O'Hanlon Weeps
By John Amato Monday Aug 20, 2007 4:46pmRet. Col, Jack Jacobs and Tucker think the US soldiers were just not qualified to make these assertions about the Iraq war.(h/t Diane)
I was waiting for some pundits to come after the troops that wrote this scathing op-ed in the NY Times (corrected link) on their take of the "surge" in Iraq which severly questions its effectiveness. O'Hanlon was on the The Diane Rehm Show this morning to say that the troops didn't really understand the situation.Think Progress has some of the audio and more info...Michael should check out the data from his own think tank which states that it's been rather bloody in Iraq this summer.(page 18)
June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed (August not over yet)
Update: Paul Rieckoff on Military.com: "Trust Airborne or Brookings Institute?"
Login or Register to post comments.
Tucker is such a little weasel twit that he makes O'Reilly look reasonable.
How full of baloney can Carlson be??
Yeah, things are so rosy in Iraq because Dumbya says so, end of conversation.
I'm glad that C&L is on guard and monitor these bastards because I don't think that I would be able to hold my cool for a second if I was required to take more than a few seconds of their BS.
So even the troops don't "support the troops", eh O’Hanlon?
Um... C&L?
Your link to "scathing op ed..."
"By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK"
???
Cythraul @ 5:
Count me as confused as well.
Thank goodness that Genius O'Hacklon is sitting comfortably in his armchair to figure these things out for the numbskull soldiers in the field, who so grievously misunderstand the reality they find themselves occupying.
In the wake of the controversial O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed endorsing the progress of the surge in Iraq, the liberal blogosphere has been awash in commentary about the mainstream media's narrow reliance on the pro-surge viewpoints of "very serious people" constituting the "foreign policy clerisy." As it turns out, not so much. A new joint report from Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress suggests America's leading foreign policy experts see President Bush's Iraq surge as a failure.
For the details, see:
"Report: Foreign Policy 'Experts' Reject the Iraq Surge."
What is it with jacobs? He says some of the damnest things for a US col
Don't recall Tucker calling BS when the president has said "the vast majority of..." so many times. Why trust people on the ground when when we can just blindly trust our great leader.
The reason the american people think the war and now the "surge" aren't working is because things keep getting worse in terms of deaths and destruction. We never had enough troops on the ground, and the only way to get enough would have been to have a draft, so obviously Bush and folks chose to risk losing the war over the risk of losing in 2004, that to me makes them traitors, as they have chosen to benifit themselves to the detriment of the country.
Of course it has been "a rather bloody summer in Iraq". If the troops are more in harms way and more of them are there, then it is a corollary that more of them might be killed in combat operations. Just to point on that more have died says nothing substantive about the effectiveness of any such operation. Any time you have combat people are like to die that is a fact of war. This is a straw man argument that is often used to say that things are not working.
"Ret. Col, Jack Jacobs and Tucker think the US soldiers were just not qualified to make these assertions about the Iraq war."
and these two are?????????*
obviously, from what we keep hearing, is that everything is great in iraq now...thx u god...
So the republican spin machine finally got its talking point together.
Tucker. Kiss my ass you mealy-mouthed POS!
The way he weasels around and insinuates without actually having the nads to really take a position is sickening.
With regards to O'Hanlon. They weren't "taking a little poke" at you. They were calling you out for being the Bush administration tool you are. What a self-important twit to spend 8 days in Iraq on a guided propaganda tour by Patreaus and then say that the people who had spent months or years there FIGHTING THE ACTUAL WAR didn't really understand the situation is revolting.
Let's give Tucker and O'hanlon a gun, some faulty body armor and an unarmed humvee and plop their cowardly asses over in Baghdad for a year and then listen to what they have to say. A pair of whiny pukes.
Tucker wants robots.
yeah, that link goes to the O'hanlon op-ed
Dr. Matt @ 1:
Dr. Matt @ 1:
Yeah - Tucker can bend over with the best of them . . .
*
Another lackeye convert:
Rep Brian Baird D-WA, just returned from his guided tour and now says let's wait til spring '08. I hope his constituents are satisfied. One more Friedman Unit, please.
People think those disloyal soldiers are qualified to judge the effectiveness of the Surge? Bull! Don't you Dirty Hippies understand that every thought, plan or whim that enters Dear Leader's head was put there by God Almighty Himself? Not only are those soldiers traitors, but blasphemers as well!
Glory Be To Bush! He's the Big Guy's right hand man!
Oh and Hillary wants it both ways. She says the surge is working but we still need to leave. Can't have it both ways girlfriend.
Is this the best the Dems can do? I think not. The UN now wants to help, and we should initiate Kucinich's 12 point plan ASAP. We could get cooperation. If we wanted it. But that would mean accountability. And hubris. We have neither at this point.
The soldiers were complaining primarily about the media coverage that didn't talk about any of the real issues and instead focused on such things as "troop morale," as made clear by the opening paragraph and closing sentence of their op-ed. Anyone else see the irony in this "Tucker" clip?
There is a special place in my bowels that gets very upset every time I hear Tucker Carlson slime his way through another subject.
There are so many things wrong with him and each and every facet of his existence that just unleashes a torrent of bile into the blood stream of any who can recall information older then 10 minutes...
He is the last scurvy shit ball I want to see...
Bill-o over Pucker any day...
I think that the groupthink among the pundits has just about reached critical stage. Most of these clowns that we see day in and out are so obsessed with themselves being right, that even the slightest bit of non-conformist view by anyone with a solid background and facts sends them into an all out tizzy.
This is the op-ed link, actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ref=todayspaper
Tucker found an even bigger tool than he is. A retired colonel, that's the best they could do? Where's Stormin' Norman? Or maybe John Murtha?
I'm a broken record on the subject, but airwave twits like Carlson, Mathews, Russert, et.al. are mere corporate creations. If it wasn't them, there would simply be other people sitting in their chairs, talking the same talk. Indeed, the more heat they personally draw means the less scrutiny given the real villains behind the corruption of the "people's airwaves" (hardee har har)- General Electric, Disney, etc.
Okay, so when we're invoking the troops en masse as being "behind the mission" in order to support the war, that's okay.
But if those troops then say anything critical, well then it's inappropriate for them to comment because they're implementing policy and policy implementers shouldn't editorialize.
Unless they agree with my point of view.
We must refrain from characterizing the "vast majority" of anyone's opinion, unless you're talking about the troops supporting the war or the Iraqi's wanting "freedom and democracy."
We shouldn't listen to "bureaucrats in Washington" because they haven't been to Iraq (or been much) and they don't know the situation "on the ground."
And we can't listen to anyone who's actually in Iraq, because they're "seeing the world through a straw," unlike TV commentators who have a broad, global perspective.
No, we should listen to the generals, but not the ones we keep firing.
"I think that if the if we'd been more successful in Iraq, we wouldn't be having this conversation today."
Uhh, no shit?
Tucker is the definition of 'political pornographer'.
Yea how could the troops POSSIBLY understand the situation on the ground in Iraq? Leave it to good old Tucker the Fucker (Yea I know it was an easy one) to continue his "Fair and Balanced" reporting. I wonder when these "journalists" are going to realize what a bunch of whores they are? (Irony mode on) I wonder if the recognition of this fact will be traumatic for them? Will they need therapy at taxpayer's expense? Buncha damn Liberals. (Irony mode off)
Sometimes I feel like I'm in this really odd movie or cartoon where things are kinda normal but not really.
Honestly, these talking heads wake up on the idiot side of the bed each and every day. If they only realized how out of touch with reality they are, they'd walk out to the sea and just keep walking. Pathetic wastes of skin...
I wish Tucker had the balls of the Daily Show's Rob Riggle so he could actually GO to Iraq. Tucker is the one jerk I'd love to see in prison as somebody's handmaiden.
This is getting beyond ridiculus. These Men and Women are risking their lives and the words 'unusual' and 'unique' are used. ?? I am so sick of all these 'spins', I will give them credit for 'the finger pointing will last for decades'. Not only are our people 'over there', it's now fact the economy has been a housing bubble for years, we still have no healthcare, our jobs are being filled overseas, our world rankings from longevity, health, jobs, quality of life, and freedoms has dropped to the 20's, 30's, and below in every study done. I wonder if a Republican will dare use their old 'Family Values' phrase again, anyone noticed that hasn't been uttered in years? Of course not, these thugs, creeps, and charlatans have no family values excepted for their own greed and perversions. None of these principles, actions, laws, and situations have been good for any American family, except those at the very, very top...
it really pisses me off when people focus on how many americans have died and ignore how many iraqis have died. i guess C&L is not immune to this disgusting belief that american lives are somehow more important or valuable than non-american lives...
There is NO logic in Wingnutland. Who would YOU trust to give details of your operation? The team that performed the surgery or the person in the waiting room?
Now there is all that talk about getting rid of al Maliki. Gee if the goverment doesn't do what the people want (bush's words this morning) he should be replaced. Hmm great idea. Why didn't we think of that here?
Tucker expresses "his" opinion that the soldiers shouldn't speak out.
That "their" opinions shouldn't count because they are soldiers who see the world through a straw.
by speaking out, the soldiers are trying to participate in politics.
politics should be left tour our political leaders, right or wrong.
That the soldiers if they ever speak should speak the opinion of the politicians.
Did I sum it up pretty good?
Well, Right On (#32), if indeed they are idiots (and I think corrupt better describes them), they're idiots all the way to the bank.
I find it surprising that the soldiers on the ground who live in Iraq, and deal with the Iraqi people day in and day out wouldn't know enough to have an opinion on how things are going. It's fair to say that a line technician working at a General Electric plant doesn't see the whole corporate strategy. But, they do experience the effects of parts not getting ordered on time, shipments sitting on the dock with no where to go, and a disgruntled and confused work force. "Vast majority of Iraqis" is all about the people that they approach and talk to on a day to day basis. This isn't a trench war, it's an urban war, and the American soldiers are probably relying heavily upon the local populations root out the insurgents. They're not looking at the world through a straw. They're looking at it point blank, in the face. Maybe that means they don't experience a handful of rosy stories. But, it does mean that they way they see the world around them is not likely to be a half-full glass vs half-empty glass type deal. Besides, where the fuck do they think the Generals are getting their information from? Fucktard Carlson is just clinging desperately to have an opinion without the painful experience of opposing facts.
Hanlon vs. Troops -- Eyes not on Bush.
The troops who are actually there aren't qualified to make conclusions, but 2 guys in a television studio are?...am I the only one who doesn't get this?
Why do they hate the troops?
Oh, we can hate THESE troops.
I'm confused. Spin me around some more.
Kay @ 42:
Let me see if I can help: anyone not coming to the correct conclusion is not qualified to make conclusions. All better?
Up is down and down is up. East is West, and West is East. Soldiers doing their job don't understand war and chattering teeth in Washington do...
If repugs were half as good at marine biology and geology as they are at probing the depths of sociopolitical depravity, we'd have mapped the entire ocean floor and interior of the Earth by now.
It was amazing that O'Hanlon got by with saying he was a critic of the war when he was a neo-con. Then, of course he was shipped off to Iraq, "as a critic" to come back with the BS that the surge is working. Sounds like he lacks integrity and that the MSM believes whatever he says, whenever he says it.
Check out the comments section at the military.com link. Pretty eye-opening.
Sorry, I got the wrong link for the NY Times Op-ed...Changing it now.
O'Hanlon and Pollack have been pushed over into the right column since they wrote their op-ed piece, and that's where they belong. I noticed that O'Hanlon was taking the conservative position on CNN's "This Week at War." No one sees them as left or neutral any more. That's probably a good thing. Their position was always little ambiguous before, and it wasn't clear how much they could be trusted. Now that they are the darlings of the right wing, no one from the left will ever trust them again.
"...they may be in an area where the surge is not working" You mean Iraq, Col?
Convienent truth
When Bill Kristol says the troops tell him the surge is working that is good enough for him. When other troops say it isn't they are not qualified. All of you know when a soldier says it is not working he is putting a hell of alot on the line versus one who says it is.
the troops didn’t really understand the situation.........
They are the ones that have to live, breath and wallow in that bloody cesspool that was created by the psycho WarPig Bush. I think they are in a much better position to understand more than any criminal politician and especially any numb-nutted talking head. They are the ones who are putting their necks on the line and dying for some fucked-up political agenda.
Is it me or have they stopped talkng about the KIA totals?...Seems to me I don't hear as much as I used too....But this wouldn't surprise me if they started downplaying the rate of KIA.
[...] House O’Hanlon Weeps » This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 [...]
Who cares what Fucker says......c'mon...he's not a journalist just like Shammity
This really is comical. Jacobs probably has not been in the military loop for several years and therefore would not be privy to any actual intelligence except from a few military friends who may give him something off hand. Tucker on the other hand knows nothing about the military at all and we are suppose to take their remarks concerning Iraq as being better than those troops that were actually there? Sorry, I will take what the troops say everytime over a couple of talking heads anyday.
goatsage @ 47:
Yeah, i saw the comments. my dad,who's ex-airforce like me, blogs on that one sometimes.
I trust military guys who been there for a year versus two analysts wearing their war critic hats for eight days.
I refuse to watch Tucker. Resurrected jesus or an actual grey alien could be interviewed on his show, and I couldn't watch that annoying self-centered prick (Tucker not jesus) .
The more the MSM tries to discredit the soldier's op-ed, the more people will know about it and go read it, and a really good portion of them will have their eyes opened no matter what bullstuff that Tucker & the blathering heads have to say about it. WE all know about it and are spreading the word. It's not going to stay bottled up because it is a much stronger truth than ANYTHING they have to offer.
What fucking world am I in Idiot tucker carlson and some dumb c*nt think they know more than our troops about Iraq. I bet neither one could find it on a map
That's all you need to hear: the troops, who are not qualified to give an opinion, would feel differently if things were different.
Brilliant. I also hear the chocolate ration is going up to 20 grams next week.
As a graduate of the University of South Vietnam, (Mekong Delta campus) Class of 1970, I'd sooner believe the enlisted grunt getting his ass shot at about the the conditions on the ground than the officers and public officials who sent him out there to get shot at.
Tucker iCarlson is an incredible idiot.
Sure the grunts are too close to the action to see the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees. Judgment clouded by long deployments in a combat zone. Emotions over wrought by missed family birthdays, births of their children not to mention dead comrades in arms, dead Iraqi children and not enough down time between tours. WTF do they know?
Let's listen to Tucker, he's such a manly man since he's switched to a neck fie from the bow tie. Not a GEEK at all any more. Word on the street is he could take Ann Coulter.
You're right, Tucker. We're actually being viewed as liberators. Good Lord you are a dimwit, Tucker!
Its always rich watching Tucker pretending to take a non partisan view.
I wonder what the reaction would be if these guys had written that the "surge" was working and that "the vast majority of Iraqi's" welcomed America's presence there.
Would Tucker still feel "uncomfortable" about enlisted active duty guys being "political"?
Tucker needs to [Deleted. Don't post violent fantasies on this site-Sitemonitor] shuts the fuck up.
How touching that Tucker is worried those guys from the 82nd will squander their moral authority. As he said, he has no opinion one way or another on what they say. He's just so terribly concerned that they might be hurting themselves that he just had to opine out loud about how they might be squandering their moral authority on the nationwide airwaves. What a kind and concerned guy.
O'Hanlon's right -the troops really don't quite understand the situation here in America.
The troops assumed that when they spoke out and told the truth, the mainstream media in this country would dutifully report the facts to the American people.
Unfortunately, the troops have been away so long, they probably don't realize how little credibility there is left for ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc., etc. While not everyone here understands the big corporate family tree, everyone knows their media's bought and paid for.
The average troop, unfortunately, has been so deliberately sheltered from the truth, that he or she probably has little understanding, for example, that most people in America now see Rupert Murdoch for the shameless dingo-f%cker he actually he is. By most, I mean seventy-percent and rising.
So when these troops spoke out about the "splurge" (because, let's face it, that's what it was and is) they probably thought they could make some kind of difference.
See...what happened was..they put all these conservative commentators in positions as Journalists...then started calling the media "LIBERAL"....and the sheeple bought it ...all...........................dumber than a sack of hammers.
A new low. Sickening. Nauseating. Disgusting.
michael @ 51:
Of all the excellent points being made on this comment blog, this one is particularly cogent and on target.
Of particular concern to me is the section of the interview/commentary where both Tucker and the colonel seem to push the concept that "there's no way for ANYONE to give us a truly useful assessment of what is going on." Really?!!?! I can't believe ANYTHING?
To me, this is the ultimate endgame for a conservative neo-fascists: Convince the public that no person, report, or evidence is free from bias, no person/report/evidence is capable of giving you a complete picture of Iraq, Social Security, the Health Care Crisis, so why listen to any "facts." Just believe what you want and select the propaganda you most prefer. It is an assault on the very basis of reasoned and logical interpretation of evidence.
This angle is being employed during a time in Iraq when those in favor of continuation are increasingly desperate to find evidence for their case. Interestingly, it cuts both ways. If I can't believe any source/report/person and their assessment of Iraq, then I can obviously discard all the idiots who think the 'surge' is working... because NO ONE could possibly give me a complete report, right?
This type of argument does neither side any favors. We should call it out for the blatant hackery that it is.
Believe me, the grunts on the ground know what's going on. They certainly did in Vietnam. The majority of the grunts in Vietnam were draftees, so they didn't drink the military kool-aide, so to speak. They saw the war through civilian eyes. They knew we were failing to win hearts and minds. They knew that farmers were going to hate the soldiers who just destroyed their crop regardless of their politics. To say that the troops on the ground don't know what's going on is just ridiculous. It's just the opposite. The understanding of what is really going on diminishes with each step up the chain of command, and the people at the top are often clueless.
Grunts know the difference between when it's raining and when somebody is pissing on their heads.
I served with several NCO's who were in Viet Nam and they told of going on patrols that found nothing only to have the reports filed showing that several VC were killed. I recall an old ex-marine gunny who told me about a water buffalo hit by an artillery shell that became 5 dead VC.
Why does Wingnuttia and the lapdog media only find grunts "credible" when they say we are winning?
I think the biggest problem with this war is that policy and strategy are guided by too many analysis who learned everything they know about war from books. They never carried a gun in battle or had anyone shoot at them, other than maybe Dick Cheney on a hunting trip. Imagine trusting your military to some one who only knows battle from computer games or by pushing little plastic soldiers around piece of plywood made to look like a battlefield.
To paraphrase: If we were more successful in Iraq we wouldn't be hearing things like that.
Duh!
That NCO's feel the need to sound off in the New York Times says something pretty bad about "the Chain of Command"
This was all Horses^*+. Talk about doublespeak.
The contention that we knew less about the negatives in Vietnam because there was no Internet is wrong. We had real reporters doing real reporting in Vietnam not managed Newsspeak.
Separation between active duty military and politics. Oh, the soldiers have no right to speak out. How about separation of power in the administration of crooks that lied us into this mess.
Tucker says soldiers ?kinda act out" the policies of the military, right or wrong. Tell that to the soldiers tried and convictied in the The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. Right or wrong don't cut it.
The term "moral authority" is thrown around as if this war against an innocent people has anything moral about it.
Tucker says he wonders what the hell Bush knows when he speaks out about what's going on in Iraq. I've not heard any of that from him in the past. These soldiers are looking at the world through a straw? I'd like to tell these two clowns what to do with that straw.
O'Hanlon knows that the only people who really understand the situation in Iraq are
Talk Show hosts and op-ed columnists.
Arroyo @ 78:
Yep!.......well said
This occupation is going to drag on for the foreseeable future.
Because the Democrats won't do anything to stop it.
Whether the surge is working now or not is irrelevant.
We will be talking about the same things a year from now.
Bush will be as committed.
The Dems will be as vocal in opposition, but their words won't be backed up by substantive actions.
Welcome to the permanent occupation of Iraq.
9inch @ 64:
That is when I stop playing this clipped. Tucker hopes they will preserve their moral authority by continuing to die in silence. Yes, a deeply touching concern indeed.
O'Hanlon and Pollack have a lot at stake here. They get paid a lotta money for what amounts the their opinion. If a bunch of grunts on army pay with an opposing opinion are given any credibility, who is gonna want to pay all of that money to O'Hanlon and Pollack. They represent the Washington aristocracy, how dare those blue collar grunts without the Ivy League education challenge them.
So, boots on the ground grunts who implement tactics are in no position to know what the people they deal with daily think, and they have no right or expertise to comment politically about what they do in the name of politics, but PR pimping generals who support the "surge strategy" do know and are not making political statements while other generals who oppose it are in violation of the UCMJ for engaging in political dissent. By 1968 thousands of American soldiers had reached the conclusion that the Vietnamese people overwhelmingly opposed that war and that it was lost. Tactics are the implementation of strategy. If the tactics aren't working, neither is the strategy. Common soldiers implement tactics. They know what's happening on the ground in real time and always have in every war throughout history. If you really want to know what's happening, ask the grunts. It's that simple.
Jeff @ 35:
Right fucking on.
And the media shitheads and their senior military dicksuckers sitting safely in their air cdonditioned studios should take note that they can confront one of the authors of the NYT editorial directly, in his hopital bed, since Sgt. Murphy was shot in the head after the op ed was written. Then they can go back and collect their pieces of silver.
Two things: 1. There is no Iraq. Got it? No. Such. Thing. There is not, and never will be, an Iraq. The idea of winning is bunk. You have no less than three countries there. Do some research on the people who actually understand the history and culture of the Iraqi region. The government now is powerless outside the Green Zone. The reconciliation is a pipe dream. Humpty Dumpty CANNOT be fixed, and the idea of these wankers sitting around talking about winning is offensive. Tucker, et al., do some friggin' journalism and stop being the lap dogs for the corporate interests who profit from the war (including the media). Second, I noticed the idea of civilian control of the military was raised. This is also crap. The government controls the military, the corporations that make money off this war own the government. If there was civilian control of the military, we would not have invaded. If we had, we wouldn't still be there.
How serious are those guys (Jacobs, Tucker and obviously hundred of others) in the media business? How can they seriously pretend that noone knows that the Iraqis think? Who hired such fools who don't even know that they should look up sources for such information before they open their mouth in front of hundred of thousand of people? Either they are outright liars or they just have no idea how to do journalistic work. I say: either way, they should be fired. I mean, seriously... two minutes on the Internet gets you your answers from trusted source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/11oth...
Jeff @ 35:
That raises the question again, are we supposed to be making Iraq safe for Americans, or are we supposed to be making Iraq safe for Iraqis? If the idea is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, then we should be measuring success in decreasing Iraqi deaths.
I have a suggestion for little chickenshit Fucker Carlson. Suit up and go to the front lines and get some credibility on this subject or shut the fuck up.
sitemonitor please delete my post @#68...thank you.
Oh so guys in suits are sitting in an air conditioned studio and are telling the guys in flak jackets, armor and helmets carrying 100 pound packs that they don't understand the situation in Iraq. Damn those republicans, we can see, they really make it up as the go along.
The op ed writers aren't "qualified" to Tucker because their stepmom isn't an heir to the Swanson foods fortune and they don't live in a 4 million dollar home like Tucker
Little Tucker wants to know how anyone could possibly know how a majority of Iraqis feel.
It's called a fucking poll, stupid:
•In all, 83% of Shiites and 97% of Sunni Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq; 75% of Kurds support them. By more than 3 to 1, Iraqis say the presence of U.S. forces is making the security situation worse.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-19-iraq-poll-day2_N.htm
Bow Tie stfu. How the hell is this guy employed? We do hard work, we have to do our jobs well? There's no accounatability for these guys. Fucking prick.
" think tank which states that it’s been rather bloody in Iraq this summer "
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed (August not over yet)
True...and this does not include the deaths of non-military American Personnels or Iraqui civilians, young children and old helpless people, or the Wounded People and those who have become physically and/or mentally ill as a result of this bloody WAR.
American interest=OIL
Human life is NOT an interest to this administration.
So O'Hanlon goes to Iraq and for one thing interviews the US soldiers so he could get a better understanding of the situation, you know: facts on the ground and all that stuff. And those were allegedly US soldiers who were qualified to make these assertions about those "facts on the ground"? And these soldiers aren't? How could he tell? How can we tell?
All we've got is word from Pollack and O'Hanlon. We can't check their sources, can we?
And these are soldiers who go on record.
82nd Airborne Soldiers Come Under Fire From MSNBC's Tucker
Lost for words, Tfucker, you sick, sick little person, with your not at all fashionable dorky little wannabe-unique bowtie. Why do you hate the troops? Why do want them to fight and die for us, but not care what they think? You're little hack-job to discredit the 82nd Airborne only shows how desperate and pathetic you ThugliCons are. You will be heartily thrashed for this insult to our Soldiers and Marines, hopefully your 'career' destroyed. These soldiers who have been on the ground interacting with Iraqi's every day for years, compared to some elitist intellectual armchair generals like you and O'hanlon (him having gone on a PR tour for eight days in the safest parts of Iraq), and all you can do, the only intellectual reaction you can muster is to fixate on that the troops of the 82nd Airborne don't know, de facto, the opinions of every Iraqi? Pathetic, incites nothing but disgust and laughter from anyone with half a brain cell. Just a perfect example of why you and your fellow Thuglicks are being laughed out of your jobs.
I know what you're self-obsessed little mind would do upon reading this. It would go into all the minutia, parsing exactly how I'm mischaracterizing what you did on your show. That you never specifically said the things that I'm attacking you for. You'll try to think like a lawyer saying I'm overlooking the fine print about how "this is how the troops are 'supposed' to behave", well you're not a troop so shut the fuck up because it's not relevant other than it's not what you want to hear. I'm way ahead of you, douchebag. I'm talking about the spirit of your hack-job, and I'm talking about the specifics of it. That you spent a whole segment fixating, trying to discredit our intelligent, observant, articulate troops who are living the hell that is Iraq, and you never spent a segment discrediting the O'hanlon joke of a report based on 8 choreographed days in Iraq, says all that needs to be said about your priorities and the overall message you are trying to send your confused viewers. It is shit, and you are shit. I know it, and you have to know it.
You troop-hating, fraudulent sicko. You are a hack, sniveling pampered little butt-boy, momma's boy. Personal attacks? Yes, the absolute warranted response to your personal attacks on our troops, trying to deny them the very freedom of expression they are fighting and dying for. For this you deserve these personal attacks, and so much more. God you're such a sniveling prick. Jon Stewart owns you.
Joey
LA area
tucker says...
i'm instinctively distrustful of this little sentence... how could they possibly know what everybody thinks... perposterous... they can't know that... the lesson here is not to listen to anybody's opinion... know one knows if the surge is working... so let's no criticize it too hastily....
tucker is a little fucker...
Tucker: "I do know I instinctively distrust sentences like this, 'A vast majority of Iraqi's feel insecure and view us as an occupation force'..."
Hey Tucker, before you go popping off on national television about how you distrust our fighting men and women, why don't you do your basic 'journalistic' duty and read the fucking title of the op-ed that you are so critically attacking? “The War as We Saw It,” you fucking bloake. Gee, do you have an agenda? If you did I couldn't tell. I mean, your actions leave us with two possiblities: either you are boarderline mentally handicapped, or you are an utter partisan hack. Why do you hate the troops, Tucker?
Here are a couple excerpts from Paul Rieckoff's, an actual veteran's, review of the op-ed:
Sadly, one of the authors, Staff Sergeant Murphy, a Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head before the piece was published. (He is being flown to the U.S. and is expected to survive.)
Consider the tremendous amount of moral courage that it takes to put oneself on the line like this. Whether you agree or disagree with the stance these soldiers take, hats off to them for having the guts to write this piece. Only a person with exceptional love for his or her country would take this kind of risk. And because I know people will ask, I think these soldiers will be fine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two reasons: 1) they included a disclaimer, and 2) they didn’t disclose any information that would compromise OPSEC (operational security). There is always room in the military for professional dissent.
Read it in full, “Trust Airborne or Brookings Institute?“
Now, I ask you for your participation in answering the question, how stupid are you? Having now reflected on your absurd behavior, how is it that you came to be so stupid?
By the way, Tucker. They have loosened the age requirements for serving in Iraq. When will we see you enlisting? We're waiting with baited breath to see you put your ass where your mouth is.
Joey
LA area
How ironic that these days that the only people who honestly care about the troops beyond sticking magnetic ribbons on their SUV's are the "rabid anti-war crowd". We can look beyond the mass killing going on in Iraq and know that our troops have been put in an untennable situation not of their making. I know that there are some in the military that are committing war crimes, but we are wise enough to understand that the true solution to this horrible situation is to get them out of the meat grinder created by the neocons and the blind patriots. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz are war criminals. They perjured themselves repeatedly to foist this disaster upon us, our military and the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed, and millions more displaced. And for what? Well, we all know the answer by now.
Blood for oil. We said it in 2002.
It really sucks being right. Too bad they're still not listening.
PNAAC Minister @ 29:
It's called a "BFO"..... "Blinding Flash of Obvious"
this shit is so ridiculous. i dont know if theyve got me coming or going. for the past few months all ive been hearing from verbal dysentery cases like our friend Tucker here is that we need to wait for this Petraus(sic) report, because "he's on the ground, hes got his finger on the pulse of the country". Then some infantry men decide to speak out on what life is like on the front lines, and everyone is so quick to try to discredit them. When facts have become vulnerable to manipulation, what can we do? Forgive my pessimism, but it's kinda scary to be an American right now.
Damn I wish Paul Riekoff would come to Japan.
If I ever meet him, he's not walking away until he's had the best damn steak dinner he's ever had, courtesy of me.
And of course the troops in the field don't know what's going on in Iraq.
Have any of you ever heard of a foxhole with cable TV?
Heya Tucka', What if those in the military have lost ALL confidence in the competency of the civilian government? And I mean ALL confidence. What then? Are they just supposed to keep their mouths shut? What if those in the military think that the government is just using the Military as a political football? Spewing propaganda about the reality in Iraq in order to kick the can down the road to the next administration? Does not the commitment go both ways? Keep those in the military out of politics and politics out of the military strategy? Too bad that the Bushies have squandered so much American Blood, American Treasure, American Political Capital, American Good Will, American Trust and on and on and on. You name it and Bushies have squandered it. The Bushies have lied so much on so many things and done so many things in their own best interests in the name of All of our interests that many of us cannot trust when they might be doing something truly in all our best interests. You remember the boy who cried wolf? Kinda like that. Some of us have known from day ONE that Bush is a Fuck Up but it looks like nearly everyone has woken up to this fact now. Now that it is too late... Just have to wait for Bush to leave; Crawford will have their idiot back. Tragedy
Gee, I dunno, for a bunch of guys "unqualified" to assess the strategic situation, the authors managed to craft an Op-Ed piece demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of counter-insurgency warfare than coupled to an intimate awareness of the situation on the ground than that offered by O'Hanlon, Lieberman & Co. following their "dog and pony" excursions to Iraq!
Let's see how their respective qualifications stack up...
Situational Awareness:
Airborne guys - 15 month tours spent identifying and combating insurgents forces, patrolling Iraqi communities.
War horny neocons - Spend several days touring Potempkin villages and racking up enough frequent flyer bonus miles to get new luggage to replace the set blown up by insurgents.
Strategic awareness:
Airborne guys - Nuanced view of counter-insurgency warfare as a primarily political process with military aspects that recognizes inherent contradictions of pursuing victory through force and and arming Sunni militants who ultimately hope to destabilize the government we are trying to stabilize.
War horny neocons - "Stay the course"..."Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"..."there's a light at the end of the tunnel"...
I know who my money is on!
Sitemoniter...Thank you....Will do.
Hans Blix & Co.-- the original boots-on-the-ground -- was ignored and derided by people who had never been to Iraq (Bush), or who had not been there in a very long time (Rumsfeld). This administration has a long history of ignoring people who know better.
We will listen to the generals//unless I don't like what they say.
We will let Democracy run its course//unless we don't like the people's choice.
It goes on and on and this is just one more example of ignoring people with personal knowledge. In the law, in a courtroom or on TV, do you believe the person who was an eye-witness and was on the scene? Or do you listen to a pontificating theorist who never actually set eyes on the event?
In America, more and more people are turning to the former, but in 2002 and 2003, the latter approach clearly ruled the less intellectually active in America. Let's hope the people, if not the networks, get a clue as to who is qualified to opine, and then -- Make Congress Listen.
cjc
Fuck Tucker Carlson, that stupid fucking little weenie. He shouldn't be on TV in the first place.
Reichwingers are attempting nuance and measured statements only because they're losing an argument on a war they encouraged with hyperboles and nativistic chauvinism.
abarts @ 65:
Not even the ones that involve leather corsets, stiletto heeled half boots, fishnets and whips?
A poll is a sample of 1000 or so citizens. Military people on the ground dealing with thousands of people over a period of time have a good pulse on the sentiments of the word on the street. Just thought I point that out.
Scared, ignorant, draft dodging, bedwetting, Rethugs. like the stupid boy Tucker believe troops aren't ever qualified to speak the absolute truth about this bloody, failing, Iraq surge, even as many are being shot and wounded or killed along with their troops next to them.
[...] TUCKER DOESN’T SUPPORT THE TROOPS [...]
baylaw73 @ 84:
Right MF'ing on.
So Tucker,who is young enough to be in Irak or Pakistan, instead is sitting at a desk comfortably talking about the right to talk of the people who actually are given their lives for people like him? Tucker is a ridicule rich kid who want to chastisize heroes that are doing the job for him and his family.It's OK to die for this ridicule war, but not to opine about it.
Login or Register to post comments.