Ariel says that Truman was afraid of a loss of will, so that was why he ended the war sooner.

I think Truman ended the war sooner because his will was strong and America’s will was strong, in acquiring unconditional surrender as soon as possible. A failure to acquire unconditional surrender as soon as possible, by Operation Olympus for example, would be a failure of will. Or in this, a failure of the leadership to properly apply military expedience, which is almost interchangeable with how will is used in this context.

Yes, unfortunately that is part of the price of Freedom. Rather - should he have done it. No, not by a long shot.

“But reporters should guard against the hubris of thinking that they’ve become expert in every field they cover.”

Good luck with that one. It is not just the MSM it is journalism in general. For a number of years I worked in a govt research lab, from time to time we had to deal with press (trade magazines). Some actually were experts in the field - rarely did this people think absolutely wrong ideas (at the very least they were no worse than all the other real experts - sure of their ideas and able to back them up to anyone). Some realized they were not and did the best they could. Most thought that their position granted them some great insight and would consider their ideas on how the piece of software works or the intent when designing it superior to even the people who wrote the software.

Usually the idea is that the experts are so focused on their little piece that they can not see “The Big Picture”. Journalist, by being able to read everything and having no bias, are in a unique position to wade through all that and arrive at the correct answer. At least that’s what I have been told (both by some journalist and in the one intro class I took in college).

I have also seen a few other professions that tend to claim that they have the ability to understand anything at a level to tell experts in a field they are wrong (many Language people and Mathematicians believe so, often to the point of being amusing to the people who *are* experts).

There is no substitute for quality leadership and the US did not have quality in Johnson. All his expertise was in domestic affairs, and that was considerable. The lesson is that domestic experience doesn’t prepare a leader to be President.

And neo misses the errors of the military. Instead of gaining the trust of the reporters they pumped up their results, losing trust. The military stuck to reporting a pretty constant 10-to-1 kill ratio after every battle; this soon became unbelievable.

Antiwar and Communist propaganda of the time focused on the horrors of war for the Vietnamese people and on the popularity and successes of Ho Chi Minh, especially against the French and Japanese. The Johnson administration and hawks in general never were able to come up with a good answer for that. Today’s conservatives and neocons would do a much better job than the hawks of the 60’s.

Left propaganda of the time simply described the Communist defeat at Khe Sanh as a diversion to bring US troops away from the upcoming Tet offensive.

The fact remains that the Tet offensive was a surprise for the American people and a wake-up call for many who had been misled to believe that the war against the Communists in Vietnam was nearly won.

And finally, let us not forget that the fresh faces of college students protesting the war were more appealing than the tired old wrinkled face of President Johnson.

Now if we could just accelerate the process…

And I think it is the memory of this loss of credibility (the famous “Credibility gap”) that current supporters of the insurgency in Iraq are trying to recreate with the slogan “Bush lied — people died”. While in fact Bush has kept to the truth, the slogan still works.

And Helen Thomas getting some facts wrong on Iraq. Note that Thomas is correct when she criticizes the Bush administration for emphasizing Saddam’s nuclear weapons — they did not exist. But Thomas is wrong about Saddam trying to buy uranium in Africa — he did.

You wrote: “…it marked the beginning of a special and destructive type of MSM hubris,…”.

It also marks the beginning of the end for trust in MSM. Note how the military facts have gradually come out over the years, contradicting all Cronkite’s assumptions. But never have been acknowledged, especially by the newer members of the MSM.

And, ironically, it marked the beginning of the end of CBS evening news…

“What goes around, comes around.”.

I don’t think that is very true, Neo. Cronkite to me is a very weak man, easily demoralized, easily controlled through propaganda, and easily manipulated. His editor was the one who was pretty strict about editorializing, not cronkite. It seemed as if Cronkite just followed along to get along, up until he thought he knew the truth, up until he thought he had support. Support enough to drive past the editor and the owners and popular sentiment, because he was popular sentiment. When the guy separating the news and the editorials started caving and told Cronkite that maybe he could do some opinion making, Cronkite went for broke like the kid let out of the house without any restrictions. Cronkite was under the influence of his boss, under the influence of his fear of losing his job, under the influence of his dislike for the military, and under the influence of enemy propaganda. He was not so much steel, as he was plastic, bending with the wind of the times. Letting his desires carry him whichever way he deemed fit to sail.

In fact, in clinical terms, one might say Cronkite is speaking of his own weariness and depression in the face of the ongoing conflict.

Weakness breds weakness.

There is a point at which it seems to me if an individual reporter has gained a reputation of being honest, fair as can be, and helps the American people in trying to make a decision on a major issue, I think we ought to take that opportunity.

it is an opportunity to justify his weakness, Neo. An opportunity to spread his misery around, to make others more miserable, to gladden his own heart, Neo. It is an opportunity de facto, to make things as he sees it, where most people may only gripe and have little consequence about what they are griping about, so for Cronkite it was different. He had the POWER, and it was much better to use and abuse such power, than to be helpless in his weakness at Vietnam.

Or are both he and his interviewers largely unaware of the discrediting facts that have been uncovered and widely aired in the intervening decades?

They don’t believe it ever mattered ever. The ends justify the means for them. The means was Cronkite, the ends was what happened and what they sought to happen. An honorable defeat, for them anyways.

…the nationwide Vietcong offensive turned out to be an “unmitigated disaster” for the communist side.

It is easy to understand, Neo. The Vietcong was the guerrila component of the North Vietnamese army. The North Vietnamese army always got kicked by the US Army. It was the guerrilas that made jungle warfare a pain, with their strapping boobytraps on bodies and children or whatever tunnels they hide in. A guerrila component cannot and should not engage in conventional warfare. because to do so, they

without realizing it was doing so, and without meaning to

That’s not a justified defense for negligent homicide, Neo, and you know it. Ignorance of the consequences of one’s action does not render one immune from the responsibility, moral or otherwise. Especially when that ignorance is forced and pursued with fanatic devotion, out of all context or reason.

Ron brings up an interesting scenario. Which I believe to be the same scenario as what happened when the media giddily reported on Jessica Lynch and the fall of Baghdad. They set themselves up for the fall, they set America up for the fall, and made the fall higher by raising morale up really really high. So that when attacks did occur, people could fall from a greater height to sustain more critical injuries. This is more or less, what the media probably did to themselves in Vietnam and blamed the military for. Now the military had their problems with propaganda and PR, that has been recognized, however the military had their job and the press had theirs. The military did their jobs well, but the press pocked their jobs up. End of story, as they say. Same for Iraq.

Translation: If you have that kind of influence, use it, if it’s something I agree with. If people think you are objective, you no longer have to be.

It sounds like Cronkite just fell in love with his own voice, here. Lies of Saruman.

That Cronkite was expressing his own weariness is a shrewd observation, neo. I have noted before that the American people last about 3 years, and are then sick of war, regardless of how well we are doing. As the news media became aware of the ramping up in Vietnam before the general public, it is plausible that they also became weary earlier.

A point from your first essay remains key here. WWII media were used to receiving the news, warts and all, because they could be counted on to try and put the best possible face on the facts, and not demoralize the American people. The military learned to do their own spin before giving it to the media, not because the military wanted to deceive, but because the media had burned them before. The media wanted it both ways, and blamed the military spokespeople.

We recall reporters like Bill Mauldin, who did the Willy and Joe cartoons, Ernie Pyle, and a few others whose names escape me. But maybe the Allies had troubles with various reporters who gave away secrets. The Normandy invasion was a fantastic enterprise. Maybe some reporters tried to give away the secret and were dealt with somehow.

Just speculating here…….

I’ve just been reading snippets here and there about the Sandy Burger case. What was THAT all about, and why don’t we know more about it? It’s not up to the media to deal with it. It’s up to the Justice Department. Ditto the NYTimes revelation of military secrets.

Maybe the time isn’t right, but I believe that heads must roll (figuratively and literally) if we are ever to have a media that is not an agent for enemy propaganda.

We can’t depend upon the media to reform itself, that’s for sure. But they must be made accountable for outright pro-enemy efforts. I’m not talking about “freedom of speech” issues. I’m talking about aid to the enemy in clearcut ways.

I remember Walter Cronkite. Perhaps his esteem at the time related more to the deep voice, as opposed to any brains.

Also, is it just me, or does David Gregroy of NBC remind others of the Muppet Show newscaster?

AMEN.

The American people have a lot more patience than I ever did. Because I was fed up with imprisonment a long time ago. Neo also has more patience than I do. Because she kept up the balance up until a few weeks ago, that is. Sure, some people were thinking about hardline efforts, but they still had enough faith in Bush or Bush’s generals to save the situation without being hardcore. Course, I wasn’t willing to wait, I wanted the iron fist rule early on.

I think Cronkite burned out at about the 1 to 2 year mark. The political elites usually burn out within a year, from what I’ve seen. Only firm leadership and the iron hand of rule (Roosevelt) can sustain the war effort.

It’s interesting that the film “Good Night, and Good Luck” is exactly about the moral dilemma of reportorial objectivity.

It seems to me that it’s a tough call. Reporters are supposed to be objective, of course, but they are human beings, and they are bound to make moral judgments. If they make such judgments, then at least they should bracket those judgments off from the rest of their work. The same, BTW, should apply to academics.

Since I re-read Cronkite’s comments (thanks for posting), it seems to me that such bracketing was done. Furthermore, the idea that Vietnam was a stalemate was already being published in things like the NYT well before this, in 1967, based on leaked assessments of general officers of the Army.

My own personal memories of Tet — they get a little confused with the seizure of the Pueblo that took place around the same time — is that no one, and I mean no one, thought the Vietcong/NVA had that much fight left in them. We had been getting body counts for two years, assuring us that we were winning, and then all of a sudden, this. That the offensive was an objective failure for the North was, and is, irrelevant. The fact that it occurred meant to us observers that we would be in Vietnam for years to come, and it was as a result that people started to turn against the war even more strongly.

I should also say that Cronkite’s editorial — I remember watching it — brought a collective sigh of relief to those of us watching. It wasn’t that Cronkite persuaded anybody: he was just saying what everyone already knew. And I remember being grateful that at least SOMEBODY in the media, etc. had the balls to call it the way a large number of Americans were seeing it. Cronkite’s comments did not change people’s minds. But they did give him added credibility at the time.

For an example of one of the many “hardcore” techniques I favor, try reading this comment at blackfive. Yummy, it’s good eating.

People need a cast iron stomach in war. Bush kept trying to calm people down when he should poured on the hate and rage, and annihilated his enemies, both domestic and foreign. He would be a lot more popular, for sure.

Link

I heard that if you tie 4 terrorists together, use treplanation on one of the 4 in order to scoop out the brains and put a grenade inside the treplaned skull, then finally pulling the pin on the grenade and throwing all 4 into the sea, that it would also be a good cure. Strapping terrorists with C4 in order to alleviate rage, a nice solution, but I like mine more.

What I said in short.

If you video tape it and do the simple and painless operation while the 4 are tied together, I think you might get some good reactions and propaganda. Besides, I don’t think the guy being operated on would notice, up until his brains started getting scooped out. Not a lot of nerves on the brain really. I’m looking at the pig’s brain on this little plate of mine, and it looks really white. Sort of like fish, without the bones. I hate bones. Bones scare me.

I started thinking this stuff up when I saw Nick Berg’s execution video. Everyone kept talking about “how watching it made me sick”. Well, I know it didn’t make me sick, so I thought, what would make the terrorists sick? What if we dipped the golden spoon into a layer of pig’s fat and scheisse before scooping it out, would that make them sick? Step along the path of psychological warfare. Which is simple. Find your enemy’s weaknesses, and exploit them. Everyone has fears. Everyone is scared of something. Find it, exploit it.

The terrorists believe they have civilians cowed because they have big knives and can stick it in people and kill them. Well, well. I guess maybe they don’t realize that there are crueler and more brutal techniques out there, and the people who not only think them up but are willing to carry them out, personally.

Thanks, Steve, for absolutely proving Neo’s point in the post above.

“Irrelevant”? Your next statement PROVES that the misreporting of Tet was TOTALLY relevant.

…and Reuters fauxtographers, and NYTimes plagiarists, and CBS fakers, and AP liars, etc. etc. etc.

There is a difference between reporting facts (Iraq IS chaotic) and lying (6 Sunnis set on fire—no proof of which exists). And perhaps the reason that the Washington Times and the NY Post have not printed anything different is because THEY don’t have reporters in the field either, whereas Michael Yon, Michael Totten and Bill Roggio are actually, you know, IN COUNTRY and WITH THE TROOPS.

The only advantage the guerilla has over conventional forces is being able to deny the Public clear cut victories, ground gained, objectives taken. The media likes to imagine the US military can’t deal with guerilla/terrorist fighters, never mind a couple hundred years dealing with Indians and Conderarate geurillas and Fillipino fanatics, and Boxers, etc. etc. The media likes to spread Che myths I call them - the invicible, ideal, daunting, committed peasant warrior able to combat the evil US and win at times. Another myth spread by the media was that the NVA were natural born jungle fighters. From the streets of Hanoi and other towns and urban centers to boot camp to the jungle and presto! natural born jungle fighters. Yeah right. Same applies to peasant farmers coming out of well established farming communities of rice paddies and dikes, venturing into the jungles to only gather some fire wood from time to time. The diaries and letters taken off dead NVA tell a different story - the terror of encountering tigers and poisonous snakes and centipedes in the jungle, getting lost, dehyrdration and diarrhea, fatigue, sleep deprivation, heat and humidity, bad water, ulcerated sores, jungle rot of the feet, malaria, food shortages, bad equipment and of course Americans and the death they brought. Natural born jungle fighters my ass.

The Marines were not invicible. In the summer of 67′, B co. of the 1st bn 9th Marine regiment was decimated almost to the man. I knew one of the few survivors who returned in 69′ and was in my outfit. Many things factor in - terrain, cover, postioning of men, coordination,timing, fatigued point men, luck, close killing fields of fire, etc.

Now that the Democrats are in control and a number of them realize we simply can’t cut and run from Iraq, the media is backing off its incessant doomsday reporting. Perhaps too the Public is starting to realize that all of Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq are not experiecing the terrorism of Baghdad.

Works for me, Anon. I’ve always said one of the Administration’s biggest failures was in treating the WH press corps as fellow Americans. I’d have pulled all their passes a long time ago and given Helen Thomas and David Gregory ten minutes to make it out of the gates before the Secret Service opened fire.

But seriously - it’s interesting that you use the Jamil Hussein case as an example to beat the “warbloggers” over the head. It’s very simple - either the AP is lying, or they’re not. Given the ruthless fisking that has been done at Michelle Malkin and Junk Yard Blog, there’s something deeply suspicious in what the AP has reported concerning the burning mosques that somehow have morphed into a great deal less.

I forget where I saw it - perhaps Instapundit - but the point has been raised that such obvious lying as Rathergate and the petulant “prove we’re lying, assjack” attitude of the AP might delight the left base, but it’s ultimately unhealthy for all of us. Too many people on the right side now automatically discount bad news out of Iraq if the MSM is reporting it, because we can point to too many examples of their mendacity (the press-wide Abu Gharab orgasm as well as the “Boston Globe’s” insistence that a pornographic “Veils and Tails” website was proof of American soldiers raping Iraqi women come instantly to mind). If we’re convinced that the press is lying, then when truly bad news occurs, it will catch us all blindsided.

But it’s so much easier to sneer about Mark Steyn (who has actually been in the line of fire) and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists that to wonder whether the cry of “lies and bias” might have any truth.

I’m hardly likely to watch your link. If you think the ravings of Noam Chomsky constitute “learning something based in reality,” I’d also suggest you ask David Irving for thoughts on the Holocaust.

You better be anti-Democrat, Neo. I don’t want you backing what Hillary said now here.

Less Troops!

Opinionating by “pundits” is just what they do, and not only has a long history but has an important role to play; but opinionating from those who are trading on their reputation as “reporters” is a betrayal of journalism, pure and simple, and is exactly what has so degraded the media of our own time — to the extent that they really can no longer tell “fake” from “true”.

By the way, to hear Cronkite interviewed now is more than a little bizarre — it’s not just that he’s still proud of his personal editorial in 1968; it’s that he seems to have been afflicted with some sort of viral brain damage, imagining Karl Rove arranging Bin Laden interviews, fixing elections, etc. Right up there with Ramsey Clark and Jimmy Carter. The boomers themselves were bad enough — but they seemed to have tilted a significant percentage of their elders into the permanent la-la land of big-time, paranoid Conspiracy Theory.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=26004

“The media likes to spread Che myths I call them - the invicible, ideal, daunting, committed peasant warrior able to combat the evil US and win at times.”

So very true. And then, what does it all come to? Che Guevara T-shirts. Mao watches. Chief Illiniwek lawsuits. Silly stuff for college students, ACLU misfits, and slacker-types.

We need to make the propagandists afraid of US. Don’t we have any cute Marines (former farm boys since we don’t have peasants) who would look good on T-shirts?

I read your post about health care and how deeply flawed the Canadian health care system is - and that socialized medicine doesn’t work etc(contrary to the facts that you so espouse - have a close look at WHO and others and what they say about the U.S healthcare system)

My question is did you arrive at this ideological construction AFTER 9.11?

And if you didn’t than it’s clear that you are a complete fraud - even American liberals very much favour socialized medicine in the U.S(as indeed does the majority of the U.S population).

What a shameless hussy…+

[Hi stevie–nice try at another new identity. ]

Edited By Siteowner

“Can’t we at least have economic chaos? I’ve wondered why we haven’t seen pictures of thousands of dead orphans with their ribs protruding from starvation while fat US troops eat well.”

As I recall, one reason that the U.S. military, in 2003, “wasn’t prepared for all the looting and insurgency” was that it WAS actually prepared for a great humanitarian crisis that never occurred.

Meanwhile, during these past 3 years, Iraq has been steadily improving its economy. Little of this has been reported.

Of course, we already know that most “journalists” don’t know much about economics anyway, so they wouldn’t see traffic jams as a sign of economic health.

I’m afraid I can’t figure out why any of this Cronkite stuff really mattered at the time. I kind of see how its playing itself out again now. But it doesn’t seem to have changed much then.

To recap:

In 1972, most US troops were out of Vietnam, and the South Vietnamese had pretty much defeated the Viet Cong.

From then until 1975, the US government supported the South in building their military and building a government which could defend its borders.

Then Nixon was ousted and Democrats took over everything. They shut off aid to the South, and refused to help defend the country when the North invaded.

So how was Cronkite’s speach from 7 years earlier relevant? Had he not made the speach, would Johnson have run again, and therefore the Democrats never would have shut off aid? Even if Johnson/Democrats had lost to Nixon, would they still have supported the war if Cronkite had not given the speach? For that matter, if Johnson had won, would that have better or worse for the Vietnamese over the next 7 years?

I guess that’s possible, though you really didn’t make that your point. It seems like kind of a stretch to say so.

It seems to me that Cronkite thought he had a bigger impact than he really did. It also seems to me that the Democrats would have turned on the whole enterprise even though it was won, and US troops were no longer involved, even if Cronkite had not given the speach. Which means that Conkrite really wasn’t pivotal in the process.

Please note: I’m not claiming that there is anything likable about Conkrite.

James

“Not to mention the tens of billions of dollars earmarked for reconstruction that have just disappeared from both Iraqi and US treasuries.”

“Care to back up your statement with some facts? Any facts will do.”

Well, justa?

As for the booming Iraqi economy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

Didn’t see RangerUP? hehe

Remember, folks:

JUSTAGUY = Pali Shill.

Just click “Homepage” and see…

Funny. I’m doing just fine, thanks.

Look, everybody knows you have a favorite website. From now on, just post a linky to it and leave the BS out of your comments. You’ll be doing us a favor and saving yourself a lot of typing.

No, this just shows that the Army does what it’s supposed to do when people screw up. Sherman said “War is hell”…and this is just one of those hellish things. Are you just as upset when a Pali blows up a pizza parlor?

Probably not…THAT’s “justified”. I’m surprised that you take such joy in violence and death, peace lover that you are….

gee, I don’t know. How many?

The destruction came as the bulldozers, part of the Zionists’ “Water Denial Brigade,” were on their way to also destroy numerous recently-dug water wells in the area. The photos accompanying this article were graciously provided by Pulitzer-prize winning Reuters photographer, Issam Kobeisi.

Oh, please. Genocide is what’s happening in Darfur. If the IDF were interested in genocide, the Palis would be long gone by now.

I was actually making fun of your reliance on the MSM for your “facts”—you know, Lancet, the NYT, Reuters, AP—by the way, facts which you never provided.

Hey Ali…I WAS a whizz in formal logic: the kind called Boolean Algebra. “A” in the course, ahem…

Now…what was I suppose to refute? Make it snappy pal(i)…I’m leaving to celebrate a Christian holiday tomorrow.

BTW, your main forte is what is known in logic as the unsustainable middle…you can look it up.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Blame the MSM for not winning hearts and minds!!!

I’m not understanding exactly how the US military trying and punishing murderers proves the commentor’s somewhat inscrutable point(Why can’t they ever just come out and SAY things – why must it always be awkward, inept implication?). All this bit of info proves is that the US has the moral currency to buy justice. If I were an Iraqi onlooker I would be noticing that murder by Americans is dealt with by the US with justice. Quite a contrast from Saddam’s murder by the state, eh what? I would think my Iraqi heart and mind would be a trifle warmer after thoughtful consideration of the implications of this trial of US soldiers for the murder of civilians.
 

I was going to go on with that Iraqi economy thing, but he switched to the fact that the US is out of cash. On the way to this he has to throw in vile insults as well.

Then it occurred to me - there’s never anything but full-bore partisanship from justaguy. There is nothing going right in the Iraqi economy, nothing going right in Iraq at all. Or in America either, under Bush. There are no rays of hope, no possible upsides to anything. Things are so amazingly bad, it’s a wonder we’re alive.

Contrast this with the persuasive approach of neo and at least some of the commenters: there are plusses and minuses; chances missed, unexpected benefits; Cronkite’s actions have some defense, but not enough; the military deserves some credit, but some blame. There were benefits, risks, costs, and unintended consequences.

The real world is more like that. There may be a few contexts in which it is possible to have very productive discussions with people who engage in this sort of Manichean fantasy, and there may be situations where justaguy gives measured, cautious comments. But that situation is not here. Let him think he’s out-argued all of us, who cannot stand before his mighty logic. Give him the last word, if he wants it. Save your discussion for those who can discuss.

Your comment was a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

D-E-F-E-N-S-E-L-E-S-S. We invaded and occupied a DEFENSELESS beaten wreck of a country.

sheesh!

Unfortunately, Haditha will also be a political trial. The results will always be tainted.

If and only if the charges are accurate, the killers and any protectors deserve the harshness of the UCMJ. They shamed themselves, their families, their uniform, and their country, by unnecessarily shedding innocent blood.

Right. But the point is that dialog of any sort is equally hopeless.

AVI: Then it occurred to me - there’s never anything but full-bore partisanship from justaguy.

Yes — that’s why he’s called a “troll”, and why neo usually just deletes his posts. Not because she’s trying to censor anyone, but because that kind of “commenting” is really just an effort to throw sand into the process, to disrupt and shut down down any sort of normal interchange. And unfortunately, whenever you try to engage them you usually just end up helping them in that effort. Tempting, though, I know — they’re such easy targets.

Ja, wir sind alle Nazin, nicht wahr?

You know, if I get called a Nazi one more time by some indecent, incivil, inane, insipid troll I’m going to have to break out my 15 year old Bruichladdich. Come to think of it, I’ll call myself a Nazi for that. Godwin’s Law rocks.

Sally, the robot comment was as pointed as AVI’s comment, but in your inimitable style.

Harry, I purposely misspelled uncivil. But then I would understand what you mean.

Finally, to all Palestinian ladies-of-the-night, I apologize for the insult.

Well, if we’re all brown people killin racial Islomophobe Nazi’s, why bother talking to us? Is the opportunity to spew vile attacks the big pay off? Are we supposed to cry or something? I dont get it. Isnt there a more constructive way to bridge the ideological gap? I thought liberals and “progressives” are supposed to be good at the diplomacy and nuance thing. What happened to that?

He hates, therefore he must spew.
He schadenfreudes, therefore he must keep coming back.

Bruichladdich is an isley scotch with the taste of the sea, of salt and iodine. I would be very happy right now if someone could call me a Nazi, so I might pour one more shot.

Yes, clearly there is. Therefore, we can assume that trolls are not trying to bridge any gap, ideological or otherwise. In fact, they’re trying to prevent or block any such bridging by, as I say, throwing sand in the gears of any debate — through such recognizable tactics as changing subjects, moving goal posts, repeating themselves, dominating the floor, always demanding more “evidence”, etc.

I thought liberals and “progressives” are supposed to be good at the diplomacy and nuance thing. What happened to that?

I can only hope you’re being ironic, harry.

You know, the sad thing in all this is that if a respectful tone could be kept by all, and I do mean all, there are things to learn from opposing viewpoints. I have tweaked many an opinion by listening to others.

But when some come in it is so obvious that they have only one purpose, to be as indecent as they can be. It goes against everything I was taught about not only how to argue, but how to treat people, any person of any faith or color. (That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize.)

Ultimately, they make such fools of themselves (such as seemingly misunderstanding Harry’s D-E-F-E-N-S-E-L-E-S-S) by showing they are not reading to understand but only to belittle.

As I told my dad a week ago when we were discussing the weakness and appeasement-mindedness of our politicians (we were talking about Olmert, but it holds true for nearly all the world): the true rulers and policymakers of our day are the media; they are the ones who crown the kings and tell them how to rule and depose them if they don’t comply. Winning this war requires, first and foremostly, actions which are considered to be by the intelligentsia of today, and consequently portrayed so by the Mainstream Media, as “cultural imperialism” (things on the line of General Sir Charles Napier’s prohibition of suttee). The MSM has been losing us all our wars against Islam so far.

Happy weekend from another changed mind (I was a Leftist Peacenik in the 1990’s).