Posted on 05/24/2004 5:25:51 AM PDT by The Wizard
I just heard that the networks are making an "in kind" donation to the Kerry Campaign by Not carrying the President's address.....I offer the following as a suggestion to the White House:
I would advise the networks involved that 1. they can remove their placements at the White House 2. The can recall their reporters from the daliy briefing 3. They will no longer be copied ahead of time on any speeches by the President 4. They will no longer be flying with the press corps to any battlefield locations.
Then I would give them 20 minutes to announce they are carrying the speech.
What?
Criticizing veterans? On FreeRepublic? Shame shame.
"The Bush campaign now claims that these issues are largely moot and that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give many veterans serious pause.
Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."
James Webb was secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, and a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam. He also is an author and filmmaker.
-- USA Today, Feb 19, 2004. pg. A.13
Walt
Their service is honored, but it is no guarantee of subsequent behavior.
I believe WP has identified himself as a liberal before.
Contained.
That's a word without content.
How do you want to define it? It's clear we hadn't contained their NBC program. It's clear that we hadn't contained the terrorist training camps. We hadn't stopped Iraq from meeting with AQ. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and others were fairly nervous about our level of containment. At the time we invaded, Iraq had actually UPGRADED their SAM sites and had networked their air defense systems - all while in a state of containment.
The oil for food program was certainly a watermark of containment. The proceeds were used to bribe our 'allies' to take positions against us, and to acquire BANNED weapons (I love the picture of the french anti-tank missile posted here on FR and Drudge (curiously missing from the NYT)).
Recently, an explosion in NK leveled an entire city, and killed a team of Syrian technicians. Libya has recently decided it was better to come clean than have nuclear weapons applied to their fine country. We have evidence that all of this was financed by Iraq, but wait, we have them contained.
We recently had two US servicemen injured by an IED rigged with Sarin (3 to 4 LITRES OF SARIN = 10,000 casualties if deployed correctly). Clearly this is further evidence of containment, for either this came out of existing stockpiles, or it came from Syrian insurgents.
The term 'contained' is a term that served us well in the Cold War, but is now beyond ready for retirement as applied to foreign affairs. We have learned that terrorism must be rooted out and destroyed, as it is impossible to contain.
Your argument, and General Zinni's, lacks evidence. The standard of evidence, however, is good enough for 60 minutes, and apparently for you.
Well, I guess I should clarify: they have been treating Iraq like it is the news, on a par with the appearance of the anti-Christ, and they have been beating the airwaves senseless with news on how horrid US management of Iraq is going.
Given the emphasis they have put on the "crisis" in Iraq I say yes, they should carry it live or it is fair to conclude they are hacks worthy of working for Goebbels or the Ministry of Truth.
You know I was thinking of how you misspelled the word Networks and realized that calling them Newtorks is really much more descriptive of what they are. Newt = slimy (and are newts blind? I can't remember) and then with the combo of Orks (Orcs) like from LOTR. The Orcs are basically zombies. Good call. Better idea of what the networks really are - slimy, zombie (i.e. dead).
You're not the only one that knows that:
To: WhiskeyPapaYou are coming up on a milestone.WhiskeyPapaWe'll make a conservative out of you yet, Walt
Account # 23498
Signup 1999-06-24
Messages 54 articles, 9976 replies
So..........I'm supposed to take -your- word over that of General Zinni, And General Shinseki, and General Clark and General Shwartzkopf and former SecNav Webb?
Iraq was the wrong target. A scam was perpetrated by the Bush administration on the American people. I was -for- the war.
But it's been horribly mismanaged.
Walt
I must have misinterpreted your first post (#36). My only comment on this post is that the aforementioned immigrants shouldn't be asked, they should be told.
Link? Citation?
I'd really trust the former CG of Centcom before I trusted a judge, in any case.
Walt
The liberal press and networks have fallen into a trap.
For weeks we've heard nothing but how "Bush must lay out a strategy for Iraq to the American public."
And now they won't cover it? In the interests of "sweeps" dollars?
I hope Bush mentions this in his speech tonite--and rams it down their throats.
You're crapping on the soldiers that are defending this country. You're supporting and spreading propaganda that is encouraging those who wish to defeat us. Spreading freedom will never be a mistake. Confronting evil is never a wrong move. Taking down authoritarian dictators killing tens of thousands of their people each year is always the right thing to do.
There is a larger picture here in dropping a free society in the middle of Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran. They are thinking long term in planning, and I still trust the adults that are in charge.
Popping a festering boil hurts, but ignoring the problem like Clinton and his cronies have done makes the treatment that much more painful.
I'm very proud of those who have served and sacrificed their lives and life. You? I'd pee on your grave.
I prefer to ignore them rather than give them credit for being the news groups worth listening to. At one time the three networks were the major source of news, but in todays enviornment they are only one of many... Thus not the supreme players they were in the past. Thus I tend to regulate them to bit players today.
By screaming for them to carry the speech is much like telling them they are still major players.... If they were the major source of information for the mass of the people then that would be reason to fuss at them but they aren't..... jmo. Maybe I am different in my thinking but I can't tell you the last time I watched any of the three for news, etc.... they aren't on my selection list.
Come to think of it, I think you're right.
Please explain how one fights state-sponsored terrorism without going into "... a single country that never will fully accept its presence."
Are you clueless as to the definition of "enemy"?
I'd say that if he were still opposed he would speak up for himself...he doesn't need defeatists trying to put words into his mouth.
I see the defeatist crowd is at it early today.
I'm a lot more concerned about the troops than you are.
Even if you bought the administration rationale for the war, they have made a hash of it.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.