 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 19, 2004 Making HistoryBy Greyhawk"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country you can see that he says clearly:"But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is al Qaeda, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to al Qaeda." John Kerry's 1971 speech to Congress, but Hugh Hewitt changed Kerry's words, substituting Al Qaeda for Communism and Iraq for Vietnam. But to be fair, he said so. And to be fair, in the recording the voiceover sounds nothing like Kerry. An obvious "makeover" of history, with a purpose: to make people think. Would Kerry say those words today? The Kerry of 30 years ago hardly matters today, unless it's the same fundamental man that stands before us now, asking us to help make him the most powerful man in the world. Hugh asked the question of several callers, none took the question on, but they got the point. Josh Marshall was one of those on the show. He's got an interesting bit on his website: Knocked on his heels by increasing evidence that he willfully deceived the American public, President Bush is off to a new strategy of spreading around the blame. Let's call it the anti-buck gambit. Don't pass the buck. Just get an M-80, light it, put it over in the corner with the buck on top of it. Then no more buck, no more problem. He's referencing this piece from Reuters that includes this quote: "My administration looked at the intelligence and we saw a danger. Members of Congress looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a danger. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a danger. We reached a reasonable conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a danger." Josh isn't stupid, far from it. Does he think his readers are? For he's decided to re-write history too, just like Hugh did, but unfortunately doesn't announce the deception. First he pretends the President was referring to WMD when he said danger. Put one foot in Marshalls land of make-believe and allow that it's so. It's not, but the numbers of people who've expressed convictions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and/or the capability to produce them includes every politician on both sides of the aisle in America and most other nations of the world. The President isn't saying anything new, nor is he passing the buck. He's making a statement of historical fact, and his context is not one of blame. Again, the left tends to assign their own motives to others. And to build a fantasy world in which to live. A world of convenience, where Bush stole the election, there was no 911, and there were no elections in 2002. Good is relative, truth is maleable, crime is an opinion, and France was our bestest friend ever. And from that world they will vote in November. And hope that those of us in the real world do not. Posted by Greyhawk / February 19, 2004 3:17 AM | Permalink 5 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Then is it fair to ask the President if, knowing now what he didn't then, he would go into Iraq?
If he knew there were no WMDs would he go in?
If he knew 500 (and growing) Americans would die, would he go in?
A few of questions for you:
1. Who have you ever met who thinks there was no 911?
2. Who have you ever met who thinks there was no 2002 election? Certainly no Democrat, for many of whom "Remember Max Cleland" is the current rallying cry.
3. What made Iraq a "danger" in 2003 if not WMD? Al Qaeda? Aerial drones?
4. Gee, hasn't France been our bestest friend ever?
5. The President is talking about how all those other people thought Iraq had WMD (and that's why they thought Iraq might be dangerous) because he is looking to deflect and disburse the embarrassment of having made a pretty big deal about the WMD. Thing is, lots of people were saying in February and March 2003 "hey let's give the inspectors a little more time" and the admin said no, can't wait, it's too dangerous. Can't even wait until we can get the 4th ID around to the south (their original operational plan having beenshelved because of the Turks reluctance). You think there's some other reason the President makes this observation? Maybe that he just likes reciting random facts?
6. Lots of people thought Iraq had WMD. But when in 2003 Hans Blix had his people go to every one of the places our intelligence told them that there was stuff to find -- and we really wanted Blix to catch Iraq red handed, because that would have been the greatest coup of all -- and in place after place they came up empty, and saw that the places had not been recently in use, well, at that moment our folks knew, or certainly should have known, that they'd been fed a line by the Iraqi exiles looking to get installed in power by Uncle Sam. It was the 13th chime of the clock, and ought to have told them that something was seriously amiss. Can't blame that on Clinton, the French, the CIA, Janet Jackson, the Liberals, or anyone else. The Admin gambled that the end result would be just like the exiles promised, so it wouldn't even matter if no WMD turned up. Hey, not an unreasonable gamble. But when you bet on Red 22, and the ball drops into the 00, at least have the grace to admit that maybe it didn't work as planned. Or would you rather just live in fantasyland?
Explaining takes the fun out, but you took the time to ask, so
1. Reference to Kerry's "threat of terror exaggerated" comments, among others.
2. Dems who focus on 2000, in denial that the will of the people was demonstrated loud and clear in '02, with Iraq on the horizon. Dems lost because of their opposition to Iraq, as they would have opposed any part of the war on terror at that point in time. They "got the message across", then denied that they had. We heard 'em.
3. Iraq fired on Americans enforcing the UN resolutions almost every day from 1991 to 2003. You didn't know it, I had to. There's a lengthy post elsewhere on this site about it. Of course, this behavior might not have reflected the true love Saddam felt for Americans. Really though, our relationship with Saddam took a turn on 911, and no, he wasn't flying one of the planes. Bu the world is a big, interconnected machine, and anyone who didn't see the writing on the wall in September '01 is delusional.
4. No. I assume you agree. France, like every nation on Earth, looks out for itself. America does to, though no other country harbors more self-loathing residents.
5. He's not deflecting blame. That's a Josh Marshall fabrication and a projection. The inspections had 12 years and 3 presidents not to work. How much more do you think it would take?
We didn't need the 4th. We won the war, and that's another bit the Dems would have us believe otherwise. The same crew that forecast hundreds of thousands of dead, Baghdad burning, and millions of refugees. That they think we lost the war is just continuation of this thinking. It's make-believe world stuff.
6. If there's one man to blame, it is Saddam Hussein. I'll allow almost any other point is more debatable than this. What was he thinking? Is it true that the French and Russians convinced him they had us under control? Did he think the American Left would rise up to defend him? They did, but too late (and they're really too little too.). And did he have WMDs? It would certainly explain his behavior. Can you offer another explanation?
The war on terror isn't over, by the way. There's more to come, and I'll be involved. And I don't expect the support of the American Democratic Party; they've given me no reason to expect otherwise.
Can anyone?
Why is it that everyone who blogs on the subject of Josh Marshall throws in the obligatory: "Josh isn't stupid..." OK, I can accept that. I'm sure he isn't a lot of things. Who cares? His intelligence isn't in question. His sanity is.
He has such a strange twist on the meaning of words that I've taken to calling them "Joshinitions."
Examples of Joshinitions:
Unilateral Action - Any action taken by the Bush Administration along with any number of other countries excluding France.
Lies - The words Josh puts in other people's mouths. He knows what they meant even if they didn't.
America - Canada
American Interests - French Interests
The people of the US - the people at NARAL
Peace - wars that Josh can ignore because the media hasn't found a way to blame them on the US
Quagmire - any US policy success, particularly those that occur rapidly or instantaneously
Patriotism - the constant requirement to point out the flaws in all American values and traditions because they are detestable.
Anyway, if you work out the whole 'Joshicon' and read his work, you'll find out that he is really in love with the President and wants to have his baby...or not.
GH:
1. I don't have Kerry's remarks in front of me, but I'll certainly bet that they did not include a statement that the attacks of 911 did not occur. I think it's not at all inconsistent to some threats of terror are overblown -- and some underplayed. Of course it's a tough business. I work very close to the WH, and am affected directly whenever the color ode shifts.
2. I don't know that the 2002 election has the same meaning everywhere. My Republican representative was defeated, done in by redistricting and an endorsement from the President. I certainly don't think that feeling like maybe we got a bad break in 2000 is somehow inconsistent with thinking that maybe we didn't do very well in 2002 either. What will this year bring? Hard to be optimistic, but you never know.
3. I knew about that. You shouldnt make assumptions. Still, I don't think the Admin was referring to the danger to our pilots when it indicated that Iraq was a danger to America.
4. Speak for yourself re: self-loathing. Folks I know who criticize our government do so because they believe in what the country stands for, and that it can better realize those ideals.
5. You know darn well that the inspection regime in 2003 was fundamentally different from what went on from 91-98. This is because of the Admin's pressure. The policy was working. I've never heard anyone say we lost the war. You need to get out more. Then again all the Dems I know said that the military part would go well -- the self-loathing conservatives that whined through the 90s about a hollow military were absolutely wrong: our military is the finest fightng force the world has ever seen. (And the avoidance of the humanitarian disaster was a combination of (a) very careful work by our forces and (b) not much of a fight to defend Baghdad.) That said, the tough part was always going to be the post-war phase. It has been tough, and will continue to be tough. Do you know whether Grand Ayatollah Sistani will impose a form of government we don't like? No, and neither does anyone else. The thing is, though, that the credibility of the US has taken a pretty big hit. And the reason the Pres. talks about how everyone else was wrong too, is because he doesn't want to be the only one who made a mistaken assumption. You neglected to offewr an alternative explanation.
6. Saddam had to maintain the illusion of WMDs in order to keep from being removed by the Kurds, Shiites, or some rogue Baath general. He didn't need the actual weapons to have a deterrent, it was just as good if people thought he had them. God knows the Kurds and the Iranians believed it, having been victims in the 80s.
7. I think you're really unfair selling Dems short re: fighting terrorists. The outgoing Clinton admin did what it could to warn incoming Bush folks about al qaeda, but the Bush folks didn't believe it. Can't blame them for that -- other than the space needle guy they got in '99, it looked like it was just an overseas thing. How the war progresses, though, that's going to be the big question. I personally think that a stronger hand with Israel -- leading to a deal somewhere between Geneva and Taba -- would be worth more than Saddam's head. That and a total effort to apprehend Bin Laden (which will undoubtedly be done before Labor Day) and such of his top guys as have survived. I don't think you've seen much Dem opposition to any of this. Really. Rather, they're saying that tis stuff is more important than going after Iraq. One can disagree, but I don't think it's fair to call a proponent of the "al qaeda first" strategy either stupid or cowardly.