Hmmmnnnn I wonder which of the wars everybody was in favor of......
I wonder if past Presidents and military leaders would be viewed differently if in those days they had the 24/7 media microscope on them challenging every single thing said or done.
In those days they did not have to pass the judgement of a media infused/abused/biased/polarized public. They did what had to be done without the almighty lens in their face. There was a more spontaneous national pride because there was no 24/7 media there doing their thinking for them.

Only when the real truth is known about what went on, when, where, by whom, etc will there be any valid conclusions. And the truth is certainly not known.....and for Damn sure ain't going to come from the media.

History, like for all the others will be the only meaningful conclusion.
Until then it is nothing more than speculative opinionating.

In my humble opinion.

BTK

Originally Posted by Lil Dancer

Oh, and what's that supposed to mean?

The founding principle of the Vietnam Veterans of America is:
"Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another."

Many of us have learned firsthand that the American public's attitude and treatment of those while in the military and later as veterans mirror's Rudyard Kipling's "Tommy." While we try to insure that abandonment won't occur again, we don't control the attitude and action of the entire populace.

However, the nation is blessed with brave young people willing to don the uniform and take on the unpopular tasks knowing full well their actions will be criticized by people with less-than-accurate information and their cause undermined through direct and indirect support of the foe - whether well-intentioned or not.

Thank God for all of them!

Originally Posted by SteveZ

The events are the events, and can be found on other media. CNN has them, as does NBC and the Times.

What is sad in many ways is that something must have to be either:
- Republican, which makes it dumb, a lie, slanderous and gotta be wrong, or
- Democrat, which makes it dumb, a lie, slanderous and gotta be wrong.

When will things be "American" and viewed with somewhat of an open mind? The "Party is right, no matter what" is a tough position to take, especially when over history BOTH of the parties can be either accused or credited with the same actions.

It would be nice to think that "events are events" and can be found in the media. However, the realty is that the media covers those events in part based on information they receive, in some cases distorted information spun by the government. It takes a lot of sifting thru the info to find the truth. Fox news obviously has a conservative agenda, as Mcelheny points out. This is an interesting article which shows an example of how the Pentagon used military analysts to generate favorable news coverage of Bush's war: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/wa...Ji5xfd3wEZz0rQ
In a nutshell, the military anaysts have ties to defense contractors, executives, and board members that are scrambling to obtain billions of dollars of defense contracts. In order to maintain their access to high level officials, which is vital to give them an edge in the $$big money security arena, these military analysts attend briefings by senior military leaders, officials from the white house, even Dick Cheney himself, where they are of course exposed to the "adminstration talking points".

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

Originally Posted by Lil Dancer

It would be nice to think that "events are events" and can be found in the media. However, the realty is that the media covers those events in part based on information they receive, in some cases distorted information spun by the government. It takes a lot of sifting thru the info to find the truth. Fox news obviously has a conservative agenda, as Mcelheny points out. This is an interesting article which shows an example of how the Pentagon used military analysts to generate favorable news coverage of Bush's war: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/wa...Ji5xfd3wEZz0rQ
In a nutshell, the military anaysts have ties to defense contractors, executives, and board members that are scrambling to obtain billions of dollars of defense contracts. In order to maintain their access to high level officials, which is vital to give them an edge in the $$big money security arena, these military analysts attend briefings by senior military leaders, officials from the white house, even Dick Cheney himself, where they are of course exposed to the "adminstration talking points".

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

I couldn't agree more that the commercial "analysts" are biased - sometimes greatly - by connections not made public. Yes, all of the networks are viewed as being left or right, depending on the viewer - and rightly so. The NY Times is viewed as a Democratic Party billboard, but that's okay and the article you linked addresses good points. That's why to me its important to get broadbrush input in order to avoid the commercial media trap.

Has the current administration, especially Mr. Rumsfeld, exercised undue influence for the gain of others? More digging and history will tell us that - just like more digging and history exposed the role of Robert McNamara's role as the Secretary of Defense in the selection (and I use that term very loosely) during Vietnam of athe M-16 rifle as the standard infantry weapon, despite its inferiority and need for more test and development which unfortunately occurred on the battlefield at the cost of many lives - plus the acquisition of the M151 Jeep as the replacement utililty vehicle. Big money was involved and all later linked to him and the appointed crew he brought to the Pentagon. There are names listed on the Vietnam Memorial which are there only because the M-16 was a lousy weapon when first fielded, but memories seem to want to selectively ignore that, and the fact that McNamara was a Kennedy & Johonson selection.

That's why I just can't take the rhetoric that the Democratic Party is the purest of the pure and will be saviour this time around. They ALL have skeletons as persons and groups, and they all are tied in some way to interests financially far above the common citizen.

We both seem to agree that big money brings big problems, and considerable vigilance is necessary in order to mitigate these problems. I just can't accept that a party banner is a cloak of honor. In my lifetime, both have let me down, which is why I want to hear all - good and bad - on all of the candidates and especially those that surround them who will be the first bunch of appointees. The alternative is a "drink the kool-aid. it's good for you" acceptance of campaign sales pitches, and there is no warranty to go back to....

Of course no party is perfect. I don't recall anyone ever saying or implying that. But when you look at the party's actions over the years, at some point you look at what the goals of the parties are, and how they fit in with your values, and you end up making a choice. I know some people are independents, and I respect your right to do that. Personally, after seeing how so much in Washington is done across party lines, I vote for a party ticket. Looking back to the Kerry/Bush race, I never felt Kerry was that great a candidate, but he looked a lot better to me than Bush, and so I voted accordingly.

And I agree with you that values must be considered, and there is no "perfect" fit.

Once it becomes a "two horse race" the campaign will become much more substantive (I hope!) than it has been so far.

No matter who gets the most electoral votes, sharing opinions and information is always healthy, and have enjoyed our dialogue immensely. We all win with open-minded and sincere discussion.

Originally Posted by Lil Dancer

Of course no party is perfect. I don't recall anyone ever saying or implying that. But when you look at the party's actions over the years, at some point you look at what the goals of the parties are, and how they fit in with your values, and you end up making a choice. I know some people are independents, and I respect your right to do that. Personally, after seeing how so much in Washington is done across party lines, I vote for a party ticket. Looking back to the Kerry/Bush race, I never felt Kerry was that great a candidate, but he looked a lot better to me than Bush, and so I voted accordingly.

I voted for the Kerry/Edwards ticket too even though I am not much of a fan of Senator John Kerry. Seemed like the lesser of two evils. Do like Senator John Edwards a lot though.

:bigthumbsup: I'm with you Tal. Wish John Edwards would have done better. I really like him. Maybe someone will be smart enough to offer him the VP spot.

Before the war really got started, I read book titled TheThreatening Storm by Ken Pollack who many say was a recognized expert on Iraq. He made the case for invasion in this book.

After "Mission Accomplished" and things turned into a civil war in Iraq I read The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Frank Rich and much of my opinion about George W. Bush changed.

Now Ken Pollack has written recently in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/op...gewanted=print

It may be helpful to examine Pollack's earlier views and contrast them with today's with respect to The War and his justification for invasion.

Thanks Hancle.
I agree with Ken Pollack's opinion.

More info about the Ken Pollack book, can be found at:
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4876

History may record that the decision made to invade Iraq was the best option as suggested in this book, based on historical facts and the intelligence available at the time. Sadly the other recommendations made about how to acheive success, were not adequately planned and implemented.

Very interesting post Hancle. Thank you.

The 3 most dangerous nations directly responsible for funding anti US terrorism activities are Pakistan (already has nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Fighting terror has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was our man in the middle east. We put him in power and approved of his dirty deeds. He kept Al-qaeda out of Iraq. The people in Iraq hated him and hated our government for putting him in power. We should have eliminated him without the shock and awe of destroying the infrastructure of that country. The neoconservative group which includes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz had been trying to get every administration back from the Reagan years until now to take over the middle east. This would include permanent military bases. The objective was to control the oil. Every administration until now had the strength to keep this group at bay.

junglejim,
Excellent Post!
I have lost a family member and 3 of my students (so far) to this Iraq invarsion!!!! All young men, some with children. I am so mad at this adminstration!!!!