Posted on 08/06/2004 1:46:51 PM PDT by quidnunc
On a serious note, do you agree with Rumsfeld in that this is a fight for our freedom?
If so, perhaps you could explain in detail how Iraq has diminished American liberty, and in what ways we'll enjoy more liberty now that Saddam is behind bars.
Or you could crack more jokes, whichever you prefer.
The misnamed War on Terror — which actually is a war against Muslim fascist extremists — is a war against many separate groups on many fronts all seeking the same goal, the destruction of Western Civilization.
Saddam Hussein was fully involved in the war against the West.
Iraq is at the epicenter of the Middle East where this pathology is most deeply entrenched, and taking Hussein down places us in an advantageous position to put pressure on the other rogue states in the area.
If so, perhaps you could explain in detail how Iraq has diminished American liberty, and in what ways we'll enjoy more liberty now that Saddam is behind bars.
I don't think he said Iraq diminished our freedom. The title isn't "Fight for OUR freedom." It is "Why America must Fight for Freedom." The point is that by spreading freedom and liberty there are 2 less states supporting terrorists. The war in Iraq has fundamentally changed the area that breeds terrorists, and that was one of the reasons for the war.
"Because of our broad coalition's efforts, 50 million people have been liberated, and their governments are now allies in the global war on terror."
I'm thinking debating this is useless, but I just wanted to point out that Rumsfeld didn't really say what you paraphrased.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/n08062004_2004080604.html:
Ideological Extremism Blocks Progress, Rumsfeld WritesBy John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2004 – Ideological extremists can't be appeased, so they have to be confronted, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote in a guest column published in today's Chicago Tribune. "The phenomenon of ideological extremism -- of which terrorism is the weapon of choice -- stands in the way of global political progress and economic prosperity, threatens the stability of the international order and clouds the future of civil society," Rumsfeld wrote. "Because it cannot be appeased, it must be confronted on many fronts by all civil societies." Terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, and would have killed far more if they had the capability, the defense secretary wrote. "This is a different kind of enemy and a different kind of world," Rumsfeld noted. "And we must think and act differently in this new century. The extremists think nothing of cutting off innocent people's heads to try to intimidate civilized people. They have murdered citizens from many countries -- South Korea, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and others -- hoping to strike fear in the hearts of free people." Rumsfeld cited progress in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. "Courageous leaders have stepped forward to lead their country and crack down on insurgents. Their economy is growing, their currency is strong and they've opened a stock market. More than 2,600 schools have been rehabilitated," he wrote. "They have gone from zero to more than 200,000 Iraqi security force members. We have a good team helping the Iraqis develop their security forces, training them, equipping them and helping them set up a chain of command so they can assume responsibility for their country." Afghanistan, he noted, is moving toward a free election this fall. "Despite the violence aimed at discouraging citizens, and particularly women, from registering to vote, more than 8 million people have already done so, including nearly 4 million women," he wrote. "Under the Taliban, women had virtually no rights at all." The Afghan national army now has 13,000 soldiers, and more than 21,000 Afghans serve in the national police, the secretary noted. Construction of a major road linking major cities is well under way, he wrote, to unify the country and bolster its economy. Afghans have approved a new constitution that protects the rights of all Afghans, the secretary added. In his guest column, Rumsfeld recalled a visit to Korea when that country's parliament was debating whether to send troops to Iraq. A Korean reporter asked him why Korean soldiers should go halfway around the world to be killed or wounded in Iraq. "It was a fair question, one an American could have asked during the Korean War," Rumsfeld wrote. "That day, I had visited a war memorial in Korea that bore the names of every American soldier killed in the war. On it was the name of a close friend of mine from New Trier High School, a wrestling teammate named Dick O'Keefe, who was killed on the last day of the Korean War. I asked the reporter: 'Why should Americans have sent their young people to Korea?'" Rumsfeld didn't wait for an answer. Instead, he urged the reporter to look out the window, where the city of Seoul lay below. "The city was filled with lights and cars and energy and people, a robust economy that's just an economic miracle, and freedom," Rumsfeld wrote. "And I told the reporter that I kept a satellite photo, taken at night, of the Korean peninsula on a table in my office. North of the Demilitarized Zone, there is nothing but darkness, with one little pinprick of light in Pyongyang, the capital. In the south, the country is bathed in light, beacons of prosperity and freedom that 33,000 Americans and thousands of others gave their lives to protect." Though it came at a terrible cost, Rumsfeld wrote, Korea's freedom was worth it – "just as it was worth it to liberate Germany, Japan and Italy." The enemy in the global war on terror can't win militarily, but that doesn't mean the enemy can't win, Rumsfeld noted. "Terrorists cannot defeat our coalition on the battlefield; they can only win if we give up or decide the effort is not worth the cost," he wrote. "But if we stay the course, I have no doubt of our ultimate victory." |
Rummy, bump!
Give me a break. That whole part of the world couldn't occupy ten square feet here for an hour.
Perhaps they could manage to inflict some damage and kill some people. Yet that has nothing to do with liberty. It has to do with safety.
So while the claim we're fighting Iraq for safety has some merit (in a war your enemy always seeks to hurt you), claiming it is a fight for liberty is absurd. It's pure propaganda.
You make a good point there, Liz.
I'm thinking debating this is useless
Not at all. I appreciate your thoughts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186460/posts
THE REAL IRAQ STORY How the major media misreport today's biggest event
By Karl Zinsmeister
How insightful is the Iraq reporting that you've been consuming? Take a little test.
If I tell you that scores of Iraqi detainees have been killed and maimed this year in Abu Ghraib prison, you may not be surprised. But you're probably guessing wrong about who hurt them. The moronic American guards who are now on trial for improperly humiliating some Iraqis caused no deaths or injuries: The many casualties in the prison were all inflicted by Iraq's guerilla terrorists.
During this spring's frenzy of reporting on the plight of detainees at Abu Ghraib, I was surprised that none of the stories mentioned what anyone who has spent time at the prison (as I have) knows is the central danger to the prisoners there. By far the gravest threats to the Iraqis in that facility are the mortars and rockets that guerillas regularly lob into the compound — knowing full well that the main victims of their indiscriminate assaults will be fellow Iraqis. One attack on April 21 of this year, for instance, killed 22 detainees and injured another 91.
The number-one priority for Arabs and Americans concerned about the rights of Iraqi detainees, therefore, ought to be eliminating the merciless assaults of the terrorist insurgents. The sexual indignities imposed by the prison's rogue guards would have to come second on any sensible list.
Shouldn't the reporting on Abu Ghraib have provided some context along those lines? Wouldn't a fuller media presentation of these facts on the ground in Iraq have given the public a better perspective on the various problems at the prison?
Or take another of the Iraq stories most loudly trumpeted in our media: the electricity shortages. You know Baghdad continues to suffer periodic blackouts — news reports remind us of that ad nauseum. Just one more example of U.S. ineffectiveness in this war: The generating system is broken and nothing gets fixed, right?
Wrong. Despite continuing efforts by guerillas to sabotage the grid, Iraq is now generating more electricity than existed in the country before the war. So why do we continue to hear about shortages? Two reasons:
First, Saddam shamelessly hogged the country's electricity in his capital, shunting 57 percent to Baghdad while the provinces were starved for juice. Today, power is distributed fairly to all population centers, and Baghdad gets 28 percent of the total. Though that means occasional shortages in privileged neighborhoods unused to such things, Iraqis as a whole are better off.
Second, Iraq is in the midst of a consumer surge. The economy will grow an estimated 60 percent this year. Iraqis, who have flocked to cell phones and imported a million cars, are also snatching up washing machines, air conditioners, and electronic devices never before available to them. A third of the country now has satellite TV. Electricity demand is thus rising even faster than the steady increases in generation.
Certainly there are problems that stem from growing electricity demand and a new fairness in distribution. But they are "nice" problems, not simple indicators of failure. Now let me ask: Has any of this been adequately explained in the Iraq reporting you've seen?
THE REST OF THE STORY Over the last year and a quarter, America's major media have given us millions of words about the Iraq struggle, most of them accurate. Yet they've often done a poor job of communicating the big, important truths about developments in that country. The very largest, most critical truth they've missed is that the Shiite middle has stuck with us through many travails.
This was demonstrated again when the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr went on the warpath during the spring. Scads of reporters and newsroom analysts declared a general uprising, the loss of majority Shiite support, the beginning of the end for the U.S. in Iraq. "United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising," announced the lead sentence of an April 7 New York Times story written from Washington. A Newsweek headline on April 10 screamed: "THE IRAQI INTIFADA: Suddenly the insurgency is much broader and much more dangerous than anyone had imagined it could become."
These reports were wrong. Ordinary Shiites and Shia leaders alike subsequently made it clear that the mad cleric does not speak for the majority of them. They quietly plotted amongst themselves and with the Coalition to neutralize Sadr. His uprising petered out.
As someone who has recently spent three months on combat patrols with Coalition soldiers, I'll be the first to acknowledge that the U.S. is facing a hard guerilla fight in Iraq. It is, however, not a mass revolt, or a broad popular insurgency.
If you're a regular NRO reader, that's not news to you. But for many Americans, that is news. They shouldn't feel bad. The fault lies with reflexively alarmist and often incomplete reporting. Over the last 16 months I've published two books about the Iraq war based on my own experiences as an embedded reporter. In both I found it necessary to include an entire chapter about problems in media coverage I observed.
Many factors have skewed our Iraq reporting. Deadline pressure, sensationalism, and sometimes just laziness create a negative bias. The easiest reporting from a war zone is simply to point a camera at something that's on fire. A hundred counterparts that aren't in flames are "not a story."
But getting the full picture in a guerilla war requires more than just showing up for the explosions; you need to study and then describe the deeper, glacial changes taking place in society, the public temperament, the tactics of the terrorists, etc. Alas, few reporters show the appetite, endurance, or creativity for this slower style of reporting.
This bias toward failure is fanned by what Michael Barone calls the "zero defect standard" of today's media. For months, armchair journalists without the slightest understanding of what real war is like have howled that this guerilla struggle hasn't been run according to a tidy "plan." Why did we "allow" the looting? How come nobody anticipated the IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) threat? Isn't it wrong for GIs to invade people's houses?
Policy nerds and media critics imply that the transformations being attempted in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been smoothly orchestrated like some kind of grand Super Bowl game. Of course even Super Bowls, we've learned, are subject to "wardrobe failures" and other breakdowns. But wars never proceed according to plan; they are always fought by the seat of one's pants, through constant improvisation.
On D-Day (one of the most carefully "planned" military events ever), 4,649 American soldiers were killed within just a few hours — many through what an accusatory mind could characterize as "screw-ups" (gliders and paratroopers landing in the wrong places, amphibious and landing craft unloading in water that was too deep, Air Force and Navy failures to suppress German fire on the beaches). At its recent 60th anniversary, the Normandy invasion was remembered for its high import and the majesty of its sacrifices. Yet by standards of war invoked by some contemporary media observers, those landings could be viewed as traumatic bungles.
British Labour-party leader Tony Blair recently complained that Western reporting on today's Iraq war had become "appallingly one-sided." He cited several examples of inexplicably negative and critical coverage of encouraging developments. Why, he asked, would reporters casually tar as "an American stooge" Raad Juhi, the bright, courageous, and principled Iraqi judge who signed the warrant to arrest Moqtada al Sadr for murdering a moderate fellow cleric, and who then arraigned Saddam Hussein?
Some of the antagonistic coverage is undoubtedly linked to ideological imbalances in today's press corps. A string of studies since the 1980s have shown that elite reporters vote for Democrats over Republicans, liberals over conservatives, by around ten to one. In a war that has taken on intense partisan connotations, the personal dispositions of reporters will inevitably affect the stories.
Today's war coverage is also often colored by the cultural gap that separates many reporters from soldiers. As Kate O'Beirne only half jokingly put it a couple of years ago, "You've got to remember, most journalists spent their high school years being stuffed into lockers by the kind of males who are running our military. Now they're determined to get even."
The individuals who make up our media elite didn't used to be so disconnected from military life. During World War II more than 700 Harvard men perished in combat. But in a typical class at many Ivy-level colleges today you can count on one hand the number of individuals who do military service. Most of the reporters who shape today's national news now come out of institutions where they have not a single friend or acquaintance or relative with military experience. This doesn't encourage sympathetic understanding of military work or military people.
The gulf between journalists and warriors doesn't always lead to hostility, but it regularly creates misunderstandings and ignorant claims. Editor and columnist Michael Kelly noted in a 1997 Washington Post column that "my generation of reporters" (the baby boomers) "is, in matters military...forever suffering a collective case of the vapors. At the least exposure to the most unremarkable facts of military life...we are forever shocked."
BIAS MATTERS Does incomplete and unduly negative reporting matter in this war? It certainly matters to the public. The American people do not give our media high grades for their coverage of the Iraq war. Only 30 percent told the Pew Research Center they have a great deal of confidence "that the press is giving an accurate picture of how the war is going." Droves of viewers concerned they are being manipulated with negative imagery have migrated to alternative outlets (like Fox, the only news organization that has enjoyed clear net increases in audience and consumer trust over the last year and a half).
Many other Americans have simply tuned out or cancelled their subscriptions. In different polls, large majorities of the public now say that our news organizations are more inaccurate than accurate, and that reporters "get in the way of solving social problems" (Gallup and Princeton Survey Research). Fully 72 percent of Americans now say "the news media have too much power and influence in Washington" (Harris). As someone doing a lot of speaking on this subject, I can tell you that a substantial portion of the American public (and most of the soldiers serving in the war theaters) is dissatisfied with the last year's journalism from Iraq.
Unbalanced war reporting can have fatal effects. Any guerilla war is as much a struggle of truthful images as it is a military encounter. Unbalanced coverage can demoralize forces of good, and encourage the sowers of chaos.
Jim Marshall is a Vietnam combat veteran, a Congressman serving on the House Armed Services Committee, and a Democrat. After returning from a fact-finding trip to Iraq he had this to say: "I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes [and] not balancing this bad news with the 'rest of the story,' the progress made daily. ... The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation, and emboldens our enemy."
Tony Blair went even further in April 2004. He warned that some journalists and opinion shapers would like to see President Bush and "the power of America" defeated in Iraq. "The truth is," Blair wrote in Britain's Observer, "faced with this struggle on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back — if not half-hoping we fail — certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find."
— Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise, has just published Dawn Over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq. His previous book about the 2003 hot war is Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq.
bttt
Thanks for the Rummy Ping.
You have such great judgement, ((H))...
.
Bump!
Bump!
One thing at a time. We're a little busy with survival right now.
We have two choices. Either to fight for our way of life and that includes freedom, the very notion of which is anathema to Islamofascists, right here in America. Or we take the fight to where the aforementioned lunatics eat and sleep and train. The latter is what we've chosen to do.
Some random thoughts at 3 A.M. and I've been up since yesterday at 5 A.M., so bear with me. You're looking at this through the wrong end of the spyglass, focusing on certain individual freedoms that have been compromised, some for the short haul hopefully, and which will be restored once this horror is over.(Although I agree it's well nigh impossible to restore freedoms once a population has become accustomed to doing without, and yes, this is not a good thing.) Other individual freedoms are a whole lot more complicated...we get into border control, Mexicans and everyone else migrating north as fast as their feet can take them. They all demand the vote along with everything else, too, illegal or not.
The rest of the world wants the right to vote in our elections, would you believe it and can't be counted on to vote in our interest. This is mindboggling. If we demanded the right to vote in France's elections, they'd call us crazy. We'd all love to live in Utopia, but we're stuck here with the best this planet has to offer at the moment and have to make the best of it.
I'm a closet isolationist, hate change, and just want the rest of the world to leave us alone. What the heck is wrong with that? This attitude is decried as 'insensitive and egocentric' by those who'd like to see us hogtied and shackled to the UN -- See Kerry's campaign speeches.
I knew NAFTA was the nose under the tent, that we'd hear that giant sucking sound as jobs and everything else disappeared into the third world. This was supposed to be the rising tide to lift all boats, they'd have money to buy our goods (What goods? They're all being manufactured somewhere else.)All we have to do is keep reinventing ourselves, coming up with more and better inventions that generate jobs, hope, etc.. Cell phones, HDTV, and I-Pod won't do it, alas. Well, after the middle east blows up, maybe we'll dig around in the archives down in D.C. and find the formula for cold fusion, where we hid it so the middle east would still have something to sell.
Don't get me started on the C.F.R. and David Rockefeller and that gang who got together after the wall fell and decided how best to rearrange things so big business could bring prosperity to the third world, etc....which brings us back to NAFTA.
I used to support the death penalty. Not anymore. The federal govt. and state govt. all of them, have too much power, and it's getting worse every day. We're like frogs in cold water on the stove, who don't know we're being boiled alive until it's too late. So why give the feds or anyone else that ultimate power of taking a human life? No matter how heinous the crime, there should be something govt. can't take away from even the worst citizens.
Maybe to find Utopia, we'll have to move to Mars.
Speaking of bears, did you hear the recent tragic story about the 13 year old boy from Dorchester, MA, who was at a camp for disadvantaged kids? He was on a hike in the woods with a camp counselor when they met up with a bear...twice. They made it back to camp okay, but then the boy went into respiratory failure and despite all efforts to revive him, died. They think he died of fright.
I agree with your post entirely.
He's speaking about the same old America hating elitist crowd who determined the outcome of Vietnam and ultimately cost the lives of at least two million people. Well, they're still at it. They won't be happy until Yankee Stadium is an execution center for the Taliban.
Freeee, you must learn how to interpret a sentence properly. "Why Americans Must Fight for Freedom" is explained by the author. Whose freedom is he referring to? He explains in the article. We have freedom, so obviously the answer is their freedom.
I saw Rummy give the speech today...great to see it in print. And thanks for the NASA pic...
Freeee, you must learn how to interpret a sentence properly. "Why Americans Must Fight for Freedom" is explained by the author. Whose freedom is he referring to? He explains in the article. We have freedom, so obviously the answer is their freedom.
I saw Rummy give the speech today...great to see it in print. And thanks for the NASA pic...
Yes, I heard. It was very sad.
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.