Letter to the Editor
Prefers PBS
Published Sunday, March 23, 2008
March 14, 2008
To the editor:
On any weekday night, more news is presented in the first 10-minutes of the “Lehrer News Hour” (Channel 9, PBS) during his News Summary than in the 30-minute news broadcasts on any of the major networks. If you doubt this, simply tune in to both on any given night and compare.
This appears to be in large part because the major networks are so biased. They cannot bring themselves to provide normal coverage of Republicans, nor broadcast good news regarding President Bush or his administration. Bush had a very well received trip to a number of African nations; NBC news did not inform us as to why he was so well received. Bush had a showdown with Congress over the budget, and prevailed — not reported on NBC. Bush signed the “Stimulus Package” — not reported on NBC. On and on and on.
A few months ago NBC reported that air traffic accidents over the five-year period ending in 2007 were demonstrably lower than the previous five years. NBC did not credit Bush or his administration — they dug out a 1997 clip of Al Gore, calling for improved air safety.
Three weeks before the Iowa Democrat caucuses I was not know sure if the Republicans were also holding caucuses there. There was no doubt the Democrats were, as Clinton and Obama got a news clip almost every night, with a sound bite. Later, when Republicans were covered, they generally did not get a sound bite, unless they said something stupid. It is obvious to even the most partisan that the favorable sound bites afforded the one party is the result of bias.
Do you know what political party Gov. Spitzer of New York represents? Not if you get your news from the major networks, where his party affiliation has not been mentioned. (Update, March, 13, 2008, NBC identified Spitzer as a Democrat.) To be better informed, catch the first 10-minutes of the PBS “Lehrer News Hour,” and read the Washington Times at www.washtimes.com.
Comments
I agree with you, Mr. Burgess. PBS does cover news in greater depth, and commercial t.v. networks are biased.
My political leanings are left of center. I'm neither a fan of the Republican party, nor of our President, but I, too, see the bias you're talking about.
A lot happens on any given day on this planet, and it's impossible to provide news coverage of every news worthy event. Bias is unavoidable. The first form of bias occurs in the selection of which events are reported. The second form occurs in how those events are presented. Bias is unavoidable, but if you know that it exists, you can get closer to the truth by looking at the same event from different perspectives. It's good that shows like Lehrer's on PBS offer alternative perspectives.
I like your litmus test, by the way. No, I did not know that Spitzer is a Democrat. For some reason - maybe because I watch NBC news too much :) - I assumed he was Republican. I didn't know otherwise until I read your letter to the editor, followed by a few google searches. Mr. Burgess, thank you for getting me to challenge my assumptions.
well, NBC... you don't have to say anymore. in my view NBC has discredited itself, like the new york times has a long time ago. after watching the local news weather with mike shultz i scramble to turn the channel to anything else so i don't even have to see the NBC logo or hear their news broadcast theme music. to me, both NBC and the new york times are like those tabloids. they are more fiction and bias than truth.
LadyNYC - are you a New Yorker or a former New Yorker? If so, how did you not know the party to which the governor of that state belongs? As a New Yorker living in Alaska I was a little surprised by that.
While I agree that all network news - including FOX - is biased one way or the other (since news is researched and reported by human beings rather than robots) I think people have to take a little personal responsibility for what they know rather than being passive, empty vessels who flip a switch expecting to be filled with any and all important information there is to be had at the end of the day. I'm pro-active about "what I know" and sometimes that takes a little legwork (or keyboard work). If something hits the national news the way the Spitzer thing did (FYI, the "D" was displayed after his name on most of the major news outlets I watched) I do a little research on my own.
CU . . .
Lady(former)NYC. I've lived here in Alaska for over 30 years, and haven't kept up with a lot of what's going on back in NY. But many of my world views were shaped by having grown up there.
Nope, I didn't catch the "D" displayed after Spitzer's name in any of the broadcasts I watched. If it was there, I overlooked it. Just goes to show, there's a tendency for a person to see what s/he wants to see, regardless of if that person is a reporter covering an event, a newsroom editor making decisions about which stories will get air time, or a viewer watching the news.
The news is biased, and apparently, so am I. I care about the truth, and like to think I have an open mind. It's especially important to me, then, to have those biases revealed, including my own. Mr. Burgess' letter has done just that.
I'm certain that the bias is not accidental human error, especially on NBC and CNN. They have specific agendas that their news departments are part and parcel of.
Consider the war in Iraq. Before the surge, it was leading the news every single night. "More casualties", "quagmire", quotes from leading Democrats about how the war was unwinnable and our troops were murderous thugs on par with Nazis. Since the surge has shown some success, casualties are down, and constructive events have happened in previous war torn areas, what news do we get? Not much at all. The Democrats need a bad economy to run on, and I'll be darned if that is not what leads the news every night. "Worst economy since the Great Depression", "Bush is out of touch", blah, blah, blah.
Time and Newsweek magazine are also a joke. New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times are all full of beans.
the cartoons on PBS are great for my baby. She watches Clifford and sometimes Sesame Street while Im making her breakfast. What I dont like are the 800 numbers that pop up and down blocking half the screen. Do they have to do that during a cartoon for babies? The 800 number also blocks Antique Road Shows $ amount that is displayed, when the appraiser tells the person its value.
LadyNYC-
I agree that we're all biased - me, you, the man in the moon. That's why I'm always amused by the shock and irritation of people who find bias in the news. News is created by humans, investigated by humans, reported by humans. Of course there is a bias.
I do still find it amazing that in a place where I'm constantly referred to as a "liberal New Yorker" (or where NY is constantly referred to as "liberal") that there is surprise that the governor of NY is a Democrat! :-) I happen to be from a pretty conservative, Republican-dominated county of NY but NY seems to be viewed by most as a haven for the liberal- (read: weak) minded ;-)
Glacierles - I doubt the bias on Fox is accidental human error, either. :-)
Happy Easter, all!
And for the record, I believe the "specific agenda" of media outlets - any media outlet, "liberal" or "conservative" - is profit.
Glacierles, that was a critical distinction you made. Bias is one thing, unavoidable, and therefore almost forgivable. Agendas, on the other hand . . . there's something nefarious about television networks, which reach millions of people, having an agenda, having a preferred outcome that they seek to influence and shape by what they choose to broadcast.
I'm liberal. I tend not to see the agendas of networks and newspapers since their agendas generally coincide with mine. This letter to the editor and subsequent comments are making me realize, though, that if I really care about learning the objective truth of any given situation, it behooves me to read and watch news sources that have a perspective and agenda other than my own.
Mr. Burgess suggested the Lehrer News Hour and Washington Times as alternative sources of information. Glacierles, can you suggest additional ones?
CU - profit as an agenda is about as American as apple pie. No, it's more than the mere desire for profit that I see as nefarious. It's the whole "king maker" role and Orwellian mind control agenda of the networks that I see as dangerous, although I wouldn't want any of it censored for even a New York minute.
We have checks and balances built into the structure of our government. But in terms of something as powerful as the media, the only checks and balances that we can have is by virtue of what information we choose to expose ourselves to.
The Washington Times is blatantly a extreme conservative outlet, somewhat the Rush Limbaugh of print. I have an education in television journalism, but I decided I didn't want a career in it for many reasons. Mainly, television does a great job covering disasters in the immediate sense--e.g. the day after an earthquake. But television does a terrible job covering more complex, issue-based stories that don't offer flashy pictures to entertain us. (Make no mistake, television news is an entertainment business!). I am probably more of a liberal than conservative, and quite a bit of a libertarian. The prevailing bias and agenda (yes, good distinction) I see is a corporate agenda. Commercial news is directly beholden to their corporate sponsors. News executives, editors and reporters have very little time or ability to slant their coverage left or right because they are too conscious of the expectations of their corporate funders. PBS is somewhat beholden to corporate sponsors as well, but less so than commercial media.
Some leading conservatives, such as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and others from the 70s and 80s have quite shrewdly made a concerted effort to call the media "liberal." That massive effort has had the effect of making journalists, editors and executives hyper-sensitive to the appearance of liberal bias.
And finally, Mr. Burgess' examples of NBC are worthlessly anecdotal. However, PBS reporting (and the great variety of comment/discussion shows such as The McLaughlin Group, Washington Week and many others) provides so much more quality and depth than commercial outlets. This depth almost always translates into less reporting bias as more angles are presented in any given story.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Lately I have been getting about 8 to 10 hours of television news a day. I agree that Jim Lehrer News hour has more raw, unbiased info than 10 hours of CNN, MSNBC, or FOXNEWS.
Its scary to think that this country will be electing a president soon based on the information we have been given so far about the canidates. The debates are a joke. No one will force these canidates to answer serious questions on their positions.
Obama preaches "unity", but has attended a black seperatist church for 20 years. This leading democratic presidential hopeful actually said the words "typical white person." Can you imagine what would had McCain or Clinton said "typical black person?"
To Imusuallyright: You could have saved your dignity by answering Mom's question than making such a rude remark.
To Arctic_Amy: I believe they are replacing the semi-annual pledge drive with the 800 number on the screen rather than interupting programming for a week...including Lehrer News Hour.
arctic_amy, the 800 number annoys me, too (only slightly), but I get over it the instant I remember that it's a wonderful alternative to the commercials on for-profit television. I bet you'd agree it's less obnoxious television for your child to watch, as well.
LadyNYC, some sources I've used lately for interesting perspectives...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com has up-to-the-minute political coverage (polls especially), but I love it for the wide variety of opinion pieces listed with links.
http://alaskanews.wordpress.com/ is a new blog by someone in Fairbanks with a strong social-conscience and environmental focus on northern issues.
huffingtonpost.com and talkingpointsmemo.com are openly left-leaning, but provide enough range of reporting and links that an open-minded reader of any political leaning would find them useful.
If "Mom" had been paying attention to the television her baby is watching, she would have known the answer to her question.
None of us is spoon-fed the news or is being given information. We live in the information age and if we want to know all sides of any issue, it is up to us not to believe everything we see and hear, do some research for ourselves, and make informed decisions. We should all be able to recognize that bias exists and take some steps to ensure that it affects our decision making as little as possible.
what i think is interesting is the differences in the political spectrum between here and the lower 48. a lower 48 conservative is our moderate, our liberal is a lower 48 moderate. but that seems to be the way it works in a land like ours that is young and undeveloped like alaska. there is interest in allowing people freedom to go out and manipulate the environment for the assumed benefit of all. in lands that have been overdeveloped and over populated the call is for stronger government to come in and moderate human activity.
i don't think we here in alaska keep reelecting questionable representatives to congress and the senate and lean to the right because we are greedy people who want nothing but to get rich off of the less fortunate, but because nature here at times threatens to overwhelm us and we'd all secretly, or openly, like a little more human habitat and a little less natural habitat. in a place like the way over developed southern california area the situation is the reverse. they've about eliminated the natural habitat and have way too much human habitat and they want to protect what is left and even bring back some more of the latter. somewhere in the middle is probably a good balance.
humans are complicated animals. we are animals born of the earth and we have an affinity with the earth's present ecological regime. and at the same time we are children of god and we are not truly a part of this planet at all, but instead with the spiritual one who created our species.
I ignore liberal discussions. I do not like liberals. This is not a discussion forum, it is a comment section and I was commenting to the original letter to the editor. If you would like a discussion with me, you can email me.
*That's* what I'm talking about, critical_reader.
Thanks for the four links you provided. I took a quick look at all of them. The last three seemed a good fit for my political views. The first one, though, the link to RealClearPolitics, is the one I'll find most useful. I was impressed by the diversity of perspectives as represented by the publications listed there. That one link will lead me to many others that can provide me with well-reasoned views that are opposed to my own.
And that's what I'm looking for: a counterbalance that neither inflames passions nor provokes enmity. My mind shuts down and my ears close up with Rush Limbaugh-esque type of commentary. Having one end of the political spectrum attack the other end only creates a shouting match where the only goal left is one-upmanship, and proving that only *your* position, *your* side, is the correct one, regardless of which side you're on.
I'm *so* tired of that. Plus, it does nothing to address real issues and arrive at real solutions, and is therefore a monumental waste of time. I feel that the problems we have in our nation and world are so pressing, so urgent, that the last thing we need is to waste our time trying to invalidate and eradicate opposing points of view.
I have strongly-held convictions. I have reasons for them. I am willing to act on them. I want my actions to be well-reasoned and just, and for this to happen, I need to be well-informed. I welcome having my biases pointed out to me. I welcome having my assumptions challenged. I especially welcome learning of views that are different from mine because it allows me to make the best decisions.
Thanks again, critical_reader, for sharing information.
LadyNYC, WOW, you said it! I couldn't agree more (ironically?) that I love having my assumptions challenged, etc. I love realclearpolitics because I can easily find a variety of views that are harder to find on their own, and it gives me titles/opinions that I hadn't thought of before. The other 3 I listed--mostly I agree with the views I read there, but I love it when I find something I don't.
Very well stated thoughts, LadyNYC.
I too have enjoyed PBS since I was a child. I have, however, noticed the 30 second GM spots between programs that usually ends in "General Motors proudly supports Public Television" or some other BS that looks like a commercial - but is actually not? Sure looks like a commercial to me! I could agree with the author of this letter 10 years ago, when PBS was PBS. But lately I've seen enough evidence that the station is headed the direction of major media outlets. Inevitable, I suppose.
arctic_amy - You hit the nail on the head. This is not anyone in specifics argument, and you have every right to comment on the article however you wish. Imusuallyrights comments are personal attacks in a public forum. Very classy indeed. Its a pretty typical response of someone who feels they are losing an argument. My five year old does it all the time.
I love these sections - you can really say what you mean without all the PC stuff getting in the way. I'm relatively young (so to speak) and have always disliked politics because of the way the politicians presented themselves. LadyNYC put it very succinctly - I do have reasons for believing what I do, however if I ever want to grow as a human being, I have to be willing to have an open mind. I find that those that don't are usually the ones to get defensive quicker. If you don't like being criticized, don't put yourself out there where it's inevitable. It's called learning from your mistakes and owning your responsibility. I've been doing it since I was a baby. (Both making mistakes and learning)For me watching the news is hard - it seems that most media deliberately focus on the negative, maybe it's just me. But trying to find both sides of an argument is really challenging sometimes. I would like to be able to vote for a particular person based on what I've learned about him/her but if the only things I'm exposed to are biased how the hell can I trust the decision I've made. You can't trust the politicians anymore because you KNOW they have their own agenda and they're only saying what they think you want to hear. On the other hand, I look at it like I do lawyers. You hate them up until the point when you need a lawyer, then guess what? I guess I'm dissatisfied with the knowledge that media is just a tool by those with the power and the money, how do you fight that?
LadyNYC---
For a nice smorgasboard of news try drudgereport.com
For a well written conservative view of the news, I'd suggest the late William Buckley's great contribution to American culture, the National Review, which is also online.
The thing with Rush Limbaugh is that one should listen to him, and not just to what his critics say about him. More often than not, he is taken out of context, or downright lied about, as Harry Reid attempted a few months back. He is polarizing for sure, but to just dismiss his views is to just dismiss the views of millions of Americans. Literally.
Ljc, good comments and questions.
One way we can fight the reality that the large/corporate media are just tools of those with power/money is what we're doing right here. Each of us commenting has invested in computer/internet service, but the newsminer (and it's advertisers!) have given us a forum. Each of us, as citizens of a representative democracy, has the responsibility to seek out the truth, make informed decisions, and teach children to do the same. We need to seek out and use a variety of sources far beyond the nice little forum we have here.
Commercial media specifically do exactly what we ("we" as American consumers, not you and I personally) want--provide us with entertainment so we will tune in and they can show their advertisers ratings numbers. As a result, we get a representation of the election races as horseraces, battles to be followed, instead of decent coverage of issues and positions.
I like the comparison of politicians and lawyers--when you need one, it's best to have the toughest one on your side.
Drudge and Limbaugh, oh please.
Both are about the worst examples of twisting, spinning, and abusing knowledge, taking things out of context and outright lying.
I'd fully defend their right to speech, but I have to caution anyone to seriously question anything said by those two.
Certainly Limbaugh is a master of his game, greatly admired by very liberal radio hosts for his talents in radio communication. And yes, his views are in line with millions of Americans. But that has nothing to do with the quality or respectability of his arguments and tactics.
William F. Buckley's writing and the National Review, on the other hand, represent some of the very best thought and comment.
criticalreader---
I know why you would dismiss Limbaugh. But Drudge just compiles news reports, blog links, and links to columnists.
So I gather that your "critical" take is that any, or at least most, thought that does not fall in line with your "critical" thinking is twisted, spun, abusive, and contextual outright lying.
Your attitude is so typical of the left. Dismissive and arrogant. That's ok. I've seen these attitudes before, and the resulting history. Your intellectual attitude of superiority is seen time after time by the American pubic as just what it is. Kerry had it, McGovern had it, Carter had it, Ted Kennedy had it. It is a disdain for our people and our history.
It causes an uncomfortible feeling, a lot like gas.
gLes, I took a quick look at the drudge report and at national review online, and bookmarked those websites along with the ones c_reader suggested.
Frankly, the Drudge didn't seem so overtly conservative. The national review, however, most certainly did, and with it, I think I hit real pay dirt as far as finding a source that would offer me opposing points of view.
As to listening to Rush Limbaugh, though . . . I make no promises. You, gLes, call him polarizing. I call him inflammatory. His style, his tone of voice, his incessant attacks on liberals puts me immediately on the defensive and my mind just shuts down way before any truth he may have to offer can ever reach me. It's hard to keep listening - much less keep an open mind - when the person you're listening to keeps hurling vituperative ideological insults at you.
But you know what, gLes, you're right. His views represent those of millions of Americans. I need to learn how to put on a thick skin and hear the man out. I owe it to fairness, and to the millions of my fellow Americans who believe in him, to do at least that much.
So, let me practice what I preach, let me walk my talk, here and now . . .
Before Iowa, I had picked 3 candidates for my vote in November. Interestingly enough, those three are the only Republicans and Democrats still left in the presidential race. In truth, I'd be happy if any of them won the general election, there's stuff I like and deeply respect about all three.
But I'm now sitting on the proverbial fence as for whom to cast my ballot. The deal breaker, for me, is the Iraq War. The Democrats want out; the Republicans want to stay.
I'm a flaming liberal. I want the U.S. out of Iraq *now.* I want all the energy, resources, and money we're spending there to be devoted to solving the numerous problems we face here at home, in the U.S. I think George W. lied and lied and lied to us about the reasons to go to war in Iraq. After 9-11, I totally think we had/have a reason to be in Afghanistan, but Iraq? No. Resoundingly, no.
But whatever. We're there, and have been for 5 years. Close to 4000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform are dead, dead, dead from that insidious conflict. A conflict with no end in sight. I hate war, just on principle. I hate all wars. Still . . .
We're there. Every fiber in my being wants the U.S. to cut its losses and pull out NOW. According to http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
the U.S. has now, today, reached the 4000 level mark of the number of military casualties, including those pending DoD confirmation.
I want out. Every fiber of my being is screaming "OUT!!!" But I know that doing so would unleash a veritable blood bath, a civil war, the responsibility of which would rest solely on America's hands. Say what you want about Saddam. He was evil, a ruthless dictator. But on his watch, the Iraqi people enjoyed a fair - and relative - amount of prosperity. The foreign policy of George W.'s administration changed all that. How many humans died because of Chemical Ali? Several hundred. How many humans died because Saddam's henchmen threw political prisoners feet first into a woodchipper? Hundreds. Contrast that with the thousands upon thousands of civilians dead because of the U.S.'s ill-begotten invasion of Iraq.
It's hard to be an American with a good conscience, these days.
I want the U.S. to get out of Iraq, to admit that we messed things up royally, and to cut our losses, NOW. For damned sure, we've got our own urgent problems to attend to. People a lot more knowledgeable than me have estimated that it'll take the U.S. *decades* to leave Iraq without the prospect of civil war bubbling up after our departure.
I don't want the fortunes of my country to be married to this middle eastern nation any longer. But I also can't deal with innocent people dying in a civil war should we leave decades too soon.
I ask of you, my conservative compatriots, to truly enlighten me about your feelings as to why we should stay in Iraq. One of the most important decisions I have to make in the near future regards whom to vote for President in November.
I would hear your views.
LadyNYC, in regards to Rush, try reading the transcipts that are posted on his website. When you get past all the banter, he really makes some very good points.
ALso NYC, the Dems are not going to pull us out of Iraq either. They are making money hand over fist just like the Republicans, and even they know that leaving a power vacuum in the middle east is a bad idea. If a Dem gets in the White house, they may pull a few brigades out (at a time coinciding with serious drops in violence, like now) but unfortunetly we will be in Iraq for a long time.
Reader1, let me assure you, I will make every attempt at getting past Rush's banter. Let me assure you, as well, that I don't believe we'll be able to get out of Iraq anytime soon, regardless of which party wins the election. Although, as God is my witness, I wish we could . . .
LadyNYC---
I appreciate your open mindedness. Your reaction to Rush is the same as I feel when Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews speak. Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It is hard for me to listen.
Nobody (well, very few) love war. I am a member of the anti-war people of the world.
But I believe that when the history of our time is written, Bush will be a hero along the lines of Winston Churchill. A leader that was willing to sacrifice his contemporary popularity for the survival of western civilization. Sometimes, as history has demonstrated, war is inevitable. And if it reduces casualties on our side (forgive my nationalism), then it is a positive thing.
Unlike you, I dont like any of the 3 remaining presidential candidates. But, like Mama McCain suggested, I'll hold my nose and vote for her son.
gLes, I've come to learn about you that we totally stand on opposite sides of the fence. I've also come to learn that I respect you for your candor and honesty, however much we disagree.
You? A member of the anti-war people of the world? Well, ain't it wonderful that Life continually has surprises in store for us all. I'll take you at your word, though. You say you're anti-war; I won't contest that.
Like you, despite all my Bush-bashing, there's a very real part of me that hopes that history will prove him - and my country - right on the course we've chosen. Unlike you, I don't think that history will see George W. in any favorable light at all. Truly, gLes, for the sake of my country, I hope that I'm completely wrong.
Whatever. Only time will tell, at this point.
gLes, speak to me. Directly. A most important decision I have to make in the near future depends on the input I'm getting now.
In your humble opinion, why should the U.S. stay in Iraq? Tell me, please.
LadyNYC---
I'll take a raincheck. But we'll discuss this further, at least I hope so. Right now, I have to get to the tv. Part 3 of John Adams is coming on HBO, and I've been looking forward to this all week.
But I will think much about your question, and reply.
Hi, LadyNYC. I have to say, I read your last comment and it actually made me start to shake. I love it that you asked for opinions, because I don't think I would have forced it on you in this thread, but I'd love to share it with you. Thank you.
Chemical Ali isn't responsible for several hundred deaths, he's actually responsible for between 50,000 and 182,000 during the Anfal Campaign alone. His personal estimation was 100,000. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/storie... Hussein ordered tortured and/or killed thousands upon thousands of the Iraqi people. His motives were ethnic cleansing, greed, and revenge. We hear over and over again about the missing WMDs, but the fact is Hussein is the first ruler in the history of the world to use chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, against his own people. People are dying and being born with birth defects to this day because of them. We can assume, as educated individuals, that he simply passed the hot potatoes to an ally.
In 1991, President Bush, Sr. urged Iraqis to stand against him. Many did. Hussein bombed, attacked, tortured, executed, and abducted them, their communities (specifically hospitals), and their children.
He also was well-known for rewarding terrorists with upwards of $25,000 for a job well-done and granting them asylum. He refused to assist us after 9/11 and given his reputation, Bush had no other option than to protect us from the monster that had the means and the madness to assist other individuals and groups that would do us harm. As Commander in Chief, he had within his power the authority to authorize a preemptive attack. Which leads us to now...
We need to finish this. We cannot send a message to the world that we are weak, there is too much at stake. We also have an obligation to at least get Iraq to a point where they can become self-sufficient. And there is a matter of life and lives lost. The people in our armed forces deserve to have their deaths mean something. We pull out and their lives were lost in vein.
The reality is it doesn't feel good. I also think you and I are kinda on the same page. I, too, would like peace. We can have none, however, when there are Hitlers in the world, no matter how hard we close our eyes.
As for your vote, anyone who tells you they will end this war is attempting to deceive you. They have little power. War is the business of Congress.
LadyNYC: I truly hope you don't mind me giving you my opinion (it appears I misspoke, I didn't notice that you had asked Glacerles directly). I'm curious to see Glacerles' as well.
Gles, very open-minded of you, with your conclusions about my thinking being so typical of the left, and that I must consider anything not in line with my own thinking as 'twisted,' etc.
I haven't made any personal assumptions about you, and I haven't criticized you personally for liking those sources--I simply offered my opinion of them, including that I agree with you on Buckley and National Review. Your comments toward me personally are an example of the symptoms of some of America's problems. You've decided who I am and who I should be categorized with, without knowing that I read George Will, Pat Buchanan and EJ Dionne as often as I can, and appreciate many other conservative and non-liberal views. In fact, in my first post here I described myself as "probably more liberal than conservative, and quite a bit libertarian." Considering that, your quick assessment of me could be labeled as typical of close-minded conservatives. It could be labeled that way, but I will assume you are a more complex creature than that.
Since I'm here addressing your comments, let's turn to your stated belief that 'history will view Bush as a hero... a leader that was willing to sacrifice his contemporary popularity for the survival of western civilization. Sometimes...war is inevitable. And if it reduces casualties on our side (forgive my nationalism), then it is a positive thing.'
You offer up this bold belief, in light of the facts that Bush lied his way into this war, that Saddam's regime had absolutely NO connection to 9/11 terrorists or Al Quaeda, and you give no supporting evidence for your belief.
And then you call me "arrogant?"
(And just how is it that you believe history will view Bush as a hero, yet you call yourself "anti-war?")
Candicane, I can't begin to address all the ways you present a distortion of reality. I do think your numbers are correct of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime. By distortion of reality, I refer to phrases you use such as "Bush had no other option...".
If nothing else, he had the "OPTION" to tell the damn truth!
You don't want us to 'send a message to the world that we are weak,' so would it be better that we let the world know we want to be seen as "strong," no matter how wrong we were and continue to be?
Soldiers dying in vain? Too late to stop that--the war was a mistake, based on lies. Continuing the war just means more soldiers will die in vain, it doesn't somehow retroactively justify the original war.
How much of our effort in lives and money wasted in Iraq could have been used to actually get those who attacked us? Why is that concern so infrequently mentioned by Iraq war supporters?
It is critically important that we--on all sides of any war debate--clarify that soldiers and their families should never be mixed in with the political debate. Soldiers should be revered no matter the political circumstances of their war. Their service is always honorable and heroic.
I appreciate your opinion, critical_reader. This is the opinion I have come to after hours upon hours of trying to make sense of this mess. I hate the whole thing. I sleep at night by choosing to believe it does in fact have its roots in something good instead of lunacy. If you are interested and can tell me how we can end it and show me another choice that is believable and not rooted in hatred for Bush (whom I have no love for, btw), I would be happy to read it. Devour it, probably. Feel free to contact me directly.
critical_reader - What did he lie about? WMDs? They all thought these were in Iraq. All of them, Congress included. The soil in Iraq has forensically been proven that chemical weapons were used there (see candikane's link above). Sounds like WMDs to me....Give me facts, please, not rhetoric and hatred. This is a war on TERROR - not a war on al Qaida, not a war on the 9/11 terrorists - a war on Terror. From what I have seen and read, Saddam supported, encouraged and funded TERRORISTS. That being the case, then Iraq is one of many places that we should be right now.
This is not about looking strong. This is about BEING strong.
criticalreader---
Did the words not sound familiar? They were your exact words. I didn't make them up. As to your libertarian views, I've read your posts for a couple of days now, and have yet to hear a libertarian view. I know libertarians sir, and you dont sound like one. My apologies for reading all of your remarks as liberal. It was insensitive of me to insult you by labeling you as a liberal. I know I would be insulted.
LadyNYC---
I couldn't have said it any better than candikane did.
Hmm. You all have given me a lot to think about.
Candikane, I agree, it's easier to fall asleep at night believing that there must be some rational basis for our war with Iraq. While I disagree with you as to how exactly we got to the point we're at, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to finish this. I also agree that we need to get Iraq to a point where they can be self-sufficient. That's the ideal, anyway. That's the honorable thing to do, and by all means, I think America should be honorable in anything and everything. But even this idealistic view of mine has limitations bounded in reality. I totally, absolutely, want the U.S. to undo the damage we've inflicted upon Iraq and her people. No doubt about it. Anymore though, I just don't think we can. Too much has happened, and for too long.
Then there's the matter of vindicating the 4000 lives that our brothers and sisters in uniform sacrificed in order for the U.S. to do right by Iraq. For once, I wish the dead could speak from their graves. They gave the ultimate sacrifice, and their views should be honored more than any of those of us still living. To them, if I could, I would ask, is it still worth it? Would you see more of your brothers and sisters in uniform dead on the battlefield, or now, on the other side, would you simply wish them to go home to their loved ones? I can't answer that. None of us truly can. If we, both the dead and the living, knew with certainty that it would take us another 10, 20, 30 years of warfare, and countless more lives lost, to finally achieve some semblance of stability and peace in Iraq . . . would it all have been worth it? Maybe. Just maybe, yes. But I envision far too many grieving spouses and children and parents to think that this could really be so. It remains my innermost conviction that no one could possibly love and appreciate peace any more than a seasoned warrior on the battlefield . . . or their loved ones.
I stand my ground. Let us cut our losses, and let us cut them now. No further good can come of this. I say this from the bottom of my heart. Even still, I hope history will prove me wrong.
Critical_reader, how is it that I could be so off, by several orders of magnitude, as to how many Iraqi deaths were caused at the hands of Saddam? I vaguely remember those stats cited by candikane. But then again, there was Saddam's trial last year, which made the actual number of deaths, for some reason, seem drastically reduced from what I thought I remembered. C_r, thanks for keeping on top of the numbers, and thereby helping us keep our accounting straight, and honest. And thanks for your willingness to explore modes of thought antithetical to your own; thanks for your willingness to share what you've learned.
DVD, yep, you're right. They *all* publicly supported the invasion of Iraq. Just remember, though, the times in which this occurred. Travel back in time to 2001, 2002, 2003. America was still reeling from the 9-11 attacks. No one dared, *no one* dared criticize America's retaliation of such a horrendously evil and unwarranted attack. As liberal as I like to consider myself, as anti-establishment the views I like to espouse, I remember that, even myself, I only dared whisper my opposition to the invasion of Iraq to only my most intimate of friends. With anyone else, I just kept my mouth shut. A huge, and most unlikely, feat for me, if you really knew me. Imagine, then, the reluctance to voice similar opposition by any person who was elected, by the people, to any political office. Hindsight being 20-20 and all, their lack of vocal opposition to Iraq's invasion, at the end of the day, did in no means imply their consent. The years between 2001 and 2003 allowed no opposition. If you remember nothing else, DVD, at least remember that much. Whether or not that real, objective, evidence substantiated Saddam's using WMDs or not, the point is, during those years, the political climate we lived in simply did not tolerate any doubts to the contrary.
gLes, well, thanks, but no thanks. I most sincerely asked you for your opinion last night as to why, from a conservative perspective, the U.S. should stay in Iraq. I was disappointed in terms of what you offered as a response. Your priority, last night, was to entertain yourself by watching HBO, after of course, taking another quick shot at us depraved liberals. Thanks for nothing, gLes. Fortunately, I have far more worthy individuals to base my opinion of conservatives on than you.
LadyNYC - I appreciate how you have opened your mind to another side here. I will work on doing the same thing, although chances are that I too, will stand my ground. Just as a note, many of the quotes showing prominent in-the-know folks believing in the threat of Saddam occurred prior to 2001, so 9/11 and the subsequent nationalism that it gave rise to was not a mitigating factor (Albright, Clinton, Pelosi, Berger).
I absolutely remember those years, LadyNYC. I also remember standing at my job, watching the mini-TV they pulled out for the customers at the time of the attacks, holding a coffeepot, watching this atrocity on my homeland, watching my fellow citizens die, all while fighting the insane urge to run out the door and collect my child because I was so afraid. Perhaps it is as candikane says - that I choose to believe that we are doing what is right because it is the only way I can sleep at night. Perhaps I choose to believe that our President isn't stupid, rather that he's a poor public speaker who is more patriotic than brainy; and that he has knowledge as President that I will never get to see and has thus taken steps to try to protect the world I live in in the best way he knows how.
But I have little choice to believe otherwise because I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. It is here again that I ask for other perspectives, perspectives that do not rely on blind hatred for Bush, conservatism or corporations. Perspectives that do not attempt to tug at my heartstrings, but rather give me places to hunt for the truth. You see, my husband, the father to my children, is on his way for his second tour over there. I have a great deal invested in my beliefs - this I will own - but this is also why I need something tangible.
If we can have a real dialog, a real conversation, without all the rhetoric (from both sides), I am open to listening. I am open to learning.
DVD, yes, you do have a lot invested in your beliefs, especially with being married to someone about to deploy to Iraq, and for the second time, at that. I can definitely appreciate your need to know and feel that there is a valid reason for him doing so, a valid reason for him and generally, a US military presence, to be there.
Regardless of the reasons that brought us to Iraq, which I'll continue to believe were completely bogus, we're there now, and even I believe that our presence there, now, is preventing an all out civil war from erupting. I wish your husband well, and a safe return to his family. I wish that for all those deployed there.
I want the US out of Iraq. The Democrats will try to make that happen sooner rather than later. And if they do, all hell will break loose in that country. One thing about McCain, one reason that I could vote for him with a good conscience is that he was once a soldier himself, and doesn't treat war lightly. The Republicans will try to keep us in Iraq, but I believe that if anyone can get us out of there honorably, without that country falling into ruins, it's McCain. It's just that it's going to take us years to do this, and I lament years more of US involvement in Iraq.
Thank you LadyNYC. I appreciate your well-wishes. This is all terrifying for us. Here's the next question though. You think that the Republicans will keep us there longer and the Democrats will get us out sooner (just so you know, I am not a Republican - I consider myself to be an independent conservative). But the question in my mind is this - what does the world, Iraq and the US benefit by a possibly pre-mature pullout? Is it possible that pulling out sooner, rather than later, based in public majority opinion (I'm not ready to admit that the majority support this just yet, but for argument's sake) could cause more harm than good?
If the majority of people thought that segregation was a good thing, does that make segregation right - something that should be policy? Or the majority of people believing that same-sex marriages are wrong, so it is kept illegal - does that make it right or something that should be policy? These questions are more to illustrate that sometimes a majority can be wrong, or not have all the facts, operating from emotion rather than reason - not as a direct comparison to the the war.
Maybe I am just justifying my beliefs here because of my personal investiture. It's possible. I know I personally do not like war. I am not PRO-war, anymore than I am PRO-abortion. War is ugly. People die. It makes me sad. I pray for all of the people that have been lost through this war. But I'm wondering if in the end more lives can be saved and improved...? The ends justifying the means...? I don't know the answer to that question.
I appreciate the dialog. Thanks.
Dana, I sweat over the same questions you do.
My brother gave up his lucrative job as a pilot for a major international airline in order to sign up for a tour of duty in Iraq with the US Army. Although in different ways than you, I am also invested in our war in Iraq.
You want your husband to come home. I want my brother to come home. Both your husband and my brother need to know that what they're risking their lives for is valid, is worth fighting for. Ultimately, that's their own, individual decision. But it sure as hell helps them to know that the people who love them support what they're doing, and why.
George W. Oy vey. In a nutshell, I loved George W. the most when, years ago, he admitted that he only had a "C" average in college, but assured the graduating class he was addressing that even those with "C" averages could become President. Only a person who is humble, sincere, and real, could make a statement like that. Me, with two bachelor's degrees, one from an Ivy League institution in sociology, another from a state university in civil engineering, with more than my fair share of "C" grades in both institutions . . . I just totally loved George W. for making a statement like that. I admired him for his humility, for his not wanting to put himself out of reach and above the rest us. A statement like that made me think that he was "the People's president."
But I only really started thinking George W. was *absolutely* insane when . . . how to say it? . . . when he started to associate terrorist enemies of the U.S. in terms of face cards in a deck of playing cards. Osama bin Laden was the Ace of Spades, etc. To the very core of me, I was horrified by that. Horrified. I felt like, people are *friggin'* dying in this war on terror, and Bush, our esteemed leader, is just turning the whole damned thing into a poker game. I never got over my complete indignation over that. I never forgave George W. for his monumental lapse in judgment and humanity that would allow him to make *any* kind of comparison between human lives and face cards in a playing deck. Maybe, from the white house, maybe from his ancestral ranch in Texas, it all looks like a friggin' card game, but damn, in real life, people, *our* people, are *dying* over this. From the moment I came to this realization, years ago, I have ever since construed George W. to be out of touch, egocentric, and an absolute villain in my eyes. I have hated and reviled him, ever since.
And oh well. Regardless, we are where we are, now. Whether or not we can agree that it was for the right reasons, or, that the reasons were all wrong, we are now in Iraq. Whatever else that might be said of George W., with absolute certainty, you can say that he most certainly married the fortunes of the United States with the fate of Iraq.
There's no denying that singular fact, regardless of where you position yourself on the political spectrum.
Dana, at this point, between just me and you, I veer off the deep end.
Both to my benefit and detriment, I have a most vivid imagination. I can imagine *all* kinds of scenarios.
I can imagine a scenario where future, unknown-as-of-now events will completely vindicate George W.'s decision to invade Iraq. In too short a period of time, the price of oil rises to a bazillion dollars per barrel. People are rioting all across the streets of America because they can't even manage to keep their homes warm, much less afford all the oil-dependent imported goods at the supermarket. Our country is friggin' falling apart, and simply, solely, due to the price of a singular commodity: oil. But then, miraculously, our society, our economy, gets infused with a steady and sufficient supply of oil. In that case, George W's decision to invade Iraq, which even now, we can concede was ultimately about acquiring an abundant and secure source of oil . . . in that case, George W.'s decision will seem like absolute prescience and genius . . . and the decisions of our brothers and sisters - and husbands, wives, kids - to support George W.'s decision will seem as though inspired by God.
Contrast that with the scenario that the price of oil rises to a bazillion dollars per gallon. Yet, despite our efforts in Iraq, the gas-guzzling, oil-addicted nation known as the United States fails to secure an abundant and secure supply of oil. All hell breaks loose. We riot in the streets. We are so invested in our future prospects with having oil in the picture that we're prepared for no other alternative. The billions upon billions of dollars that we invested in the Iraq war could have been better spent on a national effort to retrofitting our homes to be more energy efficient, or on developing an infrastructure far less dependent on oil, or in simply stockpiling canned goods for a time that the cost of transporting them would become prohibitive . . .
Contrast that with a time that that the effects of global warming would become so extreme, and so commonplace, that we, Americans, can expect every year to have not one, but several, versions of the catastrophe posed by Hurricane Katrina. All of our national guard troops would have long since been deployed to the middle east. The national government would be so strained in trying to deal with the middle east that it finds itself utterly lacking in resources to deal with our own natural disasters.
When you ask me about my feelings about *not* staying in Iraq, ultimately, the answer is all about the possibility of us not being able to handle crises that we are *very* likely to encounter. Yeah, I wanna do the right thing. Yeah, like hell, I want the U.S. to always claim the higher moral/political ground. But *NOT* at the expense of our own people.
Personally, it's taken me all too many years and good intentions gone wrong to acknowledge that I am *only* in a position to help others when I've got my own stuff together.
We, the people of the U.S. would dare think that we can come to the rescue of another nation, i.e. Iraq, when we ourselves are falling apart at the seams?
Dana, this is not what you need to hear right now, with your husband about ready to deploy to Iraq. With all my heart, I wish I could tell you, your husband, and heck, my brother for that matter, that nothing other than good can come of their being there.
You've just got to understand me. Even with a gun pointed to my head, I simply don't know how to pretend that the emporer's *not* wearing any clothes when all my objective estimations point to the fact that he isn't.
Dana, if I had an answer that would heal, that would make it all good, please understand that this is the answer I'd be offering right now.
Sad thing is, I really have no answers. For you, for me, for anyone. I continue to struggle.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.