You know the people I’m talking about. Not just your average, well-spoken conservative (of which we have many on these boards that I’m quite thankful for), but the people who say things that just make your jaw drop.
This Pitting comes from statements made on another forum I frequent that tends towards political debate. We were discussing the whole topic of Bush mentioning wanting to bomb Al-Jazeera. Over there, we had come to the conclusion that this was probably a joke from Bush, that was put into an official, secret transcript, that got leaked.
Because really, I may not like Bush and the Republicans, but the man just cannot be that dumb.
But then…we start seeing statements like this pop up from one of the participants:
Names changed to protect the innocent.
Mind you, this quote comes from an American, who considers himself a “strict constructionist”, but apparently thinks that the Constitution doesn’t matter when it comes to freedom of information or media.
Frankly, I’m just sickened that there are people out there that would actually support the bombing of a media outlet simply because they bring to daylight mistakes made. Shooting the messenger is never a good idea.
Anyhow, I apologize for ranting here…but I had to rant somewhere.
To be non-partisan about this, I should point out that Clinton’s people actually DID go ahead and bomb/kill journalists in Kosovo in a manner that was really questionable. While some of these people certainly were part of the state media, and the state media did run information for the dictator, they were still by and large journalists who hadn’t hurt anyone.
He said Clinton did it. Jeez, lonesome loser, I can’t begin to imagine how much more legit you can get than that. Everyone knows that Clinton did way worse things than Bush II ever thought of. And he did 'em first!
In fact, now that I read back through the history again, the decision seems even more questionable: the justification for lack of balance was… that the Serb media was broadcasting pictures of dead civilians who had been killed in an accidental bombings that the US had indeed conducted.
There is no question that the Serb media outlets had indeed been pulling water for the Serbian government. But we did kill them and blow up their buildings, and at the time there was a lot of debate over whether targeting journlists, even state-controlled ones, was really a legitimate target of war.
It is so easy to not take into consideration the natural turning direction of a rotating machine part when one is selecting a fastener to hold things together. Reach in the box and slap on a right wing nut on the end of a component that normally rotates counter clockwise and your machine may come apart at a critical moment causing disaster.
Just like pedals on one side of a bike have left handed threads, you need to find a supplier for left-handed wing nuts for these situations. I have never purchased any, though I am sure they are out there.
One of the machinists I used to work with had such a complete toolbox that he had a full left-handed tap and die set. Pretty cool stuff. He could have made a left handed wingnut if he needed to.
NATO, and, primarily Clinton’s general, Wesley Clark, chose to do so.
I’m not genuinely arguing that Clinton is exactly on par with Bush. But this was a Democratic administration fighting a war that bombed foriegn media outlets because they said they were propagandists (and to be fair, to some extent, they were). Don’t get me wrong: I’m a Democrat who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and, god willing will vote for Mark Warner in 08. But I’m just saying that the larger issue here is a little less partisan than we might like.
If Clinton had decided to bomb an independent Germany-based media outlet because they were broadcasting footage of Serbian civilian casualties, then I think you might have an apt comparison.
I don’t disagree. And I believe just about any Democrat you ask will tell you that Rwanda in particular was a HUGE fuck up by the Clinton administration. The difference, at least in my opinion, is that the Clinton administration at least acknowledged the fuck ups made & apologized for them. To my knowledge, Bush II has never apologized for anything, and in fact has not only refused the fuck ups were fuck ups, has insisted that anyone calling them fuck ups and the wrong thing to do is un-American and quite possibly a terrorist.
Obviously they are nto exactly the same. But the rationale isn’t all that different: this foriegn media outlet that we think is anti-american is airing things we think are hurting the war effort and propaganda for the enemy. True, it’s a lot more plausibly justified with the Serbians, but it’s still a line crossed that’s a little hard to re-draw.
Well, the crazy dude is right in one respect - just because it’s true, doesn’t mean it’s propaganda. Yes, Al-jazeera could be said to be putting forth propaganda. So could the US Army. So could Bush. So could whatever media outlet you suggest. Any information, when it shows one side in a good or bad light, whether it’s true or not, is propaganda, and can be used as the same by others. Doesn’t mean it would be allowed, or moral to bomb them - or threatening to do the same in order to make them change their broadcasts.
Imagine if someone bombed CNN HQ, or even Fox - while I may not agree with everything they put forth, or the style in which they do so, what right do I have to stop them? Or to kill people doing so?