Author Topic: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about  (Read 6316 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mucho

  • Guest
Let the denial flow, bro !


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks22dec22,0,5571755.column?coll=la-opinion-center
ROSA BROOKS

How Bush can make Iraq disappear
It's not as easy as 'Presto!' but the president just yet may be able to use his magic touch on Iraq.
Rosa Brooks

December 22, 2006

NO ONE LOVES HIM.

His favorability ratings in the U.S. are lower than they've ever been, and our closest allies, the British, think he poses a greater danger to world peace than either President Kim Jong Il of North Korea or President Mamoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. His party has lost its congressional majority, the Iraq Study Group declared his Iraq policies a failure and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reported to unanimously oppose his plan for a "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq. Rummy's gone, the tabloids have claimed that Laura's filing for divorce, and some say that even Barney the dog no longer wants to talk to him.

George W. Bush has a problem, and it's called Iraq, the country that just won't go away. There's no satisfying way to solve this problem either. Withdraw? No good: too humiliating. Stay the course? More dead Americans and more dead Iraqis. Surge? We don't have enough troops, and we don't have a strategy for using them anyway.

So what's a president to do?

W should take heart. This is hardly the first time his administration has faced seemingly intractable problems — and in the past, he's always been able to make those problems … disappear.

The investigative reporting blog TPMmuckraker.com offers an excellent list of examples, compiled with the help of countless little blogospheric elves.

For instance, there was this. Problem: In 2005, a congressionally mandated annual State Department report on international terrorism showed that terrorism worldwide was on the rise. Solution: The administration announced that future editions of the report no longer would include statistics on international terrorism. See? Presto! Just like that, the problem went away.

And then there was this. Problem: In 2004, data released by the Department of Education showed that public charter schools, promoted by the administration as a solution to public school woes, were lagging regular public schools in performance. Solution: The administration decided to stop collecting data on charter school performance.

And this. Problem: Environmentalists complained that administration land-use plans for our national parks and forests could have long-term negative effects on the environment. Solution: The administration decided it no longer would conduct environmental impact studies to assess the potential consequences of its land-use plans.

See how easy it is to make a problem go away? When Congress started asking questions about FBI malfeasance exposed by whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, the administration retroactively classified congressional briefings on the subject. When it looked like lawyers representing Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan might make a fuss about the abusive "alternative" interrogation methods he had undergone in secret CIA prisons, the administration announced that Khan couldn't meet with his lawyers to tell them about his treatment because his treatment was itself classified top secret.

Similar magic tricks have worked for the president before, so who's to say they won't work again with Iraq? The administration's early ban on photos of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq was a good start, as was the Pentagon's recent decision to classify statistics on the rising number of anti-U.S. attacks in Iraq this fall. But these are half-measures, not equal to bringing the current crisis to an end. The White House needs to go further. I have a few recommendations for making the president's Iraq problems disappear.

Problem: The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously oppose a temporary surge in U.S. troops. Solution: Eliminate the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; reduce chiefs in rank by 10 pay grades.

Problem: Not enough troops exist for an effective surge, and negative media reporting on Iraq makes the problem all too obvious. Solution: Implement an emergency call-up of all journalists registered under the Selective Service Act. Confiscate their laptops and cameras and recorders and send them to Iraq as part of the surge. (Two birds with one stone!)

Problem: Iraq is patently not yet an oasis of stability on the Middle East map. Solution: Erase the word "Iraq" from all maps in the White House. Write in "Oasis of Stability."

True, you have to believe in magic for these tricks to work. But magic is in the air this Christmas season, and W is full of "a sense of wonder and surprise," as he put it in this year's presidential Christmas message.

If you're having trouble feeling the magic, urge the president to try one final trick.

Problem: The troops in Iraq are causing trouble, complaining about a lack of strategy, lack of equipment, lack of clue as to what they're doing there and what they're dying for. Solution: Make our troops disappear from Iraq — by bringing them home.

When it comes to solving the president's problems, that last trick might actually work.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com


   

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2006, 12:56:00 PM »
What is to be in denial about. It is true that the Bush administration frowns on exploiting soldiers deaths by  banning photos of flag draped coffins on the Tarmac of Dover. Of course that policy was in effect 10 years prior to Bush 43's election.

It is hard to take Brooks seriously when her opinion column is as chock full of half truths as a typical Knute post.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2006, 01:00:39 PM »
What is to be in denial about. It is true that the Bush administration frowns on exploiting soldiers deaths by  banning photos of flag draped coffins on the Tarmac of Dover. Of course that policy was in effect 10 years prior to Bush 43's election.

It is hard to take Brooks seriously when her opinion column is as chock full of half truths as a typical Knute post.

I KNEW IT! Denial reigns supreme in Bushiland! Someone else did it first! I AM surprised it isnt Bill this time. Maybe all my hard work is paying off? Nah!

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2006, 02:43:35 AM »
It matters not that the supposed ban on photos of coffins at Dover was ten years old or twenty. Neither Olebush nor Clinton ever had the huge number of bodies coming back from the war. Juniorbush can allow the photos anytime he wishes. He has the power to end the ban, if it is unjust, and so this is just another lamoid excuse.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2006, 02:48:02 AM »
It matters not that the supposed ban on photos of coffins at Dover was ten years old or twenty. Neither Olebush nor Clinton ever had the huge number of bodies coming back from the war. Juniorbush can allow the photos anytime he wishes. He has the power to end the ban, if it is unjust, and so this is just another lamoid excuse.
 


And he didnt even mention all the other obfuscations and denial of research & reality mentioned in the article. Just this picky coffin bullshit.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2006, 02:49:22 AM »
Quote
It matters not that the supposed ban on photos of coffins at Dover was ten years old or twenty. Neither Olebush nor Clinton ever had the huge number of bodies coming back from the war. Juniorbush can allow the photos anytime he wishes. He has the power to end the ban, if it is unjust, and so this is just another lamoid excuse.

Sure it matters if Brooks implies that it was GWB who came up with the ban. And who says the ban is unjust?

If people want to exploit dead soldiers they can do it at the funerals in front of the family.


Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2006, 10:58:12 AM »
Quote
It matters not that the supposed ban on photos of coffins at Dover was ten years old or twenty. Neither Olebush nor Clinton ever had the huge number of bodies coming back from the war. Juniorbush can allow the photos anytime he wishes. He has the power to end the ban, if it is unjust, and so this is just another lamoid excuse.

Sure it matters if Brooks implies that it was GWB who came up with the ban. And who says the ban is unjust?

If people want to exploit dead soldiers they can do it at the funerals in front of the family.



It doesnt matter as much as all the other lie of ommissions that the Bush admin commit that are listed therein. Besides it is your Christian Crackpots that taunt the dead soldiers families.

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2006/10/25/briefly-patriotic-videohell1.aspx
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 11:00:20 AM by Mucho »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2006, 11:19:04 AM »
Quote
Besides it is your Christian Crackpots that taunt the dead soldiers families.

I have more kinship with the bikers that honor the family than Phelps.


BTW you and Phelps have a lot in common, knute. You both have intense hatred for people who think differently than you and you both are protected by the first amendment.


Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2006, 11:21:46 AM »
Quote
Besides it is your Christian Crackpots that taunt the dead soldiers families.

I have more kinship with the bikers that honor the family than Phelps.


BTW you and Phelps have a lot in common, knute. You both have intense hatred for people who think differently than you and you both are protected by the first amendment.



I have no hatred for those who think differently , only those that act on it and fuck everything up like the Bushidiot and Hitler  and their evil enablers. God Bless the First Amendment!
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 11:42:39 AM by Mucho »

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2006, 06:39:04 PM »

domer

  • Guest
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2006, 06:46:28 PM »
It depends on whether there actually is a fire, and whether you'd create panic rather than a safe exit.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2006, 09:02:40 PM »
Sure it matters if Brooks implies that it was GWB who came up with the ban. And who says the ban is unjust?

If people want to exploit dead soldiers they can do it at the funerals in front of the family.
====================================================================
I say the ban is a bad thing, a cover-up of reality. There are no names on the coffins, or certainly there doesn't have to be. It is the sheer volume of the dead returning daily that makes the statement that this foolish war is a waste of the lives of our troops.
As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Exploitation of the troops would involve posting their names. All the networks are doing this already. But the sight of the coffins brings the message home better, which is why Juniorbush wants to ban it.

I do not give a royal crap about whether Clinton or Olebush banned photos of the many fewer who died during their administrations. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong.

I don't favor disrupting funerals: that would be exploitative.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2006, 09:10:20 PM »
Quote
I don't favor disrupting funerals: that would be exploitative

I agree with that sentiment.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2006, 09:29:17 PM »
If a plane lands with 500 flag-draped anonymous coffins, the photo is impressive and it is a powerful statement, but it is not invasive or exploitative. Disrupting a specific funeral is both.

Juniorbush's puppeteers wish to ban the former because it is impressive, and what they are doing in Iraq is far from impressive.
The reasons to ban the photos are precisely why they should not be banned.

Besides that, it's news, and censoring this is censoring the news
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Here is some good stuff for the Bushicost deniers to be in denial about
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2006, 09:46:40 PM »
Quote
If a plane lands with 500 flag-draped anonymous coffins, the photo is impressive and it is a powerful statement, but it is not invasive or exploitative. Disrupting a specific funeral is both.

Besides that, it's news, and censoring this is censoring the news

The news is not being censored. I would be surprised to hear that arrival times and number of coffins on board were being censored.

What is being frowned upon is the use of the images of those coffins on the tarmac as emotionional instead of logical arguments against the war.

You have the casualty figures. You have arrival times. What you don't have is a money shot. And that has been gone for a while.