Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 30

Journal by pudge

Books, Books, and More Books

President Bush said at Saturday's White House Correspondents Association Dinner that some people say he's not done much for the economy, but objected, saying that he's done a great deal of good for the book publishing industry.

The latest anti-Bush book comes from Joe Wilson, the ambassador who went to Niger to check out the uranium story, whose wife was "outed" as a CIA "operative" by Bob Novak, now has his own book. It seems a lot like the Clarke book, but with fewer facts, which isn't a good thing.

That is, in Clarke's book, his analysis was to be taken with a grain of salt -- because he was clearly so angry with and biased against Bush -- but he was there for so much of what happened, and knew so much of what happened, that the many facts he had firsthand knowledge of were, for the most part, to be trusted.

You could say the same thing about Wilson, except for the "many" part. When he was on Meet the Press yesterday, his most damning allegations about the Bush administration were complete hearsay. For example, an anonymous source tells him that the White House was out to "get him" in March 2003, months before his wife's name was released; another tells him that Novak said -- to a complete stranger -- some nasty things about Wilson and noted his relationship to Plame a week or so before the story broke in his column.

He claims he has anonymous sources, but what reason do I have to trust him, or them? With Bob Woodward, we have not only 30 years of proven trustworthy use of anonymous sources, we have the actual sources themselves saying the facts are accurate (if not the characterizations). With Wilson, we have nothing at all.

That's not to say he is lying, or that his sources are. It just means that I can't bother to care about something I have no reason to believe. Just because you can get someone to pay you for a book doesn't mean you get my trust. You have to work hard for it, and it will take a long time. I wish other people had such reasonable standards.

Kerry : Medals :: Bush : Mission

Look, everyone who can be the least bit objective knows that the mission Bush was talking about on that aircraft carrier was the one about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. There's simply no reasonable question of it. Operation Iraqi Freedom was to overthrow Hussein's government. It was accomplished. He even said in that speech, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." He also said, "our coalition will stay until our work is done."

Similarly, everyone who can be the least bit objective knows that Kerry was not attempting to be dishonest about what he threw over what wall. Who cares whether he said "medals" or "ribbons"? The point is what he meant to accomplish: to protest the war by throwing some of the symbols of war away.

Both of them acted somewhat imprudently, but both of these little "scandals" -- same as the ones last week, and the weeks before -- are just partisan wastes of time to try to make the other guy look bad, to avoid talking about the issues. Can we please get back to the issues? Please?

Radio Address

Giving the Democratic Party response to President Bush's weekly radio address, on Saturday, was Army National Guard 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, a veteran of the current Iraq War. He made many excellent points -- including the fact that our military is being used for work they are not trained for (something Bush said he would not do in the debates with Al Gore in 2000) -- and his voice is one that needs to be heard.

But -- could you feel that coming? -- he was being less than honest, and it disturbed me. He actually sat on This Week and told George Stephanopolous he was trying to be as non-partisan as possible. This man, who sought out pro-Kerry veterans groups to see how he could get involved, who gave the response to the President on behalf of the Democrats, who accused Bush of misleading with the "mission accomplished" banner, and implied that Bush said the troops would return home by July 4 (which Bush did not do), said he was trying to be non-partisan. It was a ridiculous lie -- he is acting out the definition of partisan -- and it undercut his credibility.

He said, "I am not angry with our President, but I am disappointed."

Well, I am not angry with Paul Rieckhoff, but I am disappointed. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but hey, I'm not the one who went on national television and radio saying he isn't partisan. If he actually had been nonpartisan, I'd have no criticism of him. If he had been partisan and owned up to it, I'd have only very little criticism, and probably wouldn't have bothered writing about it at all. But he was trying to have it both ways, saying he is not against the President, while at the same time campaigning against him, so I am calling him on it.

Mistakes

Rieckhoff also said, "I don't expect our leaders to be free of mistakes, I expect our leaders to own up to them." It's a valid complaint, but I urge people to not get hung up on Bush not admitting mistakes.

As proven last week by the heavy criticism Bush received for the *appearance* of a change of course in Fallujah (which never happened, according to General Myers), these days you lose more than you gain by admitting mistakes. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it's the way it is. That also doesn't mean you can't make changes without publicly admitting mistakes, but we know that many adjustments have been made in the last year in exactly this way.

Different people feel strongly about different things, and this might be one of those things for Rieckhoff. I find no fault in that, though I hope he and others realize that not admitting mistakes in public is not the same thing as not realizing mistakes, or not working to fix them.

Prison Guards

I don't have a lot of substance to add to the story of the horrific abuse shown in the pictures that surfaced last week, that everyone else hasn't already said. Looking beyond the pictures, we can see a larger scandal brewing. It's been said that the U.S. guards were acting on orders from military intelligence, attempting to break their spirit so they can be more successfully interrogated.

And all I want to say about it is that we must exercise caution and wait for the information to come out, which it surely will. Feel free to push for the information to come out, but don't jump to conclusions about what happened. This applies to everything in life -- in my opinion -- but moreso at a time when we are dealing with one of the worst public relations disasters in our lifetimes, where we must do what we can to salvage the situation. Don't ignore truth, but don't pretend you know it when you don't, either.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:

  • Heh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 )
    Can we please get back to the issues? Please?

    We've had a period where people were talking about issues? I must've been sleeping for the 15 minutes during which they took a break from bickering and that happened. :-P

    On Paul Rieckhoff. It is very difficult to be heard in this country without political connections or fame. Who else could he have gone to besides the Kerry camp? I'm not saying he isn't a partisan, I don't know the facts well enough to say so. Just something to consider before you write h

    • Re:Heh (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Rieckhoff: I don't dismiss him, as I noted. But he is clearly campaigning for Kerry, while pretending that he isn't.

      On Wilson. ... I find much of what he says to be reasonably believable, and there isn't much, if any contradicting information out there of which I am aware.

      Why should you need any? I don't believe something just because no one has contradicted it, I believe it only because I have a reason to believe it. And I have no reason to believe it.
      • Well, let's look at the situation. What do we know?

        We know per Novak's original piece that it was a Bush administration official. This narrows it down a lot.

        We know they had access to the information and that the information was accurate. This narrows it down even further in theory.

        We know that it was done for political reasons, this pretty much narrows it down to the political machine surrounding Bush.

        That's what we know about the Plame case. It pretty much narrows it down to the offices(if not the

        • Re:Heh (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          We know that it was done for political reasons

          No, you *think* that. You don't know it, or anything like it. Think on.

          In other words, I view Wilson's information as reasonable and believable, and since there isn't much other information out there, I tend to believe the only reasonable conclusion I've seen so far. That Rove or Libby's offices were the source of the leak.

          Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Why believe anything at all, when we know that we don't know? Why not just be reasonable and adm
          • First off I'm way off mark today. It's just one of those days. I really shouldn't go into a battle of wits unarmed, but ahh well, I'll continue babbling for one more post.

            Granted, know is strong. I don't know it was done for political reasons, but there really isn't ANY other reason I can think of for someone to out the CIA operative wife of a Bush critic to Bob Novak. I also can't think of any reason for Bob Novak to lie about his sources in his original piece.

            Yes, I believe it to be the most likely

            • Re:Heh (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              Granted, know is strong. I don't know it was done for political reasons, but there really isn't ANY other reason I can think of for someone to out the CIA operative wife of a Bush critic to Bob Novak.

              The most obvious one is that someone just remarked it without thinking of the consequences, political and otherwise. Novak says, "say, Wilson doesn't have much of a background in nukes, why was he sent? Does he know somebody?" The person answers, "well, I don't know if she had anything to do with it, but h
  • What about the latest scandal where Bush was busted praying?

    Nader is the worst of the bunch who are criticising him.

    "We are dealing here with a basically unstable president. You have to understand that by just watching Bob Woodward ['s new book] and his findings. When the president starts talking about doing the Lord's work, when he starts taking about appealing for strength to a higher Father than his father, when he starts talking about all the quotations for the last two years that the press has report
    • What about the latest scandal where Bush was busted praying?

      Yeah. Most Presidents have said the same thing Bush said about appealing to God for strength, guidance, and wisdom. Most people probably think it's a GOOD thing, and it's certainly nothing to criticize about. The Revolutionary War was led by men who said the same thing!

      Nader is a bad joke. I support him fully in his quest to run for the Presidency, on the basis that I wwant greater participation from third parties. But he is basically usele
  • Bush said:

    The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

    But this is false. There is no proven Al Qaeda connection AND the Whitehouse has been denying that they ever said there was... so what is this about? Also, no WMDs yet. So I guess they probably weren't

    • But this is false. There is no proven Al Qaeda connection AND the Whitehouse has been denying that they ever said there was... so what is this about?

      You are conflating two slighttly different things. Bush has said there was no DIRECT connection between the two, but has all along talked about INDIRECT connections, such as al Qaeda training in, taking refuge in, and passing through Iraq, and Hussein knowing about it and refusing to do anything about it.

      You can complain he is overemphasizing the danger pos

  • Well, I am not angry with Paul Rieckhoff, but I am disappointed. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but hey, I'm not the one who went on national television and radio saying he isn't partisan. If he actually had been nonpartisan, I'd have no criticism of him. If he had been partisan and owned up to it, I'd have only very little criticism, and probably wouldn't have bothered writing about it at all. But he was trying to have it both ways, saying he is not against the President, while at the same ti

    • Do you think that the Republicans would let him get this message out? Probably not.

      There are many ways to get a message out without going to one of the two major political parties.

      I think you are being too harsh on him.

      As I said, I was only treating him the way he was treating Bush: on the one hand saying he is OK, but on the other criticizing him for something mostly irrelevant (not that our troops are irrelevant, but the nonsense about the Mission Accomplished banner certainly is). Sure, he is not

  • As proven last week by the heavy criticism Bush received for the *appearance* of a change of course in Fallujah (which never happened, according to General Myers), these days you lose more than you gain by admitting mistakes. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it's the way it is. That also doesn't mean you can't make changes without publicly admitting mistakes, but we know that many adjustments have been made in the last year in exactly this way.

    Some of the criticism that I have seen centers

    • Some of the criticism that I have seen centers around the fact that the administration's aims, the pentagon's aims, and the theater commands aims don't seem to match up and that causes the confusion that is currently being percieved. I heard this time and again from my dad (a Vietnam vet and active duty for 20 years) and his friends (also Vietnam vets and active duty career military types) that Washington should never try to control the decisions made on the ground. It bogs things down and people get killed
      • Actually, it isn't perception on my part. I will try and find the news article that talked about the ground commanders who said that these decisions are supposed to be in their hands. The implication (and it was obviously made for this point) is that these decisions are trying to be made above their heads. There are a couple of policy think tanks that back up this claim. Bush is meddling too much. Calling him on that is completely fair game...
        • The implication (and it was obviously made for this point) is that these decisions are trying to be made above their heads.

          And others will tell a different story.

          There are a couple of policy think tanks that back up this claim.

          And others that deny it.

          You're just reinforcing the idea that you have only a small part of the picture.
          • My understanding, again I could be wrong, is that the ground commanders in general are saying this. The disagreement comes from above ("we aren't saying that"). Who do you believe in that situation?

            You seem to be implying that both people are pointing fingers so it balances out. I am saying that I am more inclined to believe the ground commanders. History shows that this stuff happens. When things get political, the monkey wrench comes from above.

            • My understanding, again I could be wrong, is that the ground commanders in general are saying this. The disagreement comes from above ("we aren't saying that"). Who do you believe in that situation?

              Again, some are saying that, but some are saying the opposite. In fact, it is a minority that are saying what you say they are saying.

  • I don't have a lot of substance to add to the story of the horrific abuse shown in the pictures that surfaced last week, that everyone else hasn't already said. Looking beyond the pictures, we can see a larger scandal brewing. It's been said that the U.S. guards were acting on orders from military intelligence, attempting to break their spirit so they can be more successfully interrogated.

    I would just like to point out that I am sure that the Iraqi Republican Guard and Sadam's various secret police agenc

    • I am appalled that the officers didn't get court martialed for this. We were supposed to be liberating them from this. Some liberation.

      The investigation is ongoing, and has been for months. Your statement implies that the military has decided how to handle everyone involved, or let them get away with it, etc. That is false.
      • We'll see what happens. As it stands the officers, the Detroit Free Press wrote:

        "Two were "released for cause," meaning they were relieved of their duties and reassigned "with prejudice," Di Rita said.

        The six soldiers were reprimanded and another was admonished -- a lesser punishment -- in connection with the alleged mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, U.S. news services reported, citing military officials who spoke on condition that they not be named.

        The seven office

        • DIck Myers said this weekend that several of the people involved were currently detained (that is, their duties changed and their freedom restricted) while the matter is under investigation.

          Like I said. Luckily some dumbass took pictures... now the story (or some version of it) will be made public.

          It's a damned shame. By all indications, justice was going to be done regardless, punshing all those involved, and now the worst possible result of this has happened: the world has seen it, so our efforts to
          • At the same time. Did you know about this before the pictures were made public? I could have missed them, but I didn't hear anything about problems in the prisons.

            Maybe I am the dumbass. Wouldn't be the last time.

            • Well, they say the released a press release in January, but again, I don't care that *I* knew or not, I care that *the military* knew and were doing what they could to fix the problem, which they were doing.
              • Supposedly the President knew about the incidents over the winter months(January?, February?), but is currently "surprised" by the findings. He supposedly has only have recently known about the Pentagon's internal report and the photographs.

                McCain said this morning that his congressional oversight committee was not made aware of this incident at all. They only found out through public channels. He defended the administration (at least in a wait and see approach) but was disturbed by the break down in c

                • I consider the thing with Congress a different issue, and IMO, a more important one. There has always been a lot of things the government has kept secret from the people. This is one thing I wish had been kept secret. But I cannot abide by lack of Congressional oversight.

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you work when the system's so crowded?

Close