Saturday, June 24, 2006
Dear NY Times
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jun 24, 10:39:00 AM:
Yesterday, the New York Times published the names of three American citizens who aided and abetted the torture and beheading of U.S. Army Privates First Class Kristian Manchaca and Thomas Tucker. The three, members of an al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Manhattan, were identified as Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Bill Keller.
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Sat Jun 24, 11:10:00 AM:
We're all your enemies now, Cass.
The Press
Al Qaeda
The Liberals
John Murtha
It's a very lonely world for the 33% of Americans who see the world the way you do.
I think we're threatened by a group of radicals who'd like to kill us all, so we ought to be bending over backwards to make sure all the people who don't like getting killed get together under a unified strategy. Note: Unified Strategy does NOT mean - Do It My Way, Bitches!
The Press is the press, and they're free. They do a lousy job, but they're not traitors.
The Left whether concentrating on the unnecessary beginning of this war, the incompetent prosecution of it, the creation and training of more terrorists, the bungling of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, still wants to see the terrorists lose.
There's nothing you can say, no matter how often or how long, that will alter the fact that every American would like to see terrorism stopped.
The only differences are in strategy. Your strategy, which is shockingly similar to President Bush's, results in endless war and global contempt for the United States as we torture, kill, and invade our way around the world.
This is not so smart, I think.
But, having said that, I guess I'm giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Which, in some quarters, makes me the enemy.
Bummer. It would be much easier if we were all on the same side.
By , at
Sat Jun 24, 12:50:00 PM:
When will the Times advertisers get sick of this.
Screwy - your name says it all.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Jun 24, 01:14:00 PM:
Thanks, sirius.
And, davod, yes, my name says it all. But what you haven't discovered is that it's a very complicated anagram/acrostic code for... I'll let you figure it out.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 24, 05:40:00 PM:
I do find it interesting that while the cartoon focused on the media, you started talking about President Bush, the Left, and failures of this and that while only two sentences mentioned the media:
"The Press is the press, and they're free. They do a lousy job, but they're not traitors."
Some of them are. How else would you describe someone who seeks out classified defense information and then publishes it, completely without regard for the American operations and lives thereby endangered?
Oh right, an 'investigative journalist.' That's ok then. Too bad we didn't have more of these kinds of people around to publish the existence of the Manhattan Project, or the OSS, or 'illegal' destabilization and insurgency operations throughout Europe and Asia during World War II. The People Have (Had?) the Right to Know!
"The Left whether concentrating on the unnecessary beginning of this war, the incompetent prosecution of it, the creation and training of more terrorists, the bungling of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, still wants to see the terrorists lose."
Many of them don't. You're either woefully unaware of the political realities of the day or suffering from self-deception and/or selective memory.
Ref: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14
I'll even quote the most relevant passage for you.
*ahem* 'The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.'
And I recall, this statement was not hooted down and derided by the left but... cheered? Hmm. More similar references in my next passage.
It's also a little weird to me that most of the people who talk about how incompetently things have been managed have exactly 0 experience in modern military or intelligence matters, don't speak or read Arabic, are unfamiliar with intelligence laws and policy, and know about Islam only what their local PBS has broadcast. When I was a kid, I was told to shut up if I didn't know what I was talking about. We need more of that.
And because it annoys me, "unneccessary beginning of this war" is a meaningless rhetorical flourish founded in the ideas that 'legitimate' wars can only happen when no one can help it. What rubbish. By this line of logic, the American Revolution, Civil War, both World Wars, the Trojan War, and the Hebrew conquest of Canaan were all 'illegitimate' and probably 'illegal.'
"There's nothing you can say, no matter how often or how long, that will alter the fact that every American would like to see terrorism stopped."
You mean Americans like Jose' Padilla and John L. Walker?
Oh I get it... this statement is true, so long as relative definitions of "terrorism" are applied, right?
Like here. http://www.internationalterrorist.com/
Or here. http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2005/7/7/1002576.html
And here.
http://www.thesandwich.com/Once%20again.html
Maybe you yourself have some claim to moral authority, (you could be a priest for all I know) but you need to stop trying to defend your entire political wing. As a whole, it is indefensible, amoral, irrational, and largely ignorant.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Jun 24, 08:52:00 PM:
"shut up if I didn't know what I was talking about"... why do you tempt me so, Dawnfire? I'm surprised you find time to comment here, what with you being so busy spitting on folks.
While we're having fun, check out this excellent link to the Santorum WMD! story.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 24, 10:19:00 PM:
Wow. Before it even got to the meat of the story (which included nothing that hadn't already been mentioned here, and was actually slightly less detailed and in at least one part, flat wrong) I counted... 4 partisan rubs? And you still think the media's not on your side, hmm?
Also, I notice that you didn't actually respond to my argument. You let fly with another trademark sarcastic comment, and then a link which has nothing to do with what's being discussed in this thread. Way to dodge and misdirect! You must be a politician, not a priest.
Now that you mention it, I don't know why I waste my time with you.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Jun 25, 08:13:00 AM:
The Left has as many complaints as you do over the sorry state of the press, Dawnfire. The criticisms are different in that the left seeks social justice and improved quality of life while the fringe right tends towards a bunker mentality currently characterized by an unwillingness to hold our government to a high enough standard of behavior.
The "Left" you quoted was one guy off the Michael Moore site? Child, please. That would be like me quoting you and saying you represent anything but the most outrageous eastern shore of the right.
If anyone loses this war it will be the Bush administration. They hold all the cards of executive privelege, decider-in-chief, national intelligence, etc.
Yet, when things go poorly, the 'don't hold my Dear Bush accountable', shouts, "Blame the Press!" "Blame John Murtha!" "Blame the Liberals"
It's pathological.
Here's something interesting and enlightening:
"indefensible, amoral, irrational, and largely ignorant."
That's how I see the point of view you espouse, Dawnfire. Funny, eh? How two Americans can have such radically different views.
I'm moral, rational, and well informed. So are the people I spend time with, and we agree that folks like you are nutbars.
Anyway, I've got to go (Thanks for not spitting on me! And try not to spit on any other fellow Americans today. You, and they, will be glad).
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jun 25, 03:16:00 PM:
No, you miss the point. The press is actually, in fact, sabotaging American security. This isn't about political philosophy and 'oh they should be more socially conservative.' This is about journalists seeking out and purposefully publishing information that is detrimental to American security, about broadcasting every little slip up by a servicemember whether accidental or not and making it a headline and then burying retractions on page 12, about imbedded journalists actually broadcasting the current locations of US troop formations in a warzone (thanks Geraldo, you twat), about publishing every 'eyewitness account' and 'anonymous source' who says anything bad about any American servicemember anywhere as if they are fact, about twisting the words of troops they've interviewed to fit their own agenda, (a NG 1st Sgt. from New England is suing a newspaper over this right now) and so forth. Maybe you don't care or don't think it's a big deal because it doesn't affect you directly. But it affects me, and it affects my friends, and another million or so other troops. Thanks for your support.
If I were a big name person considered representative of a political wing, and I made such a statement that was cheered by said political wing, you certainly WOULD be quoting me in arguments on the Internet. You sure like to talk about Ann Coulter as representative of the Right. Don't be a hypocrite. Besides, you skipped commenting on the 'More similar references in my next passage.' Just because you don't mention them doesn't mean that I didn't.
I don't think that I've blamed anyone for when things go poorly. That wouldn't be rational, and I am an eminently rational person. I've condemned people for behaving in ways that hurt our cause quite a bit, however, and I take a certain cheap thrill in mocking Leftist hypocrisy whenever I see it.
"Blame the Press!" "Blame John Murtha!" "Blame the Liberals"
I have an intense dislike for John Murtha and his ideological company, but he doesn't affect the war very much. (although he HAS been touted by AQ as proof that the US is getting ready to leave, we just need to tough it out a little longer, and thereby does in fact hurt the national effort in Iraq to some degree) I've already addressed the press, and it just so happens that buth Murtha and most of the offending press are liberals. What a coincidence.
As for the "blame Bush" caveat, I'd like to know what he or his staff, or the JCS, or anyone else in Washington has to do with tactical and operational events in Iraq. You want to hold the President accountable for Abu Ghraib? Why? He had nothing to do with it. "Well he's the C-in-C, he's responsible for everything the troops do!" Bull. The military is a heirarchy. He tells the generals what the strategy is. The generals tell their generals, who tell their colonels and Lt. colonels, who tell their majors and captains, who tell their lieutenants, who tell their sergeants, who carry it out. What is that, like 7 degrees of separation? Whatever NCO or junior officer who was in charge of the idiot MPs at Abu-G (and the idiot MPs themselves) was responsible for what happened. Now, it's perfectly honest to hold the President responsible for things like the decision to invade Iraq or what strategy to use to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, or his social security stance, because he is directly responsible for those kinds of macro-level decisions. But he has nothing to do with Private Snuffy's decision to toss a grenade into room X, or play frat house hazing games with imprisoned terrorists and a camera. Besides, if you do that then you have to give him credit for when things go well, right?
"It's pathological."
So is 'Blame Bush!' Glad you see things my way on this.
What point of view do I espouse, praytell? Be careful here, I do not fit easily into a political category, but from the way you talk you seem to think that I'm some reactionary from the Deep South. That's patently false.
I usually limit my comments here to topics of international or party politics, military matters, and the Middle East, since that's what my education covers, and I'm almost always a polar opposite from you. Why is that? In simple terms, you seem to argue from a perspective of how you think things 'ought to be' and I from a perspective of 'how things are.' I think your visions are foolish and naive and I'm sure you think that mine are stubborn and close-minded. Perfectly acceptable opinions, routine in political discourse, but for one thing... these topics are part of my profession. I literally study them for a living. So please forgive me if I don't take you and your tendency to make broad generalizations and state opinions or theories as if they were fact [minus legitimate supporting documents or explanations] and use of sarcasm as if it were a stand-alone debating tool as seriously as you seem to think I should.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Jun 26, 05:38:00 AM:
I'm moral, rational, and well informed. So are the people I spend time with, and we agree that folks like you are nutbars.
You know Screwy, that's hardly the first time I've heard that kind of talk from you.
I can't help but find it a bit amusing that every time someone says something you disagree with, rather than address their point, you segue into some "Oh - I'm glad to see we're all the enemy now" diatribe that has nothing to do with the topic.
And it's even more amusing after some of the ad hominems I've seen you indulge in.
There is a vast difference between pointing out the hypocrisy of someone's stance with documentation of specific incidents to support your argument, and saying "we think you're all nutbars", or worse as I've heard you do on several occasions.
That you can seriously launch into a "oooh! you're being divisive" shtick after doing so only underscores my point. The one stance addresses behavior and ideas.
Yours addresses neither but simply engages in pointless insult.
