Hess

[BT]

THE FOLKS AT CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES" just emailed me this excerpt from today's show transcript with UPI reporter Pamela Hess:




Better that theKURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?

PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.  

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_1705.php

[Brassmask]

What is there to "lose"?

There hasn't been anything resembling a war between the US and anyone else for a long long time.

What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose?  Lose the illegal invasion?  Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation?  Lose the oil?

[BT]

What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose?  Lose the illegal invasion?  Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation?  Lose the oil?

What happens if we lose the war.

That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What happens if we lose the war.

That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the US will REALLY have to do something about its addiction to oil. Maybe we will plant several million acres in rapeseed or switchgrass and start producing biodiesel.

We could also import alcohol from Brazil and other low-cost cane sugar producers. And raise CAFE standards for cars and "light trucks"

[Plane]

What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose?  Lose the illegal invasion?  Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation?  Lose the oil?

What happens if we lose the war.

That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.

I wouldn't say he was being clumsy .


More like indirect, I think I get the reason too.

Just as Pam Hess states we arre getting distracted by the political knife fight.

How indirect will we have to be to consider Iraq for Iraqs sake and not for its political effect (usefullness)?

[Plane]

What happens if we lose the war.

That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the US will REALLY have to do something about its addiction to oil. Maybe we will plant several million acres in rapeseed or switchgrass and start producing biodiesel.

We could also import alcohol from Brazil and other low-cost cane sugar producers. And raise CAFE standards for cars and "light trucks"

Then the US will REALLY have to do something about its addiction to oil. Maybe we will plant several million acres in rapeseed or switchgrass and start producing biodiesel.
I like this idea , and so does President Bush , this is almost unanimously hailed as a good idea , so what is makeing itso slow to materialise?

[Michael Tee]

<<What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose?>>

This is really hilarious.  Obviously this is the new "talking point" of the War Party.  What happens if we lose?  A million bucks to whoever can answer the question, only the problem is, nobody knows.

It's like the cancer operation.  You got a huge fucking tumor the size of a grapefruit and it's gotta come off.  Well but what happens after it comes off?  Who the fuck knows?  Maybe you could die.  Maybe the cancer will lose a few metastasizing cells into the bloodstream during the incision and you're toast.  Maybe the surgeon will get all the cells and you'll live for another hundred years.  Oh, shit the bottom line is, nobody knows what'll happen after the operation, so I better just leave the fucking cancer there and watch it grow.

What's even funnier are the prognostications of the Bush administration, which has been 100% WRONG on every fucking thing they ever said about the war:  "Saddam's got a shitload of WMD, we'll be greeted as liberators, this'll be a model democracy, it won't cost more than $100 billion, major operations are finished, the back of the insurgency is broken . . . " wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong again . . .  but NOW they have a new prediction:  chaos and God-awful bloodshed, massacres of biblical proportions, doom and terrorism descending upon us, the worst of the worst of the worst fucking catastrophe if we "lose" in Iraq, so . . . now you gotta believe 'em just this one more time.

I'm laughing so hard my sides are gonna split.  In the rest of the world, it's "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me," but in America it's  " . . . fool me twenty-four times, shame on you, fool me twenty-five times, shame on you, fool me twenty-six times, shame on you . . . . "

Oh, Jeeziz, and the other funny thing about this post is that these are supposed to be serious political commentators, Pamela Hess, CNN.  There are probably high school journalism students with a better grasp of reality, but of course you'll never see them on CNN or any MSM for that matter.  And yet they wonder if the MSM is losing its credibility.  Naaaah, WHAT credibility?  I watch 'em for laughs now.

[Brassmask]

War?  IF we lose a war?

If we were in a war with Iraq, then we won and should have left years ago.

Clearly, we're not in a war since we're still there fucking things up for them.  If people think we're in a war in Iraq, then they better get over to the idea that we've either won already years ago or have been steadily losing for the past three years...

[Plane]

<<What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose?>>

This is really hilarious.  Obviously this is the new "talking point" of the War Party.  What happens if we lose?  A million bucks to whoever can answer the question, only the problem is, nobody knows.

I know .

I can tell you right now that the bloodshead of the realignment of the middle east will be n the same scale as Cambodia definately, and possibly worse than WWII.

How can you avoid knowing this?

[yellow_crane]

What is it that she's wondering if we're going to lose?  Lose the illegal invasion?  Lose the occupation of a sovereign nation?  Lose the oil?

What happens if we lose the war.

That is the same question Domer has been clumsily asking for the last three weeks.

Who is "we?"

You can't even say the military or the country would lose the war.

The Neocons would lose the war.

Let's face it.  It was totally their war.  

Then the Neocons would be driven out of town, proving that losing is not all bad.

If you are looking for a way to calm the terrorists, try advocating a cessation of imperial warmaking.

[BT]

Clearly, we're not in a war since we're still there fucking things up for them.

I think we are still in a war, and i think we have decided to start fighting it again.

[BT]

Who is "we?"

We, is the United States of America. Authorized to go to war in Iraq by a vast bipartiisan majority in the house and senate.

Your representatives and mine.

That is who "we" are.

But you knew that.

[Plane]

If you are looking for a way to calm the terrorists, try advocating a cessation of imperial warmaking.

Oh no!


You certinly know that the 9-11 attack was not  in response to any recent insult ,nor any exploitation .

It is the imperial ambition of Osama Bn Laden we are talking about.

[Michael Tee]

<<I can tell you right now that the bloodshead of the realignment of the middle east will be n the same scale as Cambodia definately, and possibly worse than WWII.

<<How can you avoid knowing this?>>

I got two answers for you: 

one - - If I've been right every time about what a fucking disaster this war would be, and you and your "President" have been wrong every time, why should I believe you and your President now when you've never been right yet?

and two - - So what?  What's any of that got to do with you?  Their mess, their problem.  You can always jump back in if it gets out of hand. 

and here's a bonus answer for you:  the bloodbath you're talking about has never happened yet in the region so why would it happen now?  These people always fight and their fights always get resolved WITHOUT the kind of massive bloodletting we've seen in Europe in the last 70 years.

[Plane]

<<I can tell you right now that the bloodshead of the realignment of the middle east will be n the same scale as Cambodia definately, and possibly worse than WWII.

<<How can you avoid knowing this?>>

I got two answers for you: 

one - - If I've been right every time about what a fucking disaster this war would be, and you and your "President" have been wrong every time, why should I believe you and your President now when you've never been right yet?

and two - - So what?  What's any of that got to do with you?  Their mess, their problem.  You can always jump back in if it gets out of hand. 

and here's a bonus answer for you:  the bloodbath you're talking about has never happened yet in the region so why would it happen now?  These people always fight and their fights always get resolved WITHOUT the kind of massive bloodletting we've seen in Europe in the last 70 years.

Not so.

Ian and Iraq fought a reenactment of WWI for eight years. The casualty count is not clear but is very likely over a million.

Only three million Cambodians died in their Killing feilds period , if the question is whether the middle east will be dominated by Shiite or Shia the potential is for much more , I wouldn't doubt ten million or more.