Michelle Malkin calls it like it is. And I think it's appropriate to award Matthews an honorary title befitting this incident.
Michelle Malkin — author, blogger, and Fox news analyst has an excellent post regarding Chris Matthew's conspiracy theory on the hug between Iraqi voter, Safia Taleb al-Suhail, and Janet Norwood, the mother of a marine who died serving his country in Iraq.…
Article comments
26 - SFC SKI
Sydney, the opinions of a few disaffected deserters ( I am one of those who subscribe to the idea that they made the commitment, and reaped the bennies only to cut and run when it was time to do their part, that's me though), and a disillusioned vet are not the best basis for a picture of the US military. I can understand how the one soldier could react so strongly and negatively to the US as a whle after being in Iraq or Afghanistan, the experiences some vets have had will cause them to totally change their outlook on everything they knew before through the prism of their war experiences. If you were to talk to other soldiers, you'd find that almost all of them know and believe in what they are fighting for.
When you were referring to going to war or jail, I took it as the old slur used against soldiers in years past, not in the context of those deserters you mentioned.
27 - RJ
"(Attitudes, opinions liek [sic] your own are common in highschools [sic]... I work there..)."
"I bet your [sic] of the same group of people that called Michael Moore Anti-American because he criticized American Foreign policy and the Bush Administration. You don't tolerate descent [sic] in your America?"
You work in a school? As what? A janitor?
Hopefully not as an English teacher... :-/
28 - RJ
-- "FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for Pres. Bush."
"Oh is that so? You know the troops do ya?"
Uh, he IS one...
29 - RJ
"My money's on Chris. Bro's from Philly."
LOL!
And he reminds his meager audience of this fact about every 15 seconds...
30 - RJ
"I got [sic] to say blogging is useful democratic excersise [sic].... (and it's improving my spelling too)"
Not really...
31 - Dave Nalle
Sydney, I have no problem with dissent, and I agree that there's no reason to call people un-american just for opposing the war. Everyone has a right to do that. I do oppose dissembling, and the vast majority of the war opposition is using lies and deception as their primary weapon, from the basic concealment of their reasons for opposing the war to misrepresenting and distorting actual events to serve their interests.
And yeah, yeah, I know - "Bush lied about the WMDs". So? They keep saying this, and in addtion to not being true, it's also just not relevant. The fact that there was bad intelligence on WMDs when we first went into Iraq is completely irrelevant to the situation there now and the reasons we're there.
Anyway, let me address another topic in your post. You mention that you know 3 people who were in the military, one who is alienated from the service and has left the US and two who deserted and went to Canada. Do you realize that these people are overwhelmingly not representative of those currently serving in the Armed Forces as well as veterans as a whole? I hear these anecdotal stories from the left about all these disaffected soldiers, yet when it comes down to numbers the actual count is incredibly tiny and in most cases the deserters are people who had major personal problems coping in the service regardless of the war. Last I checked there were about 6 deserters in Canada as compared to the 30,000 plus during Vietnam.
It's important not to make the mistake of thinking that your personal experiences are characteristic of the norm. The fact that all the military people you know are anti-war does not extrapolate to any kind of greater truth.
And BTW, there's really no excuse for deserting a volunteer military, and it looks as if ultimately the Canadian courts are going to agree with me.
Dave
32 - sydney
RJ,
In fact I am English teacher. Perhaps, you'd do a better job teaching the kids how to spell. That is to say, I don't doubt that YOUR English studies consisted of spelling lessons mainly. It has served you very well, but apparently your lacking a critical element to your education. I'll just say, I don't give a fuck how I spell on here, nor is correct spelling a priority in my teaching. You should try participating in the discussion rather than pointing out spelling mistakes.
David,
Again I understand what you are saying but I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I understand that in a literal sense your comments about Chris Mathews are not intimidating. But in a collective sense, when a large majority of people create an atmosphere that suggests it is sacrilegious to make any criticism of families serving in the war in Iraq, it is not good. You contribute to this atmosphere , granted in a small way, when you say that CM is a 'giant ass’ for sliming a military family. My point is, military or not, that family’s actions at the state of the union are fair game for criticism. It is nonsense in my opinion to suggest otherwise. I only objected to the fact that you suggested Chris Mathews shouldn’t have criticized a family who lost a family member while serving the country. Anyway, like you said, this point was a small one but I've spent a few posts trying to make myself understood. Not sure if the problem is my poor writing or careless reading.
Dave,
Fair enough. I concede defeat regarding the issue of the military servicemen. I suppose I don't know many of them. Perhaps all of you are right in saying that they are fighting a war they believe in. However, let me just say that there are articles and reports that say otherwise ( I couldn't remember the names so I didn't mention them earlier). Anyway, I agree that the 3 people I know are nothing as compared to the experience SFC Ski would have.
Ideologically we are worlds apart. I don’t believe that GWB didn’t know there was weapons of mass destruction, I don’t believe that pre-emptive attacks are warranted in any case, and I don’t believe in American unilateral military action. I do believe military use should be saved for the most extreme scenarios. In my opinion soft power and money are far more effective tools and they leave fewer emotional scares in the end. So I have to say, I just don’t agree with much of what your saying though I’ll respect your opinion.
Last thing… to all the participants at Blog-Critics.com let's acknowledge where we are comming from; You are all very conservative, though some of you like to suggest your somewhere in between. This is a conservative forum.
33 - Shark
Dave, thanks for letting us watch you burst a bloodvessel over some marginal non-event.
You should be proud, though, that you are one of 7 people worldwide who watch Chris Matthews.
And you're one of 2 (out of those 7!) people who get so riled about it.
"It must really suck to be you."
PS: Carry on! Doctors are standing by.
34 - Shark
I'm surprised that the Right hasn't gone apeshit over the lesbian implications of the hug.
I wonder if the gals are headin' for Hell for fuckin' up the sactity of marriage with their little tryst?
35 - Shark
And, uh "Big Giant Ass" --- um, is that Biblically allowed?
Isn't that prohibited by one of the GOP's "Thou Shalt Not..." thingies?
36 - Dave Nalle
Sydney: Fair enough. I concede defeat regarding the issue of the military servicemen. I suppose I don't know many of them. Perhaps all of you are right in saying that they are fighting a war they believe in.
Now I didn't say that, exactly. I said they aren't deserting in meaningful numbers and seem to overwhelmingly support the government. Most of that is probably just the mindset of being in the military and following orders and having a positive outlook on life. It really does take a personal event that shakes your foundational beliefs to get you out of that perspective. Most participants in this war haven't had a faith destroying experience. If anything, quite the opposite.
Sydney: However, let me just say that there are articles and reports that say otherwise ( I couldn't remember the names so I didn't mention them earlier).
There are articles and reports which say that Bush had the WTC bombed to create an excuse for starting the war. Anyone with an agenda can find a couple of tidbits to string together to make an argument for an article. Look at Michael Moore. He took all sorts of unrelated data, sort of threw it together so it looked related and got an academy award nomination.
Sydney: Ideologically we are worlds apart. I don’t believe that GWB didn’t know there was weapons of mass destruction,
Neither of us really knows whether he knew or did not know. The difference isn't one of ideology, it's one of optimism. With no evidence to make the choice between mistake and deception, having a positive attitude I choose to believe it was a mistake. Having a negative attitude you choose to believe it was deliberate.
Sydney: I don’t believe that pre-emptive attacks are warranted in any case, and I don’t believe in American unilateral military action. I do believe military use should be saved for the most extreme scenarios.
In a bygone era when we could count on our allies around the world not to have been subverted by greed, fear and hidden agendas I'd agree with you that unilateral, preemptive action would be undesirable. But that's not the situation today. And when you have to take a stand for what's right and no one will stand with you, then you take the stand alone.
Sydney: Last thing… to all the participants at Blog-Critics.com let's acknowledge where we are comming from; You are all very conservative, though some of you like to suggest your somewhere in between. This is a conservative forum.
I haven't really seen too many extreme conservatives here. I'm a Classical Liberal and seem not to be too out of step.
Dave
37 - Scott
So, you saw Farenheit 9/11 Dave?
38 - nobody important
Hello, i was bored so i read all of your guy's messages, and i just wanna say, Sydney, i frikin applaud you.
39 - Dave Nalle
Scott: So, you saw Farenheit 9/11 Dave?
Indeed I did. Saw it when it first came out, before all the controversy had time to brew. For anyone well informed about the events surrounding 9/11 the misrepresentations, events taken out of sequence and correlation of events which were actually unrelated was blatantly transparent.
dave
40 - Sydney
Dave,
I find it interesting to hear how people define themselves in terms of their political ideologies. I'm not really that familiar with the perspective of a "classical liberal". Anyhow I suppose I'm quite far left of the 'classic liberal' and am certainly not alone (though on this site it would seem I am).
~~"There are articles and reports which say that Bush had the WTC bombed to create an excuse for starting the war."
I agree with you there. I think anyone who believes in these crackpot conspiracies is seriously deluded. However, it is clear that the Bush team had plans of reforming the middle-east via military action, before they came to office. This much is in writing (and these are the documents I was referring to written by Cheany and his crew.. Forget the name of them). 9/11 was, in my opinion and excuse to begin this process. George Bush believes in this process, he believes it is in his moral authority to undergo a transformation of middle-eastern culture. And in accordance with said documents, these actions are also in the interest of the American people as the middle east is an untapped economic resource for America.
However, had they wanted to fight terrorism they would have taken aim at countries that have well known terrorism networks (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc..). Secondly, it would have been more effective had they used multi-lateral and covert operations rather than military action which simply creates more terrorists.
~~ "In a bygone era when we could count on our allies around the world not to have been subverted by greed, fear and hidden agendas I'd agree with you that unilateral, preemptive action would be undesirable."
I think this is really naive and paranoid on your part (sorry. Not to be offensive, but it is my opinion). To suggest that Canada, France, Germany, and all the other countries who were opposed to the invasion,
were simply corrupted and motivated by greed, is to ignore the fact that 90% of the world was opposed to a pre-emptive strike on a country that seemingly had nothing to do with 9/11 (obviously 90% is just an approximation, but the unprecedented protests world wide were an indication of where people stood--Poles in Canada suggest close to 80% percent were opposed to the war in Iraq. Even here in America the majority were opposed at the time of the invasion). Since the invasion, Americans have seen the war as a means of freeing the Iraq people, which has nothing to do with the reasons for invasion. Granted I think we have to stick around and provide security now.
Might I also point out that those countries that you suggest were corrupted by greed and political motivations, simply acted on the will of their people. Most of these ‘corrupted allies’ had no problem assisting in Afghanistan where military action seemed justified. I think Americans have to face the fact that the rest of the world thinks America is abusing its power and acting illegally. We have to get beyond this idea that we’ve been betrayed by our allies, and acknowledge that our allies feel we betrayed them. Clearly this is the view they hold.
So… I know we’re off the Chris Mathews topic, but reply with comments if you like. Its been cool to hear where we differ in opinion.
41 - Sydney
Nobody Important,
Thanks. Nice to hear for once that I'm not crazy. But, if your being ironic or sarcastic as is the fashion among bloggers than.. umm... oh well...
Scott and Dave,
I saw 9/11 and though I think Michael Moore is a master film-maker and rhetorician, clearly he’s not reliable source for politics. He uses rhetorical devices purposefully and in a very calculated manner. He felt his means justified his ends (creating a liberal movement to overturn the election). Mind, the GWB clips needed very little manipulating. I think Bush incriminates himself most of the time because he uses rhetoric in a more obvious and outrageous way than Moore. It always looks so clumsy and ridiculous (Inviting the media in to watch him chop wood and ride around in a pickup ~~ the working man‘s president etc.., ~~ the “axis of evil“.. all that crap).
As far as Moore goes, I think he should tone it down and be more reasonable. Maybe comment on social issues rather than overtly political ones.
42 - sydney
Sorry to bombard this forum with posts. Forgive me!
But I remembered the article I’ve been referring to and it important that people read this;
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.
I think that it should be essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what Liberals are so opposed to with regards to the Conservative idea of Foreign Policy. To me this document is a display of the incredible heights of American governmental arrogance and evidence of the sort of policy that has turned the world so violently against us. Do people think that the rest of the world doesn’t read these documents? For crying out loud!, they read it more than we do!
Americans deserve better representation than this!
43 - Dave Nalle
Sydney: I'm not really that familiar with the perspective of a "classical liberal". Anyhow I suppose I'm quite far left of the 'classic liberal' and am certainly not alone (though on this site it would seem I am).
Classical liberals are those who still follow the liberal philosophy of the late 1700s an early 1800s - when Liberalism originated as a political movement. Modern Liberals come out of that tradition, but have come under the influence of socialism. The Democrat party includes both Classical and Modern Liberals and a mix of the two, but the Republican party also includes Classical Liberals - in fact they dominated the party until relatively recently.
Sydney: it is clear that the Bush team had plans of reforming the middle-east via military action, before they came to office.
Every president has a Middle East policy. Bush's is a bit more proactive than some.
Sydney: However, had they wanted to fight terrorism they would have taken aim at countries that have well known terrorism networks (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc..). Secondly, it would have been more effective had they used multi-lateral and covert operations rather than military action which simply creates more terrorists.
I think it's abundantly clear that our covert resources were in no way capable of having sufficient impact in the countries you mention without the cooperation of their governments to implement the kind of change we needed. Certainly Bush's approach is proving to be far more effective than anything we tried in the past, and the covert route was the main one in the past.
Sydney: I think this is really naive and paranoid on your part (sorry. Not to be offensive, but it is my opinion). To suggest that Canada, France, Germany, and all the other countries who were opposed to the invasion, were simply corrupted and motivated by greed,
This is incontrovertibly true of France. Canada is just pacifistic and not to be relied on under any circumstances, and Germany has too many internal problems to commit to anything like this. Nothing would have brought them into the fray, so it was either go it alone or not do it. Eventually someone HAS to take responsibility.
Sydney: is to ignore the fact that 90% of the world was opposed to a pre-emptive strike on a country that seemingly had nothing to do with 9/11 (obviously 90% is just an approximation, but the unprecedented protests world wide were an indication of where people stood--Poles in Canada suggest close to 80% percent were opposed to the war in Iraq. Even here in America the majority were opposed at the time of the invasion).
If 90% of the people in the world are idiots and fools does that mean we should listen to them just because they are numerous? Huge numbers of people believe that killing female children is a good idea. Does that make it right?
Sydney: Might I also point out that those countries that you suggest were corrupted by greed and political motivations, simply acted on the will of their people. Most of these ‘corrupted allies’ had no problem assisting in Afghanistan where military action seemed justified. I think Americans have to face the fact that the rest of the world thinks America is abusing its power and acting illegally. We have to get beyond this idea that we’ve been betrayed by our allies, and acknowledge that our allies feel we betrayed them. Clearly this is the view they hold.
Might I suggest that they were embarassed by their impotence and prior involvement in creating the disastrous situation in Iraq and reacted with hostility when America took responsibility that they were unwilling to shoulder?
Sydney: As far as Moore goes, I think he should tone it down and be more reasonable. Maybe comment on social issues rather than overtly political ones.
That appears to be where he's going with his next picture, which is about HMOs, which we can all agree suck.
Dave
44 - sydney
Dave,
~~"Canada is just pacifistic and not to be relied on under any circumstances"
Except if your a pacifist, in which case you rely on them completely. Besides, who says Canada is strictly pacifist? They have fought in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Afghanistan, and have been supporters of most all of the UN peace keeping missions.
~~"If 90% of the people in the world are idiots and fools does that mean we should listen to them just because they are numerous? Huge numbers of people believe that killing female children is a good idea. Does that make it right?"
When 90% of the world believes a war is unjust, moreover, when these people represent a reasonable objective perspective (they are outsiders looking in on the conflict), we might do well to step back and seriously consider other options. Maybe look at what causes the anti-American sentiment which leads to terrorism (i.e. aggressive foreign policy, cultural imperialism) and speculate what might actually remedy the problem.
It is also important to note that a lot of these objecting citizens come from countries with more effective democracies than America (less corporate influence over policy, far less media rhetoric, and more democratic systems of government) . The Scandinavian countries and Canada, to name a few. We would do well to stop and take some notes.
Also, Germany and Canada prepared a report that was meant to liaise in negations between the UN and America after 9/11. This report was designed to create common ground on which a multi-lateral attack on terrorism could be mounted. America refused the proposal without even reading it. To me that’s a sign of arrogance, especially when so many lives have been lost as a result. Now America is asking for help in shouldering the cost of war. These countries are reluctant but have agreed to front some cash for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The temptation to teach us (America) a lesson is enormous though.
In any case I see we are still worlds apart. I disagree with the Ideological premises you found your arguments on. We have entirely different visions of what America’s role in the world should be, and how it’s power should be used. I suspect that if you read http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf you would find very little wrong with it. I, on the other hand, think it is incredibly arrogant and unethical. If you do read the introduction, try to put yourself in the shoes of the citizens of other countries. Imagine the outrage!
45 - Dave Nalle
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -- John F. Kennedy
Sydney: When 90% of the world believes a war is unjust, moreover, when these people represent a reasonable objective perspective (they are outsiders looking in on the conflict), we might do well to step back and seriously consider other options.
I guess our division here is that I believe that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. Terrorism is wrong. If you enable terrorism by your unwillingness to act against it, then your opinion no longer has much value. These 'other options' you mention are an illusion. They're just different excuses for not taking responsibility and doing something about the problem.
Sydney: These countries are reluctant but have agreed to front some cash for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The temptation to teach us (America) a lesson is enormous though.
This 'temptation' is the temptation of pride. They know they were wrong and pride makes them want to lash out at those who made them look bad. Hopefully reason will win out.
Sydney:found your arguments on. We have entirely different visions of what America’s role in the world should be, and how it’s power should be used. I suspect that if you read http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf you would find very little wrong with it.
I skimmed it. It's relatively free of ideology. It's just a proposal for how to improve the military, one I'm not qualified to really agree or disagree with.
Sydney: I, on the other hand, think it is incredibly arrogant and unethical. If you do read the introduction, try to put yourself in the shoes of the citizens of other countries. Imagine the outrage!
I imagine other countries are already aware that we're the preeminent military power in the world now that the Cold War is over. Most of them are glad they don't have to bear that burden. Personally I wish that we didn't. It's truly unreasonable to expect us to do all the dirty work and then blame us for it. The question is whether they'd blame us more if we didn't do the dirty work for them.
Dave
46 - RJ
"That appears to be where he's going with his next picture, which is about HMOs, which we can all agree suck."
I'm a lone voice who is pro-HMO. What's the alternative? Socialized medicine?
47 - SFC SKI
THe concept of the HMO shold really be brought into another thread, doncha think? ( I should start a blog just so I can post, another reason)
As to the matter at hand; "Canada is just pacifistic and not to be relied on under any circumstances"
Actually, if you look at the performance of the Canadian army in Afghanistan, they were no slackers, in fact by at least one account, a Canadian Army sniper is credited with the longest range kill ever. The Canadian Army is woefully underfunded because of its government, but its soldiers are damn good.
48 - RJ
I would never belittle the skill or bravery of a Canadian soldier. But I do question the guts of the Canadian people, and especially their gov't.
49 - RJ
BTW, I have an HMO. Works fine for me!
The cost is rather high, but would be even higher were it not for the inherent cost-minimizing efforts of HMO's in general.
PPO's offer more choice, but cost more. My employer offers both. I chose the one which was cheaper. And, as I said, I have no complaints.
Now, my PCP is a jackass. And his office is in chaos. But, thankfully, my HMO will allow me to find a new PCP should I request it.
Anyway, the Pats won, so I'm happy. Bread and circuses, et al...
50 - Sydney
Dave,
with regards to this ,/a>, you said " I skimmed it. It's relatively free of ideology. It's just a proposal for how to improve the military, one I'm not qualified to really agree or disagree with."
You have to go back and read this article a little more closely. It is splitting at the seems with ideology. And it is ideology in relation to foreign policy, more so, than to military. This document is the framework for American foreign policy written by members of teh bush team before they got into power. This document, more than domestic affairs was to be the blueprint to the Bush legacy.
"I would never belittle the skill or bravery of a Canadian soldier. But I do question the guts of the Canadian people, and especially their gov't."
This is such typical ignorant bullshit. Quit the arrogant macho talk for a minute and realize that not everyone agrees with the American perspective. Quite the opposite, people strongly dislike America's beliefs that the Military is the means to all ends. This has nothing to do with "guts", it has to do with whats ethical. Canadians don't believe it's right to march into another country and kill it's civillians, even if our govenment says they're doing it to "free" the Iraqi people (bullshit).
Quit reducing things to such simplictic views. We, Americans, are only a small factor in the equation. The rest of the world should have a say as to wether we're allowed to go around blowing up countries whenever it serves our economic or ideological purposes. I mean this is grade 2 stuff here... ADMIT THAT AMERICANS ARE NOT SUPERIOR TO THE REST OF THE WORLD!
Just because Canadians realize this does'nt mean they're gutless. The difference is that they see military action as a last resort to international conflicts.
51 - dietdoc
Sydney writes:
"As far as Moore goes, I think he should tone it down and be more reasonable. Maybe comment on social issues rather than overtly political ones."
Reply: You're in luck! His next documentary will be a broadside of the American health care system generally and, specifically, pharmaceutical companies and their business practices.
Cheers,
Ron
52 - Sydney
Ron,
That's good to hear. Whether you like Moore or loath him, at least he'll provoke analysis of the discourse surrounding what everyone agrees is a major problem in America: The uncomfortable relationship between private enterprise and public services.
53 - Shark
Sydney, you're not alone, not even on BC. I'd guess there are a lot of people reading and applauding you. I'm one of many.
Thanks for your responses.
(Nice job on the patience, too. I prefer to mock them and threaten their pets.)