MataH: I must remind you that the socialists who comment here would refuse the title of “journalist” to Stephen Hayes. Only liberals are permitted to be journalists. For more on that, see the post on the three anchors in the tank for Obama.

Oh, and I am surprised Artie has time to comment here. I would think he would be too busy putting up “restrooms for customers only” signs down at the Velvet Elvis store he works at now that Seattle’s public restrooms have been deemed unfit even for crack whores to use:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/17/america/seattle.php

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Stephen Hayes is a senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and was one of a few journalists instrumental in getting the Harmony/ISG docs released to the public (i.e. the message) coming from a source someone like Arthurstone never believe (i.e. the messenger) Thus Scott’s point, look at the message and not the messenger. Evidently this flew over the head of Arthurstone because of being clueless to a journalist that wasn’t of a lib flavor.

Another example of that could be Salon’s Jake Tapper… notoriously liberal slanted. But I have to admit he’s done some good work this campaign era. Still hold no love for the guy but….

Yet another example, one of my favorite writers, Christopher Hitchens. Disagree with him on many issues, but his stuff always provides a delicious and thought provoking read.

Dupray’s post that Arthurstone mentions is a guest “reader post”, which Curt (*the* FA head honcho and founding father) approves. You’ll notice he does not have a caricature. Last I looked, there was still seven authors on the sidebar, but Curt recognizes that others may have valuable stuff to add. However each and every one of us has our own opinions and presentations.

Instead it is Arthurstone who is doing the dodge dance… dodging withdrawal realities and the subject of this post in order to create a distraction… another favorite lib word. But as Scott and Raddatz points out, meet BHO’s demand and you’ll have to write off the equipment as a loss.

And oh, BTW, this is not a Raddatz opinion piece. She is merely reporting what the commanders on the ground said INRE the BHO plan. Truth hurts, I guess….

Just another example that BHO’s greatest skill is a demonstration of how to open his mouth to remove one foot, in order to replace it with the other. All done eloquently (with teleprompter) of course. As a CIC, he is a joke.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well done Scott. Dodge. Dodge. Dodge.

But Raddatz was trashed here at Flopping Aces. As I pointed out to you. Calling a reporter a ‘moron’ is not discourse. It’s name calling.

And while it wasn’t on a thread you started it was on a thread here at the blog and as one of eight like minded ‘author’s’ worthy of their own caricature I’m afraid you’re going to have to accept valid criticism of your site and the choices of what topics you discuss.

So who is Stephen Hayes and where does he appear in the discussion about Martha Raddatz?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt says,

“This from the same guy who digs out every negative piece on Iraq and copy/pastes them all in a attempt to show us all how terrible Iraq is going to be.”

I say, that from the same guy who runs a conservative blog site and posts one McCain piece for every 10 Obama critiques.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Arthur, if you wanna play the message/messenger game, I’ve got one for ya:
Stephen Hayes

btw, I started this thread-not someone else. I won’t defend others’ comments-yours included. I can only refer to mine, and the discourse I aim to have. I say Raddtz is right

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott Malensek typed:

‘Oh Arthur…one comment from someone else (not me)…c’mon. She was hardly raked over the coals-her report was, but she didn’t get it too badly; certainly not as badly as a FOX reporter would at a leftist site.’

The quote I posted is typical of the level of ‘discourse’ around here.

Again from the guy who started the thread:

Wouldn’t be the first time a reporter in the MSM turned out to be the brainless moron.

Now about that message…

And as for the dodge of introducing the ‘FOX reporter..at a ‘leftist site’. Puhleeze Scott. That’s pathetic.

Kind of a dog ate my homework thing.

Cheers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh Arthur…one comment from someone else (not me)…c’mon. She was hardly raked over the coals-her report was, but she didn’t get it too badly; certainly not as badly as a FOX reporter would at a leftist site.

I REALLY like Doug’s excusal for how a timeline for withdrawal should be conditions-based (ie HOW we want to leave, and what we want to leave rather than focusing on when). The left’s been demanding a schedule for years now, and all of a sudden when it comes to Barack or a D saying that withdrawal should be conditions-based, or benchmark-based, or focus on HOW rather than when…oh all of a sudden it doesn’t matter if it’s 16 months or 24. YEARS of demanding a specific date to be out by, and now because it’s a democrat…the date doesn’t really matter.

WONDERFUL HYPOCRISY

FACE IT:
Barack, McCain, and Bush are all re-forming the next Iraq policy, and all three will come up with nearly identical plans. The real misleading here comes from Barack who only talks about “combat brigades” and not all Americans….’course, that’s his style/the style the left wants. Tell em what they wanna hear, then do what needs to be done and they’ll back you as long as you’ve got a D next to your name (and I ain’t talking about the D in BDS).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I find it laughable that Doug is complaining about balanced journalism. This from the same guy who digs out every negative piece on Iraq and copy/pastes them all in a attempt to show us all how terrible Iraq is going to be. Too funny.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Raddatz isn’t doing balanced journalism here; it’s gotcha slop. However, it was kind of her to let Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who is the operational commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq get a comment in:

As for Obama’s stated plan to bring home the troops within 16 months, Austin said, “I’d have to see the entire plan. I’d have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It’s very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn’t work. Right now, we are helping the Iraqis achieve sustainable security, and helping them to increase the capability of the Iraqi security forces, and we are making great progress along those lines.”

And that’s right. Everyone will “have to see the plan”. Anderson may be incorrect to assume “90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait…”. Other’s have spoken of some of it going to Turkey, some say, northern Iraq, now some are thinking Afghanistan.

Regarding a timeline on withdrawal, Major general William Nash (Ret.), now on the CFR, has said,

So the question is not how fast can you leave, but what do you want to do as you leave. That’s why you will hear people talk about different time frames, because they are making assumptions about what our goals are as part of the withdrawal effort. So the six to nine months is “let’s keep going guys, turn your vehicles to the South East and start driving.” That’s a four- to six-month plan. Then you get six months to nine where you take a lot of stuff out but not necessarily everything. But if you have a more deliberate plan that is intended to accomplish a variety of options and a variety of objectives, it could be one and a half, two, up to three years.

So, 16 months is quick, but it’s not a divine commandment. God knows Bush rarely met his benchmarks on Iraq, and it wasn’t until the Iraq Study Group Report came out that he had to face reality that his statements were on Iraq were more akin to a couple’s divorce than to the facts on the ground. ( I remember him holding the report in his hand, camera lights flashing, like it was a stinky diaper– I thought he was gonna cry.)

Sure, 16 months is quick, but if it takes 18, 20, 22, if it’s done safely and effectively, who cares given what failed commitments we’ve endured over the years.

Lastly, Raddatz began her piece stating, “Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy…”that’s right, nuance (my emphasis); he’s not going to be pigeon-holed into a corner unable to move ’cause conservatives want to ‘freeze’ his statements like a bunch of ignorant Christian fundamentalists.

In the end, when the plan is set and the switch is turned, if Anderson and his “several commanders” still “think there was “no way” it could work logistically,” like I said above, Obama, like Bush, Obama can replace them with commanders that think differently.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott Malansek offered:

Not sure I’d say she was “trashed” here either. Her report was certainly (again, the message, not the messenger).

Hmmm.

Here’s what Dupray wrote:

“Ah, the irony of American Patriots protecting the press from harm while the reporter prepares a completely misleading story about which candidate the soldiers prefer. The reporter obviously thought her escort was comprised of brainless morons who wouldn’t see what was going on in front of them. Wouldn’t be the first time a reporter in the MSM turned out to be the brainless moron.

Support the troops. Pass this along. ”

Boy how did I miss that? A reasoned discussion of the ‘message’ not ‘the messenger’.

Right?

Like or Dislike: 0  0