Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go"

[aps]

You quoted much more than that didn't you.

If you are referring to the post you responded to, I was responding to Napoleon's Nightingale, in case you didn't pay attention. I don't respond to FreeThinker--it's a waste of time.

 

[BWG]

The army/navy/marine times are published not by the army/navy/marines, but by a privately owned media organization, which as a whole has a liberal slant.

You do know the differance between authoring an article and publishing the same, don't you?
:smile:

Cons are funny. Funny cons.

 

[FreeThinker]

Silly Republicans. Propaganda is for fools. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Federal Times and Defense News are all owned by Gannet Company Incorporated which also owns 1 national newspaper (USA TODAY), 97 local newspapers, and 20 news stations (all affiliates of NBC, ABC, and CBS). Gannet Company Incorporated doesn't control what those media outlets say. Many of them lean to the right.

Many???

haha. Which ones.

 

[FreeThinker]

LOL Oh, I had no idea that:

Army Times = democrats
Navy Times = democrats
Marine Corps Times = democrats
Air Force Times = democrats

Hey, when you have nothing you can say to defend someone, call anyone who thinks Don should resign democrats. Maybe you'll start to believe it.

So is your argument then that USA TODAY = Democrats? LOL Okaaaaaaaaay.

I don't respond to FreeThinker--it's a waste of time.

You sure do like to waste time.

 

[MSgt]

Damn. I just knew someone would make a thread on this and the inevitable responses.

Our country is the laughing stock of the world. Not for anything other than our people. One minute they are screaming for revenge into a matter that completely confuses them and the next they are calling us murderers, torturers, rapists, and Gulag thugs. Our people cling to anything that will justify their allegiance to pathetic politicial parties and demand wisdom through headlines and reporter commentary. It's no wonder the world tunes us in and knows more about us than any other country. The ever fluctuating polls taken far too often when ever a new headline hits the streets shows how dramatic and fragile our resolve about anything is. Need a favorable poll against the war? Produce a picture of dead civilians. Need a poll to support the war? Produce a picture of the World Trade Center. Need a favorable poll to reflect on the Presiden't support? Exploit the troop. Need a favorable poll to bash the President? Exploit the troop.

Has anyone given any real thought as to why this article was of such great interest to the media world? It simply stirred up some drama ($) for an already confused civilization. The whole point in making sure that America knew that this was printed in the "Army Times" was to imply that the military endorses the removal of the OSD. If this was printed in any other newspaper it would have been lost amongst the countless other stories which have become the norm. Doing this only winds up ruining the credibility of the article. While the members of the military enjoyed a well written article in a newspaper that caters to our military culture and tactical world environmentet, Americans got the wrong impression thanks to certain agendas.

As Republicans are coming off of the "Kerry high," Democrats are warming up for their "Army Times fix." It's a vicious cycle orchestrated by those willing to completely destroy (if need be) any American value to achieve a single vote. It's like a storm that never quits. As politicians gnash at each other's throats, Americans everywhere are relying upon them as their knowledge base and clamoring to any mundane insignificant detail to explain away their lack of knowledge or exhonerate themselves from really finding anything out.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So you don't think the statements of the left and the Dems has any sway with the public?

Has nothing to do with elite or not it has to do with whether one side condemns the administration and the war by calling it immoral and illegal and for oil and built of lies that the people running it are too incompetent, when a large portion of the country gets it infromation from a side that presents it that way it will surely disway public opinion and it has. Most don't support the war anymore and if that support is not there then it will be almost impossible to carry on the effort.

Most Americans were behind the idea of the war a few years back. Now most Americans think it wasn't the best idea.

Have we become more or less informed about the decision to invade Iraq since we have invaded it?
​

IMHO, we have become more informed as an electorate over these past few years.

I'd wager that fewer Americans knew or cared about the difference between Iraq and Iran in 2000 than do today. For a multitude of reasons, Americans, as an electorate, have become more aware of foreign policy, and international events. In part this is due to the steadily increasing availability of English-language international news outlets. And, in no small part, it's due to Americans' steadily increasing concern about the ramifications of foreign policy and international events.

This increased knowledge and awareness has allowed more people to make more informed decisions.

Perhaps you think the Dems have it more together than the GOP when it comes to getting their message out?
​

However, I remain unconvinced that the Dems have a better PR capabilities than the GOP, (Air America anyone?), I doubt that the Dem's PR campaign has outshone the GOP's, I think that the increase in the desire for and availability of international and foreign policy news has been a much more influential reason people have soured on the invasion.

Just imagine if the Dems and the left had supported the war and that we as a country had presented a united front and a resolve to win.

Just imagine if the war had been a good idea that was sold honestly and managed competently...

That WOULD have made all the difference as to where we are now.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Which ones.

1. The Cincinnati Enquirer
2. The Arizona Republic
3. Fort Myers News-Press
4. Pensacola News Journal
5. Asbury Park Press
6. The Ithaca Journal
7. The Chillicothe Gazette
8. The Lancaster Eagle-Gazette
9. The Marion Daily Star
10. The Herald-Dispatch

etc, etc, etc.

 

[Stinger]

Most Americans were behind the idea of the war a few years back. Now most Americans think it wasn't the best idea.

Thanks to a successful propaganda campaign by the left.

Have we become more or less informed about the decision to invade Iraq since we have invaded it?

IMHO, we have become more informed as an electorate over these past few years.

But most remain ignorant of what we in fact have found out about Saddam's Iraq and have never read the two reports detailing how dangers Saddam actually was.

However, I remain unconvinced that the Dems have a better PR capabilities than the GOP, (Air America anyone?),

CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, NPR, NYT, LAT, WP anyone?

I doubt that the Dem's PR campaign has outshone the GOP's, I think that the increase in the desire for and availability of international and foreign policy news has been a much more influential reason people have soured on the invasion.

:rofl oh that makes it even,

Just imagine if the war had been a good idea that was sold honestly and managed competently...

It was sold as honestly as the information we had, sorry buy I reject this notion that we were "lied" into the war. Most of what we knew was true, that we didn't find ready to go stockpiles of chemical and biological agents was not so surprising, his capabilities were even more horrific than we thought and were ready to go full steam within weeks. We found all the necessary ingredients, hidden and undeclared, just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted. Most haven't any idea just what we found. As far as the managed competently, Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy to do, but the fact remains that one of the most important factors in any war is the support on the homefrong. Not only has the campaign the demongog and oppose the adminsitration at everystep, with the propaganda and demonizing, empower our enemies, what country would ever join in with us when we are so divided?

That WOULD have made all the difference as to where we are now.[/quote]

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Thanks to a successful propaganda campaign by the left.

You think the Dems and "the left" are propaganda masterminds and puppeteers.
I think they're chumps who have trouble finding their own bottom sides.

You think Americans are feeble-minded sheeple, easily misled pawns.
I think Americans are capable of discovering enough info to make informed decisions about the things that matter to them.

 

[RightinNYC]

You think the Dems and "the left" are propaganda masterminds and puppeteers.
I think they're chumps who have trouble finding their own bottom sides.

You think Americans are feeble-minded sheeple, easily misled pawns.
I think Americans are capable of discovering enough info to make informed decisions about the things that matter to them.

I don't disagree with you about too much nowadays, but I have to here.

While I agree that the average American is more aware about Iraq as a whole today than they were 3 years ago, I don't think that at all necessarily translates into a greater intelligence about the issue as a whole or an increased ability to make informed decisions. While they might have progressed beyond the most rudimentary basics to an understanding of how the situation appears, the average American falls far short of having the capability to look at the entire situation and make intelligent decisions. I've been studying this **** like crazy for the past 2 years, and I still don't really know my *** from a hole in the ground when it comes to anything beyond the most basic policy of it.

Example, in case that didn't make sense (quite likely):

-When you're in middle school, you're told the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.
-When you're in high school, you're told the Civil War was actually fought to preserve the union.
-When you're in an intro university course, you're told the Civil War was actually fought because of economic struggles with modernization.
-When you're in a higher level university course, you're told the Civil War was actually fought because of a cultural rift exacerbated by differing interpretations of federalism, an increase in expansionist rhetoric, and the opportunity for political opportunism that this offered the charismatic leaders of the South.

As you go from step 1 to 2, or even from 2 to 3, you are learning more. But does that mean that step 2 is somehow right while step 1 is somehow wrong? They're both flawed, and simply because someone has progressed to step 2, it doesn't mean that their opinions on the subject are necessarily any more accurate.

It's things like the Iraq war that make me wish there wasn't such a contentious divide between policy analysts, academia, Congress, and the executive branch...

 

[Stinger]

You think the Dems and "the left" are propaganda masterminds and puppeteers.

Absolutely, and the Clintons took them to new heights when they came into power.

You think Americans are feeble-minded sheeple, easily misled pawns.

I think like every other group of peoples before them, with the use of a willing media and propaganda opinions can be swayed, truth can be redefined.

I think Americans are capable of discovering enough info to make informed decisions about the things that matter to them.

Can and do are two serperate things. For instnace do you think most Americans know we found hugh stockpiles of organophosphate chemicals stored underground in buried bunkers camoflaged so they could not be spotted and undeclared by Saddam? Nope. Do you think most Americans know the contents of the Kay and Duelfer reports, documenting just how dangerous Saddam really was? Nope. And the Dems take advantage of that.

Do you think most Americans know just how good the economy is, not by the polls. They get their news from sources that don't report such things, for a purpose.

Now is that changing as more sources open up and the internet is more available, yes it is. But it is a slow process and how much it will change things is to be seen.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As you go from step 1 to 2, or even from 2 to 3, you are learning more. But does that mean that step 2 is somehow right while step 1 is somehow wrong? They're both flawed, and simply because someone has progressed to step 2, it doesn't mean that their opinions on the subject are necessarily any more accurate.

No, not necessarily more accurate. However, with more info the potential to be more accurate is increased.
What you have listed above are not so much opinions about the righness or wrongness of the Civil war so much as they are different ways of interpretting the primary drive of the war. These different interpretations can lead to diffferent opinions about the rightness of the war.

As the deeper/more complex understanding of the event is acquired, one's opinions about the rightness and wrongness of the event [or aspects of the event] may change. The opinions that are changed or formed based on the increased knowledge are by definition 'more informed opinions.'

It's things like the Iraq war that make me wish there wasn't such a contentious divide between policy analysts, academia, Congress, and the executive branch...

I am also disappointed with the current tone and quality of dialogue.

There're some systemic flaws that are detrimental to the electorate. I'd really like to see PACs forced to directly lobby the electorate rather than having what amounts to private access to govt officials.
I think we would benefit from having the millions spent to sway our legislators et al spent instead educating the electorate.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I think like every other group of peoples before them, with the use of a willing media and propaganda opinions can be swayed, truth can be redefined.

Actually, truth can't be redefined. Despite the Trotskyite/Leninist strain in the modern conservative movement that believes they can create truths and reality, reality still is what it is.

Realism and the reality-based community will eventually win out every time because facts are stubborn things.
​

Can and do are two serperate things.

As I noted previously, coupled with this ability to do so is the new found desire to do so.

 

[Kasmos]

Absolutely, and the Clintons took them to new heights when they came into power.

Oh, give me a break Stinger. You're from "The South", which I moved to less then 6 years ago from "The North". I know so many people like you, who are so arrogant towards your party it's absolutely ridiculous. I know the traditions around here and the attitudes of many of the people.

That's why I usually don't pay attention to your posts, for the most part. But to say that the "dems" and "lefties" are propaganda whores is absolutely hypocritical. I'm not sitting here trying to say that Democrats haven't used propaganda to make their party look better to the general public, because guess what, that's the bad part of politics in the United States. But to sit there and say the Republicans are innocent of any of these tactics is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Republicans are JUST AS GUILTY if not MORE in using the same and very similar tactics as the Democrats use.

Instead of trying to prove the faults of the Bush administration (which if you sit there and say there aren't any you probably need to get your head checked), the Bush administration vigorously tries to instill immense fear to its citizens. If that's not just as bad as Democrats trying to probe into the lies of the Bush administration, I don't know what to say to you.

I hope for your sake Stinger that sometime in your life you stop being so closed-minded. I'm not sitting here saying that the media cannot sway public opinion, because it can. But when it sways public opinion based off of FACTUAL things that make the Bush administration look bad, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

I just find it so funny Stinger that you think you can be NEVER wrong, EVER. I at least admit when I am PROVED wrong.