White house goes after Fox News

[Bayou Bum]

If I HAD to make a decision now I would say that we pull out.

Very well. When Obama decides to send in more troops we will know who the true idiot is.

And if your ass was getting drafted you wouldn't be so eager to escalate either. I've been against these invasions all along.

Sure I would. That is the difference between us. I am willing to stand behind my convictions while you will sell out for the illusion of safety. I am always amazed at people with their head in the sand hoping evil will just past them by. I hope you really appreciate all of those that disagree with you and are willing to risk all so you can live in your fantasy.

[Hauptman]

Very well. When Obama decides to send in more troops we will know who the true idiot is.


Sure I would. That is the difference between us. I am willing to stand behind my convictions while you will sell out for the illusion of safety. I am always amazed at people with their head in the sand hoping evil will just past them by. I hope you really appreciate all of those that disagree with you and are willing to risk all so you can live in your fantasy.

You can put words in my mouth all you want, and have all the fantasies you want about us evil socialist, fascist, cowardly liberals. Have a blast.

I know you weren't paying attention the first 5 times I said it, but you can send as many troops as you want into Afghanistan, but without a plan, and you haven't presented even the hint of one, you will be there fighting for the next hundred years and accomplish nothing.

It's easy to sit there hurling insults and making all sorts of macho statements about how noble and true you are, but I haven't seen anything to back it up..... no actions, no plans, no logic or facts. So keep on spouting your insults about fantasies.... you're well acquainted with them.

Or would you actually care to make a logical argument? Do you have a plan of any sort other than sending in more troops with no exit strategy or goal?

[keith]

Ah, but that's not what I said. I wasn't taking issue with him repeating mistakes (although I think it's certainly fair enough to point them out when they occur, and indeed this should be done), I was taking issue with the cop out argument of "Bush did it too" rather than giving a reason for positive or negative feedback based on it's own merits. Rather than defenders throwing their hands up and saying "Hey, Bush did it too" I'd rather hear something more like "Look, we made a mistake" or "In this case I think it was a good decision and here's why". The latter two are logical, reasonable defenses (whether or not they are agreed with and whether or not it's hypocritical). The former is just a cop out and is lazy.

I'll leave it at wtf? .

Since I have said why I considered their position on Foxnews perfectly reasonable.

I'm also confused how anyone can be unclear as to why the current administration takes a different view of Foxnews compared to the previous one. wtf? (again).

Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out when one has shifted to a position he once crusaded against, or when one flat out lies. My position on this is not unique to Obama. Am I surprised and is it unique? Of course not. Does that give him a free pass? Absolutely not. I'll call it on him just as well as I called it on the previous administration.

Fair enough, I just find the 'he said he was different' trope somewhat wearing.

[Slim]

It has been a failure because it is a flawed goal. You CAN'T kill all the terrorists. They are constantly recruiting all over the world in a thousand little groups. You can't win a "war on terror" because there is no definable goal. There will always be terrorists unless you have a stable gov't, rule of law, and a more economically advanced and educated society. And even then you'll still have the random wacko that will pop up like Ted Kaczynski or a Timothy McVeigh. You can't bomb them out of existence.

The one thing you do have right is that there will always be terrorists.

But unlike you, I'd prefer to make an effort to keep the numbers in check by bombing/killing as many of them as we can, making their existence as painful and short lived as possible. That's when things start to become stable. You'd obviously prefer to let them fester and grow in strength while waiting for things to "stabilize" and having more of our troops get picked off while waiting.

If I were to be drafted (not possible since I already served and am too old now, but that's besides the point), I most certainly would want an escalation. It would make my time there safer and expedite me getting my a$$ back home.

Obama's indecision is getting our troops killed.

[Slim]

If the allegations become more serious than that well it becomes an issue, but really I thought you hadn't been gullible enough to believe that 'hope & change' was much different from 'compassionate conservatism'.

It certainly fooled enough people to get him elected.

[keith]

It certainly fooled enough people to get him elected.

Twice.

[Hauptman]

The one thing you do have right is that there will always be terrorists.

But unlike you, I'd prefer to make an effort to keep the numbers in check by bombing/killing as many of them as we can, making their existence as painful and short lived as possible. That's when things start to become stable. You'd obviously prefer to let them fester and grow in strength while waiting for things to "stabilize" and having more of our troops get picked off while waiting.

If I were to be drafted (not possible since I already served and am too old now, but that's besides the point), I most certainly would want an escalation. It would make my time there safer and expedite me getting my a$$ back home.

Obama's indecision is getting our troops killed.

Where do people keep getting this "doing nothing" crap?

The war in Afghanistan has been dragging on for EIGHT years now, with no end in sight, and was frankly ignored for most of that time. They were sent in with too few troops, and too little equipment and remained that way up until a few months ago when, right after taking office, Obama listened to the commanders and gave them more troops.

Did you get that? Obama has only been president for 9 months of an 8 year war, and he's already given the commanders the troops they requested; more support than they've ever gotten. That's doing nothing?

But now only a few months later those same commanders are asking for even more troops, and Obama is "getting our troops killed"? That is the most bizarre thing I've heard in awhile. Exactly how high are you?

The troops from the last increase haven't even been fully deployed yet, and the country was very close to complete collapse after a badly rigged election. Yeah, we really need another troop increase... it's so clear.... how could I not see it? I'm done.

[Inquartata]

you can send as many troops as you want into Afghanistan, but without a plan, and you haven't presented even the hint of one, you will be there fighting for the next hundred years and accomplish nothing.

Er...how do you know this, exactly? You've got a (Mc)Chrystal ball, maybe?

Seriously, though---whence this tendency to armchair-general? Have you been through the War College? Why do you think that you are likely to be correct when second-guessing professional military men?

Sir, I posit that you are suffering from Wolfowitz-Biden Syndrome!

The war in Afghanistan has been dragging on for EIGHT years now, with no end in sight, and was frankly ignored for most of that time. They were sent in with too few troops, and too little equipment and remained that way up until a few months ago when, right after taking office, Obama listened to the commanders and gave them more troops.

Yes. Quite right. But why are we to cheer half-measures? The military commanders have said quite clearly that it's not enough. NATO commanders have said that it's not enough.

That he did not do nothing eight months ago does not mean he's not doing nothing now, does it?

I think it is disingenuous to expect Obama to come up with a solution on the spur of the moment when there are legitimate reasons for waiting for a proper assessment.

He shouldn't be trying to "come up with a solution" in the first place. He's not qualified to make tactical military decisions. As CinC his job is to make grand strategic decisions, that is, get out, send in more resources, status quo, etc. Very little more than that. Why is this such a hard thing to do? It doesn't take months to listen to your military advisors and pick an option, does it?

Listening to his commanders is fine if there is a strictly military solution to this conflict, but unfortunately there isn't,

Heh, there goes your WBS again. Maybe you need medication for it?

Really, why are we to accept your assertion that there is no military solution?

The two choices are to leave Afghanistan or put in the resources necessary for a complete military occupation.

Don't make me bust out the Aristotle, man.

If we exit now then Obama will be attacked for being a coward

Ah! There it is at last! He's dithering because of the political implications for him and his Party and its agenda...

Feet of clay, feet of clay...

Would there really? I can't recall any around the clock shrilling when prior administrations played outlet favouritism. The left moans about Fox and the right moans about everyone else, c'est la vie.

Bush didn't try telling other news media what to do, or make veiled "or you could be next" threats, either, as I recall.

.... but what of sort of thing?

The "And you shouldn't, either" sort of thing.

Am I really being that unclear?

Why is anyone defending the President and his people trying to take out a member of the media?

See Hauptman's observations that this is not just a military issue. Unless you reckon scorched earth is the way to go?

See, but unlike him, I don't presume to think that I know better or see the situation clearer than actual military commanders, whose jobs it is to analyze these things.

Neither am I inclined to accept unsupported assertions...even if you adopt them as valid and offer them up as supportive of your own argument...

( The temptation to name the fallacy is almost irresistible. )

. On the plus side he did at least way back when realise that more troops were needed, so I'll be cautiously optimistic that he'll make the least bad call.

I hope so. But war is also about timing. Even the right decision too late can be the wrong decision.

The options are not so numerous that it should be taking this long to make up his mind---not if he has what it takes to be chief executive.

They're theoretically spending less time by ignoring one media outlet, no?

Unless it doesn't work...which it didn't...

[lindajdunn]

But unlike you, I'd prefer to make an effort to keep the numbers in check by bombing/killing as many of them as we can, making their existence as painful and short lived as possible.

That's the equivalent of fertilizing weeds in an effort to kill them.

[Hauptman]

Nice post, Inq. You added nothing to the discussion other than to tell me I'm wrong, with no logical support, and like your compatriots here you offer no logical alternatives. All you've done is tell me I must be wrong because I couldn't possibly be right; do you have the name of that fallacy?

AND you post after I've said I'm done with the conversation; posts like yours being one of the reasons why...

[I_luv_saber]

I'll leave it at wtf?

Since I have said why I considered their position on Foxnews perfectly reasonable.

That's not what I was responding to. If you go back and look where I entered the conversation here:

I also shake my head at all of these statements about what the Bush administration did. Whatever happened to the Obama administration's moral high ground, its supposed superiority to the tactics and practices of "the worst President in history"? Now he's adopting some of the same tactics and practices, and it's suddenly OK?

I'm curious of this requirement for perfection. {snip}

You misunderstand. It's not a requirement for perfection, it's calling shenanigans when people fall back on "Well Bush did it too" when their whole platform was to do things better.{snip}

(snipped for brevity)

You'll notice I was merely supporting Inq's position (or what I understood it to be): that pointing to what the last administration did as a defense is merely a cop out and is hypocritical. It seemed to me that your countering of that - that it was a requirement for perfection - was in effect saying it's OK for one administration to repeat mistakes they vowed against and use "The last administration did it too" as a reasonable response. This is not a requirement for perfection because the issue is not with the mistake or policy, but rather the defense of it (or lack thereof).

I wasn't really talking about, nor am I terribly interested in the original subject of the stance the administration has on FOX news - that's why I didn't enter the conversation earlier.

I'm also confused how anyone can be unclear as to why the current administration takes a different view of Foxnews compared to the previous one. wtf? (again).

I'm... not confused as to why. Personally, I think it's cool to call it out and I have no qualms with it. I just have a problem with defending "the last administration did it too" as a reasonable defense (whether or not you actively engaged in it).

[Slim]

That's the equivalent of fertilizing weeds in an effort to kill them.

Interesting analogy. Completely wrong, but lets have fun with it....

When your lawn and yard become overgrown and all your flowers die because you failed to successfully reason with the weeds and they have no interest in being flowers, you'd prefer to just give up and pretend dandelions and crabgrass are pretty flowers too. Or move and leave it to someone else to deal with.

I'd hate to be your neighbor.

[Slim]

Twice.

Really? According to the mouthpieces of parties that lost, it was that evil VRWC that caused both of those elections to go to Bush.

Which is it man?

[Slim]

Nice post, Inq. You added nothing to the discussion other than to tell me I'm wrong, with no logical support, and like your compatriots here you offer no logical alternatives. All you've done is tell me I must be wrong because I couldn't possibly be right; do you have the name of that fallacy?

You should have stopped after the first sentence. Now it just sounds like the rest of your posts.....liberal whining.

AND you post after I've said I'm done with the conversation; posts like yours being one of the reasons why...

The nerve of some people. Inq, how dare you.

[lindajdunn]

Interesting analogy. Completely wrong, but lets have fun with it....

When your lawn and yard become overgrown and all your flowers die because you failed to successfully reason with the weeds and they have no interest in being flowers, you'd prefer to just give up and pretend dandelions and crabgrass are pretty flowers too. Or move and leave it to someone else to deal with.

I'd hate to be your neighbor.

My neighbor is a master gardener with a landscaping business, which is why I that particular analogy came to mind.

Terrorizing the population of countries that we have "freed" just fuels resistence and hardens the hearts of those people against us, which leads to more terrorism, not less.

[Slim]

My neighbor is a master gardener with a landscaping business, which is why I that particular analogy came to mind.

Terrorizing the population of countries that we have "freed" just fuels resistence and hardens the hearts of those people against us, which leads to more terrorism, not less.

Interesting choice of words.

So you feel we would be terrorizing the general Afghan population by, in this case, trying to accelerate and stamp out what is left of that human-rights organization known as the taliban?

To continue the analogy, I suppose your neighbor has to be a master gardener just to make sure your "flowers" dont overtake his land once they are done with yours.

[jessicasimpson]

Interesting analogy. Completely wrong, but lets have fun with it....

When your lawn and yard become overgrown and all your flowers die because you failed to successfully reason with the weeds and they have no interest in being flowers, you'd prefer to just give up and pretend dandelions and crabgrass are pretty flowers too. Or move and leave it to someone else to deal with.

I'd hate to be your neighbor.

Well, this argument is based on the assumtion that terrorists are born as terrorists and can be nothing else, and from the opposite end, no non-terrorist could ever be made into a terrorist.
I wonder if it is blissfull to have such a simple closed mind and be able to break the world down into simple black and white.

[tchwojko]

I'd prefer to make an effort to keep the numbers in check by bombing/killing as many of them as we can, making their existence as painful and short lived as possible.

There's a few assumptions in that statement:

Assumption 1. Bombing and killing as many terrorists as we can keeps their numbers in check.

It also kills lots of non-terrorists, and fuels their recruiting efforts. We must be careful in methods used, timing, location, use of political capital, etc.

Assumption 2. Killing them makes their life shorter lived or less painful.

They're already willing to commit suicide. I don't see how death is a disincentive to terrorists.

Assumption 3. We can find them to effectively kill and bomb them.

Where is Bin Laden again?

[tchwojko]

Unless it doesn't work...which it didn't...

Which is why I added a smiley.

[lindajdunn]

Interesting choice of words.

So you feel we would be terrorizing the general Afghan population by, in this case, trying to accelerate and stamp out what is left of that human-rights organization known as the taliban

Killing innocents just sends the few survivors off to the camps to learn how to achieve revenge against us.

To continue the analogy, I suppose your neighbor has to be a master gardener just to make sure your "flowers" dont overtake his land once they are done with yours.

To just bring in bulldozers, remove the top soil, and put down sod, would be the traditional American way of doing things and roughly equivalent to what was done in Iraq. By contrast, my neighbor turned a weed-filled cow pasture into a nice, tranditionally landscaped lawn filled with plants suitable to the soil type and climate of this area.

Grass doesn't grow well in the desert.