known and documented (by the same folks you are now discounting).

And I’m not saying these experts are infallilble. No person is (Bush especially). These experts disagreed with the very specific evidence Bush & co. presented, as did the CIA.

Unfortunately the U.S. choose to believe its own flawed intelligence and put great stock in defectors’ claims (Saddam’s mistress?!). The U.K. dossier, which Powell cited at the U.N., was based on a 13 year old Californian grad student’s thesis paper.

Blix:
Even while the Bush & co. was pressuring Blix to use “more damning” language about Iraq, He said that the United States evidence was faulty. “…most of (the) intelligence has not been solid.”

Baradei:
He did describe Iraqi regime support for inspections as “passive” and wished them to be more pro-active. He also opined that continued inspections could have ensured a peaceful, disarmed Iraq.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 18, 2004 09:21 AM

Al-lat:
The U.S. did indeed sell stuff to Iraq. I guess the 1994 U.S. senate committee report is just “More democrat loony left BS.”

The committee’s chairman stated that from 1985 to 1990, “the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses of dual-use technology to Iraq.”
and
“…these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”

You can thank Don Rumsfeld, who served as special envoy to Iraq during the Reagan administration, for opening up this special relationship between Saddam and U.S. chemical manufacturers.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 18, 2004 09:46 AM

Sorry forgot to address Saddam’s support for PKK stuff…

I’d guess it was because the U.S. supported the Turks against the Kurds. Turkey had to tread very lightly in supporting the U.S. invasion so as not to piss off the Kurds. Also the KDP has fought against Iraq, in addition to fighting the PKK. Israel and Turkey have signed some cooperative military agreements. Israel supported the bombing of PKK camps in Lebanon. These reasons were reason enough for Saddam to throw some support to the PKK.

Another reason might be that Saddam is wacky. Wacky people do wacky things.

It’s amazing (in a machiavellian way) how the U.S. also supported the Kurds against Saddam while helping Turkey ravage the Kurds.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at April 18, 2004 11:15 AM