John Cole is Angry
Dave Price
And with good reason.
Congratulations Kos and ThinkProgress!This kind of thing is just inexcusable, especially in wartime, and ridiculous to boot. These people would have been the first to excoriate Bush had he advanced the notion Saddam's stockpiles of WP constituted chemical weapons and justified the need to invade.
You have successfully peddled the phone conversation between two Kurdish brothers to uncritical media outlets, and they are running with it, pretending that this unedited raw intelligence report is actually Pentagon policy.
...
We didn’t do what you are charging, WP isn’t a chemical weapon, we didn’t use it indiscriminately against civilians, yet we have to defend against these accusations because lowlife a**holes like you and Kos keep peddling them and giving them legitimacy.
I am so sick of these people pulling this crap. And don’t be confused- this is ALL about bringing down Bush. Whatever the cost. I am so angry I can barely type right now.
Again, this is another case where the "reality-based community" is redefining reality on a daily basis to fit whatever benefits them politically.
Related Posts (on one page):
- John Cole is Angry
- Jeff Goldstein Nails It
This issue really irks me and I tried to post some comments over at Balloon Juice but it was like talking to a wall. I worked very hard, I think, to argue logically and in the end when I feel I've succeeded the response (other than just abuse) is "well, since Bush lies a lot more than us, why don't you get worked up about him instead?"
Pretty pathetic, I think, an argument which can be summed up as "yes, we're liars, but we're not as big a liar as some other guy so that's OK".
Somehow they seem to think that because I'm defending the military I'm some kind of Bush-apologist. Actually, I'm defending them in this case because I believe they are correct. I'm interested in history and I've studied some chemistry and I simply know that WP is not classified as a chemical weapon, nor should it be. Well, you can argue that it should be, but we'd have to change some definitions. That's all fine and good but it doesn't affect how these things are defined here and now.
It really bothers me that if I defend a position I believe is correct, it's assumed that I'm doing so because I'm "defending my turf". Well, not only am I not American but I don't particularly like Bush. That doesn't make him somehow to blame in this instance.
The more the American Bush-haters open their traps, the more mad I get at them and the less mad I get at Bush - because I'm redirecting my frustration, not because I somehow feel he deserves it any less. But then again, I don't think he's a baby-eating monster like some people seem to. I just don't agree with him and his deputies all the time. It *is* possible to be reasonable about such things, although you wouldn't think so from the way most people behave.
It's hard for me to find something I despise more than intellectual bankruptcy.
Welcome aboard! Yes, polite disagreement is (mostly) the rule here. Heated argument is an occasional thing, usually on the subjects of AIDS or ID.
I know blogs where discourse is civil, and those where it isn't. It seems to me that the host sets a tone and draws a similar temperament in the readership, to the point where the temperament becomes mostly self regulating. Around here, if someone becomes abusive, most others will express disapproval or just ignore it, and get back to the points of debate. On other blogs, abuse is met with more abuse, and it gets ugly. I think it all depends on how the host behaves.
Don't attack Dean's motives or his family, but you're usually free to say almost anything else here. And others are free to tell you when they think you're full of it. And all mostly polite.
;-)
1) It sounds reasonable to someone who doesn't understand the nuances that WP shells would be a chemical weapon. In fact, there have been chemical weapons made using Phosphorus in the past, I discovered on google. However, they were made with a mix of white and red (since white burns too fast to have any useful toxic properties).
2) A lot of people seem to be willing to believe that US forces simply have no regard for anyone. It's amazing how many people believe that torture is systematic. I find it very difficult to imagine average Americans joining the armed forces and being turned into people who will turn a blind eye to all sorts of horrible things, like purposefully targetting civilians and such. But many believe it, and stories like this will just be believed and re-inforce that view.
2a) The way they word is makes it sound worse than it is. I saw a lot of articles today which had lines like "Last week, US military admitted using White Phosphorus...". The word "admit" makes it sound like they are confessing to having done something wrong, to me. Although that isn't the literal meaning necessarily (it is an accurate statement), I think that's what the jounalists are trying to imply.
I think it would be irresponsible for any media outlet to carry the story in a similar vein to what we're seeing in some blogs. In fact, I saw a BBC article today which had an almost accurate point of view on the subject - I was amazed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm
It goes to show, with a bit of research it's quite possible to have some perspective. I just don't hold very high hopes of MSM doing much research any more these days.
I know it's definitely frowned upon to use incendiaries purposefully on civilians (or any weapon for that matter!). But since when does the nature of a weapon change depending on whether it's aimed at soldiers vs. civilians? That seems spurious to me. A chemical weapon is a chemical weapon either way (or not). Can that statement be valid in any context? I can't think of one...
"could probably"?
"We want to oust Bush."
Okay fine aren't you glad you live in a country where you have the privilage to hate the president?
"Can't you see how evil he is?"
Well no probably not evil, I just don't like how he does things.
"We're going to make up lies to show what a liar he is!"
How does that help anything?
"The end justifies the means!"
No actually, no it dosen't. It makes people who don't like Bush for rational reasons get grouped with people like you. You defeat your own purpose.
"YOU BUSH APPOLOGIST!"
What the hell are you talking about?
But hey, if the news wants to believe in stories like this then traditional media will get weaker while the "evil blogs" will get stronger. I don't know how many of you like Jon Stewart, but he made a valid statement on Crossfire. He told the two media personalities, to paraphrase, "Please stop. This is partisan hackery. You're hurting America.". I actually cheered at the screen. The media has been a let down for years.
It's a trick of wording as far as the professor's statement is concerned. He said you could "consider" them chemical weapons. He didn't say they were. This is how people make political statements that imply one thing, but are worded another way so they can deny it later. "I never said America used chemical weapons. I said you can 'consider' them chemical weapons because of the vile nature of their use." Or, some other BS he happens to think of. That's what makes politics fun.