Numerous media outlets attribute "slow bleed" rhetoric to Democrats
SUMMARY: CNN and MSNBC are among the latest media outlets to suggest that the term "slow bleed" was the Democrats' description of Rep. John Murtha's strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq. In fact, the term has been embraced by Republicans to attack Democrats after it appeared in a Politico article.
While reporting on recent congressional debates over the Iraq war on the February 18 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN White House correspondent Kathleen Koch misleadingly suggested that the term "slow bleed" was the Democrats' description of Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq. In her report, Koch asserted: "White House press secretary Tony Snow confirmed President Bush would oppose Murtha's so-called 'slow bleed measure' to limit troop deployments." But she gave no indication who was actually referring to Murtha's plan as a "slow-bleed measure." As Media Matters for America has noted repeatedly (here, here, and here), the term "slow bleed" was embraced by Republicans to attack Democrats after it appeared in a February 14 Politico article by John Bresnahan, and is not used by Democrats to describe Murtha's proposal, as Koch suggested.
Additionally, several media outlets, including CNN, uncritically aired Republicans who appeared to falsely attribute the "slow bleed" term to Democrats. As Media Matters noted, the Republican National Committee (RNC), citing Bresnahan's February 14 article, falsely claimed in a press release that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) "call it their 'slow-bleed' plan." Media Matters noted that Bresnahan's article did not attribute the term to anyone and did not place it in quotes, suggesting that it was The Politico's own. In a February 16 article, Bresnahan clarified that the term "slow-bleed strategy" was The Politico's "characteriz[ation]," and "was not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts." He also noted: "The RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert."
Nonetheless, numerous media outlets aired Republicans continuing to attribute "slow bleed" to Democrats without noting their attribution is false. For instance:
- On the February 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Dana Bash aired Rep. Roy Blunt's (R-MO) assertion that the Democrats' "so-called 'slow-bleed' approach is the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America's flag overseas." Bash followed up on Blunt's statement by reporting only that "what Republicans are referring to there is a plan by Congressman John Murtha, an anti-war congressman from Pennsylvania, to try to set conditions on funding for Iraq, with the goal of forcing the president to bring the troops home." At no point did Bash make clear in their respective reports that it was Republicans who were using the term "slow bleed" to attack Democrats' Iraq war proposals.
- A February 16 Associated Press article also uncritically reported Blunt's misleading characterization of the Democrats' "so-called slow-bleed approach," without making clear the origin of the term.
- As Media Matters noted, a February 16 New York Times article reported that "Republican leaders ... have accused some Democrats of pursuing a strategy to cut war financing gradually -- 'a slow bleed,' Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, put it, 'a terminology that horrifies me.' " As Media Matters pointed out, Lott's quote suggests that it is the Democrats who chose the "terminology" that "horrifies" him, and the Times did not clarify that Democrats had not used the term.
- Like The New York Times, on the February 16 edition of CBS' The Early Show, CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported that "[y]esterday, Republicans attacked Murtha's ideas, which some are terming a slow bleed," and followed by airing Lott's statement, "[t]hat terminology really horrifies me and scares me to death. Who would bleed?"
- During a discussion about Murtha's proposal on the February 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, the onscreen text read: "Murtha's 'Slow Bleed' Plan to End the War."
- During a February 20 Washington Post online chat, Washington Post White House reporter Peter Baker described Murtha's proposal as "being called the 'slow-bleed' strategy," without attributing the term to Republicans.
From the February 16 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
ATTKISSON: Which he revealed Thursday on the website of an activist group for Democrats. Murtha's legislation will say troops can't be sent back into battle until they've had a year at home. They must have equipment and training that they won't realistically be able to get. Their tours can't be extended and permanent bases would be prohibited.
MURTHA: If they can't extend people, if they can't send people back that don't have equipment and so forth, they can't continue to surge, is what it amounts to.
ATTKISSON: Murtha says he may also include conditions for the U.S. going into Iran, such as the administration would need congressional authority and could be required to close the Guantánamo prison for terror suspects. Yesterday, Republicans attacked Murtha's ideas, which some are terming a slow bleed.
LOTT: That terminology really horrifies me and scares me to death. Who would bleed?
ATTKISSON: Murtha's legislation would be attached to the president's war funding. For Democrats, it's all about stopping the surge without holding an unpopular vote to cut funding for the troops.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the February 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: Instead, the president's GOP allies warned against the Democrats' next move -- restrict funds for the Iraq mission.
BLUNT: We've already heard the Democrats calling the debate this week the bark before the bite -- their so-called "slow-bleed" approach is the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America's flag overseas.
BASH: Now, what Republicans are referring to there is a plan by Congressman John Murtha, an anti-war congressman from Pennsylvania, to try to set conditions on funding for Iraq, with the goal of forcing the president to bring the troops home. Now, today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], who is determined to stay on message about today's vote, would simply just say that yes, the Democrats are thinking about setting benchmarks but was very quick to say after that that Congress would always support the troops.
From the 4 p.m. hour of the February 18 edition of CNN Newsroom:
KOCH: Others are eyeing a proposal by Congressman John Murtha to place conditions on future war spending and troop deployments.
[begin video clip]
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE): I'm going to look very carefully at Congressman Murtha's points. And again, when --
RUSSERT: And you may be open to them?
HAGEL: And I'd be open to it.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Down the road, will we consider issues with respect to funding? I think so. But we'll never compromise the ability of American soldiers to protect themselves.
[end video clip]
KOCH: One top Senate Republican points out the obvious about Murtha's measure, or those that would limit funds for the troops.
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): They're unlikely to pass two houses and be signed by the president.
KOCH: White House press secretary Tony Snow confirmed President Bush would oppose Murtha's so-called "slow-bleed measure" to limit troop deployments.
SNOW: What I would say to members of Congress is, "Calm down and take a look at what's going on, and ask yourself the simple question: If you support the troops, would you deny them the re-enforcements they think are necessary to complete the mission?"
The polls of troops in active service call Snow a liar - THEY want out! Out of Iraq! Many, even out of the service. Why? Because Bungle! Because lies! Because no support for their buddies who have gone home wounded, and get shabby, if any, medical care - "Do you want cockroaches with that?" Because between pull-backs under stop-loss, the contract they signed, backed by the lies of the Administration, have over half of them, and their families, qualified for welfare - but no end in sight, as they discover that four years turns to six, seven, eight! Because even in-theater, there is no support for the troops, in terms of body armor, training, up-armored transport!
That is the slow-bleed, NOT the Dem plan to treat or end the otherwise interminable and intolerable pain.
These so-called Republican Americans know exactly where the term originated. They constantly show the true colors of the Cons...lie,distort and repeat. The entire Republican Party are beginning to look like a Party of sheep and will follow any voice that speaks to them whether out loud or in the deep recesses of their minds.
Trent Lott is horrified by the terminology but he hasn't pinpointed the origination of the term..when he gets around to it will he decry his party for misusing the term? Only if he is given the permission.
This Repug Party doesn't seem to understand that the "Foxie preachers" are destroying the party. The American people have come out of the ether and are now aware of the distortions spewed forth by these money-grabbers. The Democratic Party is responding as they should---LET THE REPUB's KEEP RAMBLING---and continue with their plans to turn this country back to the people. Elected officials are elected to represent the people, not to decide for them.
Sen. Lott, you will never be compared to a John Murtha, it is called conviction to do what is RIGHT.
Joe Biden asked of his democrat collegues:
After we reduce troop levels? What next?
After we remove all the troops? What next?
What happens to Iraq after we leave? What next?
Those are straight forward questions that fall on the door step of all the political pandering...what next?
Well since your ReNAMBLAcans started the war they ought to answer the question. Those are decent questions but should be asked in concert with Are we stopping the violence? no, Do the Iraqis want us to stay, no. Are all the problems cause by us being there justified by the good we can do there? In other words a cost benifit analysis
The questions aren't about republicans and the current strategy...so don't deflect.
The questions are for those that want to get out of Iraq. It's about the future...ok you want out...what next?
The sad truth is that this Administration got us mixed up in something that won't end possibly for decades. We can continue to fund this misguided cowboy policy, or pull back and take some of the fuel (our soldiers) out of the fire. It might not be a complete withdrawal from the region (perhaps redeploying to Kuwait) but it's become clear that staying in the mess at current levels is untenable, and we don't have the troops to escalate the situation effectively.
Nobody wants this war anymore, except for Bush. If he wants to fight it, he can get himself a flak jacket and boots and get his ass over there. As for my friends and friends of friends, I'd like 'em home where they're safe. And I'd like the budget balanced again.
What next? Who knows? But one this is for sure: we KNEW that THIS would be the result of invading. So yeah, pulling out sucks, but staying over there isn't fixing things, and it's just getting people killed.
Sadly for the world, Bush's legacy will probably be an extremist Islamic Iraq.
- What next? Who knows? - bittermarv
That's what I thought...you don't have any ideas. I am not slamming you but I'd like to here "what's next" from the crowd that wants to pull out...not more drivel about republicans and Pres. Bush.
I'll be glad to consider any "what next" answers that have particular stragies...other wise the drivel is relegated to insignificance.
Ok Wes, Let me ask you the same question? We go ahead and send 20,000 troops over to Iraq. What next?
No sale, bub.
The "what next" question is for those that want to withdraw. The current effort is proceeding with a plan...that I'm sure you don't agree with. But the question is for YOU...after we withdraw...what next?
Solon is correct, Wesley. This is the answer that Bush and crew should have answered...in fact, they should have answered that question before invading Iraq. You - per usual - are deflecting this issue as a 'now what do we do'. Well, guess what ... your beloved Republicans need to answer that and many other questions. Why don't you give us an answer instead of playing pompous partisan on high, huh? I don't hear ANY answers coming from the Republicans. That includes you.
- You - per usual - are deflecting this issue
I'm not deflecting anything...I brought up the issue and asked the question "what next".
as if you're interested in any answer that doesn't fit your preconceived agenda.
What Next?
Humanitarian aid. Organizers to do things like get Iraqi's together to rebuild their country, which would provide jobs. With our violent forces out of there, maybe the reconstruction can stay constructed and not be so easily destroyed again. Negotiators to help them come to understandings between the religious factions. Anything that will help them move forward as a country and a people. Not more of the same that is only helping in destruction. There are ideas there that can actually help this terrible situation we've created. More troops, more violence are not answers or a positive way forward.
What's next? Who can really tell?
One things for certain, the removal of US forces from the probability lines will move the wave that is (or was) Iraq back towards peace. Where the lines move after that is not up to us. But at least we'd no longer be part of the killing...and that is always good.
" I don't hear ANY answers coming from the Republicans. "
I'm not republican, I'm an independant conservative, but I would: 1) focus my troop strength where the problems originate, take them to the border with Syria and Iran. 90% of the personal coming and going at those borders are going to have connections with terrorists. 2) Capture them and implant the technology liberals developed (gps tracking devices) then see where the roaches go to and destroy their homes. No matter what country they go into, destroy terrorists where they breed. The war needs to be fought like a war and not a panzy liberal police action like the one they fought in Viet Nam. My next step would be to 3) remove 75% of the press. Allow only major outlets to have access to troops in battle. 4) Temporarily reinstate the sedition act and stop/prosecute those guilty of it.
Now, (not that we expect anything) what's the liberal plan for "what's next"??
I'm not republican, I'm an independant conservative...
It's funny how all the Republicans disappeared as soon as it became apparent to even the dimmest among them what a colossal f&*%-up George W. Bush is.
Being "independent" means never having to say you're sorry.
"Capture them and implant the technology liberals developed (gps tracking devices)"
Why is it important to mention that supposedly GPS is a liberal technology?
"3) remove 75% of the press. Allow only major outlets to have access to troops in battle."
In order to do PR damage control and not let the truth escape? What's the point of this?
4) Temporarily reinstate the sedition act and stop/prosecute those guilty of it.
Who exactly has been guilty of sedition? Do you just like throwing that out there? Are you trying to blame this absolute failure of a war effort on the journalists?
"The One They Fought In Vietnam"?
When I was sent to Vietnam, I was told that it was "we" as in our nation, our government, our people who went to war. There was no they.
You are a disgrace. You've been denigrating the service of Vietnam Veterans since the first day you posted on this site.
I hope that Wesley and the other intelligent posters from the right see through your hatred. I think it's time that they repudiate your vile attacks on our veterans.
it doesn't matter whether we withdraw three months or three years from now, tommy. they will fight it out and there is nothing we can do about it. it was your type of wingnut thinking that got us into this. why should anyone give one ounce of credibility to what you say?
Well, you are asking us to play military analyst, so I figured that can go both ways. Tell us, what do we do with those 20 k troops? The current effort has a plan? That's it? That's your response? Haven't we had a plan all along?
Nope, the "what next" question is for the pull out crowd. Seinfeld covered your response in his "yada yada yada" episode.
we leave. that's the plan.
Cut the BS. Tell us what the Republican plan is? To win? Victory? It's all nonsense. You have no plan either way... and you expect people to fall all over themselves answering your questions? Please. You tell us what the Republican/neocon plan is... period. Very thin ice. Very thin ice indeed.
- you expect people to fall all over themselves answering your questions?
I don't care if you fall anywhere...I asked a pointed question and got the same babbling about republicans... You tell us what the Republican/neocon plan is
I have no interest in hearing your bellowing about the past...if you've got any answers to "what next" I'm just like 'ol Ross...I'm all ears...otherwise I'm not interested.
"i'm not interested". exactly. the only thing you're interested in is an argument.
"...about the past."
That's wonderful. Guess what? The "past" isn't all that long ago. Your attempt at painting the reasoning world as 'without answers' or 'set in the past' is classic. What's your 'plan'? It's all going so well. Price of 'freedom', huh? You've made quite a sacrifice. Good luck to you, buddy.
I have no interest in hearing your bellowing about the past...if you've got any answers to "what next" I'm just like 'ol Ross...I'm all ears...otherwise I'm not interested.
Okay, Wes my lad, here's one answer for you...
Since al Qaeda is hoping we stay in Iraq, what would be next if we leave Iraq is that they would stop expanding (since the primary motivation for them drawing new recruits would be vastly diminished). It's not hard to project that without the impetus of our presence, al Qaeda would start contracting...and maybe even collapse into the rather insignificant world role they played before 9/11 boosted the world's awareness of them.
Here's a little reading matter because I know you want to consider all points of view and also keep your awareness operating at a high level...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p01s04-woiq.html
and
http://amconmag.com/2004_08_02/article.html
Hey, and if you're with things so far, you'll love this one:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
Catch you later...
That is just YOUR frame. Doesnt mean it is reasonable to claim its also not relevant to the lets keep doing what hasnt been working crowd.
for wesley the only "answer" is the answer he wants to hear, he is deaf to anything else. it's the reason we got into this mess to begin with. non thinking robots who think what they are told.
" for wesley the only "answer" is the answer he wants to hear, he is deaf to anything else. "
Well, to be truthful mefirst, that is true for all the left wingers who post here too! Name on lefty who heard a good idea and publically admitted to changing their mind? There have been good answers on both sides but party peer pressure keep all of you from admitting when you hear one.
Wow
You are all about the generalisations.
Huh? Let's hear one good suggestion from the Republican side of the aisle? Are you kidding me? All we (as a country) have done... is follow the 'suggestions' of the Republicans for the past 6 years. Not by choice, mind you... by the sheer bullying of a completely run Republican government. Guess what? ALL a dismal failure. All of it. Name one good thing that has gone down at the hands of the Republicans since Bush got into office? I got nothing. Zero.
Seems to me that the What Next question has been answered many times in this post. You may not agree with those responses, but at least you got an answer. I'm still waiting to hear what President Wesley's plan is...
Never watched Seinfeld (except the Soup Nazi episode).
Wesley thinks that repeating a pinheaded question over and over again means it was never answered, even when it was.
Ultimately, there's no need to answer the 'question'. Wesley putting everyone on the defensive is lame. Lesser of two evils. Remaining in Iraq, the most evil. I've now read many excellent responses. DarkMan's retort was excellent.
We leave. Then Wesley can complain about how things could've been better if we stayed. There is no good answer for Wesley. And, it doesn't matter.
Sorry... "Darkmass" is the poster's name.
And, of course TEX listed all of the most reasonable choices for 'what's next'... all of which every reasonable person knows and has thought about, has wished for since 9/11...all of which Wesley knows/knew to begin with... Which is why this exercise was a lame game of cat-and-mouse by Wes to begin with.
What next?
Humility, forgiveness, healing
For every soldier sent to Iraq, send peacemakers. Send Ambassadors and experts in conflict resolution. Send doctors and teachers. Send cultural ambassadors; musicians and artists. Send messengers of peace; Buddhists and Christians and Jews and Pagans. Send food and clothes. Send the peace corp. Flood the country with a volunteer army of men and women of good will as this has as much chance of mollifying the country as brute force.
Naive? Don't even bother lecturing the left about naiveté given the smug, myopia passing as foreign policy by the right.
The "what next" question is for those that want to withdraw.
wesley / Tuesday February 20, 2007 08:19:06 PM EST
Ultimately, I think Iraq is going to be divided in three so we should just do it now (the Kurds don't want to be apart of Iraq anyway and the Sunnis and Shiite are willing to kill each other over their differences which is not healthy for a budding democracy). We get assurances from the Kurds and the Shiites that the Sunnis will get 20 to 25 percent of the oil revenues. We kick out all American companies and start giving the reconstruction money to Iraqi companies. Implement components of FDR's New Deal. Give the Iraqis the city we are building in the Green Zone. Convince Iraq’s middle class that fled to other countries to escape the violence to come back to the country. Tell Turkey to forget any designs they have on Kurdishstan and threaten to f*ck up their country worse than we did in Iraq if they attempt to do anything. Tell Iran to keep its distance with the same threat. Try Bush and Cheney in The Hague.Ultimately, I think Iraq is going to be divided in three so we should just do it now (the Kurds don't want to be apart of Iraq anyway and the Sunnis and Shiite are willing to kill each other over their differences which is not healthy for a budding democracy). We get assurances from the Kurds and the Shiites that the Sunnis will get 20 to 25 percent of the oil revenues. We kick out all American companies and start giving the reconstruction money to Iraqi companies. Implement components of FDR's New Deal. Give the Iraqis the city we are building in the Green Zone. Convince Iraq’s middle class that fled to other countries to escape the violence to come back to the country. Tell Turkey to forget any designs they have on Kurdishstan and threaten to f*ck up their country worse than we did in Iraq if they attempt to do anything. Tell Iran to keep its distance with the same threat. Try Bush and Cheney in The Hague.
No, that is the way YOU want to frame it. It is about like you digging yourself a deep hole, then when WE drop you a rope ladder saying the hole isnt YOUR problem what are WE going to do to fill it. How obvious is it that these questions wouldnt EXIST except for the unjustified invasion in the first place?
What we do is support an international and hopefully Arab league force to police, that may work it may not. We then send a whole lot of monetary support for the Iraqis to rebuild their country, giving them good jobs certainly couldnt hurt.
Is there any question that our presence is adding to the equation of violence in the country? If us pulling out allows that violence to excaberate the problems that have existed a long time including sectarian warfare, that monster has long been out of the box. What must be done to fix Iraq at THIS point must be done by the Iraqis. We need to give them all the help we can...From a distance
- What we do is support an international and hopefully Arab league force to police
Ok, I'm game. How do we go about getting that league set up and establishing their police force.?
haven't we been giving the iraqis years to set up something like that? how bout....how bout....
What is the mystery? We talk to the Arab league and perhaps countries the Iraqis wouldnt see as American surrogettes. Say Nordic countries and tell them we are leaving and we think Iraq could use a force to quell the sectarian violence. That we will foot much of the bill and work with them. Like I said maybe it would work maybe not but we have nothing to lose from trying.
Fair enough...
I'm curious about the "nordic" issue you raised...care to expand?
I hate to be long winded. I tend to run on so I was succinct. For any force to be accepted as a positive force in Iraq they have to be seen as not an arm of US foriegn policy. There are also many long term suspicions between Arab states for that reason the more international a force that goes, the more likely it will be acceptable to both Iraqis and the rest of the world. I said Nordic countries because though European they do not have the stigma among the Arab world of being US puppets. They are not seen as colonizers or interlopers in that part of the world as France, 'Belgium, Britian, Spain and so on historically are. THAT is why I mentioned them as an example
Thanks...I get it.
"They are not seen as colonizers or interlopers in that part of the world..."
No, they're seen as plain old garden variety infidels, Solon. The naivete is stunning.
"The naivete is stunning."
You must be referring to your naivete?
When it gets half as stunning as your ignorance I will commit supuku
WESLEY:
Indeed, they ARE good questions ... ALWAYS. It is ALWAYS "What next?" in America.
The path is obvious: REALLY start fighting terrorism, WORLDWIDE, instead of being bogged down in a "war" that cannot be won. Pull out of Iraq, reprioritize and redeploy, targeting terrorist cells wherever in the world they might be.
What NEXT? Begin the hard work of restoring trust in the word and intentions of the USA, using tools Bush has rejected: Diplomacy, talking, reestablishing good relations with allies, cultivating cooperation with other natins, even (gasp!) engaging in talks with those who are not exactly our friends (as we did for the 40 years prior to "winning" the Cold War).
What NEXT? Find and kill or capture Osama Bin Laden.
What NEXT? Hold nations which we know to be friendly to terrorists accountable ... this includes Jordan and Saudi Arabia to name two.
What NEXT? Rebuild our military, nearly decimated by Bush's insistence on this "slow bleed" war which is grinding up and whittling down our fighting forces.
What NEXT? Investigate our VA, our VA hospitals, the care our returning injured servicemen are receiving. Make it the best it can be. Investigate the expenditures in Iraq, and determine where the money has gone, how it was spent, what is MISSING, WHO has it, and punish accordingly. Reopen investigations into what went wrong with how intelligence info was misused by this administration. Punish accordingly.
What NEXT? Seriously address the real root cause of the anxiety the neocons have over the Middle East: Energy dependence. Put serious effort into making America energy INdependent, pursuing alternative energy sources and conservation. Not just lip service, as Bush and the neocons give, but REAL programs with REAL goals.
Lots of "What NEXT?" for America to focus on. It's a good question, and one with answers which point to a bright future instead of miring America in centuries-old bloody wars which sap our resources for the sole purpose of appeasing a leader who wished to be a "War President".
Well knock me over with a feather...congrats to tex for an insightful post.
Thanks to the others who responded with substance to the serious question of "what next". I read many interesting links that they provided.
Insignifcant...that's how I categorized mrmo and his blathering troop of lightweight memes. No solutions...no serious thoughts...but that's why they put the scroll key on the keyboard.
Shame the Administration didn't answer those and many other questions BEFORE INVADING.
Typical nonsense...I knew there would be a bunch of these type of worthless quotes...and right on cue here comes marv and solon.
The question is...you want out...what next? Try something along the lines of cogent thinking with some particulars.
And predictably here comes Wesely pretending that those who CREATED the problem have no responsibility to SOLVE the problem. Suppose I send a memo at work that bends the nose of one of my clients (my job actually has nothing to do with memos or clients but bear with me) Then if my boss comes along and says I need to placate those clients but I need to do so WHILE I keep our current campaign for them, I dont get to tell my boss since you want it done THAT way you have to tell me how to do it or YOU have to do it. I messed it up its my responsibility to fix it within the guidelines my boss tells me. Same thing here, Bush broke Iraq. WE are Bush's boss. WE get to tell him what the guidelines are and he STILL has the responsibility to FIX THE PROBLEM HE CREATED
Agreed. Wesley's one of the biggest partisans who frequents this site. I think he should offer up some answers before pointing the finger.
Yes he is partisan. Giving credit where due he is usually reasonable and asks intelligent questions even if framed in partisan contexts.
That's debatable... Your very kind :)
Wes, how about we get an agreement from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordon to send troops to help. How about we go back to the UN and request troops from NATO. How about we start talking to Syria and Iran.
HOW ABOUT WE DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE USELESS POLICY THATS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE START OF THE WAR.
And before you tell me all the reasons that this or that won't work, YOU for ideas other than sending more and more Americans to die. You can find fault with my ideas just as I find sending more troops like pouring water into a cup with a large hole in it.
- How about we go back to the UN and request troops from NATO.
We don't have to go to the UN for Nato matters...it's not in their scope of authority.
you didn't answer her about trying other things other than the same failures your hero bush has been pushing for four years.
Can we not pass some new regulations for all things that dare call themselves "news" and hold these "outlets" accountable? I mean a simple web search taking all of 5 minutes could have returned all that needs to be know about this. It was same with the whole Pelosi's Plane nonsense.
I'm really sick and tired of this kind of hack quasi-reporting. I mean remove some credentials. Fine some people. Fine some networks. I'm not talking about squashing free speech. I'm talking about calling out slander and libel for what they are. I'm talking about responsible journalism & professionalism. Maybe if it cost these clowns $500,000 for every hour that they put this kind of outright trash out there that it might promote some semblance of responsible, professional journalism...and accountability.
/end rant
see MORA - even though I could live without the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine.
Rep. Hinchley, D-NY
MORA (Media Ownership Reform Act) [link to www.house.gov]
I dont think Wesley and many others get it. We can not control what is happening in Iraq. Go read Lt. Gen. Odums op/ed piece or his interview with Hugh Hewitt at townhall.com. This is about the fourth or fifth senior commander that has stated that the military has done what it can. In 05 a general said it best when he compared Iraq to Albert Camus's " The Plague". People, professionals, politicians and doctors did everything they could but in the end the plague ran its course without being hindered in any meaningful way. We can not alter the bloody course Iraq will take. It is done. Everyone realizes that the situation will get bloody when we leave. Odum and others believe the amount of carnage that will take place is being exaggerated. It doesnt matter bc we can not stop it from taking place. Odum notes that the longer our troops are there the worse it will become. The sooner we get out the sooner we will have our allies back. He has many other points, but the gist is the our military can not change Iraq's outcome and our presence is making the situation worse. I suggest you read his peice bc I am doing it a disservice here.
I did and found it interesting. Thanks for providing some info on the "what next" question.
I always enjoy rational discussion. I would like to add that the neo-cons expected the best case scenarios for reasons to invade- democracy will florish, we will be greeted as liberators, sectarian tensions are exaggerated, the war will pay for itself and major operations will be short term. Now these same people- referring to Kagans and Kristols recent piece- want the military to stay citing the worst case scenarios. They predict massive civil war, safe havens for Al-Qaeda and involvlement of Turkish, Syrian and Iranian forces. These worst case scenarios were used to prolong our involvement in Vietnam. There will be blood shed but from what I have read Al-Qaeda in Iraq will be cease to be useful to the Sunnis after a time and will be extinguish by the Sunnis themselves. The biggest threat to expanding this war to a regional one are the neo-cons and the bush administration.
MB, I put up a link to the Hugh Hewitt interview, and Olivelawyers linked the original article by Odom last week. Anyone who hasn't seen either, I recommend them as textbook stoopid paranoid childish questions (Hewitt) and straight, realistic answers (Odom).
This is the Odom article;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917.html
And hewitt's transcript- sorry to send people to townhall, but if you need a laugh you can skip the "funnies" and read bloggers attempts to pretend Hewitt didn't get spanked by Odom.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab
Thanks again for the links HBL.
This comment sums up the host, Hugh Hewitt, pretty well.
"You would sound a lot smarter if you had dumber guests..."
-notrightnotwrong
CHILLING:
In the Hugh Hewitt segment, the General interviewed describes what constitutes a true liberal democracy, and what doesn't:
"Rules to decide who rules, rules to make new rules, RIGHTS THE STATE CANNOT ABRIDGE. Now who must agree? If you have a referendum, that’s irrelevant. The elites must agree. Who are the elites? Anybody with enough guns or enough money, or both, to violate the rules with impunity if they want to. Now every one of those countries have groups that violate the rules with impunity, even though they have a constitutional order, I mean, a piece of paper."
Sound familiar? With Halliburton, the Neocons, and the Bush Administration doing whatever they damn well please, the Constitution be damned, do we REALLY have a liberal democracy in the USA? By these standards, America has devolved away from the principles of liberty and freedom, and is plunging into the same dictatorial tyranny that we CLAIM to abhor in other nations.
Talk about irony.
It all comes down to probabilities.
When the US chose to go Christian extremist in response to that Satan of consumerism, godless communism, we opened up a probability line that we're still on right now....the US has not technically known "peace" since 1941. The "Cold War", the "Drug War", now this bogus "War on Terror". Our torture chambers opened in the 1950's, have been used since then in all major conflicts. We have allied ourselves to dictators the world over in the 1980's all in the name of greed, we spent all of the 90's persecuting Iraq and attacking small nations. Both parties support and sustain these policies. And now, we have entered the 21st century in an illegal war with a madman at the helm.
What path do you think this probability line will follow? Things have been progressively politically degenerate for over 55 years in this country. Bush is just a logical extension of the statism we have created for ourselves, all driven by non-stop war against a generic enemy, all in the name of consumerism. They sell us war like they sell us soda.
With that much energy being put into a probability for evil, the future doesn't look too bright. More war, rights eroding, dollar dropping, jobs leaving....impoverishment with heavier and heavier demands from the top...both parties completely corrupted and composed of some very mediocre and some very mentally ill minds.
It's all down to the voter too. We have to admit it's we who have real power, It's we who put the marks by their names. When we stand up and look them in the eye, and say "Enough" and refuse to hand them our country to ruin, is the day it ends. It's our votes, not theirs. If everyone bets on a longshot this coming race, one will win...and longshots pay off best on a win.
On a somewhat lighter note I did some "research" of my own. And after speaking with a few unidentified "sources" I learned that many of the media network's acronyms have alternate meanings:
CNN - Certainly Not News
MSNBC - Mostly Sordid Nonsensical Bogus Claims
FOX - Fabricating Obnoxious Xenophobes
ABC - Anything But Credible
CBS - Credulously Broadcasting Slander
Ok so they aren't all that good but I had fun for a few minutes. ^^
Collectively:
S.C.U.M. - So-Called Unbiased Media
(courtesy of Easy to Refute Wingnuts)
Actually I love Murtha's bill. Basically it states that units can not be sent to Iraq unless they have been fully trained and properly outfitted. If you support the troops how can you be against this bill? We are 4 years into this war and we still have improperly outfitted units.
After withdrawal, what next?
Got it covered. http://kucinich.us/node/1780
Kucinich is one of the very few who has a stated plan. I don't agree with much in the way of his politics...but he is a staunch defender of his principles.
I read your link...and while I believe it is a little "pollyanish"...it does raise some interesting points.
More misinformation from Republicans
It is quite mind boggling that the media has adopted a Republican talking point , and one that is quite wrong. We are not "slow bleeding" we have allready bleed to death, the Republicans made quite sure of that.
Wesley asks: What next?
How about............... A declaration to the World that all US troops, including foreign and US Nationals operating as mercenaries and Soldiers of Fortune... aka Blackwater will vacate the nation of Iraq in six months. During the interim, we present to the UN Security Council a 'mea culpa' Thus, stipulating that the US will proceed to expose the lies, distortions and outright treasonous activities undertaken by the most corrupt, self-serving administartion in US history, an administration which has sullied our reputation before the world community, abrogated standing treaties which have the binding effect of Constitutional provisions, gutted the finest traditions of the US Military in total defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Army Field Manual.......... and in effect HAS committed War Crimes against a Nation according to the 'Crime against Peace' Provisions as announced by Robert H Jackson, US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Tribunals.
We THEN proceed to Impeach President Bush, Cheney and re-join the ICC, The International Criminal Court and in due time initiate legal proceedings against the NeoConmen who ginned up the 'casus belli' for unleashing the most formidable and advanced 'Technology of Death' upon a Nation mired in survival mode wrought upon them by Nut-Jobs enamored with the hubris of a 'Pax Americana' WHO once again are fabricating false evidence against their next target, Iran.
BUT, we don't stop there. Congress charters a Commission to delve into the 'War- Profiteering activities of Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR and any other alphabet soup Corporate entity which has overcharged, stolen US Taxpayer monies and withheld same from OUR Troops that such capital is designed to serve.
We get serious and act in concert with the 1996 'War Crimes Act' enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress whose provisions state that the dealth penalty is to be levied against US citizens found to be in violation of The Genva Conventions, The Hague Conventions............. If death results from such illegalities. We could preface the argument for initiating criminal activities that DUE to the fact that the fallacios rationale for the current administration'd illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq, WHICH has resulted in the excess of 650,000 civilian casualties, Any and ALL participanats are suspect ........... The charges would also apply to Senior US Military Brass who cowardly absolved themselves fron their sworn OATH to Preserve, Protect, & Defend the Constitution of the United States by carrying out such 'UNLAWFUL ORDERS' in breach of the UCMJ and any semblance of Moral certitude.
Navy guy:
Hear! Hear!
I LIKE your direction!
NAVY_GUY,
Might I also suggest that everyone visit this site.
http://www.votevets.org/
Contribute to their casuse and get the SOBs out of Washington who put us in this un-Godly, un-winable war and elect men and women who give a damn about our country and those who fight, bleed and die for us.
As they said back in the day...
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
Yes! One of my daily (sometimes before MMFA!) excursions!
Murtha is a traitor. He is dividing his country to further his political asperations. He has called for illegally detaining troops who are doing their job and is unsafely calling for withdrawal of troops before safety can be assured in Iraq. He's a hypocrit calling for moral business practices, unless it's a family member getting the benefit, then it's ok. He should be kicked out of office. And, those are his good qualities. Altzeimers disease is obviously getting a strong foothold in his mind.
He should be kicked out of office.
The voters of his district think otherwise. Why do you hate our representative democracy? Is it a general hatred of America, or just our form of government?
You're an obnoxious troll who offers nothing to this debate.
You are such a moron. YOU call Murtha a traitor, despite his close ties to the military and THEN talk about dividing the country. You are lucky ironic stupidity isnt physically painful or you would be on a morphine drip. Here is a clue. Being blindly committed to getting as many Americans killed as humanly possible isnt the only possible solution to this catastrophic mistake Bush got us into with his lies and deception. YOU are a traitor. YOU who attack the very essence of what America is about, public discourse. YOU arent attacking what Murtha said you are attacking Murtha for saying something you dont like. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt people like you are unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable. You know propaganda isnt really meant to convince people like me that disagree its meant to give cover to moral cowards like YOU so you dont have to do any thinking and dont have to take any moral stand against power.
PROUD CHRISTIAN
Okay, let's do something, whatever you want to a guy who is truly supporting the troops and stuck his neck out PRIOR to elections. As you recall, ALL of the Con Jobs attacked him and guess what happened, he got re-elected by the people.
And now, in those infamous words of WESLEY, "WHAT's NEXT?
Actually, this entire thread had answer after answer to the question, "What's Next?" but the Con rebuttal was always "IT WASN'T ME".( from ROCKETMAN, a Disney movie, if you have seen it you"ll understand).
An editorial piece in this morning's Cedar Rapids Gazette called for the Democrats to support our troops in the field. The editorial was a lazy piece of work, recycling the GOP talking points. They sidestepped responsibility for using the Slow Bleed phrase by saying "what some in the media are calling a 'slow bleed' policy." But the piece failed to identify the origin of the phrase and who "some in the media" are and what their motives might be. Pure rubbish.
"SOME" in the Media are calling Murtha's a "Slow Bleed" strategy?
Well, this is quite simple. WHOEVER in the media is using this partsan, biased, loaded characterization to describe Murtha's plan, have immediately identified themselves a propagandists, and have forfeited any claim to "objectivity" or being "fair and/or balanced".
"Slow Bleed" = rightwing propaganda, framing, and water-carrying. So, start the list of the self-identifiers, and remove them from the list of "journalists" and "reporters". They are henceforth "HACKS".
Such a simple "litmus" test ... use the phrase, you are GUILTY.
Tex,
Why get so worked up about it? The term "slow bleed" basically describes Murtha's plan.
Be proud of it! You get what you want. The U.S. forces are defeated from within due to lack of funding.
Never mind that Murtha's strategy insures the defeat of America and the Iraqi government. That and the eventual Islamofacist conflagaration that will engulf the Middle East.
Yeah Tex! Stand up and be counted. Let the extremist, murderous savages win! Be a proud member of your party. Embrace the "slow bleed" rather than try to castigate those who see it for what it is.
Go ahead. You can do it.
ANNOYINGAMERICAN, I embrace Murtha's plan of bringing the troops home. Apparently you prefer that they just stay in a WAR zone while those of your ilk demand that they sit around and be killed or maimed. Now you are thinking like a suicide bomber recruiter....ready to send someone to their death but not even consider it for yourself. Easy to be a "Video Arcade General".isn't it. If only our President had a PLAN for victory rather than continuing this abortion until he leaves office. OPEN YOUR EYES, please. And then and only then will you be AnotherAmerican.
Meanwhile. Lets get as many Americans killed as humanly possible describes Bush's plan which you seem to agree with.
Stayed focusd my little droogies!! The questions of "what next"; "is Bush a criminal" etc. are best debated elsewhere. The issue here is the obvious bias towards ratings and profits in the MSM. We need to crucify "journalists" and news gathering organizations that take the cheap way and merely repeat other news outlets and regurgitate press releases and opeds. I believe media watch dogs are going to be the salvation of the world, as corporations try to control more and more of our lives.