Is the media hurting the war?

Surely that's hilariously stupid to you. Clearly nothing has undermined the "war" so much as the boneheads that have been in charge of it from the beginning. Your friend overestimates the importance of "looking tough." Sure, it's important - but so are tactics and strategy, and precious little of that has been applied in Iraq. They haven't "blurted out" anything that the Bush Administration didn't specifically tell them to say. That's what all those Tony Snow press conferences are for. I'm not sure what the hell he thinks he's talking about, but then, you're almost certainly talking to someone who has no real idea what the media was like in WWII. The only things that have hurt the war effort has been the ridiculous blunders made by war leaders at every level. From failing to plan for an insurgency (after guaranteeing that there would be one, by dismantling the army), to failing to send enough troops to quell violence, to failing to keep dangerous munitions out of insurgent hands (al-Qaa-Qaa), to failing to establish order and a functional government; the media has had nothing to do with any of that. Indeed, the media was the Administration's single best ally in the first few years of the war, and they still couldn't help but fuck the war up this badly.Your friend is a moron. He needs to start pointing the finger where it belongs - to the failed policies of George Bush.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Chanced image to a "thumb"..

Yeah. Oddly enough, when you shoot a 14-year-old girl's family to death so that you can take turns raping her, that's murder.Your friend is a fucking moron. Do you think that we should fight terrorists by becoming terrorists? I don't. Torture doesn't produce information; the point of torture is torture.

Conceivably, but I don't see how legal protections against torture would prevent torture from being used in that situation. It's hard to imagine Jack Bauer about to slap around a terrorist and saying "you know, there's a bomb about to go off somewhere in LA, but dammit, according to the Military Code of Uniform Justice, I can't lay a hand on this guy. Oh noes!"No, of course not. In that situation torture is used no matter its legal status. But the routine use of torture just makes it harder to imprison terrorists - because none of the testimony of a tortured person is admissible in court.

There is no headway. Whenever a new school is built, it's dynamited by insurgents.Nearly every construction project has ground to a halt because of the worsening security situation. That's why you "never hear any good news" - because there isn't any sufficiently good news.When 40 Americans died that week, it's hard to imagine that the temporary opening of one school - that women aren't allowed to attend - is news of equal import.

It stopped my best friend's mission.

That it appears to have actually done a 360:

quote:

---

However as of late October, tribal resistance had yet to materialise and Islamist forces affiliated with the Shura Council (an umbrella organisation claiming to represent a number of insurgent factions) staged military parades in cities throughout Anbar province including Ramadi and Haqlaniyah. [2]

---

Al Anbar Governorate - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The insurgency in Anbar -- a mix of Islamic militants, former Baathists and recalcitrant tribesmen -- still thrives among the province's overwhelmingly Sunni population, killing American and Iraqi security forces and civilians alike. This was underscored by three suicide car-bomb attacks in Ramadi on April 23 and 24, in which at least 15 people were killed and 47 were wounded, American officials said.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003685559_iraqramadi29.htmlThe whole Iraq was is a game of whack-a-mole. Sure, the fun part of whack-a-mole is that when you whack the mole, it stays down for a little bit. But only someone who refused to see the big picture would claim that as progress, what with all the other moles popping up all over the place.It's no surprise that Al Anbar is relatively quiet - we've got a ton of troops there. When they leave, it'll be business as usual - just like it was last time.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You think that by having to move out of Baghdad, they're just going to give up?And you're in military intelligence? Jesus Christ. It's like a game of whack-a-mole, only every time the mallet comes down, a couple more kids aren't coming home.

Call them "weapons of minimal destruction."Finding that degraded crap was well worth 200 hojillion dollars and 3000 American lives, don't you think?

You think I've never had a blister before? Christ, you can get the same kind of injury from mishandling Meloidae beetles, does that mean we should go in and invade the Midwest?For a blistering agent to be degraded that far, it has to have sat in its containers for a very long time. Since, say, 1991?

Surely, if the rollback of civil liberties could be justified by all the thousands of stopped terror attacks you just made up, the administration would be saying so? Wouldn't they be publishing details of these stopped attacks in order to defend the policies? Instead of just saying "oh, it stops terror attacks, trust us."If you believe that, I have a magic rock that keeps leopards away. Don't believe me? Well, you don't see any leopards around here, do you?

Is it possible that your son doesn't tell you about the trouble he gets into, because he understands how a parent might worry?Or that this happened on a different trip? Surely Shonnel Makwakwa has ridden in more than one Humvee in her life.There's a number of considerably more likely situations than "lying reporters". What interest do the reporters at time have in fabricating bad stories from Iraq? There's more than enough true ones to print.

We did argue this. Remember? You lost. Bush didn't meet his service obligations. Did he go "AWOL"? Technically yes, but he was never considered so, because who would commit career suicide to put the son of a war-hero and Senator (and future President of the United States) on an AWOL list?

Why would any of these documents exist? Who would commit suicide by submitting them? Why would Bush be dropped from the rolls when he was the son of the President of the United States?Why would he be treated like a common soldier? I've never asserted that Bush had a DFR packet. No one would commit suicide by filing one against the son of a war hero, Senator, and President. Who on Earth would DFR the son of the President?Nonetheless, it's abundantly obvious that Bush did not meet his service obligations. When he left the TANG on July 30, 1973, he signed the following statement:

quote:

---

"I have been counseled this date regarding my plans to leave my present Reserve of [sic] assignment due to moving from this area. I undestand that: a. If I disassociate from my current Ready Reserve Assignment, it is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve Forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months under the provisions of AFM 35-3, chapter 14."

---

He then moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard.What's your evidence, Tal, that Bush was assigned to any Reserve Forces unit in Mass.? At the time that he requested discharge in Sept. of 1973, he had served for five years and four months in the Air National Guard. This is established by every record, including his payroll records and retirement credit records.His commitment, however, was six years.Now, you tell me, which is the longer period of time? Five years and four months, or six years? I presume even an intelligence officer can do that kind of math, right? That's not true. The evidence is his payroll records, his retirement records, and all the unclaimed cash prizes for anyone who can substantiate that Bush met his service obligations:

quote:

---

Several organizations and individuals offered cash rewards to those who could offer proof that Bush had fulfilled certain military obligations.

​

On October 14, 2000, the Birmingham (Alabama) News reported that a group of Alabama veterans offered $1,000 to "anyone with proof that Texas Gov. George W. Bush actually served in the Alabama National Guard." It went unclaimed.[43]

​

On February 23, 2004, cartoonist Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonesbury, personally offered a highly-publicized $10,000 reward (in the form of a donation in the winner's name to the USO, which entertains U.S. troops) to anyone who had "personally witnessed" Bush reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between May and November 1972.[44] As of yet, the reward has not been paid.

​

On February 27, 2004, Trudeau announced that despite over 1,300 responses, his offer had unearthed no new evidence to show that Bush actually turned up for duty in the time period in question. A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee dismissed the reward as a "silly stunt." Trudeau agreed, saying, "She's right, but as a simple investigative cartoonist, I don't have a very big tool kit."[45]

​

In September 2004, the 527 group "Texans for Truth", offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that Bush fulfilled his service requirements by either "first-hand, eye-witness testimony," or authentic "documentary evidence."[46] As of 2007, the reward has still not yet been paid.

---

You're a partisan hack, Tal. Your evidence is irrelevant. Bush failed to meet his service obligation by 8 months and, like he has for most of his life, was insulated from the consequences.