 |  |
 
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! September 5, 2008 Republicans and WarBy GreyhawkI know many Republicans dislike South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Maybe that explains the tepid response he's getting at the Republican National Convention. Or maybe it's what he's talking about: Iraq - and American troops in Iraq. As the cameras span the crowd through obvious applause lines I'm hearing polite smatterings thereof, and seeing folks chatting on cell phones or amongst themselves. Waiting for the main event, no doubt. They did perk up and cheer a bit more when he mentioned John McCain or Sarah Palin, but when he spoke of "winning" in Iraq or the fact that the words "winning" or "victory" could be used without fear at the Republican Convention - not so much. That may be because many Republicans know very little about Iraq - certainly less than the average Democrat. I'd add that Republicans who do know what's going on in Iraq aren't afraid to talk about it and are pretty much fair in their assessment of the pros and cons and ups and downs, they're aware of every two steps forward and every one step back. But on the whole Democrats are more effective in discussing Iraq because even if they base their ultimate "opinions" on political party talking points they are aware of some background information that can be used to support that position. (Even if that's only the death toll.) Before I deployed to Iraq last year I did an interview with Politico in which I speculated on the American public's view of the war in Iraq: "...those at one end of a spectrum want to ignore it, and those at the opposite want it to be something it isn't. Both groups wish it would go away. As a guy just interested in presenting facts, I believe my efforts are less and less appealing to the average American every day."Democrats are at that "opposite end". They need to know all they can about Iraq, if they didn't, they could accidentally say something true about the war. Republicans are the other end, and they demonstrated that as Lindsey Graham tried and failed to get them to cheer for "victory". It's also possible that knowing a lot about politicians and nothing about Iraq they don't trust a politician enough to endorse - even by cheering - anything one says about the war their country is waging half a world away. That's a wise decision, because with all the favorable facts available to him, Graham chose to display his ignorance instead: "Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and never once sat down with General Petraeus." Wrong - here's an outstanding story on General Petraeus from The New Yorker. Even this brief excerpt is waaay to long for any delegate to the Republican National Convention to ever read - but folks with even a passing interest in war or politics will somehow clear that hurdle: In July, Senator Barack Obama went to Iraq and saw the General; he was rewarded, courtesy of Petraeus’s energetic press aides, with an iconic photograph, printed in many dozens of newspapers, which showed the Senator aboard a command helicopter, smiling confidently at the General’s side.You can argue against Obama's position on Iraq - or you can lie about whether the Senator ever sat down with the General and in so doing destroy your own credibility. Graham chose the second option. Maybe it's not such a bad thing that no one was listening to him. Maybe it even explains why. Update: Follow up post here. Posted by Greyhawk / September 5, 2008 1:27 AM | Permalink 31 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 |
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 09/05/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
I had the TV on when he was speaking, but I was also trying to listen to CJ's new BlogTalk radio program. I'm not a big Grahamesty fan, so I wasn't too concerned with listening to him. Many pro-enforcement, anti-amnesty Republicans likely feel the same way...
The shameless gasbag from SC can twist in the wind for all I care, but I took his statement to mean that Obama hadn't talked one-on-one to Petraeus during those 2 1/2 years he was avoiding Iraq.
I second the Watchman's comments. Did Obama take time to sit down with Gen Petraeus when he was testifying before the Senate?
Grey, I think you're misreading Graham's statement. Graham sounds like he's talking past tense, that Obama did not sit down with Petraeus during the 2 and a half year span between visits (no questioning him in a senate hearing where he (Obama) confused Iran and Iraq does not count). Not that he didn't sit with him during the last visit. The first part of the statement is definitely past tense and there is no break. In fact the next 3 or so lines are past tense as well. Seems odd to trhough in a present tense, especially with no break.
Sir, it has been a "few" years since I was born. I can remember when a 5-Star General was the President of the United States. When he left office, he went back to being "The General", this was even with his family until his death in 1969. He was GEN Dwight Eisenhower.
I was discharged honorably back in 1968, with a service-connected disability. As I looked at this post and the links, I noticed the fact, that most Americans are clueless about "The Uniform Code of Military Justice." There are some, who do not understand, you just may still be on active duty. Therefore, I respectfully refuse to ask your name, rank or any information on your military history or status. People do not realize it is a violation of the "UCMJ" for military personnel, while actually wearing our Military Uniform, to be involved in any way with a political event. As of this election, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, affirmed this policy.
Sir, I would respectfully like to THANK YOU, for your continual service to this GREAT NATION.
I am no fan of Lindsey Graham but he was referring to the fact that Obama did not meet with Petreaus until his visit this year that he was shamed into doing by the McCain campaign. A 5 minute question period from a Senator is not a meeting, it is true that they were both sitting in the same room though.
John McCain has also referenced Obama's refusal to meet with Petreaus until after he had already formulated his position on Iraq. The only meeting Obama had was the one in July of 2008
With all respect,
You need to really parse the sentence from Graham strangely to make sense of your post.
My Parsing which I think is obvious -
Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and [ during those 2.5 years while he had avoided going to Iraq, when opportunity presented it, like while he was state side for hearings ] never once sat down with General Petraeus.
You parsing which is really stretched.
Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and [ including all time not covered in the first half of the sentence ] never once sat down with General Petraeus.
I love your stuff, but I highly recommend removing this erroneous post.
I think "lie" is too strong a term here. I read Graham's comment to be that Obama did not sit down with Petraeus in the time between ascension to the Senate and his late visit after having wrapped up the Democratic nomination. That he never met one-on-one with the General in that period is, in fact, true.
I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham, but I think your characterization of him in this piece is a lot more unfair to him than you claim his characterization is unfair to Obama. I will not go so far as to call you a liar, however. Adults know that being incorrect or imprecise is not the same thing as being a liar.
You are right that Republicans want Iraq to "go away." They are tired of fighting this political battle, especially when their efforts keep getting undermined by a politically incompetent White House.
That said, I flatly reject your assertion that the delegates could not rouse themselves to cheer for victory. Several other speakers made similar comments about the Dems' antipathy about Iraq victory, and all of them were cheered lustily.
No, the reaction you saw during Graham's comments were about Graham. There is very little that man could have said that would have gotten those delegates excited because he repulses most of them. It was just one more sign of McCain's pugnacious stubbornness that his good friend was given such a plumb speaking slot when any idiot could have told him the reception would be cold. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
If that really is greyhawk@8:00 PM, why haven't you taken down this post or at least updated it, seeing that it is in error????
Several commenters, have already pointed out your error. I am no fan of Graham, but I give someone the benefit of the doubt when reading a sentence. Calling him a liar by parsing his sentence in a strange way is beneath your dignity.
exactly how do you determine that "many Republicans know very little about Iraq - certainly less than the average Democrat" - I mean, other than just making it up? You have no credibility. you're just a hack.
This post seems strangely angry. Calling Graham a liar for his statement is at best unfair.
On the other point readers (including me) latch on to, you may well be right that your typical Republican doesn't know much about the war in Iraq, but it's misleading to state it like that. And the other part of your statement--that DemocratsRepublicans merely wish it went away is stupid. What they wish is that it end soon and end in victory.
The media has made it difficult for people to follow the progress closely, that's why most Republicans (as well as most Democrats) don't know much. But contrary to your assertions, those who do keep track of what's happening are almost uniformly sympathetic if not outright supportive of the effort--and far more likely to be Republican than Democrat.
There is no way that I believe that Republicans know less about Iraq than Democrats--Remember the Dems wanted you to leave in DEFEAT--and this article you are praising was written by THE NEW YORKER---so you don't know just how much is true-
I don't know how that edit/deletion happened in the second paragraph, sorry. And I'm not sure how to reconstruct what is lost, but the important part is still clear enough.
Greyhawk, Sir, it is an interesting point about the Military Honor Guard to the American Flag. The Flag is neither Republican nor Democratic Flag, it is the American Flag. The Flag is impartial, and so should the people be who march with it.
V/R Grumpy
I'm not sure I would argue whether Dems or Repubs are more informed about the war. For every Spencer Ackermann on the left there is a Gateway Pundit on the right who seems to keep tabs on what is going on. I think people just hear what they want to hear about the war and draw up their own conclusions. The cognitive dissonance is frightening and sometime exacberated by the blogosphere. Best to keep an open mind. A good post, BTW! Very insightful and provocative.
Of Course Al-sadr would never wait for US troops to leave before starting up his militia!
and Iraqi army can handle any future
and the moon is made of swiss cheese.
"Even this brioef excerpt is waaay to long for any delegate to the Republican National Convention"
Ah, dude, I enjoyed this article but would have more if you didn't feel the need to slag other people off.
-AC
"Even this brioef excerpt is waaay to long for any delegate to the Republican National Convention"
Ah, dude, I enjoyed this article but would have more if you didn't feel the need to slag other people off.
"That may be because many Republicans know very little about Iraq - certainly less than the average Democrat. "
Really? Most of my relatives are Dem's and couldn't find Iraq on a map, don't know what went into the surge (besides more guys), and couldn't explain why Iranians aren't Arabs. But almost 100% of my conservative friends could do all of the above with aplomb.
Thank you for your service to our country.
-AC
Wow, Greyhawk. I read this post and am just amazed. You honestly think Dems know more about Iraq than Repubs?? Most of my friends are Christan Repubs who know alot about the war in Iraq mostly from my sending them e-mails with posts from Greyhawk or Blackfive or other milblogs or because they have kids over in Iraq or Afghanistan.
But when I argue with Dems, all they know are the talking points they have heard or read about on DailyKos or the Media. I have often told them things from Michael Yon's book or blog and they are amazed since they hadn't read about it in the NYT.
This post is definitely angry at the Right and I am offended. Your political affiliations are obvious in this post. Are you sure that's wise?
Anyways, like the other posters here, I read the comments by Sen Graham and thought he was speaking about whether Obama had sat down with Gen. Petraeus or not.
Can we all just agree that Graham is an unpleasant jerk with an inflated ego and sense of self-worth and let it go at that?
;->=
Wow. It's amazing how a fool can wipe away every bit of credit he's earned with readers in one fell swoop.
Did you miss how many VETERANS were in the pool of delegates? I had two relatives there, both delegates. Together they have almost *40* years of service between them. They fought in wars just like you. And you dare suggest an article is too long for them to read?
Where is your decency, sir? Where?
I'll give you a hint, it's apparently overwhelmed by your partisanship. Wake up and take a look in the mirror, and apologize to those your smeared without a thought. As a retired grunt myself, the last thing I *ever* want to do is say anything bad about another man who served. But you really let down your uniform today, and you did yourself a world of disservice.
What Graham said: "Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and never once sat down with General Petraeus."
What his defenders here say he meant: Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and in that time never once sat down with General Petraeus."
So why didn't he say the extra three words?
If Senator Graham chooses to clarify his remark, I'll gladly post that clarification in an update. But I'd never "delete the post" - regardless of how many people demand I unsay what I said or unwrite what I wrote.
As for obvious political affiliations, please clarify. Am I obviously a Democrat or Republican?
You were one of the very first sites I visited when I discovered the blogosphere. I've read you and Jason (IRAQNOW) and Captainsjournal and others that your wife has brought up almost every day. I have very little money or you'd have received a check from me every month. I quit my business in publishing because from September 12, 2001, every business colleague I knew in the book business wanted this country to lose ANY WAR, ANY Time, ANY WHERE, and I was afraid that eventually I might do something violent in response. Every bookstore that I went to (well, there was one that was different!) and every one of them was a democrat. Don't try to tell me that they, the Democrats, know more about this war than my family (all of whom are now Republicans).
One of the reasons that Governor Palin is so popular with the base right now is because so many real republicans are fed up with Senators and Representatives ignoring the real needs of our military, whereas she seems to bring a much greater feeling for supporting the troops and America. I happen to despise Graham, so as your other readers have said, I suspect the lack of excitement from the floor has nothing to do with the lack of understanding about the war. McCain has chosen a no-nonsense type, who I hope will bring back the Party to something that cares more for victory than whether the media likes them. I only wish that they will bring a fresh broom to State (that wonderful organization that works feverishly to undo all the good that you military men and women do) and prepare this country for the difficult days and years ahead.
I'd guess your party affiliation was enraged republican, which describes many of us. However, I wouldn't make a mockery of republicans because so many of our representatives are irritating, to say the least. For too many years, good people like Palin got hounded out ot office because of the kind of media atacks that Governor Palin has been undergoing. Not everyone can stand watching their families get treated like dirt. I admire her family and her courage, but it's a reminder why the quality of the Republican Party isn't as high as it should be. How many good people enter the national or state level, when they know that the liberal media will try to destroy their most precious possession- their families??? Too few, that's for darn tootin!!!!
Like many other commenters, I disagree with your assertion that Republicans know less than the average Democrat about Iraq. In my personal experience, my friends who are Democrats have only superficial knowledge--the headline or the one sentence uttered on the Today show. They truly have no idea that the Surge has been successful. In late May I travelled with a group of (mostly) Democrats, highly educated types, and they were Shocked! (and dismissive) when I expressed optimism about how things were going in Iraq. If they "know" anything, it's from two years ago and they are unaware how outdated their knowledge is. Or perhaps, like the Democrat party's leaders, wilfully unwilling to acknowledge that there has been any improvement at all.
Republicans know less @ the war than democrats? What nonsense.
And this is your rationale for the lack of enthusiasm for Graham at the RNC?
Lindsey Graham has a long track record of undermining Republican positions to court a constituency including Democrats. Could this possibly have anything to do with his reception at the RNC?
Opening line of post: "I know many Republicans dislike South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Maybe that explains the tepid response he's getting at the Republican National Convention."
I watched it within a couple hours of the live delivery (dvr) and understood Goober was referring to the time-period between the first visit and the second. In politics though, if you can stretch the truth to your advantage, you do it. It is very much like war, so it is not unfair.
ric
Only an idiot would lie when the truth is on his side anyway. Graham is a liar - his intent was to deceive. Sure - if you squint at what he said and add a few extra words it means what you want it to, but I'm amazed and disappointed at the number of mindless supporters he has.