No comment necessary

Posts : 2141

I guess we're talking past each other, Jack. Perhaps this will help...

happy jack wrote:: Those who, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, heaped vitriol on Bush are now either throwing rose petals in Obama's path or are remaining silent.

I thought that we were talking about the events during the "run-up" (which I underlined) to the invasion of Iraq and the "run-up" to the imposition of the No-Fly zone in Libya. Those are the events that tell us whether or not the action taken is "justified" or not. The fact that both Presidents made similar statements in speeches announcing the beginning of hostilities is, IMHO, entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not either action was justified.

Hope this clears things up.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Those who, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, heaped vitriol on Bush are now either throwing rose petals in Obama's path or are remaining silent.

But still unwilling to let us know where you stand on the issues, I see...

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

I guess we're talking past each other, Jack. Perhaps this will help...

happy jack wrote:: Those who, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, heaped vitriol on Bush are now either throwing rose petals in Obama's path or are remaining silent.

I thought that we were talking about the events during the "run-up" (which I underlined) to the invasion of Iraq and the "run-up" to the imposition of the No-Fly zone in Libya. Those are the events that tell us whether or not the action taken is "justified" or not. The fact that both Presidents made similar statements in speeches announcing the beginning of hostilities is, IMHO, entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not either action was justified.

Hope this clears things up.

My point from the beginning was never to ask whether the actions of either Bush or Obama were justified, nor to offer an opinion as to whether I thought they were justified. My point was to illuminate how the justifications offered by each of the men were perceived, and to wonder aloud why I am not seeing signs with pictures of Obama sporting a Hitler-like mustache.
Because, you see, the justifications offered by both men are identical, and can be distilled into a couple of sentences:

There’s a bad man killing his own people. Why don’t we get together with some of our friends and shoot things at his house?

And it really is no more complicated than that.

Posts : 6988

Since this thread is all about the differences in the media perception and treatment of two different presidents, I thought this would be relevant.
When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the New York Times ran untold numbers of front-page articles on the subject. To date, they have run one article on this, buried in the Asia/Pacific section. Perhaps they are waiting to more thoroughly address this topic in one of their extended Sunday features, possibly running several articles as a weekly series, and even now are busily polishing up their stories.
Yes, that must be it.
Meanwhile, I will go out in search of posters featuring Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20110322/cm_theweek/213402_20110322115100

A U.S. kill team's trophy photos: More damaging than Abu Ghraib?

– Tue Mar 22, 7:51 am ET
New York – [i]After a German magazine publishes images of American soldiers posing next to dead Afghan civilians, the army brass fears a major backlash
In a public relations nightmare for the U.S. military, the German news magazine Der Spiegel has published photographs of grinning American soldiers posing next to the corpse of an Afghan civilian. (See the graphic photos here.) The soldiers, Spec. Jeremy N. Morlock of Alaska and Pfc. Andrew H. Holmes of Idaho, are among five members of a rogue 5th Stryker Brigade "kill team" facing murder charges in the deaths of three Afghan civilians last year. Military commanders say they are bracing for an explosion of anti-U.S. anger akin to that which followed the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq. Is this as bad?
This is worse than Abu Ghraib: NATO leaders know these images "could be more damning than the photos from Abu Ghraib," says Nitasha Tiku at New York. The photos from Iraq showed U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners, and that was bad enough. But these soldiers have been accused of "deliberately" murdering Afghan civilians. And these images might just be the tip of the iceberg — apparently, the Stryker "kill team" recorded their actions in 4,000 photos and videos.
"Trophy photos of Army's 'kill team' with Afghan civilians could be worse than Abu Ghraib"

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I guess we're talking past each other, Jack. Perhaps this will help...

happy jack wrote:: Those who, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, heaped vitriol on Bush are now either throwing rose petals in Obama's path or are remaining silent.

I thought that we were talking about the events during the "run-up" (which I underlined) to the invasion of Iraq and the "run-up" to the imposition of the No-Fly zone in Libya. Those are the events that tell us whether or not the action taken is "justified" or not. The fact that both Presidents made similar statements in speeches announcing the beginning of hostilities is, IMHO, entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not either action was justified.

Hope this clears things up.

My point from the beginning was never to ask whether the actions of either Bush or Obama were justified, nor to offer an opinion as to whether I thought they were justified. My point was to illuminate how the justifications offered by each of the men were perceived, and to wonder aloud why I am not seeing signs with pictures of Obama sporting a Hitler-like mustache.
Because, you see, the justifications offered by both men are identical, and can be distilled into a couple of sentences:

There’s a bad man killing his own people. Why don’t we get together with some of our friends and shoot things at his house?

And it really is no more complicated than that.

Yeah, well I guess that's true, if you're a complete simpleton.

My point is that the American people don't base their "perceptions" on a passage from a speech announcing the beginning of hostilities. They base their perceptions on all of the events that led up to the announcement, not the frickin' announcement itself.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: They base their perceptions on all of the events that led up to the announcement, not the frickin' announcement itself.

Correct.
And the events leading up to the announcements were, essentially:

There’s a bad man killing his own people. Why don’t we get together with some of our friends and shoot things at his house?

I don't know why you feel the need to make it so much more complicated than it actually is.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the New York Times ran untold numbers of front-page articles on the subject. To date, they have run one article on this, buried in the Asia/Pacific section. Perhaps they are waiting to more thoroughly address this topic in one of their extended Sunday features, possibly running several articles as a weekly series, and even now are busily polishing up their stories.
Yes, that must be it.

Kinda apples and oranges, isn't it? The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was exactly that, a scandal. It was the systemic abuse of prisoners, repeated rights violations, involving more than a dozen soldiers and officers, as well as a spectacular lack of oversight. It involved two hot button issues, Abu Ghraib itself and torture, as well as possibly being government sanctioned.

The later is just a cut and dry murder of an Afghan farmer at the hands of soldiers stupid enough to pose for the picture afterward; a handful of idiots clearly off the rails, who are now in custody on trial for murder and attempted murder. It's not the first civilian murder; similar incidents were largely ignored by the media during the previous administration as have others since. I imagine this will get the same play as those incidents did, which is to say, not much. Save for Fox News, of course.

As for possible backlash? We'll see. The fact that soldiers have been shooting unarmed civilians in the Middle East isn't exactly news to the people who live there.

Posts : 1545

Here is what Joe Biden has to say about attacking another country without congressional approval:

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the New York Times ran untold numbers of front-page articles on the subject. To date, they have run one article on this, buried in the Asia/Pacific section. Perhaps they are waiting to more thoroughly address this topic in one of their extended Sunday features, possibly running several articles as a weekly series, and even now are busily polishing up their stories.
Yes, that must be it.

Kinda apples and oranges, isn't it? The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was exactly that, a scandal. It was the systemic abuse of prisoners, repeated rights violations, involving more than a dozen soldiers and officers, as well as a spectacular lack of oversight. It involved two hot button issues, Abu Ghraib itself and torture, as well as possibly being government sanctioned.

The later is just a cut and dry murder of an Afghan farmer at the hands of soldiers stupid enough to pose for the picture afterward; a handful of idiots clearly off the rails, who are now in custody on trial for murder and attempted murder. It's not the first civilian murder; similar incidents were largely ignored by the media during the previous administration as have others since. I imagine this will get the same play as those incidents did, which is to say, not much. Save for Fox News, of course.

As for possible backlash? We'll see. The fact that soldiers have been shooting unarmed civilians in the Middle East isn't exactly news to the people who live there.

Heretic wrote:: Kinda apples and oranges, isn't it?

Depends on where you buy your fruit.

Heretic wrote:: "The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was exactly that, a scandal. It was the systemic abuse of prisoners, repeated rights violations, involving more than a dozen soldiers and officers, …"

"…soldiers stupid enough to pose for the picture afterward; a handful of idiots…"

If you put it that way, I don’t see Abu Ghraib as being any more than “a handful of idiots… “, also.
The perceived magnitude of each scandal and the manufactured outrage which follows each scandal are entirely dependent upon who happens to be in the White House at any given time.

Posts : 875

happy jack wrote:: My point from the beginning was never to ask whether the actions of either Bush or Obama were justified, nor to offer an opinion as to whether I thought they were justified. My point was to illuminate how the justifications offered by each of the men were perceived, and to wonder aloud why I am not seeing signs with pictures of Obama sporting a Hitler-like mustache.
Because, you see, the justifications offered by both men are identical, and can be distilled into a couple of sentences:

I found them.

No comment necessary - Page 2 Obama_hitler

Kucinich (D-Ohio) calls Libyan action "impeachable"

For the record, I disagree with President Obama on his actions in Libya.

Posts : 6988

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0311/a_noble_defense_dccb5644-d067-404b-8580-b939a4056f06.html

Obama is keeping his peace prize

By MJ LEE | 03/23/11 6:45 AM Updated: 03/23/11 9:08 PM

President Obama defended his Nobel Peace Prize on Tuesday, saying that Americans “don’t see any contradiction” in him ordering an attack on Libya to make sure “people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power.”

I'm not commenting on his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, as ridiculous as that was. I'm just trying to lay out, as I have been from the very beginning of this thread, the remarkable (yet unremarked upon) similarities between the intentions of Barack Obama and the intentions of George Bush, and the lack of media acknowledgement of those similarities.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: I'm just trying to lay out, as I have been from the very beginning of this thread, the remarkable (yet unremarked upon) similarities between the intentions of Barack Obama and the intentions of George Bush, and the lack of media acknowledgement of those similarities.

I think that you can chalk that up to the fact that Bush's "intentions" were doubted, Jack. There are no such doubts (at least not yet) about Obama's intentions.

Is that because the media was out to "get" President Bush? IMHO, that's just ridiculous.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I think that you can chalk that up to the fact that Bush's "intentions" were doubted, Jack.

If Bush’s intentions were doubted, then so were the intentions of 373 members of Congress. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he was the only one who was forced to accept the blame.

Scorpion wrote:: There are no such doubts (at least not yet) about Obama's intentions.

And there won’t be, as long as your fellow travelers keep getting their simple-minded lap-dog message out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x693049
I know we don't all agree on what the correct choice of action is for Libya, but we should all agree that Obama's intentions are pure and that he is not participating in the "no fly zone" for sinister reasons. Obama is no Bush.
Can we all acknowledge that? That would be a good starting place for mature conversations.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: And there won’t be, as long as your fellow travelers keep getting their simple-minded lap-dog message out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x693049
I know we don't all agree on what the correct choice of action is for Libya, but we should all agree that Obama's intentions are pure and that he is not participating in the "no fly zone" for sinister reasons. Obama is no Bush.
Can we all acknowledge that? That would be a good starting place for mature conversations.

Keep this crap off of my screen.

I have nothing at all in common with the "Democratic Underground., and I am most certainly not a "fellow traveler."

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I think that you can chalk that up to the fact that Bush's "intentions" were doubted, Jack.

If Bush’s intentions were doubted, then so were the intentions of 373 members of Congress. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he was the only one who was forced to accept the blame.

The Resolution on Iraq was passed in October 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You talk as if we invaded the next day. That's not what happened, Jack. If you want to reopen a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But let's not pretend that nothing at all happened between the AUMF and the invasion.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I think that you can chalk that up to the fact that Bush's "intentions" were doubted, Jack.

If Bush’s intentions were doubted, then so were the intentions of 373 members of Congress. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he was the only one who was forced to accept the blame.

The Resolution on Iraq was passed in October 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You talk as if we invaded the next day. That's not what happened, Jack. If you want to reopen a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But let's not pretend that nothing at all happened between the AUMF and the invasion.

This lays it all out pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: If Bush’s intentions were doubted, then so were the intentions of 373 members of Congress. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he was the only one who was forced to accept the blame.

The Resolution on Iraq was passed in October 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You talk as if we invaded the next day. That's not what happened, Jack. If you want to reopen a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But let's not pretend that nothing at all happened between the AUMF and the invasion.

This lays it all out pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded

No, actually it doesn't, because once again, it ignores the events that happened during the run-up to the invasion., specifically the events between the vote and the invasion. Like I said, if you want to have a discussion on the run-up to the war, we can do that. But I don't think that you really want that, do you?

That would require you to leave the comfort zone of partisan talking points, and actually discuss how and why Bush lost the trust of a large portion of the American public, especially in the 5 months leading up to the invasion. But IMHO, it would be good for you, Jack.

BTW - For what it's worth, I did find the video to be mildly amusing.

Posts : 6988

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263449/obamas-amazing-achievements-victor-davis-hanson

Iraq was just a prequel to Libya: Conservatives have complained that opposition — especially in the cases of then-senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden — to George W. Bush’s antiterrorism policies and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was more partisan than principled. Obama ended that debate by showing that not only can he embrace — or, on occasion, expand — the Bush-Cheney tribunals, preventive detentions, renditions, Predator attacks, intercepts and wiretaps, and Guantanamo Bay, but he can now preemptively attack an Arab oil-exporting country without fear of Hollywood, congressional cutoffs, MoveOn.org “General Betray Us”–type ads, Cindy Sheehan on the evening news, or Checkpoint-like novels. In short, Obama has ensured that the antiwar movement will never be quite the same.
……….
Stuff happens: Many supporters of the Iraq War condemned Abu Ghraib as the poorly supervised, out-of-control prison it was. Lax American oversight resulted in the sexual humiliation of detained Iraqi insurgents. It was a deplorable episode, in which, nonetheless, no one was killed, and yet it took an enormous toll on the credibility of Bush-administration officials. But while the media were covering the Libyan bombing and the Middle East uprisings, a number of Afghan civilians allegedly were executed by a few rogue American soldiers. That was a far worse transgression than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib during Bush’s tenure — but it was apparently an incident that, in the new media climate, could legitimately be ignored. Obama made “stuff happens” an acceptable defense for those doing their best to run a war from Washington.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263449/obamas-amazing-achievements-victor-davis-hanson
[/i]

Another whining wingnut op-ed by someone who can't get over the fact that Obama did everything right. Sleep

Mr Hanson is also a huge Caribou Barbie fan and has been carrying water for her on a regular basis. Rolling Eyes

Why Do We Like Palin? September 3, 2008 12:42 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson
:rolfcry:

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Another whining wingnut op-ed by someone who can't get over the fact that Obama did everything right.

Can you point out any untruths in the article?
Thanks.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Another whining wingnut op-ed by someone who can't get over the fact that Obama did everything right.

Can you point out any untruths in the article?
Thanks.

First of all, it's not an article. It's an opinion piece. I haven't bothered to read the whole thing, but yeah, I can spot something right away...

Quote :: But while the media were covering the Libyan bombing and the Middle East uprisings, a number of Afghan civilians allegedly were executed by a few rogue American soldiers.

I thought those murders happened a year ago. This is one of the problems with Op-Ed pieces. The columnist was so anxious to make his political points that he didn't even bother to check something as basic as that. If a columnist doesn't take the time to fact check his work, then why the hell should we care about what else he has to say?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: This lays it all out pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded

Ugh... Those are the worst things to happen to the internet since that "leave Brittany alone" guy.

For an equally amusing vid, here's the "global warming is a conspiracy" one. Or creationism. Real easy to win an argument if your opponent is a retarded robot reading a script.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I thought those murders happened a year ago.

You're right- the chronology was off.
The author's premise, however, was right on.

Scorpion wrote:: I haven't bothered to read the whole thing ...

You can't just read it - you have to watch it.
For Chrissakes, don't you know anything?!?!?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I thought those murders happened a year ago.

You're right- the chronology was off.
The author's premise, however, was right on.

The "premise" is frickin' absurd. I know that you believe this juvenile tripe, but that doesn't make it accurate. I'll give you just one example of why this kind of thinking is fundamentally flawed, and then I'm done with this nonsense.

I don't know anyone who didn't support the war in Afghanistan. Yet your "author" even goes so far as to claim that Biden and Obama opposed it. I can't ask your "author" for a supporting statement for that ridiculous claim, but since it's so obvious to you that his premise is "right on," the responsibility to find supporting evidence falls to you. (Which is another reason that opinion pieces should not be used to make an argument)

Good luck with that.

Hell, Obama actually campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and that is exactly what has happened since he took office.

Posts : 1328

Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?