Blogcritics Comments on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:34:09 EDT

Lee, did you miss comment #46? And the troops are probably the most aware of the difference between what they're doing now an a simple invasion. Dave

Comment by Lee Richards on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sun, 5 Aug 2007 11:11:02 EDT

Dave, When, specifically, did the war end--day, month, year? (Please don't make it too subtle for me.) Thanks, Lee P.S.: Did anyone think to tell the troops yet?

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sun, 5 Aug 2007 04:15:06 EDT

Lee, the reason they have different definitions is because there are different uses of the word. The first definition is usually the most common, and it's what most people think of as "A War" as I pointed out before. The other, looser definitions, are more appropriate to the current situation in Iraq, but the point I'm trying to make - which shouldn't be too subtle even for you - is that there's a difference between the invasion of the country and dealing with internal problems and rebuilding that country. Dave

Comment by REMF on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sun, 5 Aug 2007 00:19:43 EDT

"It may be "convenient" to come up with definitions that suit you, but even Bush knows what "war" means." He also knows the meaning of AWOL.

Comment by RJ on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:30:29 EDT

Comment by Lee Richards on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:40:19 EDT

Dave: War-- 1. A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation. 2. A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. 3. A contest carried on by force of arms. 4. Active hostility or contention, struggle, armed fighting, etc., etc. It may be "convenient" to come up with definitions that suit you, but even Bush knows what "war" means.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:34:28 EDT

According to Dave, anyone who thinks we're presently at war in Iraq is mistaken. That would include the entire Bush administration, the Congress, the U.S. military, all presidential candidates, a great number of liberals AND conservatives, many friendly AND hostile foreign governments, the press, and a huge majority of the American AND Iraqi public. Not exactly, Lee. But I think that even you would admit that the word 'war' is getting thrown around much too freely these days. Is the 'War on Terror' really a war? Is the 'War on Drugs' really a war? How about the 'War on Crime' or the 'War on Poverty'? How do you make war on a concept? What most of us would agree is a war, would be a conflict where the armed forces of two nations confront eachother. Does this describe what's currently going on in Iraq? Is al Qaeda a nation? Does it have an army or territory as such? The point is that there is a clear dividing line between the broader concept of conflict which we are calling 'war' for convenience and the much more specific term where we refer to 'a war' where we are fighting a clearly defined enemy on a identifiable battlefield. The invasion of Iraq and the elimination of government was clearly 'A War'. What's gone on since then we call 'war', but with an undefined and shifting enemy and no clear battlefield, technically it's something else which we call 'war' for convenience. Dave

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:53:52 EDT

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:46:19 EDT

Which conservative talk radio or TV host, conservative pundit, conservative commentator, conservative blogger, conservative newspaper editorial has PUBLICALLY condemned Bush for holding this meeting with conservative talk radio hosts? I don't follow. Why would a conservative commentator condemn a conservative president for meeting with conservative talk show hosts? Even those on the right who don't agree with Bush on a number of issues aren't going to take exception to his meeting with talk show hosts unless they're petulant that they weren't invited. Which conservative talk radio or TV host, conservative pundit, conservative commentator, conservative blogger, conservative newspaper editorial has PUBLICALLY condemned these talk show hosts for attending the meeting with President Bush? See above. Why would anyone do that? Obviously, you don't have to list them all. Just the top 10 most prominent will suffice. I don't have to list any of them, because I've never suggested that any such condemnation has taken place. If you thin it has, feel free to make that list yourself. My raising of the question here is probably as close as anyone even vaguely on the right is going to come to criticizing these meetings. Dave

Comment by Lee Richards on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:45:45 EDT

Comment by Alec on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:33:05 EDT

Dave - A couple of questions: Which conservative talk radio or TV host, conservative pundit, conservative commentator, conservative blogger, conservative newspaper editorial has PUBLICALLY condemned Bush for holding this meeting with conservative talk radio hosts? Which conservative talk radio or TV host, conservative pundit, conservative commentator, conservative blogger, conservative newspaper editorial has PUBLICALLY condemned these talk show hosts for attending the meeting with President Bush? Obviously, you don't have to list them all. Just the top 10 most prominent will suffice.

Comment by Cooey Bono on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 00:27:11 EDT

Conservative media has been yucking it up about compassionate conservatism, big spending, and amnesty for years--hardly a chorus of yes men. Would somebody tell me how many left on the axis of evil? Oh yeah, ONE. Damn, how'd that happen?

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 00:05:06 EDT

IDAMF, people in the military die in a lot of operations which are not wars. You of all people ought to be aware of that. Remember the embassy guards in Lebanon? The sailors on the USS Cole? Men we've lost in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia or Africa? Those were clearly not wars, but the men who were killed are no less dead. well, there are a lot of dumb people. and things did LOOK a bit rosey at that point. That's all I was trying to point out - that the attitudes people had about the war in the summer of 2003 might have been quite a bit different from what developed later, and that's not their fault or something to hold them accountable for. but remember the reaction to "mission accomplished?" a lot of people were certainly skeptical. most of the world knew the shit was just starting. That reaction was a bit of carefully crafted spinmongering. Most people initially understood that the banner and the speech were all about the conclusion of the invasion and that ship's mission, but the media grabbed hold of the image and rand with it and distorted the meaning brilliantly. Dave

Comment by REMF on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:29:17 EDT

"Mission accomplished." - G.W. Bush, May 1, 2003 "No, technically it's not a war once you've conquered the country." - Dave Nalle Tell that to the families of the 3,340 Americans killed in Iraq SINCE May 1, 2003, Nalle. - MCH

Comment by RJ on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:39:25 EDT

It deserves to be said that talk radio is not just some propaganda mouthpiece for the Bush administration. Most talk radio show hosts have strongly opposed Bush on several things over the years, like immigration "reform" and the Harriet Miers nomination and the Dubai ports deal. Others have been critical of NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Others have have been downright ruthless in their condemnation of Bush for his refusal to pardon Ramos and Compean, and the rules of engagement our Soldiers and Marines must deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, it ain't Pravda. Not hardly. It's more like Hillary Clinton having a "special" meeting with the editors of the NYT, WaPo, NewsWeek, and TIME. In other words, it's a supportive audience that can get the message out.

Comment by Alec on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:35:00 EDT

RE: It's been previously established that the administration believes that they have the right to declassify anything they want to on the fly, and while doing so has raised a certain amount of hue and cry, the law seems to clearlys support at least the president's authority to reveal classified information as he sees fit. 'The rule is, 'classified' to-morrow and 'classified' yesterday -- but never 'classified' to-day.' 'It must come sometimes to "classified to-day,"' Alice objected. 'No, it can't,' said the Queen. 'It's 'classified' every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know.' -- With a nod to Through the Looking Glass

Comment by zingzing on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:16:35 EDT

well, there are a lot of dumb people. and things did LOOK a bit rosey at that point. but remember the reaction to "mission accomplished?" a lot of people were certainly skeptical. most of the world knew the shit was just starting.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:54:36 EDT

Just to refresh the memories of those who seem to have forgotten public attitudes towards the Iraq war, here are some CBS News poll results from May of 2003. "How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq?" Very Well or Somewhat Well = 72% "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?" Did the Right Thing = 63% Dave

Comment by zingzing on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:39:57 EDT

"Like many others on the left you're choosing not to differentiate between the invasion and the extended peacekeeping and reconstruction period which came after it." so this isn't a war then? ok. if that's what you want to say. it's bullshit, but if that's how you justify saying we aren't at war anymore, then fine. still, this thing's not over, like the quote said it would be, and that's the fact. i don't care at all what you call it. it's going four years now, not one month. "That's a 3 week war." yep. it was a three week war. ok. "No, technically it's not a war once you've conquered the country." technically, technicalities don't mean shit. "What we've been fighting since then can really only be called an insurrection or more precisely ongoing criminal activity." it looks a lot like vietnam. it looks a lot like lots of things. mostly like other wars. insurrection, war, criminal activity (on quite a scale!) it doesn't matter. we are still there, the military is still there, there is daily fighting and americans dying and bombs going off and choppers and everything else that makes it look exactly like a war. it's a war. undeclared or not, that's what it is. "Just because we have troops in Iraq and there is fighting, that doesn't mean it's a war." why not? is it not the "war on terror?" which is it then? maybe i just define war different from how you do. all i know is that if i were to suit up in some camoflauge and carry a gun and get shouted orders shouted at me and walk around in a foreign country looking for enemies to kill or to not be killed by, i would consider that a war. you're arguing over vocabulary. it doesn't change anything at all. fine, let's call it whatever you want to call it. it is now an "acre of farm land." the "acre of farm land" in iraq. did anything change? nope.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:25:57 EDT

dave: "Again, a statement of accepted fact at the time." not really. not at all. a lot of people, including al qaeda, were saying that we would be bogged down in a guerrilla war for years to come. that's what i understood as a distinct possibility at the time. i can't remember the exact words, but they were something to the effect of "iraq will become a military and political quagmire." Like many others on the left you're choosing not to differentiate between the invasion and the extended peacekeeping and reconstruction period which came after it. O'Hanlon was clearly talking about the invasion and the pitched warfare phase of operations in Iraq, and that was over about as quickly as he suggested. no one really accepted a 1-month war as "fact." if they did, they were really fucking stupid. No, they were correct. In fact, they were conservative. The invasion started on March 22nd, Baghdad fell on April 9th and Saddam's time in power ended. Tikrit was the last town to fall on April 13th. The coalition declared the invasion over and the country under control on April 15th. That's a 3 week war. and EVERYONE was questioning what we were going to do after bahgdad fell, even the damn president... what are you talking about? the war over in a month... are you quibbiling about terms again? is this not a war? No, technically it's not a war once you've conquered the country. What we've been fighting since then can really only be called an insurrection or more precisely ongoing criminal activity. Most of the elements of a real, popular insurrection died out long ago or turned into a nascent civil war. Just because we have troops in Iraq and there is fighting, that doesn't mean it's a war. Dave

Comment by zingzing on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:12:32 EDT

someone: "In all likelihood, the war will culminate in a battle for Baghdad starting anywhere from five days to two weeks after bombs begin to fall. The war could be over within a month" dave: "Again, a statement of accepted fact at the time." not really. not at all. a lot of people, including al qaeda, were saying that we would be bogged down in a guerrilla war for years to come. that's what i understood as a distinct possibility at the time. i can't remember the exact words, but they were something to the effect of "iraq will become a military and political quagmire." no one really accepted a 1-month war as "fact." if they did, they were really fucking stupid. and EVERYONE was questioning what we were going to do after bahgdad fell, even the damn president... what are you talking about? the war over in a month... are you quibbiling about terms again? is this not a war?

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:05:25 EDT

Of course you can cherry-pick your own quotes saying the opposite. Yes, that was the point I was making. This is partly my point: That these two are so full of equivocation, of on-the-one-hand-this-and-on-the-other-hand-that that they can say they were right about things however they go. Except that there is a clear pattern to at least O'Hanlon's thinking, which we can track because he has written so much. He supported the invasion. Became discouraged with the reconstruction and began proposing alternative plans including a pullout, and then very recently began to see some hope. This is EXACTLY the logical progreess which many experts have gone through and it's perfectly reasonable and generated by what's been going on in Iraq. The point I hope I made in my earlier comment is that anyone who has NOT gone through changes in their opinion on the war is basing their opinion on ideology rather than the situation in Iraq. Their conclusions are always that the war should continue, and we'll win eventually, and about this they're wrong, although they'll never have to admit it. They're wrong in your opinion. And I think if you asked them they would agree with me that the 'war' ended years ago and that what is going on now and has been going on is a very rough peacekeeping and rebuilding mission. And their plan for continuing it - again - is at odds with the Bush administration, so they remain critical of Bush and his version of the effort in Iraq. Clearly you believe that the only way to be critical or in opposition to the Iraq effort or the administration plans there is to advocate an immediate and total pullout. That's just not true. It's an extremist position based on ideology rather than analysis. You won't find a quote from before the war that says we shouldn't fight, and you won't find a quote since that says the war was wrong and we should pull out. Hence, "war supporters." Who were wrong. We should stop listening to them. No one has ever claimed that they were frothing pacifists who opposed war on principle or that they opposed the idea of the initial invasion. Those who have been promoting their article have generally been doing so by calling them 'critics of the war' or 'bush administration critics' and those two descriptions are entirely accurate. Your contention, Dave, that O'H and P have supported the war while consistently criticising the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy is patently false. They have actually lauded the strategy when it behooved them (usually before a new strategy is implemented), and gently criticized when that behooved them (generally after it has failed). Did you not read the quotes? They've been quite harsh after the fact, and I'm not finding anything they wrote which endorse Bush strategies except around the time of the original invasion. Here's O'Hanlon on April 9, 2003, about 3 weeks after the invasion, in a column (seriously) headlined "Was the Strategy Brilliant?" : Whether the overall concept deserves to be called brilliant is debatable. But it does appear to have been clever in several specific ways, and it has indeed been a very good plan. I already acknowledged that they supported the initial invasion. Who at that time that wasn't ideologically opposed to the war or just mired in irrational Bush hatred didn't see things as going well? Here's some "nuance" from just days before the invasion: In all likelihood, the war will culminate in a battle for Baghdad starting anywhere from five days to two weeks after bombs begin to fall. The war could be over within a month Again, a statement of accepted fact at the time. Does this gibe with your statement that "the situation in Iraq is complicated, and any assessment of it with any value would also have to be complicated, full of shades of gray and varying degrees of qualification?" That was then, this is now. The invasion was a much more straightforward proposition. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. These guys have been fervent war supporters since the beginning, and are now trying to convince everybody (successfully in at least one case) that they always had reservations and doubts. Fortunately, we can read. But you're apparently incapable of doing so in chronological order or with any thoroughness. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:49:42 EDT

And for the sake of fairness, I'd like to point out, just based on today's Nealz Nuze, Boortz is as susceptible to intellectual dishonesty as anyone else. So there's no need to trust him 100%, either. You'll need to be more specific. Just reading the three most recent articles didn't show me any obvious intellectual dishonesty. He's certainly honest in his dislike of CAIR in the most recent article, and the article on the same topic of this article seems obvious. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:46:41 EDT

Wait a minute. These are details that are "Not yet cleared for the public," yet they're cleared for talk-show hosts? Were these talkers given a security clearance somewhere along the line? If not, how does it seem responsible to you that Bush was sharing with them information that was not cleared for the general public? It's been previously established that the administration believes that they have the right to declassify anything they want to on the fly, and while doing so has raised a certain amount of hue and cry, the law seems to clearlys support at least the president's authority to reveal classified information as he sees fit. And whether they were cleared for that information or not, do you honestly not see it as at all suspicious that POTUS was sharing operational secrets with them? Not really. This is going to be something along the lines of taking out a map of Iraq and pointing at places where there are US troop movements which have been particularly effective. It's the kind of thing which may be technically classified but which any bright researcher could probably figure out with a small amount of effort. There is a LOT of classified material like that. Dave

Comment by Leslie Bohn on Conservative Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber

Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:57:16 EDT

MJW: O'Hanlon, for one, seems to have discovered nuance only since his non-nuanced predictions have proven completely wrong. Your contention, Dave, that O'H and P have supported the war while consistently criticising the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy is patently false. They have actually lauded the strategy when it behooved them (usually before a new strategy is implemented), and gently criticized when that behooved them (generally after it has failed). Here's O'Hanlon on April 9, 2003, about 3 weeks after the invasion, in a column (seriously) headlined "Was the Strategy Brilliant?" : Whether the overall concept deserves to be called brilliant is debatable. But it does appear to have been clever in several specific ways, and it has indeed been a very good plan. Here's some "nuance" from just days before the invasion: In all likelihood, the war will culminate in a battle for Baghdad starting anywhere from five days to two weeks after bombs begin to fall. The war could be over within a month And here's a month earlier, as he cheerleads for war in the ultra-conservative Washington Times: the president was still convincing on his central point that the time for war is near. Mr. Bush has adopted a firm but patient Iraq policy. And it simply doesn't get any less nuanced than this, from the same column: We soon will need to lead a military coalition to do the job ourselves. The case is that simple. Does this gibe with your statement that "the situation in Iraq is complicated, and any assessment of it with any value would also have to be complicated, full of shades of gray and varying degrees of qualification?" No, the case is that simple, said O'Hanlon. These guys have been fervent war supporters since the beginning, and are now trying to convince everybody (successfully in at least one case) that they always had reservations and doubts. Fortunately, we can read. Its just that simple.