Winning When No One Is Keeping Score
by Jason at 5:00 am on November 29th, 2005 in Bush Man Date, Politics, War on Terror“We’re winning the War on Terror.”
Since 1115.org isn’t sufficiently swank enough to swing a subscription to LexisNexis, we can only speculate as to how many times the above phrase has been used by our politicians and the so-called experts of the punditry. But considering that almost every official mention of the War on Terror™ seems to need an obligatory assertion of how we are winning, it’s safe to say that our victory and progress has been trumpeted hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
While it’s true that we’ve had our differences with many of the administration’s decisions and priorities up to this point, we can all be in agreement that a world free of terrorism would be a fantastic thing. But like almost everything else in the WOT so far, there’s the shiny slogan and then there’s the mess of inconvenient questions stuffed underneath. One of these inconveniences is something so obvious that it almost hides in plain sight—how, exactly, do we know that we’re winning the war in the first place?
The answer to this question, as the Congressional Research Service found out, is “we have no way of really knowing.”
“Although four years have gone by since September 11, government agencies have still not agreed on criteria to measure progress against terrorism, even though billions of dollars have been spent,” said Raphael Perl, author of the internal report by the Congressional Research Service.
“The risk is that without these criteria, we just take action and we measure progress retrospectively against what we’ve done. And of course since we’ve done some stuff, we’ve made progress,” he told Reuters in an interview on Monday.
Statistics often cited by U.S. officials — such as the death or capture of more than two-thirds of top al Qaeda leaders and the seizure of over $200 million in terrorist funds — do not show how much damage has actually been inflicted on militant groups, the report said.
So there you have it. Yes, we’re winning the War on Terror, but only because we’ve said it enough times to somehow mold words into reality. Every other yardstick is just random numbers tossed about with no context. Terrorists killed! Top al Qaeda leaders captured! Insurgents on the run! Freedom on the march! Of course we’re winning! The nice thing about having no actual definitions of success or failure is that you can continually claim the former because the latter never happens.
No matter where on the political spectrum you may fall, can it be argued that, for the war to be successful, it has to have some way to measure its progress? Or is the American public better served by just winging it?
When you boil it down, it all comes back to the dreaded “a” word…accountability. Throughout the course of the WOT (and associated conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq), there have been more than a few serious lapses in oversight—the border security systems that sat unused in warehouses, the billions of dollars unaccounted for in Baghdad, the continuing saga of Halliburton’s overcharging, and the list stretches on and on. So in that context, the following story about contractors working for the Defense Department shouldn’t be much of a surprise:
In a new report, the Department of Defense inspector general reviewed 23 service contracts worth $670 million awarded in 2003 to determine whether the vendor performance and costs were monitored and scrutinized. The results were not good.
“DOD may be accepting sub-standard performance by contractors, may be paying for services and items not received, and may be awarding contracts to vendors with a history of sub-standard performance,” said the October report.
In 12 of 23 contracts, no contract official was appointed to monitor vendor performance and accounting controls. Twenty of the 23 did not have a contract surveillance plan or appoint someone specifically to oversee contract performance. In 10 cases, no one documented contractor performance for use in future contract award decisions when prior performance may be a consideration.
It’s no secret that the people in power are supporters of privatizing many government services and programs, but is there any logic in having private contractors work in areas near or vital to our national security, and then fail to make sure they are doing their jobs? None at all. But for a government that likes to think of itself as both fiscally responsible and tough on terror, it’s amazing how little it cares about actually confronting either.
JimC wrote:
I think the mere fact that we have not been hit again as was promised by OBL is at least a partial indicator however that could change today without notice. Also, the fact that until 911 happened, the kind of pressure being put on terror groups was minimal at best. Now, under intense pressure, many countries who would have slept through and attempted to hide from the terror issue are forced to deal with it…that at least is a step in the right direction.
Sure terrorist still exist and are a real danger to the world but their network now has to be more savvy to keep hidden like the roaches they are…
The biggest blow we could possibly deal would be to force our “allies” who have internal support for terrorist, cough cough Saudi Arabia, to “put up or shut up”. This is an example of where I disagree with my President. I think we should be strong arming the Saudis…
Nor should we urge Israel to restrain themselves when Palestinian homocide bombers blow up Israeli school buses…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 6:13 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Also, the cost of the Government to do the job that these contractors do would be 10 times the cost we’re paying now so using contractors for some of this work does make sense. And as for oversight, yes I agree there needs to be more oversight. However, isn’t this the job of Congress not the President?
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 6:33 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 6:42 am ¶
JimC wrote:
This is clever but does not reflect what is going on. Action taken since 911 to fight terror has resulted in terror plots being thwarted or disrupted.
Besides, how would you measure success against terrorism? What would you suggest to get more concrete results that we are winning? And please don’t simply say that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq….blah blah blah…if anything Iraq has focus much money and resources of the terrorist towards that region instead of here…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 7:26 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
“…the cost of the Government to do the job that these contractors do would be 10 times the cost we’re paying now …”
Is that an actual figure or is it wishful thinking? Because it sounds a lot like the sort of figures Limbaugh pulls out of his drug addled mind after he has been jacked up on pills for three weeks straight.
I have not read a single item about how efficient the contractors are or what a great job they are doing. In fact, everything thing I have seen is about what a lousy job they are doing, how they are ripping off Americans and how they are working next to service men and women who make 1/5 what they do.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 8:06 am ¶
matt wrote:
specious is of course the key word. without metrics, all we have is hope, and hope is not a plan.
it’s funny that people talk about four years without another successful attack on american soil and assume that whatever we’re doing is working. there are two logical reasons why this is dangerous:
1. while it has proven relatively easy for terror groups to recruit suicide bombers to strap explosive vests on or drive a truck into a building, finding long term operatives with training and patience to pull off a 9/11 is difficult. even more so if it is to be believed that many of the 9/11 hijackers did not know that they were on a suicide mission.
2. our perception of time could not be any more different than that of our enemy. There’s a reason Peter Lance called his book 1000 Years for Revenge. http://www.1115.org/?p=294
they simply don’t look at 4 years as a long time, especially when the damage to our economy and way of life caused by 9/11 is still everywhere around us.
for anyone to claim that since we haven’t been hit again our leaders must be keeping us safe is laughable. that we lack accountability for where the money is going leads down an absurd path: well, we’re safer with all this new stuff, let’s buy more. that’s no way to run security, and it’s no way to spend taxpayer dollars.
oversight is certainly the job of the congress. one party has the power to call for investigations, and one does not. one party has majorities in both houses. blah blah blah, democrats are cowards, of course, but republicans in congress have catered to the president’s every whim and refused accountability at every point.
metrics for success include testing our airport, port, border security more comprehensively. it includes testing all the technology that we’re buying to make sure we’re not funding a series of boondoggles. we should be working harder to cooperate with all the “allies” we have antagonized to track terrorist recruitment and funding.
citing how many terrorists we’ve killed is quite meaningless when more are born and made every day thanks to our policies and the war in iraq.
>I think we should be strong arming the Saudis…
ah, common ground.
>Nor should we urge Israel to restrain themselves when Palestinian homocide bombers blow up Israeli school buses…
i’m interested in why you think the bush administration (chock full of neo-cons who think there’s no greater purpose than defending israel and fighting fire with fire) continues to urge restraint.
>Also, the cost of the Government to do the job that these contractors do would be 10 times the cost we’re paying now so using contractors for some of this work does make sense.
link?
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 8:10 am ¶
tom wrote:
i agree with matt’s assesment of what would help prove the success of our terror prevention policies. of course, every halfwitted news organization that feels like testing security at an airport or nuclear power plant during sweeps week ends up getting far more than you would expect considering 9-11 was just 4 short years ago.
another really good measuring stick for the success on our “war on terror” would be the aprehension and trial of those people who run the organization responsible for 9-11. of course, every couple months or so we see the headline “top al-quaeda officer arrested” or whatever, but how many “top” people are there? and we certainly havent nabbed the most powerful and meaningful figures in their organization.
so what exactly HAVE we accomplished? pretty much just a whole bunch of hot air about how much we have accomplished. how typically george bush.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 9:12 am ¶
JimC wrote:
The Bush admin has more often than not urged the Israeli Government to be restrained in their response to an attack to “protect” the peace plan. I disagree strongly with the Presidents policy to promoting a Palestinian state. Let the Palestinians fight for the land they lost to Jordan first, but cities like Bethlehem, do not belong to the Palestinians, nor does Jerusalem, nor does the Temple Mount, which should not have mosques on it…I rant…
Do you honestly think our government pays retail prices for anything??? There’s so much bloat in what we pay for things and this has been the case for a very long time…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 9:24 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Ummm Afghanistan? How about Pakistan putting pressure on its internal Islamic fanatics. How about Libya turning over their desires for terror and WMD’s? I think we have made progress but we’re definitely not done. However, since 911, far more than ever has been done to fight terrorism so one can always say we can do more but what do you compare “more” to? I mean how many millions of dollars have we seized from known terrorist bank accounts? How many plans have been aborted because some security agency put too much pressure on a terror cell? Some thigns can’t be measured so we don’t know the effect.
The truth is, we will never stop Islamofacists from hating us. If anyone knows this absolute truth it would be the Jews…when you have countries like Iran who publically anounce that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth, it is clear that terrorism is not going away any time soon. But what we can do is not give up….
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 9:32 am ¶
matt wrote:
>The Bush admin has more often than not urged the Israeli Government to be restrained in their response to an attack to “protect” the peace plan.
right, obviously. but why do that? we don’t have a peace plan with those who attack us. so why do you think they have a double standard?
>Do you honestly think our government pays retail prices for anything??? There’s so much bloat in what we pay for things and this has been the case for a very long time…
again, links? anything at all that proves that direct government work is more expensive than the private contracts being doled out to bush’s campaign supporters? anything that proves that the money earmarked to rebuild the gulf coast is being better spent by private industry? halliburton?
>Ummm Afghanistan?
four years ago.
>How about Pakistan putting pressure on its internal Islamic fanatics.
how about bin laden living in pakistan? how about allowing pakistan to not punish Kahn for selling nuclear plans? how about pakistan’s human rights and freedom issues?
>How about Libya turning over their desires for terror and WMD’s?
I’ll grant that this was a positive sign, but you do know that these negotiations had been going on for many years prior, right?
>Some thigns can’t be measured so we don’t know the effect.
of course. but that isn’t an excuse for not doing enough on the things we can measure. in fact, it’s just about the best counter argument there is.
>The truth is, we will never stop Islamofacists from hating us.
so we try to kill them all until there are none left?
>But what we can do is not give up….
who is suggesting that? and don’t tell me hollywood types or ted kennedy or any of your other usual targets. no one here is, no one credible is. the Congressional Research Service isn’t. they say that we need metrics, and until we have them there is simply no way to know how we are doing.
whatever anyone’s view of the president, his rhetoric can’t be the only yardstick…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 9:53 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Oh please, Libya was lost without a friend for years after the Soviet Union collapsed. They’ve been waiting in the shadows for an opportunity to reconcile for some time. As for Pakistan, that country has never been under complete control by any government in Islamabad. The current Talebanization of Waziristan is a good example of this. Then, of course, there’s AQ Khan…And Afghanistan is still as much of a mess as it was 20 years ago. That’s not progress.
The truth really is that Islamofascism cannot be defeated by Christofascism, Jim. This faith-based end game might placate you with respect to our ‘progress’ on the GWOT, but the rest of us demand a plan with clear goals. This administration clearly cannot express one consistent justification for our actions, except 9/11 (and that only takes you as far as Kabul). So the questions still remains: What is our goal? And still: Are we doing the right things to acheive that goal?
I want to be clear that I am not neccessarily saying that progress has not been made on some fronts. However, without a means to measure that progress against a roadmap, we could be wasting alot of blood, money, time, geopolitical capital and moral authority. Sadly, it seems like we might be doing just that in Iraq.
We won’t give up, Jim. That’s why we must be certain that the GWOT is being executed with this type of critical thinking and strategic planning as the dominante force in policy making.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:01 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
some considerations regarding contractors. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_3_28/ai_n9544154#continue
This one interviews two contractors who claim it is vastly cheaper, a fookin’ librul who says it is more expensive, a retired colonel who says it is probably more expensive and a professor who says know one knows for sure but it is probably not cheaper. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/ceff.html
The basic theory seems to be that for a short period of time contractors are cheaper. But what is a “short period of time”? Two months? Six months? I do not think two and a half years is what they had in mind.
I am pretty sure the Libya deal was a long time in the making. It had more to do with British diplomacy than the policy of George the Stupider.
and don’t kid yourself on the pakis. they are only going through the motions to get all that aid money george promised them.
I would feel better about War On Terror ™ if they:
1. were paying more attention to old soviet nukes (like clinton did)
2. actually caught bin laden
3. actually gave a crap about afghanistan
4. worked out a fair peace deal between israel the palestinians. that is possibly the biggest problem the middle east has with us. that is, until the mess in iraq…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:08 am ¶
JimC wrote:
“Christofascism” That’s a new one for me…what does that mean? I don’t know of any Christian terrorists who blow themselves up or have a plan to rule the world under one Christian flag….that’s not up to us…if you mean our desire to support Israel, then well, I guess we’re guilty…God will bless those who bless Israel…
>1. were paying more attention to old soviet nukes (like clinton did)
Clinton paid attention to old soviet nukes? Is that why their still a problem?
>2. actually caught bin laden
Agree…
>3. actually gave a crap about afghanistan
Apaprently elections and freedom to elect their own government means nothing…
>4. worked out a fair peace deal between israel the palestinians. that is possibly the biggest problem the middle east has with us. that is, until the mess in iraq…
The Palestinians do not want peace with Israel, more generally most of the Muslim world does not seek peace with Israel. They seek to remove Israel and kill all the Jews and their Christian allies…so making a peace deal with Palestine seems futile and yet it would look brutal and be politically incorrect to simply kick them out by force. So this conflict will never end unless one side escalates it to full war…
And one more point, if Haliburton is so evil, where are the alternatives? Please name an alternative to Haliburton, that has the resources to accomplish the goals their given…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:24 am ¶
Jason wrote:
JimC writes:
The thing is, we can all comment on the war on terror/Iraq/etc until the letters get worn away from our keyboards, but we’re not the government. We’re not involved in the planning or logistics of the conflict, and have access to only the information that dribbles down to us. So none of us is qualified to measure success in any way more than the most broad of generalizations. The government, however, isn’t a bunch of bloggers and commentors hashing it out over a news story. They are the ones who made the decision to go to war, and they’re the ones with the experts and manpower. And if they decided to go into war without ever determining how success and failure can be measured (as was determined by this report)…well, that’s a problem no matter what you personally think of the war or Iraq or George Bush. We’re pouring billions of dollars and thousands of lives into the WOT, and one would think that the people making the decisions have a way to put it all into context.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
>And one more point, if Haliburton is so evil, where are the alternatives? Please name an alternative to Haliburton, that has the resources to accomplish the goals their given…
the alternative is a functioning federal government procurement procedure.
http://www.1115.org/2005/03/02/bitch-wheres-my-money/
not comprehensive, but certainly enough for tighter rather than weaker oversight…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
That sounds great, but where are the serious alternatives to the Presidents plan? All I’ve heard from the democrats is that they would “pull our allies into it” or “fight the war smarter”, but how? How are these things going to change? Instead of criticisms or calls to withdraw, let’s see some serious plans drawn up from the left. Just because the GOP is in charge doesn’t mean the Democrats can’t huddle together and pitch a plan to the people. If it is a good plan then the people will demand that the GOP listen…but so far the game plan is to attack everything Bush does but not offer anything real in an alternative solution….
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:36 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not asking about procedure, I’m asking who physically can do the job right now. Will George Soros start his own Haliburton to compete?
We can call on the Government to spend its money wisely but someone still ahs to do the job and so far Haliburton has been the one to step up. No other company has the resources they have to handle the tasks given to them…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:40 am ¶
matt wrote:
>That sounds great, but where are the serious alternatives to the Presidents plan?
alternatives would probably depend on a plan in the first place. maybe we’ll hear it tomorrow, but then again, maybe not.
>All I’ve heard from the democrats is that they would “pull our allies into it” or “fight the war smarter”, but how?
seriously? the president took a dump on our allies, and they can hardly be blamed for not wanting to risk their troops and money to bail him out. new leadership here might solve that, but it also might not. fighting it smarter means not leaving the 3rd ID stuck after we couldn’t bully turkey into letting us through. having sufficient troops to get the job done, or not do it. having the proper supplies rather than depending on parents to send armor and sunglasses.
>Just because the GOP is in charge doesn’t mean the Democrats can’t huddle together and pitch a plan to the people.
it’s funny, joe biden (not our favorite) just did that, and the white house just claimed credit for it.
>so far the game plan is to attack everything Bush does but not offer anything real in an alternative solution….
this is his mess, and we’re still waiting on something more than empty platitudes.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
what was that about all the money we’re seizing?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/international/29terror.html
WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - The government’s efforts to help foreign nations cut off the supply of money to terrorists, a critical goal for the Bush administration, have been stymied by infighting among American agencies, leadership problems and insufficient financing, a new Congressional report says.
More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, “the U.S. government lacks an integrated strategy” to train foreign countries and provide them with technical assistance to shore up their financial and law enforcement systems against terrorist financing, according to the report prepared by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>it’s funny, joe biden (not our favorite) just did that, and the white house >just claimed credit for it.
What was this plan?
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:51 am ¶
matt wrote:
>We can call on the Government to spend its money wisely but someone still ahs to do the job and so far Haliburton has been the one to step up. No other company has the resources they have to handle the tasks given to them…
much of the problem is that one company is doing all the work. these contracts (which should have been subject to open bidding) could have been spread to more companies. the problem with haliburton’s abuses is that they get away with it because they are the only ones doing it. if you think that other companies don’t want a piece or couldn’t handle it, i’m sorry but you’re wrong.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
>What was this plan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051126-1.html
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:56 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Is this an editorial or a factual news piece….oh wait Ny times…editorial…
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 10:58 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Christofascism.
Reverend Richard Lang has a take on it:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=15261
Read it all. I did.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 11:00 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Is this an editorial or a factual news piece….oh wait Ny times…editorial…
no, that’s a news story.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 11:02 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
“Is this an editorial or a factual news piece….oh wait Ny times…editorial…”
Come on, Matt. Couldn’t you have found a link from a reputable source like World Net Daily? You liberals make me sick!
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 1:34 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Seriously, I’ve found better supporting evidence on a men’s room wall.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 2:14 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So, not to change the subject, do you plan on blog on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s comments?:
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 7:58 pm ¶
matt wrote:
in part, tomorrow. in the mean time, there are a few iraq related posts you seem to have skipped. plus the archives.
Posted 29 Nov 2005 at 8:05 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Joe Lieberman and Bruce Willis?! Wow, maybe I do need to rethink this Iraq thing.
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 7:26 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What I find interesting is that no (that I know of) MSM even mentioned this report from Sen. Lieberman, except for Foxnews…
Something interesting that was brought up on Bill O last night, why is that the MSM does not ever replay images of 911 but we see the Abu Ghraib photos constantly recycled the media? It seems that the Abu Ghraib photos are used to “remind” us of what terrible thigns happened their but no one seems to want to be reminded of why we are fighting terrorists in the first place? Just another perfect example of media bias…
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 9:24 am ¶
matt wrote:
>why is that the MSM does not ever replay images of 911 but we see the Abu Ghraib photos constantly recycled the media?
I disagree completely with that assessment. In the last few months alone, I’ve seen 9/11 footage on each of the cable news nets while abu ghraib photos only online. past that, if the media was in such a hurry to show abu ghraib images, why aren’t they fighting for release of the videos the government is keeping under wraps in violation of a court order?
Further, the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by other people and shown on constant loop for literally months until they were etched into the minds of every single american. i don’t even necessarily have a problem with that even though personally i’d rather not have seen those images as many times as i did.
abu ghraib was done by americans. the policies were written by john yoo and jay bybee in the white house and justice dept, approved by defense and the president, and carried out by our own soldiers.
i’d rather the lesson from 9/11 not be “we can be cruel too.”
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 9:59 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Are you serious, Jim?!
As if Bush and company don’t constantly remind us of, “the events of September the 11th™.” They throw that shit in when they’re talking about social security and the price of Belgian boogers.
As if 9/11 didn’t/doesn’t get the so-called MSM ratings anyway. As if they wouldn’t love more ways to work it into their missing white girl stories.
But most of all, as if 9/11 and Abu Ghraib are two sides of the same coin anyway. Whose ass did you pull that out of? As if some frat guys blowing off steam could ever be aligned with planes flying into buildings. Or is it because Abu Ghraib is one of the worst things to ever happen to the Bush presidency, and 9/11 was hands-down the best thing to happen to the Bush presidency?
Quit being an idiot, Jim. At long last, quit being such a goddamned idiot.
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 11:42 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Is this abusive comments?
The point is not that the acts themselves are on par or even the same issue. The issue is how the media still wants to remind the American people how terrible our troops were (and indeed this was a stupid thing to let happen) but everytime the enemy does something more horrific it gets 2 secs of air time, yet Abu Ghraib continues to be brought up…the point is that the MSM goes out of its way to paint our guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as a minor issue….
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 5:29 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Is this an example of bias or an example of person who has lost all credibility? (yes I’m talking about Cindy…)
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 5:34 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Is this abusive comments?
it is actually. i’d encourage everyone to argue on the merits only.
>the point is that the MSM goes out of its way to paint our guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as a minor issue….
that however is simply laughable and not worthy of response. really.
>Is this an example of bias or an example of person who has lost all credibility?
i’d say that’s nothing more than and example of the free market working.
i will note the bias contained in the word zealot…
Posted 30 Nov 2005 at 5:54 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Oh was that abusive of me? Sorry. I take it back. Don’t quit being an idiot, Jim. Though your most recent posts show I didn’t need to give you permission.
“the point is that the MSM goes out of its way to paint our guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as a minor issue…”
Wait, are we talking about 9/11 still or are we talking about Iraq? Because, World Net Daily might not tell you this, but they’re different things. Not that you had any credibility to begin with, but you probably just blew all of it with that delusional nonsense.
But let’s just assume you were consistently talking about Iraq. Try a Google News search for “Iraq.”
Do us all a favor and stick to that one issue for like 5 seconds. Click that link and tell us how exactly “the MSM goes out of its way to paint our guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as a minor issue.”
Now if you’ll excuse me, the war on Christmas isn’t going to fight itself.
Posted 01 Dec 2005 at 6:33 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering which fair and balanced non-MSM news source Jim’s getting his Cindy Sheehan scoops from…
Anti-war zealot Cindy Sheehan will receive $11,000 in student fees to speak at the State University College at Oneonta
Posted 01 Dec 2005 at 7:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Where I got it from does not change the fact that Cindy is getting paid 11K and the Lt. Col is getting paid $600….
Posted 01 Dec 2005 at 1:53 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Jim, you should treat anything that Malkin says just as you would something you hear from Al Franken. Malkin is not a journalist, neither is Franken. NOT NEWS. I believe the link you were looking for is here, Jim:
http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2005/11/29/sheehan2.html
So, where you got it does matter, because referencing a pundit’s remarks as news make you look quite naive. No need to thank me for legitimizing your argument.
I would like to point out one other thing: This thread is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off course with respect to the initial post. I call for an end to this particular pissing match.
Peace in the crease, Nick
Posted 01 Dec 2005 at 2:17 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>So, where you got it does matter, because referencing a pundit’s remarks as news make you look quite naive. No need to thank me for legitimizing your argument
Thanks anyway.
Posted 02 Dec 2005 at 5:56 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Even though Nick is totally right about this being way off-topic, I’ll play the game…
Why should a no-name officer get paid as much as a famous anti-war poster-child? Also, did he complain about the disparity, or are you just taking up the battle for him? Also, how much does Sean Hannity get paid to speak at colleges? No wait, don’t tell me. I’ll tell you. A hundred-thousand clams. Even Art Linkletter makes more than Cindy Sheehan, which is something considering I thought he was dead.
Now, Jim, please do us all a favor and get back on track by responding to this comment:
“the point is that the MSM goes out of its way to paint our guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as a minor issue…”
Wait, are we talking about 9/11 still or are we talking about Iraq? Because, World Net Daily might not tell you this, but they’re different things. Not that you had any credibility to begin with, but you probably just blew all of it with that delusional nonsense.
But let’s just assume you were consistently talking about Iraq. Try a Google News search for “Iraq.”
Do us all a favor and stick to that one issue for like 5 seconds. Click that link and tell us how exactly “the MSM goes out of its way to paint our guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as a minor issue.”
Now if you’ll excuse me, the war on Christmas isn’t going to fight itself.
Posted 02 Dec 2005 at 6:57 am ¶