word!

Interesting debrief and commentary on the situation at hand and the uncertainty of it all.

Oh and Dave, way to sneak in on shots 3 and 4.

I read most of this earlier this year. Good information; the last slide contains some "so-whats", but also some items that beg for attention. I think his estimation of the Iraqi Army may be optimistic, but the Afghani Army seems to be a legitimate fighting force (at least developing into one).

A pretty fair analysis by McCaffrey, although I wouldn't equate all of his bullet points with each other. For example, the miserable failure of the Iraqi police forces, and their complicity with kidnapping and death squads, may outweigh U.S. efforts to get rid of non-Iraqi Jihadists. While our destruction of foreign insurgents is admirable, the Iraqi people stand to lose considerably through the use of private police forces and local warlords for the enforcement of "security" in certain neighborhoods, all of which antagonizes a nascent civil war.

The economic analysis may also be a bit rose-colored. We remain under mountaints of debt to the East Asian nations, China's economy is booming, and the U.S. is losing its industrial base while becoming less educated relative to India, the EU, and Eastern Europe. Then again, maybe the death of Castro will make it all better...

awesome. i really needed this. i've been stretching all day in order to get rid of my soreness. this is my first week on crossfit for over a year

Decent video of Firefighters doing Fight Gone Bad:

FireFight Gone Bad

http://crossfitoakland.com

Wow! Work, Work-Capacity/Intensity/Power!

Thanks Coach...never thought I'd make the site...it's an honor to be part of crossfit.

John G

The Iraqi Army is a farce. They are growing because it's a fairly easy way for the various milita to get weapons and equipment. They refuse to fight the milita, they constantly fight the Iraqi Police and Ministry of Defense, because it's a honor/face thing. They are badly equipped, but that is the fault of the Iraqi Army itself, it permits membership in the milita's and the soldiers will steal their equipment and use it for the militia. The Iraqi Police force is a disaster because the police officers they hired are the same police officers that terrorized the population prior to Saddam's removal, they just came back and said they use to be police and got their jobs back. Leopards don't change their spots. We can't train the Iraqi Army to not defecate in the corner of a room when there is a bathroom with running water in the next room. The grass areas on their base in Baghdad had to be cordoned off. The soldiers didn't understand that they shouldn't defecate in the front yard of their brigade headquaters. It sounds odd, but if you can't housebreak a group of people, why would you try teaching them military tactics, or better yet; for the desperate officers out there, searching for that magic bullet, why teach the the "intricasies" of a powerpoint presentation.

I had a question about the zone. I was reading cf journal 21 (I think) the zone one. Anyway I didnt get why when you move up from 4 blocks to five blocks the carbs stay the same. I thought everything had to go up. Plus I dont think my blocks are high enough because I dont fell that hot. Headaches, tired and just not motivated?? Im guessing its the low block count??

Dominick, get into the message boards, there's a huge amount of information about the zone there.

Good briefing...don't agree about Saudi...they seem to be destabilizing. They ain't no democracy and they are the birth place of Wahabism.
Maybe we should encourage the Iraqis to vote for partition. The Kurds are doing just fine in their zone, and it is seems almost certain that a civil war between the Sunnis and Shi'ites will happen as soon as the US(and whoever is left in a year) pulls out.

For the calculation of work capacity/power do we measure from the center of gravity or from the bottom of the sternum? Seems like each would move the same distance if form were maintained throughout.

Comment 9 have u been over there?

Recon Kris
yep, finishing up my second tour. 28 months total.
I like you e-mail addy.

Oakland Firefight Gone Bad: you guys rock!! I am a Marietta GA ff and we are doing something similar in January. You just totally pumped me up for it! oh_don't be creeped out; I am a fire chick...

I read Gen McC's brief about a week ago and have seen his several visit AARs (after action reports)over the past two years. I remain underwhelmed. while his AARs are actually pretty good tactical snapshots, I would expect a little more depth from a four-star with his access. His six insights on the GWOT are gross oversimplefications at best, and contradictory or plain wrong at worst. He is completely out of his lane (and expertise) in his comments concerning tough rhetoric vis a vis Iranian nuclear efforts; long-term budgetary support to Iraq, and the Maliki administration. I concur with Travis and his observations about the Iraqi Army - they do, indeed, suck. In fairness, this brief looks like something the General might have put together on the plane on his way home - and not having heard his color commentary, or the Q&A, I'll grant that he may have filled more of the blanks in than is presented here. Call me jaded, but I'm just not impressed by the legions of RETIRED generals who prove just how good their military staffs were whenever they speak or write from retirement.

Ran a mini-mike. .5 mile run + 50 situps x 2 in 14 mins

What I like about this piece is its' brevity and clarity. He may be right or wrong in the specifics, but at least I understand what he's trying to say. I wish more of our public dialogue was conducted in this fashion, absent partisanship (it seems to me the Democrats view the potential bloodbath which would attend our rapid removal from Iraq as the "cost of business". The Iraqis aren't voters, here), and absent the constant shuffling of partial ideas around which seems to attend our seeming societal ADD.

I've experimented extensively with the mental heuristic of blowing ideas up and then recondensing them. It works. Can you take a simple idea, and make it complex by adding facts and figures? The center of gravity will shift somewhat, but if it's basically a good idea, it won't move too much. Can you take a mass of ideas, and state them simply? If so, you probably have some understanding of the material. If you can seemlessly move back and forth, you probably have a REALLY good idea.

Let's apply this basic principle to appeasement. On the last rest day, the data points were added that Chamberlain felt the Germans had the right to march troops into land controlled by another sovereign nation. Just as the Iranians have a right to self defense, as a sovereign nation. Further, committing themselves to war without adequate resources would have been difficult and ill-advised, so they bought time by signing off on the annexation (in effect) of Austria, and what amounted to the bloodless invasion of Czechoslavakia. They failed to attack Germany with other than bombers even at the moment of Germany's greatest vulnerability, and after France and Britain had already declared war on Germany. They did this because they feared trench warfare. Much like there are many questions about our ability to attack the Iranians.

These are factors which expand--increase the complexity of--the story we tell ourselves. However, if we condense them back to: did it work? then we see, with all the self-evident vividness of violent history, that, no, it didn't work.

With respect to the Iranians, there are a lot of folks out there who know more than me. Call me a Cave-man voter, but it seems like people who are undeterred by the threat of massive death, who are committed to the destruction of Israel, who have been calling us the "Great Satan" for 26 years--are not people we really want having nukes.

With respect to the GWOT, it seems to me that the simplest possible question is: is it worth fighting? If yes, then everying else is tactical. In tactics, you're going to get CF's from time to time. You fire the people responsible, or get their heads back in the game with new information, and keep moving. You don't quit because something is hard. You quit because it is 1) impossible, or 2) not worth doing.

I don't have cable. I watch no TV whatsoever. I get the New York Times emailed to me daily. Other than that, I read selected articles on the internet, and a lot of books. Mostly books. What books do, it seems to me, is create longer timelines than two weeks. You look at years, decades, centuries, and millenia. We were in the Phillipines, what, 20 years? Something like that.

It is documentable as well that Americans are excellent colonizers. I'll post a link if anyone wants to get into leftist histrionics. Wherever we go, when we leave--historically always on peaceful terms, such as in the Phillipines--the standard of living, education, and general well-being has always gone up dramatically. If we need to teach people to crap in toilets, well, that has got to be galling, but maybe that's what needs to be done. No, I don't want to do it. Neither do you. But is it worth doing, on some level? That would be my question.

interesting article...humint suggests militia basically run baghdad and come down hard on any local trying to live what we would consider a normal life...ie go to work, go to the market, shop, socialise etc...the iraqi army, iraqi police are simply unwilling or incapable of crushing the militia and the locals see this and as such have no faith in these forces who are supposed to be bringing about their peace...the majority of the locals appear willing but just cant get their together to take on the militia....the militia remain the clear minority but are substantially better organised and as such are coming out on top...

in my humble opinion the following is the future of iraq....6 months more of MNF being hamstrung...the senate withdrawing troops...the militia in charge and a new dictator/warlord emerges...international community forgets and moves on....

AGE: 28 BW: 170 HT: 5'7"
Did Cindy today.
5 x pullups, 10 x pushups, 15 x squats
20 rounds even (PR)

Interesting Read. The real question is:

How long can the US and US military forces hold up under what can only be described as "a worldwide tidal wave of Hate-America thought/feeling".

We can't deploy to every country in the world and keep out boarders safe...

Growing Anti-American Socialism/Fascism in South America, Liberal hatred of America in Europe and Canada, Obvious Middle Eastern loathing of America, Asia...the list goes on and on.

What to do in a world where over half the world would rejoice if America came to its knees.

Freedom is in jeopardy folks...

b cooper, it depends on what our goal is over here. I'll tell you from experience that many troops don't know what it is.

zag, we've given our freedom away. a Soldier was traveling back to Iraq after flying home to attend the funeral for his father who had just passed away. They took his boots becaus they came up positive for gunpowder/explosive residue.

We are doing the "300"... what is floor wiper?

- Minneapolis

Hi all,
Work {Rope jumpx100; Pull-up (+25#'s)x10; Step-up (on 31.5" barrel)x10/leg; Under hand ball toss (22#'s)x20; and Push-up (+25#'s; feet 15" elevated)x10}x5.
Duration 25:00...

Bill Rod #23

I believe there is a video on www.gymjones.com.

Basically you lay on the floor face up. Hold a bar in the lowered position of a floor press (elbows on floor, weight over chest like a bench press) I am unsure of the weight. With your legs together, point your legs to the ceiling, perpendicular to the ground. Rotate your legs at the torso like your legs are a giant windshield wiper.

Travis,

I've heard that more than once, from people in a position to know. That is a failure of leadership. From where I'm sitting, it appears to me the goal should be the creation of a viable, non-corrupt government that can sustain democracy. That would be a watershed in many ways.

With respect to anti-Americanism, we need to understand that there is a lot of propaganda being swallowed hook, line and sinker out there. I have people sending me emails trying to claim that Israel attacked the Arabs in 1948. For that matter, I can't figure out how Israel is to blame for being attacked by rockets from south Lebanon. Do we still blame women because their men hit them? Is that how it works? She brought it on herself?

Given that the people doing the killing in Iraq are Iraqis, how does that get to be entirely our fault? We are trying to build infrastructure and improve the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis, who seem to be pretty damn backward. We are being opposed indirectly, by people who aren't even really targetting us, but just trying to create as much violence and chaos as they can--with some personal and group vendettas thrown in, because they can, just as the Nazi Brown Shirts settled personal scores because they could--so that people like Nancy Pelosi will start saying: this situation is scary, people are dying, we need to leave, while ignoring entirely the very real consequences of that exit on the people in Iraq who are actually trying to make this thing work.

Make no mistake. An elaborate disinformation campaign is being waged by a disparate group of people and nations who share only a nativistic hatred of what America at her best stands for. We are hated by despots for valuing and supporting freedom. We are hated by socialists for standing firm for the values of the free market. We are hated by nihilists for standing for anything at all. We are hated for trying to be a light to the world, by matching actions with deeds. We are hated, because we are not Muslim. We are hated, for not giving in to the easy and expedient solutions. We are hated for our supposed ignorance. You know what? If the Europeans are the model we should aim for, I choose ignorance. If education stifles common sense, then it is not education at all.

For me personally, I would be willing to endure the hatred of every man, woman and child, alone, for the rest of my life, rather than compromise my vision of truth as I see it. It would probably kill me in short order, but I would do it. Simply because weights of opinion pile like leaves wherever the wind blows does not make them right. Simply because I am stubborn does not make me right. But it makes me honest.

Clear thinking requires the ability to suffer. It requires a willingness to endure the light of things you don't want to see, to draw difficult conclusions, to recognize that the correct way forward is difficult. It is much, much easier to lie to yourself, to say that since there is ambiguity in a situation, that no decision is necessary. Making clear decisions in conditions where the facts aren't clear, where all options are bad, and which have significant consequences, is one of the hardest things anyone can do.

Hi all CF family. I haven't been around in a while, due to skool taking up all my time. Starting back today and excited as hell.

Barry #27:

Your directive to clear thinking is a good one, but I don't know if you're practicing it. You state: "Given that the people doing the killing in Iraq are Iraqis, how does that get to be entirely our fault? We are trying to build infrastructure and improve the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis, who seem to be pretty damn backward." True, we are trying to build infrastructure for the Iraqis, but it's our "fault" precisely because we destabilized an entire region and allowed internacine conflicts to rise to the surface, not only by invading their country, but by throwing the Iraqi military out on the street, leaving 300,000 men with guns jobless and angry. And, while our attempts to rebuild infrastructure are laudable, we also destroyed a great deal of it, and, after 3 years, we still haven't restored permanent power supplied to most urban areas. While it's not entirely our fault, most would argue that we deserve some, if not most, of the blame.

You then go on to state a litany of reasons why we are "hated" (although my travels abroad reveal that most still like Americans as people, but hate our policies, but that, too, is changing).

You state: "We are hated by despots for valuing and supporting freedom." Actually, many despots, including Egypt's Mubarak, the Saudi royal family, the Columbian government, Peru, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and others like our country, as we supply them with aid, weapons, and the means to maintain power. It's precisely the people of such countries that despise us for supporting their "governments." As I believe MacArthur once said, "He might be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

You then state: "We are hated by socialists for standing firm for the values of the free market." I'm not sure how many socialists remain, but the concept of international lending agencies with massive bureacracies created through the Breton-Woods agreeements and GATT (the IMF, WTO, and World Bank) which control the economies of third world countries is "socialist." (As some have described Keynesian economics.) Our massive subsidies of corporate farming, the prescription drug industry, the military-industrial complex, the airline industry, etc., while exercising prohibitive control over the flow of goods and capital into and out of country, are also "socialist." (Or, rather, "social capitalism," but it hardly constitutes a free market.)

And, one last one: "We are hated, because we are not Muslim." While I don't think this is entirely accurate, the religious dimension of such a conflict can't be ignored. What most despise is the conscious appropriation of Christian language in order to validate a conflict largely between Abrahamic faiths. Both conservative Christians and Muslims believe that those who are not of the faith (or a particular denomination) are in some sense misguided (or going to hell), so your argument can be pointed right back at you: we hate them because they are not Christian. (Although both are massive over-generalizations.)

One final point. You state: "Clear thinking requires the ability to suffer....It is much, much easier to lie to yourself, to say that since there is ambiguity in a situation, that no decision is necessary." Perhaps we would often be better served if we admitted ambiguity, or didn't act. I think Iraq would be a good example here. Rumsfeld and co.'s single-minded and simple worldviews led us into a conflict for which we were ill-prepared on virtually every front. Maybe admitting ambiguity and recognizing the possibility for something unexpected wouldn't have us where we are today.

I applaud B Cooper as always. You seem to always have a reasonable logical post. I may be biased since I agree with you.

It is sad that the Demo's are wanting to run from our fight in Iraq. Their love for appeasement is also sad. It is funny how when the American public was "for" the war they all voted for the Iraq fight. Now that it is not going as smoothly they claim they were tricked into voting. The American public has a short attention span. When things are going well they are gung ho but right when their is a bump in the road they want to run. Whatever happened to American dedication to finishing the job.

Granted, the Iraq campaign was and is an incredible difficult war. The bottom line is that the Iraq people need to Pony up and fight for their freedom. They need to step up to the plate and be active in "their" battle for freedom. No different than in the inner cities of America where the gang infestation will only be countered by the citizens of those communities.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always an easy proposition. And if you are always Anti-War I doubt we will ever agree. Granted I prefer not to go to war but sometimes that is the only answer. Or else a country like Israel would not exist. They would have been annihilated a long time ago.

Well I am finally back in GA after getting stuck in a snow storm up in Breckenridge. I just wanted to say a big THANK YOU to everyone at the Certification. I had an incredible experience and learned so many useful skills. Coach and all the trainers were amazing helping motivate me to be a better one. I hope to see everyone again someday. Thanks again.
Trebor

No western army can win a land war in Asia.... Central or Southeast. We are just another western army attempting to do the impossible as did Napoleon, Hitler, Alexander and The British Empire.

Its history but we don't put a lot of weight on that research stuff any way.

Swing away,
Ricky
Richmond

Why does that guy have his elbows poking his quads in the pic?

Good points from the General. I especially liked the part where relations with Europe will get better with the new administration. No duh.
As for relations with Russia and China getting better, they can't get any worse I guess. Both lie to us regularly, have horrible human rights records (mainly China), look the other way when it comes to former Soviet bloc nations, support (in a covert way) a nuclear North Korea, and are hell bent on unseating the US as the preeminent economic power in the world. As they say, "watch your back, or you'll find a knife sticking out shortly."

In other news: Read an interview with Georges St. Pierre where he comments that his training consists of circuits of exercise done for 4-5 minute stretches with short rest periods in between.
Is it just me, or is the guy doing FGB and just calling it "circuit training?" I thought so. Maybe if BJ Penn had done a few FGB's. . .

Last night at the gym I applied Mark Rippetoe's analysis of the deadlift to what I do and finally got back over 250 for the first time in 2 years. 260 wouldn't go, but it was at the end of a brutal DL session (brutal in my terms). Did 270 on the shrug contraption afterwards for 5 reps (I use the Hammer Strength standing shrug thingy for DL practice; it works, I swear). Thanks for the analysis Mr. Rippetoe.

Barry, Tracy,

With regard to Iraq, Barry states: "From where I'm sitting, it appears to me the goal should be the creation of a viable, non-corrupt government that can sustain democracy." This seems like a pretty good goal from where I sit too. He also states in a previous post that: "You don't quit because something is hard. You quit because it is 1) impossible, or 2) not worth doing." From this I can see that Barry & (Tracy) believe that that 'the goal' as stated is very hard but is worth doing. In addition, if the US leaves the Iraqis will suffer horribly. Anyone taking the opposite view is a 'runner' and a lover of appeasment. I have no problem with the logic of that.

I can't speak for the 'Demo's', but it would seem that they (mostly?) would agree that at this point in time 'the goal' is worthwhile, but that it is impossible. In addition, their view is that the Iraqis are already suffering horribly, will continue to do so if the US stays, and will do so after the inevitable US withdrawal, having failed to achieve 'the goal'. This is a simple and clear difference of opinion. By Barry's own clear logic this should mean that they believe that the US should quit, which involves what they would see as careful withdrawal and diplomacy - they simply don't see it, from where they sit, as running and appeasing. I have no problem with the logic of that either.

The argument therefore boils down to whether one sees the goal as possible or impossible; it strikes me that labeling people quiters, runners, appeasers, or from the other side incompetents, simple, single-minded or whatever to make them sound like bad people really doesn't get to the issue at all.

Barry, in order actually to change anyone's mind you have to argue persuasively why and how you think it is possible to create a viable, non-corrupt government that can sustain democracy in Iraq. (Note, I don't claim to be able to mount such an argument, or the counter-argument, but I am interested in your opinion.)

The way I look at it, we made mistakes. There were reasons why the Iraqi Army was disarmed. Possibly we were mistaken. It's difficult to say with certainty what would have happened.

It is equally certain that we would have already left in peace if some elements of Iraqi society had not decided to start destroying their own people and country. Who is blowing up the infrastructure? Who is screwing it up? The Iraqis are.

Keep in mind also, the country did not go from peaceful and stable to where it is now. It was stable, but it was not peaceful. There is hope now.

That hope rests on our persistence. Borat asks why I don't think success is impossible. Very simply, I think that democracy truly is in the best interests of the Iraqis, and that normal people, if they are given sufficient safety to live their lives, and participate peacefully in the political process will come to understand this. We need to contain (arrest or kill) the elements fundamentally opposed to a democratic process. I believe a lot of Iraqis will breathe a sigh of relief.

I believe too, that since we had a role in the creation of this mess, it would be the heighth of irresponsibililty to cut and leave. Potential future allies look at our past behavior. Americans may be ahistorical, but much of the world is not. If we prove ourselves, yet again, as an unworthy ally, that will count against us in the future. Our failure to support the Shiites in 1991 may well be an important factor in the violence now.

I talk to people who know people on the ground in Iraq. Based on those conversations, I think we know who the players are, and how to get to them. If we make some hard decisions, I think we could substantially mitigate the violence within six months.

Keep in mind, too, that we are in effect asking the Iraqis to "grow up" as a society, to tolerate dissent, to exercise personal responsibility, to value rights. These things are all relatively new to them, although they have had periods of relative political freedom. This takes time. Difficult things take time.

My question would be: why do Democrats think now is a time when things have become impossible? We had a bad period of casualties. We can fix that. What evidence can you produce to say that's impossible?

Zach,

With respect to the rest of your commentary.

Do you think it would be better for "their bastard" to be in charge, just so people like me don't have to answer questions like that? That is the choice, as I see it.

With respect to socialism, that is a term with a historical meaning. Attempting to turn it around to point to what you view as the flaws of the capitalist system doesn't change that meaning. People criticise us for not offering, as an example, universal healthcare. That is a socialist agenda. Our system isn't perfect, and there are a lot of business owners who are SOB's (I'm in the capitalist business, so I know a lot of them), but that doesn't change the fact that the unabrogated right to property ownership and the rights of personal liberty are historically tied hand in glove.

With respect to Islam, it has nothing, for me at any rate, to do with religion. This point is only made by those--as far as I can tell--who attempting to critique religion as a human cultural institution. The fact of the matter is that Islam clearly differentiates the "house of peace" and the "house of war". If you aren't a Muslim, you are an infidel, and the current crop of radicals is very literally attempting to expand the conquered "house of peace." Polemical attempts to implicate the Christian Right in our efforts to preemtively combat terrorists around the world is simply not accurate, in my view.

My thoughts on the Generals 11 Iraq observations from the perspective of a FOB north of Baghdad.
1) The ability of U.S. fighting forces remains unchanged but the morale seems to be shifting due to leadership policies from several eschelons higher. U.S.commanders have become risk averse to a marked degree. Bueracratic bean counter types have been firmly in charge for over a year. Power point rules! Briefings are THE most important order of business and warriors are ostracized. Risk management is the number one priority theater wide. Rules of engagement are so restrictive that soldiers hestitate to shoot back lest they risk going to jail rather than home. The initiative has been surrendered in many aspects of the conflict. We are re-acting to the insurgents instead of acting against them more often than not. The solutions are simple and obvious but troops and commanders are prohibited from acting.
2) depends on which Iraqi unit and the circumstances. Some need to be disarmed and disbanded and selected members incarcerated. Things dont seem to be improving in this regard.
4) There don't seem to be as many foreign fighters on the street but that doesnt mean they're not here. The pourous borders with Iran and Syria remain the 400 lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to notice. Material and personell crossing these borders are huge factors and I'm guessing no one wants to face the politcal consequences of dealing with them.
6) U.S. forces are more than hamstrung by Iraqi law and controll. Local Iraqi commanders, police and judges have been found to be activley working for the insurgency and remain untouchable. There are times when coalition forces are so certain that a suspect in an attack or bombing will be released that they dont bother to detain and process them.
Don't get me started on the tribal .
7) To say we've over corrected in an understatement and then some. It's become absurd.
10) the Iranians seem to think that they're at war with the U.S. here in Iraq. We ought to be polite enough to acknowledge them and get in the game.
11)You just now catching on to that? I'm guessing that folks will be back to throwing on us in airports by the time I make it home.

SLEEP FOR TIME!

I CAN DO THAT!

Did a 5k row today - 19:57

Oh yeah....

O - H!!!!!

Barry,

Well argued. We may disagree (and sometimes very deeply), but your post makes it clear what the points of disagreement are. As you state, there are no easy solutions, and anyone offering them should be looked upon with a bit of skepticism.

I found one of your comments interesting: "My question would be: why do Democrats think now is a time when things have become impossible? We had a bad period of casualties. We can fix that. What evidence can you produce to say that's impossible?" As someone who hasn't just "now" begun to think that it is impossible, I find this one hard to answer. To be honest (and a bit skeptical), I do think that there is some politicking going on with the Dems (of which I count myself, but, like a family, I see its dysfunctions). However, I don't think the situation has only now become impossible. It may never have been. Iraq was always an artificial construct, a fluke of British mapmaking and men in London who had never visited the region and didn't know that they created a country which, like Yugoslavia later, would encompass three different cultures, religious sects, and even language clusters who had little love for each other. Iraq's "stability," as you recognize, was predicated on a dictator and foreign influence.

I do, however, hold out hope, and am likely in the minority of democrats that believe we should stay and see to it that the Iraqis create a stable, non-sectarian state that recognizes minority rights. This doesn't mean we shouldn't change tactics, strategies, or create a list of what actually constitutes "victory" or points for withdrawal. An indeterminate police action like that envisioned for Vietnam before 1975 is simply untenable.

I'm not sure why you see the religious dimension as inconsequential, though. James Hagee, Chuck Colson, Ted Haggard, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and others who have unfettered access to Bush all believe that this is at root a religious conflict. So do John Ashcroft, Ken Mehlman, and others who have sat at the seat of power. The evangelical community elected Bush in both elections. Why is odd to think that this influences the thinking of the administration, or that a worldview permeated by the conflicts between the People of the Covenant and others also has influence? The perpetual struggle outlined in both the Bible and the Koran, and their triumphalist views of redemption, at least provide the subconscious backdrop to much of what is occuring here.

All,

It's been a while and I don't want to pull a "mental hammy" so I'll keep it short...

Good PowerPoint, overall. It's amazing how PowerPoint’s have become the new "memo" in the Army.

I think that the assessments are fair and that they highlight two major things:

1) People are lied to and given misinformation by the media and those that profit nothing by our successes abroad.

2) That there is much work left to do.

That may be oversimplifications, but, when things are hard to grasp we must break things down into their simplest fundamentals.

I've been very surprised since coming home at the attitude of this country. There is an overwhelming sense of defeat. It's almost a footnote and a "matter of fact" that we have a failed policy on the war. Rumsfeld's head was offered as a sacrifice.

The last time I checked, we owned Iraq and Afghanistan. We fly and drive anywhere we want to whenever we want to. I guess this is how the German’s felt at the end of WWI. Miles into enemy territory and yet their governments gave up the fight.

I'm beginning to take personal offense at the notion that we've "failed" in Iraq. I'm sure that many other Veterans of this war would agree. Stop thanking me for my service like I "played a good game but the other team was just a little bit better today."

Save it.

I'm still in the fight and so is American pride. Let's show some. It's only halftime in this game. Look at the scoreboard. We're winning!

Oh, and if anyone's looking for "a new direction" in Iraq, let's take the gloves off and stop patting each other on the back. If we’ve failed at anything in Iraq it’s to assume that a people that have NEVER BEEN FREE, EVER SINCE THE DAYS BEFORE BABYLON would know what to do when they finally became so. Sometimes you have to knock out the person you're trying to save so that they don't drown you both...

Thanks, Coach! Love you all…

-Dennis

#19 Interesting posts Barry. No need to rehash last rest day as I think you're well aware that you've not represented fairly or just plain misunderstood many of the points that were made there.

What I would reiterate is my last point on last rest day about the Iranians not being rational actors and shouldn't be treated as such, that was the underlying mistake behind the policy of appeasement. Baldwin and Chamberlain made that mistake, we should learn from it and avoid doing the same.

Judging from your posts on this and last rest day our views on Iran and the courses of action we would support arising from these views are fairly identical. Perhaps that does make us cavemen but cavemen knew how to survive and prosper in a harsh environment so they're not a bad example to follow.

Group Moffett

5 rounds for time of:

400 meter run
50 squats

Total time 23:48:83

DL drills followed by make-up of ME thrusters from a couple of days ago.

D.

5k run
28:10 2nd best time, ok....this is my second time doing 5k...last time was on 9/15/06 for 27:27.

Barry, thanks for the follow-up posts. I think I am pretty clear where you stand - "make some hard decisions" and "contain (arrest or kill) the elements fundamentally opposed to a democratic process". This seems to line up with what kman and tenacious "D" believe is required, based on their experience there.

I still have some questions, mostly to do with the mechanics of such a policy:

1. No one seems to be arguing that the Iraqi police or army are going to be much help - presumably this involves boosting US troop numbers for your 6 months, or however long it takes?

2. I accept your point that it is not in the US's interest to appear to be weak; presumably, however, the 'hard decisions' are going to me milked by the Anti-American propagandists and they will probably lead to stronger anti-American sentiment, and that's a tradeoff you are comfortable with?

3. I assume there are anti-democratic elements in both the Sunni and Shiite camps - does the US need to contain leaders of the Mahdi army, Badr Brigade and any other sundry Shiite gangs and disarm all the militias, or does the US just need to contain the Sunni insurgents?

4. How do you deal with the fact that the 'elements' will react to any new US initiatives and will go to ground or hop into Syria, Jordan or Iran depending on their connections and wait it out? This suggests you need some cooperation from the neighbours, which hasn't been in great supply recently.

5. I agree that difficult things take time, and getting the Iraqis to 'grow up' is one of those difficult things. But how long? There was some interesting discussion and links the other day on tribalism (I can't find it - maybe I was imagining it!) which to me seemed to suggest that it will be very difficult indeed to get normal Iraqis to understand that democracy is in their best interests. Is the US OK with keeping a significant stabilising presence in Iraq for a generation or more?

I'm sure there's more, but I need a beer now.

I thought Zach did a very nice job on your "why do Democrats think now is a time when things have become impossible?" question.

Go Dennis!

Comment #39 - Posted by Rob F

I O

"Iraqi police units, when ordered to Baghdad from other parts of Iraq, simply refuse and disappear. Their conduct is a reflection of the overwhelming sentiment of the Iraqi people, who even in public opinion polls say they want the U.S. and British out.

Key U.S. military strategist Harlan Ullman, who taught Gen. Colin Powell and who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview with Time magazine for its Oct. 19 issue: “We [Washington] lost control of events on the ground probably in April or May of 2003. And it’s taken a long time for that recognition to dawn in the White House. The president and the administration have refused to recognize reality. Iraq is a disaster.”

The generals, officials and analysts have gone further than either Republican or Democratic Party politicians in providing a frank picture of the Iraq occupation, with no end in sight. They have more accurately reflected the facts on the ground."

I have a question for Barry Cooper,why don't you enlist so that you can walk your talk?

Thanks, Yael...good to be back.

-D

Hassan,

A quote from a guy who once taught Colin Powell and an insult: what is your point exactly?

I assume you are offering a view as to why the US should withdraw from Iraq rather than stay the course?

I'll admit that I was pleased to hear Rumsfeld has been replaced with the former CIA head Robert Gates. I'm hoping more SF troops are utilized in key areas. But what the hell do I know. I rented Jarhead and I totally didn't "get" it...

This morning, while taking care of my third morning S, I got to thinking about the Iraqi's defectating in the yards. You know, most of the world defecates in a squat position. When Sir Thomas Crapper developed the toilet, the principle advantage was that by plugging the pipe with standing water, you eliminated the odor, which was previously considerable. Obviously, it still is in yards and pits when the material is left to decay, before being removed or covered.

This is not to say there are not biomechanical advantages to the squatting position. I would bet a case of your favorite beer (this is obviously for Travis), and a bottle of Woodford Reserve that you are asking the soldiers to use sitting toilets, and they don't like it because that's not what they're used to. It's not that they are savages, just that they've been doing something that any psychiatrist will tell you is a pretty primordial thing with a lot of psychological significance a certain way for the duration of their lives, and that's tough to change.

The fact is there are "toilets" in use--I used one in either Geneva or Antibes--where you stand in the middle of what amounts to a giant sink, on top of two foot-sized platforms, squat, do your thing into the hole below, and then push a button which washes everything down. I would bet another alcoholics night on the town (night home?) that if you put those in, the Iraqis would use them. That would smooth over what is likely a very rough spot, creating ill will on both sides. They may want bidets, too. I'm serious. A lot of the world doesn't use toilet paper. There's a reason Indians eat with their right hand only.

Being me, I can't resist generalizing a bit from there. I'm reading a book titled Chaos, by James Gleck, which has been around for a long time, but which I haven't until now gotten around to reading. A fundamental point he makes is that very small details can have enormous consequences in complex systems over time, far out of proportion to their seeming size. I call them tumblers for my own reasons, which I won't get into here.

In this case, you have a potential tumbler--a large difference making detail--which doesn't appear as such. But what is happening? You are seeing it--based on my reading--as a defining detail in an argument that the Iraqis--at least the group you're working with, who may or may not be typical--are not teachable, or have so far to go that they may as well be unteachable. This will be reflected in your attitude, unconsciously, in your interactions with them. They, in turn, will feel it, and a negative cycle initiated. Wars are won and lost on things like this. You never know what will matter.

It seems to me as well that we can retroactively assume, logically, that qualitatively important tumblers entered into the election cycle at some point in October. I'm a bit out of touch with the mainstream media, so I'm not sure what set the whole thing off, but it might be worth going back and figuring it out (for somebody, I don't have time), so we can see how this process works. The MSM is definitely a complex system, and it must be remembered that telling the truth is not their mission. Getting viewers (really, making money, but one leads to the other) is their mission, and the only drivers compelling honesty are integrity, and marketability. I don't see much integrity out there, and if we accept the postmodernist narrative (that is taught implicitly to essentially ALL humanities students nowadays) that truth is inherently subjective, then we lose further brakes on a complete descent into purely amoral opportunism.

With respect to marketability, their spin on spin is what keeps Fox in business. But even there--at least when I was watching it--I didn't see an effort to truly engage issues deeply. I don't want just the views that I tend to agree with anyway. I want to see responsible people wrestle to the best of their ability with complex issues. I just don't see that. If you are one demographic, you watch CNN. If another, Fox. If another, you just surf the internet. We are all so balkanized, we seem sometimes to have lost even the intent of collectively solving our problems, of confronting them with a spirit of tenacity and wisdom, or at least efforts at both.

I wonder whether water could be an issue, too. One of the first rules in wilderness survival esp. in the desert is not to defecate in your water source. Not that I'm expecting composting toilets to be installed, but I have to wonder...

Borat

My point is that "after 9/11 President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.

Thousands of Americans killed in Iraq. Stay the course. Many more thousands are maimed and lie in hospitals. Stay the course. The image of Americans occupying Iraq has been a virtual recruiting poster for terrorists. Stay the course. There’s no WMD in Iraq after all. Stay the course. It turns out Sadam wasn’t much of a threat to us. Stay the course. Osama Bin Ladin is chilling in a cave somewhere watching American Idol with contempt. Stay the Course. For two years, stay the course has meant that any mention of changing courses would be construed as an acknowledgment that we were on the wrong course, even if all evidence suggested we were. We couldn’t even send in enough troops to do the job properly because that would be off course.

An administration marching mindlessly down what appears to be the tragically wrong path. Parading soldiers to their death, like sheep to slaughter, chanting stay the course."

Thanks Hassan.

Where's your quote from, by the way?

http://www.abovethefoldblog.com/

Staying in Disney Paris for work.
Did:
- 10x double under
- 10x sit-up
- 10x push-up
- 10x 10 kg dumbell 1 arm overhead squat
- 10x double under
- 20x sit-up, push-up, OH sq
- 10x double under
- 30x situp, push-up, OH sq
some extra handstand and L-sit practise.
Have fun, Johan

Soldiers in the field are notoriously poor observers of war, up-close and personal horrors notwithstanding. Murtha and McCaffrey are examples. (Notable exception: keen-eyed Travis #9. Even keener response, too, by barry cooper #53.) Here are some the places where McCaffrey goes wrong.

McCaffrey Omission: Iraq is merely a campaign in the GWOT. Making Iraq a separate war is a little contested win by the Media Left Complex. That win is an element of the Vietnamization of the GWOT.

McCaffrey Omission: The enemy was never just Iraqis. The enemy in Iraq came in onion like layers -- first, Saddam, then foreign insurgents, now sectarian forces. Now the root cause is sects, dictated by Imams, who live in US granted physical and political sanctuaries. The present government is ineffective for being substantially under the control of Al Sadr. He needs to be shot. He is an unsalvageable enemy of democratic governments, anywhere, and guilty of crimes against humanity. The enemy is not groups; it is individuals, nameable.

McCaffrey Omission: Enemy and Iraqi morale is a match for the US morale, thanks largely to the effectiveness of Al Jazeera, which survives in another US granted sanctuary.

McCaffrey Omission: Support goes to the victorious. The US now looks like a loser, thanks to the foreign and domestic media, and thanks to Bush failing to identify, engage, and defeat the real, post-Saddam enemy.

McCaffrey Omission: Recognition of the first rule of warfare: deny the enemy what he values most. In Iraq, our failure to do that post Saddam is a failure to even identify the enemy, much less determine what he values.

McCaffrey Omission: the policy of the Media Left Complex is to Vietnamize the GWOT. It is being won by default, unopposed.

McCaffrey Omission: How does he imagine “We are going to break the US Army”? Or is this just his sour grapes for Rumsfeld’s (successful) modernization?

McCaffrey Omission: The failure to eradicate opium is a matter US policy. Regardless, US policy should be to legalize it (Rx for registered addicts), anyway.

McCaffrey Omission: Is not the Taliban a sect? Aren’t the Imams in Afghanistan given sanctuary, too, just as we grant them in the rest of the world?

McCaffrey Omission: We give sanctuary to international borders, in particular into Pakistan. The enemy capitalizes on each of our sanctuaries. That capitalization defines the very nature of the modern enemy.

The Media Left Complex succeeds with ineffectively controverted torture claims. In fact, we should engage in harsh treatment, such as denying them their Qur’an, their worship, their religious diet.

We give sanctuary to a political enemy when it is cloaked as a religion, for which GW Bush seems to have infinite sympathy. It matters little what observers like McCaffrey or the Red Cross think is proper custodial care. All this coddling of the detainees is as unbelievable as our open border with Mexico. The disgraceful and silly accusations against our forces in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo will have the unintended consequence of the taking of far fewer prisoners.

We are not going to win the GWOT until we identify and destroy the enemy, removing the sanctuaries along the way. The delay in doing so is causing crushing political burdens just as it did in Vietnam. Remember the left stink about the 30,000 body bags? We’ve only filled 3,000. The problem is the slow drip, drip, drip of casualties, brought on by the untouchable Imams – gloating TV stars sheltered in their sacred Mosk armories.

The Bush phase of the GWOT is heading for a loss for the US. to the ultimate political gain for the Dems. The next outbreak will be another attack on Israel, who will be in a compromised position, left to fend for itself. But it will prevail, and the consequences are likely to be nuclear, and the US will be again engaged.

McCaffrey is no help at all.

Jeff Glassman,

So much for McCaffrey! On your summation he is neither right or wrong but 'not even wrong'.

I am trying to think through what I take to be your approach to resolving the GWOT and the implications of following it through (assuming that the political will existed in the US). I apologise in advance if I am misreading your methodology, or drawing any unjustified conclusions about what you wrote.

I assume the crux of your approach to the GWOT is contained in the following sentence: "We are not going to win the GWOT until we identify and destroy the enemy, removing the sanctuaries along the way". The enemy being: "not groups; it is individuals, nameable".

Presumably these sanctuaries include Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, France, Germany, Turkey the UK, Indonesia, etc., etc.; maybe some even in the US itself. The US would need either to get the governments of those countries to deliver up the leaders, or the US would unilaterally get them, presumably through airstrikes, ground attacks etc. Any of the leaders who are apprehended alive would then be locked up somewhere pretty nasty with no rights, no comforts, forced to reveal what they knew and then have the key thrown away, or whatever. The 'Media Left Complex', the Democrats, human rights groups, other Governments etc. would be ignored.

One key problem I am having in thinking about this approach (assuming I am reading it correctly) is your assumption that the enemy is not groups, but individuals. Are you sure that the removal of Al Sadr and lets assume a number of his key guys (in what would have to be a pretty blatant manner), would cause the Mahdi Army to pack-up and go repair the electricity grid rather than to go ape-sht? Are you sure that demanding the Saudis give up several hundred (?) key clerics, (with presumably massive coercion required), or US direct operations to remove them (against Saudi wishes) would lead the Saudis to tune out Al Jazeera and keep pumping oil-to-order, rather than to some kind of major instability? Etc. for the other sanctuaries. (Would Musharraf be around long enough to write a further volume of memoirs if he gave the US free rein internally and in his border regions?)

I don't have the answer, but it seems to me that the Israelis (who presumably on your model also face individuals, not groups) have been trying to take-out key individuals directly for a while now but have yet to solve their existential issues by that methodology. Why would the US, facing a much tougher and larger task be any more successful?

Borat

P.S. Totally off this topic, something in your article that was posted a while ago had been nagging at me, namely why the Vostok CO2 levels had been bouncing around between approx 200 & 300ppmv for millenia, while I seemed to remember that current levels had broken out of that range to approximately 400ppmv. However, I think your posted response to Gavin Schmidt deals with that - you correctly point out that the most recent CO2 readings are not taken from Vostok (I had a look at the Vostok raw data out of curiosity), but made with different measuring methods, with sampling at different locations from Vostok, and in addition with some dodgy practices (waiting for onshore breezes which lead to higer CO2 levels). They are therefore not directly comparable data sets. Am I reading your response correctly?

Jeff Glassman wrote "Making Iraq a separate war is a little contested win by the Media Left Complex." Also "The Media Left Complex succeeds with ineffectively controverted torture claims. In fact, we should engage in harsh treatment, such as denying them their Qur’an, their worship, their religious diet." Finally "McCaffrey Omission: the policy of the Media Left Complex is to Vietnamize the GWOT. It is being won by default, unopposed."

Media Left Complex? Could you expound on the meaning of this term a bit?

Have you ever read What Liberal Media by Eric Alterman? Here is a review from Amazon.com,it may be of some interest to you:

The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media? Journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads.

Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth.

Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book."

As for the rest of your post,

Here is an interesting article http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

"How many times do journalists quote conservative think tanks over liberal ones? The media watchdog FAIR conducted a Nexus search of major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts for 1995, and came up with the following answer:

Total Number of Think Tank Citations in Major Newspapers, Radio
and TV transcripts: (23)

Conservative 7792
Centrist 6361
Progressive 1152

Although there are far more conservative think tanks than liberal ones in the first place, reporters could easily balance the facts if they wanted to simply by consulting academics at universities."

23. Nexis search conducted by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Here is a more complete chart:

Media References to Major Think-Tanks in 1995

Think Tank /Political Orientation / References

Heritage Foundation / conservative / 2268
Brookings Institution / centrist / 2192
American Enterprise Institute / conservative / 1297
Cato Institute / conservative-libertarian / 1163
RAND Corporation / center-right / 795
Urban Institute / center-left / 749
Council on Foreign Relations / centrist / 747
Center for Strategic and International Studies / conservative / 612
Hoover Institution / conservative / 570
Progress and Freedom Foundation / conservative / 570
Carnegie Endowment / centrist / 517
Freedom Forum / centrist / 496
Progressive Policy Institute / centrist / 455
Institute for International Economics / centrist / 410
Economic Policy Institute / progressive / 399
Hudson Institute / conservative / 354
Competitive Enterprise Institute / conservative / 298
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies / progressive / 255
Manhattan Institute / conservative / 254
Reason Foundation conservative/libertarian / 229
Worldwatch Institute / progressive / 201
International Institute for Strategic Studies / conservative / 177
Institute for Policy Studies / progressive / 161
Center for Defense Information / progressive / 136

David Croteau, "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim: Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage," (Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, June 1998). A copy of this report can be found online at http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html.

Last one,I promise:

"Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right.

GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." (1)

In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive."

He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." (2)

1. Both quoted by Norman Solomon, "Politics: What is Disinformation?" San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 8, 1996.

2. Ibid.

Hassan,

The liberal media charge hase more to it than what you describe. There has been countless studies done on this that show that reporters, editors, and anchors tend to overwhelmingly be liberal in leaning and democrat in party. The last was done by UCLA a within the last 2 months that I had seen.

Your choice of 1995 is interesting since you chose just one year as a sample for just one aspect of coverage...citing, particularly "think tanks". While this sounds damning as evidence...there were more right leaning think tanks coming out of the 80's than left. Plus, the coverage in '95 was how the Republicans took over Congress and what they were going to do with it. Plus the failures of The Clintons right off the bat to turn the US into a European-type Social Democratic State.

Your quotes too, are take out of context.

Goldberg being in the know, exposed this from first hand accounts. He describes it not so much as an overt deliberate agenda as a thought process of what is believed as right and wrong...latest big one I can think of is the "DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" not the Terrorist Surveylance. Fairness would dictate using the Government's title of the program not trying to influence coverage with buzzwords.

Borat #60.

McCaffrey is mostly strategically inadequate, a shallow thinker.

Unjustified conclusions? To the limits! Categorizing nation states as sanctuaries is about as extreme as one could imagine, and it is all your creation! You’re completely out of bounds. Relax, breathe. Start small.

Here’s what I suggest for initial steps, i.e., the "crux". Task Central Command to irradicate Muqtada al-Sadr (with or without Maliki’s consent), Harith Al-Dhari (with or without Jordan’s consent), and Hassan Nasrallah (with or without Syria’s consent). Task State to get those consents, if possible. Plus, arrest other clerics or sheikhs who object, starting in Iraq. Lock them up for the duration, or until they cooperate. Search and hold all mosques in Iraq, starting in Baghdad and other key cities. Close the madrassas. The robes and the mosques are the sanctuaries.

Task CentCom to replace Al Jazeera personnel with Voice of America (with or without Qatar’s consent). What we can’t reach, destroy. Terrorism is impotent without communications. The media is a sanctuary. But like every other freedom, it comes with limits and responsibilties, expecially off-shore and in time of war. In those cases, the Constitution does not apply.

Hold Syria and Iran responsible for their support for terror -- militarily. E.g., if Iran wants a nuclear weapon, send them one.

Here you go Hassan:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9169

more to follow...

Hassan #61.

Media Left Complex: a set of individuals and institutions that promote the tenets of the American political left, including especially but not limited to large central government, weak state governments, expansion of national entitlements, minimal military, anti-corporation policies, economic leveling, federal government ownership, racial and occupational constituencies.

Everyone recognizes the left bias in the media. Especially those apologists who write that it doesn’t exist. Consider this thought experiment: ask someone who denies the left bias in the MSM to characterize Rush Limbaugh or Fox News Channel. Let’s say, far out, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, they say Limbaugh and FNC are biased right. OK? QED. It’s all relative.

It’s all statistical, too. Every example will be dismissed as insignificant, accidental, anecdotal, or apocryphal. To show the bias, one has to move to a higher level than individual stories.

My criteria are more absolute. First, by media, I mean the front page of newspapers (not the editorial page) and the network TV news. The bias is evident in the choice of adjectives (statistics are available). It is shown in the selection and placement of stories, in the headlines, and in the choice of authorities. Stories favoring greater foreign involvement or lesser domestic involvement are rare, and the reverse are commonplace.

In recent times, the bias has become blatant, false, and even criminal. Stories with one source, or even none (e.g., polls). Leaks of classified information. Dwelling on funerals and caskets (too bad they can’t show autopsies, eh?) Staged anti-American demonstrations, foreign and domestic. Camera close-ups of damage and blood and guts.

The media is responsible for an abundance of widely held misinformation. People who should know better are fooled. E.g.: Humans (Americans) cause global warming. Tobacco is addictive. The Iraq campaign was to remove WMDs. US military tortures, as shown in Abu Ghraid and Gitmo. The War is illegal. The War is going badly over there. The economy is bad. Someone outed Valery Plame. Republicans mishandled their scandals. George Bush lied. FISA prohibits warrantless wiretaps. The affirmation of one or another of these now conventional wisdoms is the everyday stuff of the media. Each is false; proof on request.

Hassan,

I have to keep this short, I have to leave ASAP. But I wanted to respond to your question from the last rest day. Yes, Webster Tarpley is a prime example of a conspiracy nut. He is a former LaRouche... I delt with these wackos nearly everyday in college. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Griffin_Tarpley

Try reading through a few of these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I'd like to add that a major problem in the perception of Fox News as Right leaning is because many Dems refuse to appear on Fox. A friend of mine works for Dem firm, many of her clients have expressly stated such. Who's fault is it if you refuse to face hard questions, verses CNN where you know you will get softballs?

Got to run!

I'm with Jeff. A war fought half-way is unethical. We need to give our Medal of Honor winners something concrete to have died for. Bush needs to walk his talk. I don't think America wants out of this war. They want to win the war, but understand in their guts that this half-ass crap is a waste of time, and will only get worse. We need to cut the heads off the Hydra.

Borat #60, re Vostok ice core data

You read me correctly. Let me add a sip from the firehose.

As soon as the Vostok data were reduced, the climatologists seized on it primarily for the CO2 implications for their global warming conjecture. They rationalized that the CO2 and temperature traces were global and not regional to Antarctica. They argued that the CO2 was well-mixed (a stock requirement in the field) because of its long retention in the atmosphere, variously stated as more than decates, or between 50 and 500 years. These arguments fail because climatologists compute the present day uptake of CO2 by the oceans to be between 92 and 107 Gtons/year and a present day outgassing between 90 and 104 Gtons, all from an atmospheric reservoir of 720 to 780 Gtons. This means that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 4.5 years, and the mean residence time for a molecule is about 7.1 years.

Now the Vostok data could still be well-mixed, but not because of a residence time measured in decades or centuries. The climatologists have no fall-back position. The conclusions from the analysis in the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide don’t require well-mixed data. The data bear the imprint of the solubility of CO2 in water, which models would be unable to reproduce as a “forcing”, a dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. Also the short residence time challenges their theory that anthropogenic CO2 builds up in the atmosphere. The climatologists admit that water vapor is a “feedback” (i.e., by their definitions any model parameter which is not a forcing is a feedback). With the new results from Vostok, models will have to cause natural CO2 to be shaped by the complement of the solubility curve. If the climatologists still feel compelled to dump ACO2 into the atmosphere and separate the effects, they will have to find a way to segregate ACO2 of about 6.5 Gtons/year from the ocean’s outgassing of about 104 Gtons/year, and invent a reason that ACO2 doesn’t achieve the same fate as the natural.

One can’t claim that the Mauna Loa CO2 curves originated by Keeling are not comparable to the Vostok record. A valid question is, how are they comparable? Both data sets are processed, but the published MLO data are also averaged and appear to have been detrended, that is, a little over-processed. (I’d like to have raw data for MLO, including temperature and the wind vector for each reading.) Keeling warned that these MLO data were regional and restircted to a few layers of the troposphere. Climatologist ignore his caveats and simply glue one set of data on the end of another.

Keeling’s data contain a seasonal variation that appears to be a simple, almost noise free sinusoid. This is an improbable result. He suggested that the seasonal variation was due to the carbon cycle of the biosphere, and that the long term, accelerating baseline was due to man. Because we now reason that the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is short, and that the great bulk of it (all the natural part) comes from the ocean, there are better models for the Keeling observations.

First, the seasonal part of the Mauna Loa CO2 is closely correlated with temperature. The temperature in Hawaii is well-known to be a product of the ocean. Higher temperatures in the month mean warmer waters, and that means more CO2 outgassing. Simple, and consistent.

Second, here is a novel, alternative conjecture for the MLO data.

Hawaii sits ten degrees or so north and at least ten degrees west of a huge patch of ocean where most of the 107 Gtons/year of CO2 is exhausted into the atmosphere. The patch is about 20 degrees wide, centered roughly on the equator, stretching from the mid-Pacific to South America. Source is the International Geosphere Biosphere Program. See http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm, page 3. This area is included in the doldrums, an area of notoriously low wind and low pressure. The CO2 plume from this patch should rise and split poleward, where it then encounters the westerlies (or whatever lies in tropophere above the westerlies). Thus in summary, Hawaii should lie in the plume of the bulk of the oceanic outgassing!

The CO2 at Mauna Loa should not be well-mixed, and it should have a strong regional component due to the outgassing plume. Variations in the strength of the CO2 measurements might well be accounted for by slow changes in deep ocean currents. If the plume slowly moves across the island, this could account for the rise measured over the last 50 years. We must leave it to the climatologists to make the appropriate calculations.

Man cannot be causing global warming by adding about 1% per year gross to the reservoir of atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas with less than one thirtieth the effect of water vapor. The global climate models are wrong, notwithstanding the measurements at Mauna Loa.

Jeff Glassman,

Thank you for your reply and your admonishment to breath, relax and stay in bounds. As for 'Unjustified conclusions', 'all of your creation', I didn't think I had reached any conclusions - my post was an attempt to understand what your thinking was, question a few assumptions and feed it into my own thinking.

Feel free to let me know where I have misread you, but statements such as '...Al Jazeera, which survives in another US granted sanctuary', (presumably the nation state of Qatar), and 'We give sanctuary to international borders, in particular into Pakistan' sound to me to be 'Categorizing nation states as sanctuaries'. Whatever.

Unfortunately, although I now have a better view of your 'crux', I am still not convinced about your assumption that the enemies are individuals, not groups, and your post seems not to have answered it at all. I am concluding, therefore, that you believe that irradicating al-Sadr, arresting dissenting clerics and occupying mosques will cause the Mahdi Army to tune into Fox and play with their grandkids, that 'sending' Iran a nuclear weapon will be the end of the Badr Brigade, that irradicating Nasrallah in conjunction with the 'present' to Iran will cause the collapse of Hezbollah (although the Israeli removal of Abbas al-Musawi, Nassrallah's predecessor, seems to have failed to do the same) etc., rather than leading to, at best, a continuation of the same with a step-up in US resource requirements and some new enemy faces in starring roles, at worst some sort of collapse in the Middle East. I don't suppose we will agree on that...

I have just seen your latest post on Vostok etc., but have not had time to read it, although I suspect we are more on common ground there.

P.S. could you also send me proof, as per your invitation to Hassan, that smoking is not addictive? You mentioned this a while back and it struck me as interesting then although I never followed up at the time.

Hassan,

You are on a hiding to nothing regarding media bias - as Jeff Glassman points out in his thought experiment, it's all relative, and he is pretty careful where he is defining his media; in addition I am more convinced by CCTJoey's comments on the flaws in your reasoning than by your assertions that there is no bias.

I am also going with Blake on Webster Tarpley. I am sure you can point to the odd area where he may have a point, but my broken clock is also right twice a day and I wouldn't use it to tell the time. I will add this link to his, although you could just as well use it to support your positions too http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002F4E6-8CF7-1D49-90FB809EC5880000

Barry,

Nice toilet post.

I agree that a war fought half-way is likely to be a waste of time, but would leave ethics out of it - there is a scene in the Pontecorvo film 'Battle of Algiers' where the French paratroop colonel is asked about torturing suspects and says something along the lines of 'Do you want France to stay in Algeria? If the answer is yes, you’ll have to accept all the necessary consequences.' He didn't play nice and he did achieve his objective, at least in the short term till French political will ebbed. At the same time, while people may agree that a war should be prosecuted with maximum effort, they may differ in their view as to what the most effective method is.

As for the Hydra - my recollection is that when a head was cut off one or two new ones grew back. Heracles was unable to vanquish it alone until Iolaus handed him a burning brand to cauterize the stump before the new heads could grow - this kind of analogy is only useful for fun, but while I am amused at the thought of the US as the new Heracles, I am not sure who it will find these days to be the new Iolaus...

More from the link posted for CCTJOEY and Borat:

"The claim that the U.S. has a "liberal media" began with a book called The Media Elite, by S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter. Their 1980 survey of journalists revealed that journalists were indeed much more liberal than the rest of America, a point which no one disputed. However, the authors then went on to make a second claim: that these liberal journalists inserted their own personal bias into the news. This second claim has not withstood academic scrutiny. (Click on the following link to see why.)

However, that debate is archaic today, because new studies show that today's journalists are more centrist than anything else. However, those who are not centrists identify themselves more frequently as conservatives on economic issues, and more frequently as liberals on social issues.

The following study was conducted by David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth University. (24) He targeted Washington bureau chiefs and Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy. His questionnaires went to 78 national news organizations, with an emphasis on the following 14:

1. ABC News /ABC Radio
2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
3. Bloomberg News
4. CNN
5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
6. Los Angeles Times
7. NBC News
8. New York Times
9. Reuters America, Inc.
10. Time
11. USA Today/USA Weekend
12. Wall Street Journal
13. Washington Post
14. Washington Times

The 141 journalists and bureau chiefs who responded were an excellent cross-section of the target group as a whole. When their positions on political issues were tallied up, this was the result:

Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation? Q#23. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?
Left 30% Left 11%
Center 57% Center 64%
Right 9% Right 19%
Other 5% Other 5%

What caused journalists to shift over the last 15 years from liberal attitudes to centrist ones, even conservative ones on economic issues?

One answer, of course, is that the media's parent corporations began hiring less liberal journalists. But another answer has to be the exploding salaries of celebrity journalists. It is a common observation in political science that receiving a higher income tends to make a person more economically conservative.

Between 1980 and 1995, the salaries of celebrity journalists sky-rocketed. In 1995, Diane Sawyer made $8 million; Ted Koppel, $5 million; David Brinkley, $1 million; George Will, $1.5 million; Cokie Roberts, $700,000. (25) These salaries place them in America's richest 1 percent (actually, the top one-twentieth of the top 1 percent). Keep in mind that the top 1 percent saw their wealth explode during the 80s, eventually coming to own 40 percent of America's wealth. These celebrity journalists live and work in centers of power like Washington D.C and New York City, where they rub elbows with the nation's political and business elite.

Says PBS producer Stephen Talbot:

"There's an Our Town quality to official Washington -- a very small, incestuous world of politicians and press who are now almost interchangeable. The press was once known as ink-stained wretches. But in their tuxedos and evening gowns at an event like the White House Correspondents Dinner, they resemble nothing more than the politicians they cover." (26)
Newsweek columnist Jonathon Alter concedes:
"I'm a part of this so-called overclass -- and so are my bosses and many of my colleagues at Newsweek and elsewhere in the national media. There's no point in denying it." (27)
And all evidence shows that celebrity journalists identify with the various elites they cover. Recently, ABC weathered a scandal (due to lack of coverage, naturally) in which its journalists were criticized for accepting huge speaking fees before big business groups. It turns out that corporate lobbyists cultivate "friendships" not only with politicians, but TV journalists as well. They were paying Cokie Roberts, David Brinkley and Sam Donaldson between $20,000 and $35,000 per 40-minute speech. David Gergen collected over $700,000 from speaker fees in one 16-month period alone. In general, the speeches have been very friendly to big business, and that is why lobbyists were willing to pay such huge honoraria. In a 1992 speech, for example, David Brinkley described Bill Clinton's tax increase on the rich as a "sick, stupid joke." (This was even before he called Clinton "boring" on the eve of his 1996 reelection.) In July, 1994, ABC finally advised its journalists to stop accepting speaker fees from corporations and lobbying groups. The decision was immediately protested by Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, David Brinkley, Brit Hume and others. (28)

The ironic thing is that Cokie Roberts is a Democrat, as are many of her colleagues. Again, this underscores the fact that inside the Beltway, a "liberal" is often no more than a moderate conservative."

As for Webster Tarpley and his being lbeled a "Conspiracy Theorist" I found this article enlightening:http://www.911-strike.com/conspiracy-denial.htm

The Roots of Conspiracy Denial

"Many historical conspiracies (starting with the murder of Julius Caesar) are widely accepted facts. When it comes to current or ongoing conspiracies, however, we are much more likely to find that the predominant view is set by the conspiracy naysayers. These are social commentators of various ilk, ranging from network news anchors to public relations spin doctors to bar stool jockeys. Daniel Pipes' 1997 book "Conspiracy: how the paranoid style flourishes and where it comes from" is a prime example of the naysayer's art, and yet (as we shall see) Pipes is also very good at promoting "conspiracy theories" when it suits his purposes.

The Swiss army knife in the naysayer’s toolbox is the skillful exploitation of the persona of the public. In a Jungian view: every individual maintains a vital defense mechanism called the persona, which is their constructed image or facade which is presented to the world. The persona is not so much a self-consciously aware construct, but rather it is built up and internalized throughout the process of socialization during childhood.

In American culture, the persona includes a strong conviction that we are surrounded by people with benign intentions -- and that by joining enthusiastically in the American consumer culture, we are ourselves participating in an expression of the best of human aspirations. We are deeply convinced, as part of our social make-up, that our culture represents the highest flowering of justice and democracy. Of course, this psychological construct is continuously fortified by educational institutions, employers and the corporate media.

The persona also includes an inbred social desire to belong to the currently favored social clique. By adhering to the conventional wisdom, anyone can leverage or protect their position in society, whether this be in elementary school playgrounds, in a corporation, or at the heights of governance. By contrast, anyone who draws attention to wrongful acts within society, is acting as a cassandra or alarmist -- and risks a punishment proportional to the severity of the disconnect between the persona and the reality.

The ideas that emerge from the conspiracy literature -- that government is not always good but rather might be murderous and evil, that our society is to some extent based in trickery and deceit, causing pain and suffering around the world -- represent deep attacks on our own conception of ourselves. In Jungian terms, these are part of the shadow world, the deeply repressed, unconscious archetypes of evil. The conspiracy literature is not approached with normal cognitive facilities of critical evaluation, but rather it is attacked (if it is confronted at all) almost as a form of pornography, a tool of the Devil himself."

Great breakdown of Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias":

"During the last few months, former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg's new book "Bias" has stoked the "liberal media" canard. His anecdote-filled book continues to benefit from enormous media exposure.

In interviews on major networks, Goldberg has emphasized his book's charge that American media outlets are typically in step with the biased practices he noticed at CBS News — where "we pointedly identified conservatives as conservatives, for example, but for some crazy reason didn't bother to identify liberals as liberals."

But do facts support Goldberg's undocumented generalization? To find out, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg searched a database of 30 large daily newspapers in the United States. He disclosed the results in an analysis that aired March 19 on the national radio program "Fresh Air."

Nunberg discovered "a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives — but not in the direction that Goldberg claims." Actually, the data showed, "the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does."

When Nunberg narrowed his search to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times — three dailies "routinely accused of having a liberal bias" — he learned that "in those papers, too, liberals get partisan labels 30 percent more often than conservatives do, the same proportion as in the press at large."

And what about Goldberg's claim that media coverage is also slanted by unfairly pigeonholing stars of the entertainment industry? His book declares flatly: "If we do a Hollywood story, it's not unusual to identify certain actors, like Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis, as conservatives. But Barbra Streisand or Rob Reiner, no matter how active they are in liberal Democratic politics, are just Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner."

Again, Nunberg found, the facts prove Goldberg wrong: "The press gives partisan labels to Streisand and Reiner almost five times as frequently as it does to Selleck and Willis. For that matter, Warren Beatty gets a partisan label twice as often as Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Norman Lear gets one more frequently than Charlton Heston does."

The results are especially striking because the word "liberal" has been widely stigmatized, observes Nunberg, a senior researcher at Stanford's Center for the Study of Language and Information. "It turns out that newspapers label liberals much more readily than they do conservatives."

So, while Goldberg hotly contends — without statistical backup — that conservatives get a raw deal because they're singled out for ideological labeling more than liberals are, Nunberg relies on empirical evidence to reach a very different conclusion: "If there is a bias here, in fact, the data suggests that it goes the other way — that the media consider liberals to be farther from the mainstream than conservatives are."

It's unlikely that factual debunking will do much to slow the momentum of those who are intent on riding the "liberal media" poltergeist. It has already carried them a long way. "

It strikes me as odd that every left wing appologist that comes on this board resorts to quoting off left wing websites at best and plagerism at worst....Usually trying use isolated examples from a left-wing website(s) that have little to do with the subject to draw conclusions and then swing them back into a Neo-Con conspiracy.

Hassan, Tim, Sam, Joe....etc. It is almost like they are the same person.

It is pretty easy to find stuff on the internet that supports your view, Hassan...

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet.  Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose.  "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

CCTJoey wrote "It strikes me as odd that every left wing appologist that comes on this board resorts to quoting off left wing websites at best and plagerism at worst....Usually trying use isolated examples from a left-wing website(s) that have little to do with the subject to draw conclusions and then swing them back into a Neo-Con conspiracy."

You debunk these so-called " left-wing apologists" posts by name calling,broadbrushing,and using isolated examples from right-wing sites. Good job.

A great breakdown of the issue can be found at www.webpan.com

"Where are those liberal TV channels? Could I please sign up for them? All I get on my satelite system are center-right channels such as CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and far-right channels such as the "we distort, you deride", Fox News, owned by equally far-right media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, and assorted christian nutball channels such as the Trinity Broadcasting Network or Pat Robertson's The 700 Club, carried by Fox Family.

But enough anecdotal evidence. Maybe I'm just suffering from selective perception of reality, seing what I expect to see? Objective data is required to substantiate the claim that the bias of the media is in fact a conservative one, and FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has been compiling just that kind of data for 15 years now. FAIR has documented (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1033) that conservative or right-leaning "think" tanks (like Heritage, Cato, RAND or our favourite, the "Family Research" council) received more than 50% of media citations in 1998 and 1999, while left-wing and progressive think tanks overally received less than 13%. FAIR's issue collection reveals, among other things, how the mass media

have helped create the myth that social security is failing, paving the way for the realization of one of the right's political wet dreams: privatization of social security
perpetuate conservative myths about wellfare and simultanously turn a blind eye to corporate wellfare
sensationalize street crime and ignore corporate crime
treat religious right groups such as the Promise Keepers with kid's gloves and thus help legitimize them in the public perception
generally avoid reporting on the lunatic fringe of the right, such as militias, neo-Nazis and anti-abortion terrorists, and in particular, avoid examining the personal and ideological connections these groups have to the Republican party
created the perception that there is widespread popular opposition to affirmative action when in fact most people support it
all but ignore waste, mismanagment and corruption in the military-industrial complex, especially as it relates to the planned missile defense system
downplayed protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO by portraying protestors as leftist fringe groups, communists and anarchists
report corporate PR as legitimate scientific research.

Given these facts, the claim of the liberal media bias is shaky enough as it relates to major newspapers and television networks. But when one admits radio stations into the picture, the claim becomes wholly preposterous.

Conservative hate radio has been carpet bombing the nation with hard-right ideology, unbridled hatred towards liberals and Clinton, distortions, lies and bogus science for years. Hate radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan and Oliver North are heard by millions of people every day, and they have no progressive counterparts of any significance.

The Liberal Media myth is a propaganda tool employed by conservative radio hosts, columnists and pundits as a convenient excuse why after 20 years their ideology has failed to convince the public at large, and as a memetic inocculation of the public against the evidence that the media bias is in fact a conservative one.

Not only does the liberal media claim have no basis in fact, it also does not make sense considering the issues of media ownership and influence of advertisers.

Most media outlets are owned by a handful of conservative corporations and individuals, and funded by usually economically conservative advertisers who have no need for an educated, alert, independent and critical citizenry."

Hassan..

I don't think you get the arguement...no one cares if the outlet or reporter or commentator ADMITS to their bias...like Limbaugh. It is the fact that NEWS outlets distort the NEWS. That is not even argueable by anyone who has studied it.

Social security is a great example...when ALGORE wanted to deal with it the MSM was all about giving him time to whine...however the conservative side who wanted to privatize it was given treatment about wanting to "steal" the funds for Wall Street.

Think tanks are not the arguement either...since their are relatively few left leaning think tanks to begin with.

You mention topics that you seem angry with the popular perception of such as dirty hippys protesting WTO...

what you fail to realize is that the Conservative movement does not celebrate or tolerate Anti-abortion violence and the like...this is not the same for the left who hold tight to their wackos and even promote them to "star".

However neither of these examples are about media bias....

post some thing on your own...it has been awhile.

Hassan,

Do you believe that we put men on the moon? Why is that, is it becuse the overwhelming evidence leads you to that conclusion? ...That to believe otherwise would fly in the face of logic, facts, countless eye witnesses, video, etc.. Some may make a few interesting points worth further scrutiny. Ultimately, the facts speak for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy

There is a saying - "Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)". Most of the best laid plans meet Murphies Law at the very outset. Most of these conspiracies in history have follwed that premise. The assassination of Julius Ceasar was a simple plot, the conspirators were exposed. Do you give George Bush so much credit that he was able to masterfully orchestrate such an incredibly elaborate and convoluted conspiracy and flawlessy execute it without witnesses, evidence, leaks, etc.. Rather, to set up a conspiracy that sets up another group of conspiring terrorists over the course of years. And have Bin Laden take credit for the whole thing. Yet, you and others on the Left demean the President's intelligence and ability to wage a war. South Park best sums up the abdsurdity! http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=76565

CCTJOEY

I'm not arguing that news outlets don't distort the news,the question is to whose advantage do they distort it? I think the evidence shows that as stated in the post above

" Objective data is required to substantiate the claim that the bias of the media is in fact a conservative one, and FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has been compiling just that kind of data for 15 years now. FAIR has documented (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1033)that conservative or right-leaning "think" tanks (like Heritage, Cato, RAND or our favourite, the "Family Research" council) received more than 50% of media citations in 1998 and 1999, while left-wing and progressive think tanks overally received less than 13%. FAIR's issue collection reveals, among other things, how the mass media

Have helped create the myth that social security is failing, paving the way for the realization of one of the right's political wet dreams: privatization of social security

Perpetuate conservative myths about wellfare and simultanously turn a blind eye to corporate wellfare

Sensationalize street crime and ignore corporate crime

Treat religious right groups such as the Promise Keepers with kid's gloves and thus help legitimize them in the public perception
generally avoid reporting on the lunatic fringe of the right, such as militias, neo-Nazis and anti-abortion terrorists, and in particular, avoid examining the personal and ideological connections these groups have to the Republican party

Created the perception that there is widespread popular opposition to affirmative action when in fact most people support it

All but ignore waste, mismanagment and corruption in the military-industrial complex, especially as it relates to the planned missile defense system

Downplayed protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO by portraying protestors as leftist fringe groups, communists and anarchists
report corporate PR as legitimate scientific research. "

Blake wrote "Do you give George Bush so much credit that he was able to masterfully orchestrate such an incredibly elaborate and convoluted conspiracy and flawlessy execute it without witnesses, evidence, leaks, etc.. "

Obviously you have'nt read any link that I have sent nor what I have personally written.Did you find in any link I sent you that Bush had the capacity to orchestrate anything of this magnitude? As a matter of fact if anyone accuses Bush of knowing much of anything about anything I definitely would demand to see some documentation!

Since reading it is apparently confusing have a listen:http://www.suesupriano.com/audio/webstertarpley.mp3

No, I have read through many of your links. Often, stopping in disgust.

Here is your book review by Steele... that was partially cut and pasted:
"Reviewer: Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States) - See all my reviews

It is with great sadness that I conclude that this book is the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon, almost all non-fiction. I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford's "Pretext for War"), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of "Crossing the Rubicon" as well as "State of Denial"). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of "Clash of Civilizations" with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.

This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism.

The author draws on historical examples of US fabrication of threats (e.g. the bombing of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor) and many others (Jim Bamford publicized Operation Northwoods). It is an undeniable fact that the U.S. Government has been willing to kill its own citizens and fabricate attacks as part of moving the public.

The author suggests that there is no conclusive evidence that 9/11 was of foreign origin, and to the contrary, quite a bit of evidence that the hijackers had been trained at US military bases, protected by the CIA and FBI, and that the end result of their actions--including controlled flying into buildings and controlled demolitions bringing down three towers, one of which was not hit at all, all suggest a US-based conspiracy.

The author is compelling in his review of the conflicts of interest for each of the 9/11 Commissioners and key staff; he is conclusive in his damnation of their performance and their refusal to be tough with NORAD, the FAA, and many other Executive organizations that refused to cooperate; and he is conclusive on his suggestion that all actual evidence points to the Pentagon being hit by a missile rather than an airplane.

The author is especially compelling in condemning Rudy Guilliani as part of the conspiracy, and as the "bud" of the extreme right charged with cleaning up the crime scene. Instead of making the area off-limits, Gulliani moved aggressively to "scoop and dump" to the point that firefighters rioted.

I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers. I believe it sufficient to indict Dick Cheney and other neo-cons. Sadly, the Executive is now in the service of corporations that benefit from high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than in the service of the American people who suffer great ill from these terrible mis-deeds.

My bottom line: justice has NOT been done, and this book, together with Crossing the Rubicon, is a major reason why I believe that eventually, Dick Cheney and others will be brought to justice. The people now have a digital memory and collective intelligence. Bin Laden Dead or Alive? Mission Accomplished? Civil liberties at home, democracy abroad? Just who are we kidding? More to the point, who are we betraying if not ourselves?

In fairness to Dick Cheney, I also wonder if he is not the fall guy for Wall Street and the gnomes of Zurich. I am waiting for him to have a heart attack while getting a routine medical check-up....the Ken Lay defense, but imposed by those who are willing to assassinate the John Kennedy's and Bobby Kennedy's of our world."

In what way have I mis-characterzed Webster Tarpley as a NUT? Please give me specific examples of how he is right and the 9/11 Report is wrong.

Borat, #71.

“[T]here is no definition of ‘addiction’ that is universally accepted”. Encyclopedia of Public Health. http://www.answers.com/topic/addiction. In the face of the political pressure to get the tobacco companies, definitions are weakening. To avoid ex post fact definitions, we rely on classic or off-shore (non-American) definitions. Encyclopedia Britannica is one such source, providing a discussion of the traditional meanings for addiction and habituation from the British perspective. Its discussion includes,

>>The traditional distinction between “addiction” and “habituation” centres on the ability of a drug to produce tolerance and physical dependence.

>>Tolerance is a physiological phenomenon that requires the individual to use more and more of the drug in repeated efforts to achieve the same effect.

Tolerance has alternative meanings in physiology and medicine.

>>Tolerance: The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use. American Heritage Dictionary.

Tobacco, I submit, exhibits tolerance in the first sense but not the second. The classic, comedic example of the first is the young lad smoking his first cigar behind the barn. It induces dizziness and nausea, both with a vengeance. Neither of this is present in the habituated cigar smoker, who gets nothing but physiological pleasure from his habit. However, cigar smokers stabilize in their usage: 1 a day, 6 a day, or whatever. The pleasure remains, perhaps for a lifetime, even if foreshortened by the practice. Many articles on tobacco are available discussing tolerance in the first sense.

However, tolerance of the second type, even beyond the American Heritage definition of diminution of response, is an element of addiction under the Enc.B. definition. To get the desired effect of cigar smoking under addiction, usage would increase without limit. Six cigars a day would give no pleasure. Soon a dozen would be required, and so on.

Whatever the form of tobacco usage, cigars, cigarettes, pipes, snuffs, or chews, usage soon reaches a relatively modest plateau where it may remain for life. From these definitions and considerations, tobacco is not addictive.

Breaking an addiction is tough. A rigorous 12 step program may help, but is far from a guarantee. There is no kind of 12 step program for smokers. The smoker needs little more than will power, along with something to do with his hands and mouth when his compulsion rises. There is also a simple patch available to deliver nicotine in decreasing doses, which itself is likely more psychological help than physiological relief. Note too that the patches (e.g., Nicorette, Nicoderm, nicotine gum) have no addiction warning labels on the packages. Apparently neither tobacco nor nicotine is addictive. At least FDA has yet to subscribe to Henry Waxman’s prejudice.

Hassan:

you are a mouth peice devoid of original thought. You repeat the same post again....I read it the first time. Because the media does not support your ideas or report on what you think is important does not mean it is "right" bias. It means few people are concerned about those subjects at this time. It also means that there is not discussion at the national govenment level about them either.

I don't think what FAIR thinks matters since they are a Leftist watchdog group. They don't even admit to Dan Rather's bias...hardly a "fair" source for information.

If all you can offer is left-wing biased examples of refuting left-wing bias...just stop..I don't care and no one is buying your garbage...just like the others before you you bring nothing to the discussion but wasted bandwidth and an agenda to spread your Anti-American filth.

I am done with you as a discussion participant, you refuse to stay on topic and manage to always bring every discussion back to a Neo-Con conspiracy regardless of the original topic...

Borat #71: re group enemies.

American forces are now on the defensive in Iraq. By the media, they are exclusively on the defensive. We have liberated all of Iraq, so we are forced into a holding position. But we and the Iraqis are being attacked with a significant regularity by invisible, organized forces. Mostly our troops seem to wait to be victims. They are not even decoys to flush out enemy forces. The exceptions are a few underreported city cleansing exercises. Even then, we seem to be killing ants at a picnic, and getting bit in the process. Its pointless and futile. What we need is an exterminator; we need to wipe out the colony queens and their food supply.

The attacks in Iraq, meaning mostly Baghdad, of course, are not random protests based on any kind of religious or political convictions of the groups. If they were, then we’d have days with multiple, perhaps dozens of attacks, and long, quiet periods. The attacks are occurring with regularity. The pattern is evidence that the attacks are orchestrated, especially for the media. We need to take out the conductors.

We must take out the conductors because we are at war and have no choice. In an ideal world, it might be better to eradicate all the soldiers. Since we can’t see them or identify them, we’re in a different war. If they gather for a meeting or a bivouac, attack them. In the meantime, cut off the heads and keep cutting off the heads.

Bush ’43:

(1) Give the guy who invented the Baathist deck of cards a reward, a medal, and a promotion. Then create a new deck of cards for leaders and lieutenants of the insurrection and sectarian violence. No sanctuaries: they go on the list regardless of whether they are clerics or not, and regardless of which nation is hiding them. Now we can make measurable, useful, and visible progress.

(2) Here’s how to instantaneously gain majorities in the House and Senate: change parties. Please!

What is underreported is how well most of the Iraq is doing. Particularly, the Kurdish Region.

http://www.theotheriraq.com

How well most of Iraq is doing? You are in denial.

"If all you can offer is left-wing biased examples of refuting left-wing bias...just stop.."

I have cited sources as varied as ABC news,CNN,as well as what could be considered left-wing sites. But of course you ignore the sources that don't help with your argument now don't you.

"Because the media does not support your ideas or report on what you think is important does not mean it is "right" bias. It means few people are concerned about those subjects at this time. It also means that there is not discussion at the national govenment level about them either."

The criteria for determining bias were posted in the study,it was not based off of whether or not the media supports your ideas or not,it's about who controls the airwaves and what message they choose to transmit. If you are so naive as to think that what the people are interested in is what gets broadcast then you are right,this discussion is definitely a waste of time.

By the way,here is what the mythical "Liberal Media" is saying about the War:http://www.normansolomon.com/

"The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War

The American media establishment has launched a major offensive against the option of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

In the latest media assault, right-wing outfits like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are secondary. The heaviest firepower is now coming from the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA -- the front page of the New York Times.

The present situation is grimly instructive for anyone who might wonder how the Vietnam War could continue for years while opinion polls showed that most Americans were against it. Now, in the wake of midterm elections widely seen as a rebuke to the Iraq war, powerful media institutions are feverishly spinning against a pullout of U.S. troops.

Under the headline "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say," the Nov. 15 front page of the New York Times prominently featured a "Military Analysis" by Michael Gordon. The piece reported that -- while some congressional Democrats are saying withdrawal of U.S. troops "should begin within four to six months" -- "this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policies."

Reporter Gordon appeared hours later on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, fully morphing into an unabashed pundit as he declared that withdrawal is "simply not realistic." Sounding much like a Pentagon spokesman, Gordon went on to state in no uncertain terms that he opposes a pullout.

If a New York Times military-affairs reporter went on television to advocate for withdrawal of U.S. troops as unequivocally as Gordon advocated against any such withdrawal during his Nov. 15 appearance on CNN, he or she would be quickly reprimanded -- and probably would be taken off the beat -- by the Times hierarchy. But the paper's news department eagerly fosters reporting that internalizes and promotes the basic worldviews of the country's national security state."

A book recommendation for Jeff Glassman and other who believe in the Libral Media Myth:

War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death
by Norman Solomon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/047179001X/commondreams-20

Description from Amazon:

"War Made Easy cuts through the dense web of spin to probe and scrutinize the key "perception management" techniques that have played huge roles in the promotion of American wars in recent decades. This guide to disinformation analyzes American military adventures past and present to reveal striking similarities in the efforts of various administrations to justify, and retain, public support for war. War Made Easy is essential reading. It documents a long series of deliberate misdeeds at the highest levels of power and lays out important guidelines to help readers distinguish a propaganda campaign from actual news reporting. With War Made Easy, every reader can become a savvy media critic and, perhaps, help the nation avoid costly and unnecessary wars."

Jeff Glassman wrote "The attacks in Iraq, meaning mostly Baghdad, of course, are not random protests based on any kind of religious or political convictions of the groups. If they were, then we’d have days with multiple, perhaps dozens of attacks, and long, quiet periods. The attacks are occurring with regularity. The pattern is evidence that the attacks are orchestrated, especially for the media. We need to take out the conductors."

Mr. Glassman are you aware of the fact that according to the State Department 60% of Iraqis favor attacks on U.S. forces?

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/02/video-6-in-10-iraqis-favor-attacks-on-us-forces/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstrmz.com%2FClip4875&frame=true