1. Why wouldn't I oppose Government controlled media?
2. Where did I say I oppose Government controlled media?
Dave
· 4 years ago
Seth, point blank, why do you oppose government-controlled media?
Dave
· 4 years ago
Seth: So do you, or do you not, support government-controlled media?
Seth Yantiss
· 4 years ago
:::sigh::: do not. But at the same time, I DO NOT support endagering people by rehashing useless information.
Seth Yantiss
· 4 years ago
He said it was more of the same. Show them to the Senators, show them to an independent board... just don't make em public if it's just more of the same. Just as there is NO POINT in releasing more photos of Paris Hilton... We all have every inch of her covered. If the photos from Abu Ghraib are just more of the same, as the Gen. states then the only point would be to promote more violence and hate.
Senseless!
It's in the article. Gen. Meyers states that the photos are nothing new... just a rehash of the same stuff. It would not show anything of value. So why do it? The only reason I can see is to promote more violence. Sounds like a good plan to me.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Ok, but doesn't it give you pause that what's in these pictures is considered so bad that it would endanger our troops?
Dave
· 4 years ago
It's in the article. Gen. Meyers states that the photos are nothing new... just a rehash of the same stuff.
This contradicts virtually everything we know about Abu Ghraib.
For instance...
Seymour Hersh:
"The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking."
Lindsey Graham:
"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here."
Sluggo
· 4 years ago
Seymour Hersh. Are you Serious? The man is virtually a fiction writer. I take what Hersh writes into perspective. He is a partisan who has NEVER had anything positive to say about any Republican administration- ever. Have you ever done a fact check of Hersh's writings. About 20% is true, and the rest is pure fantasy.
This contradicts virtually everything we know about Abu Ghraib.
Who's WE? And what's this about knowing?
A wise man once said "The more you think you know, the less you really do". If everything is "known", then you can't have an open mind. And if all the facts are not out there, then how can anything be "known". Especially if Hersh is your source for knowledge.
You can always rely on faith or doctrine to reinforce your beliefs. Seymour Hersh sure hopes you do.
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
Well, just finished going through all the pertinent data on this, and there is not one single new item in any of it. The stated intent of the ACLU is"to keep the scandal fresh in the publics mind", so says Seymour Hersh. As for rape charges, have you not been paying attention for the last 15-20 years. At the least mention of the word rape, people are dragged in front Boards of Inquiry Courts Martial so fast they don't even get their shoes tied. Give it a rest Leftards. And dave, still waiting for an answer.
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
dave, why do you support government controled media?
Dave
· 4 years ago
I oppose government-controlled media, because I believe transparency is a cornerstone of democracy.
Why did you think I support government-controlled media? I'm not the one blogging about the dangers of printing stories that expose government corruption.
Dave
· 4 years ago
Adam, let's say, in a completely hypothetical situation, this occurred: a group of American journalists discovered irrefutable evidence that Bush went to war against Iraq just because he wanted to dominate their oil and make more money for Halliburton (sp.?). Yep, the crazies were right all along!
(I'm, again, using this as a ridiculous hypothetical. But keep pretending it's true...)
So, let's say these journalists found it out. Should they print it? Let's see:
After that story hit the newspapers, the Iraqi insurgents would be absolutely infuriated, and rightly so. If just flushing a Koran down a toilet can do it, imagine what this would do!
Our soldiers' lives would be endangered, as the insurgents would undoubtedly respond with more terrorist acts. American men and women would die in Iraq.
Now, based on your comments (and Seth's in the original post), I must assume that you would object to journalists revealing even that information. Would you?
And if you would support the printing of that fictitious story, explain why you would oppose the printing of the very real Abu Ghraib story.
In a healthy democracy, the press's number one regard should be the truth. It's that simple.
Adam Lawson
· 4 years ago
Dave, the problem is, we're fighting an enemy who is looking for ANY little bit of evidence to use. Like when Newsweek falsely reported on the way the Koran was treated, and the "Arab Street" went crazy and killed people. People who didn't even do anything.
So yeah, why would the government want to release any information about what some soldiers did, putting the lives of OTHER soldiers in more danger because some wuss terrorist got his feelings hurt because something bad happened to someone else he doesn't even know?
There is also a world of difference between government controlled media and the government releasing every detail of what happened on a GOVERNMENT controlled base. Do we get all the photos from top secret research facilities? No? Why not? Do we get to have pictures of all the undercover CIA agents? No? Why not?
Does this sound wise:
"Well, this Iraqi woman helped the Army find the terrorists, so we here at ABC thought we'd post pictures of her, her children, and her address on our website."
keep it simple
· 4 years ago
He's absolutely right! Releasing more Abu Ghraib photo's won't do anything except excite and incite more terrorist violence.
give...me...a...break...just play the ol' national security card, wipe your hands and move on.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Here's where I'm at. If its true, it should be reported.
The problem with that is, with stories like Abu Ghraib, that things tend to get hyped. Abu Ghraib was awful, but it was an isolated incident and had to do with a handful of troops. In the grand scheme of things, it was a very small item. Yet because its nature is so salacious our media is able to sell a ton of papers with it (or get a lot of ratings, etc.) Which, of course, is deterimental to our cause in Iraq. It demoralizes our troops and emboldens theirs.
So while things like Abu Ghraib should be reported, they also need to be put into persepctive. Something our media just isn't willing to do.
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
It is the same set of pictures that were released in the begining. How does this make an entirely new case for destroying America. Dave, please speak up quikly. Your position at the top of the piggy pile is at stake. And please do not attempt to position yourself as some sort of uber-patriot. Your comments posted on this blog show you to be a terrorist loving piece of shit. F**K Off!
Dave
· 4 years ago
Your comments posted on this blog show you to be a terrorist loving piece of shit.
I know you are but what am I?
"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?"
I've got the answer! You're not Dave, 20 years old, living in North Dakota. You're Pee-Wee Herman! Idiot man child star big in the 80's. He You always like to say "I know you are but what am I?" I'll have you know Pee-Wee, that every time you say that taunt I picture you typing away while sitting on Chairry with a big goofy grin on your face saying "ha ha".
Now go ahead and try to turn it around for outing you Pee-Wee. Call me a "Doo-doo head" or something else along second grade insult lines. That's got to be a hit with the ladies, egh Dave Pee-Wee?
keep it simple
· 4 years ago
Just as there is NO POINT in releasing more photos of Paris Hilton... We all have every inch of her covered. If the photos from Abu Ghraib are just more of the same, as the Gen. states then the only point would be to promote more violence and hate.
reread this to yourself over and over until you understand why it is lunacy.
Dave
· 4 years ago
I've got the answer! You're not Dave, 20 years old, living in North Dakota. You're Pee-Wee Herman!
All Comments
1. Why wouldn't I oppose Government controlled media?
2. Where did I say I oppose Government controlled media?
Senseless!
It's in the article. Gen. Meyers states that the photos are nothing new... just a rehash of the same stuff. It would not show anything of value. So why do it? The only reason I can see is to promote more violence. Sounds like a good plan to me.
This contradicts virtually everything we know about Abu Ghraib.
For instance...
Seymour Hersh:
Lindsey Graham:
This contradicts virtually everything we know about Abu Ghraib.
Who's WE? And what's this about knowing?
A wise man once said "The more you think you know, the less you really do". If everything is "known", then you can't have an open mind. And if all the facts are not out there, then how can anything be "known". Especially if Hersh is your source for knowledge.
You can always rely on faith or doctrine to reinforce your beliefs. Seymour Hersh sure hopes you do.
Why did you think I support government-controlled media? I'm not the one blogging about the dangers of printing stories that expose government corruption.
(I'm, again, using this as a ridiculous hypothetical. But keep pretending it's true...)
So, let's say these journalists found it out. Should they print it? Let's see:
After that story hit the newspapers, the Iraqi insurgents would be absolutely infuriated, and rightly so. If just flushing a Koran down a toilet can do it, imagine what this would do!
Our soldiers' lives would be endangered, as the insurgents would undoubtedly respond with more terrorist acts. American men and women would die in Iraq.
Now, based on your comments (and Seth's in the original post), I must assume that you would object to journalists revealing even that information. Would you?
And if you would support the printing of that fictitious story, explain why you would oppose the printing of the very real Abu Ghraib story.
In a healthy democracy, the press's number one regard should be the truth. It's that simple.
So yeah, why would the government want to release any information about what some soldiers did, putting the lives of OTHER soldiers in more danger because some wuss terrorist got his feelings hurt because something bad happened to someone else he doesn't even know?
There is also a world of difference between government controlled media and the government releasing every detail of what happened on a GOVERNMENT controlled base. Do we get all the photos from top secret research facilities? No? Why not? Do we get to have pictures of all the undercover CIA agents? No? Why not?
Does this sound wise:
"Well, this Iraqi woman helped the Army find the terrorists, so we here at ABC thought we'd post pictures of her, her children, and her address on our website."
give...me...a...break...just play the ol' national security card, wipe your hands and move on.
The problem with that is, with stories like Abu Ghraib, that things tend to get hyped. Abu Ghraib was awful, but it was an isolated incident and had to do with a handful of troops. In the grand scheme of things, it was a very small item. Yet because its nature is so salacious our media is able to sell a ton of papers with it (or get a lot of ratings, etc.) Which, of course, is deterimental to our cause in Iraq. It demoralizes our troops and emboldens theirs.
So while things like Abu Ghraib should be reported, they also need to be put into persepctive. Something our media just isn't willing to do.
I know you are but what am I?
"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?"
Why do you?
Better?
and said, "I know you are but what am I?"
and said, "I know you are but what am I?"
I've got the answer! You're not Dave, 20 years old, living in North Dakota. You're Pee-Wee Herman! Idiot man child star big in the 80's. He You always like to say "I know you are but what am I?" I'll have you know Pee-Wee, that every time you say that taunt I picture you typing away while sitting on Chairry with a big goofy grin on your face saying "ha ha".
Now go ahead and try to turn it around for outing you Pee-Wee. Call me a "Doo-doo head" or something else along second grade insult lines. That's got to be a hit with the ladies, egh Dave Pee-Wee?
reread this to yourself over and over until you understand why it is lunacy.
Ding ding ding!
Hey, we should see a movie some time!
Which one? "Debbie Does Dalls?"