Downing Street memo

[iaafan]

Anyone in the know on this? I'm befuddled as to why this isn't working its way into mainstream media. If this were Clinton wouldn't he already be impReached by the Repbs? Is Blair in that much hot water or is it blowing over?

[mslacat]

Anyone in the know on this? I'm befuddled as to why this isn't working its way into mainstream media. If this were Clinton wouldn't he already be impReached by the Repbs? Is Blair in that much hot water or is it blowing over?

Because the right wing controls all of the media outlets thus preventing the info from getting out.

[OZCAT]

It was reported on the radio and in newspapers the first part of May by many "liberal" news agencies.

[mslacat]

It was reported on the radio and in newspapers the first part of May by many "liberal" news agencies.

Could someone please help me. Which media outlets are liberal and which ones are consevative? Are their any that are nuetral? Listening to the radio as I drive around in my car, I definately hear only the right wing nut cases.

[Cat Grad]

The only paper chain I ever read that was republican to the max was the Morris Publications, either the Tampa or St Pete paper and I thought Neuheis (sp ?) the founder of U.S. Today stated he was. I know the Lee chain has strong left-leaning tendencies.

[wbtfg]

I would be interested in hearing Brian/Rebecca Nell's and HonoluluCat's (and anyone else with Military background) take on the Downing Street Memo.

[mslacat]

The only paper chain I ever read that was republican to the max was the Morris Publications, either the Tampa or St Pete paper and I thought Neuheis (sp ?) the founder of U.S. Today stated he was. I know the Lee chain has strong left-leaning tendencies.

ONE, One conservative media out let! That is it! Are you saying that the rest of the hundreds or thousands of newspapers, radio shows newscasts etc are liberal! or is that this is the only media outlet that advertises themselves as conservitive?

[mquast53000]

I heard that the Miles City Star was conservative… But that same source told me that Christian Radio was liberal…

[iaafan]

You May be Brainwashed by Corporate Media (or ya maht be uh rednek) if You:

... believe the 5 corporations who own almost all of the media in the U.S. are liberal.
... believe $300 billion of U.S. tax money, allocated for the war and reconstruction in Iraq is actually going to Iraq .
... are unaware Iraq had 650 million barrels of oil in reserve just before the war in Iraq .
... are unaware at least $8.8 billion is known to be missing in Iraqi oil revenue from the period the U.S. was in control of Iraq .
... are unaware 198 million in Iraqi dollars is missing from the Iraq treasury from the period the U.S. was in control of Iraq .

[Bleedinbluengold]

Probably read that in the NY Times or Wash Post or saw it on CNN.

[Cat Pride]

Probably read that in the NY Times or Wash Post or saw it on CNN.

Its funny because its true....

Good stuff bleedin!

['93HonoluluCat]

I would be interested in hearing Brian/Rebecca Nell's and HonoluluCat's (and anyone else with Military background) take on the Downing Street Memo.

It seems the general topic of the justification of the Iraq campaign comes up periodically, and I am getting tired of cussing and discussing it. But to the point of WBTFG's request, I'll go down this road one more time.

Professionally, the President is my Commander-in-Chief. As such, he is cleared for LOTS of information far, far above my security clearance. I therefore do not have the audacity nor the desire to second guess his decisions, because I don't have the same information as the President had/has. I will not play "Monday Morning Quarterback," and assume that because I have the benefit of hindsight, I know better than he.

Personally, see all of the above. In addtion, however, I'm surprised the "Downing Street" memos didn't catch on in May. While in Iraq, I didn't have the access to the media I have typically, but it seemed to be a "flash in the pan." I do however, think it's a dangerous game we play when we second-guess everything our leaders (regardless of political affiliation) decide. After all, that's why we pay them, and that's why they were elected.

[DCC2MSU]

I would be interested in hearing Brian/Rebecca Nell's and HonoluluCat's (and anyone else with Military background) take on the Downing Street Memo.

It seems the general topic of the justification of the Iraq campaign comes up periodically, and I am getting tired of cussing and discussing it. But to the point of WBTFG's request, I'll go down this road one more time.

Professionally, the President is my Commander-in-Chief. As such, he is cleared for LOTS of information far, far above my security clearance. I therefore do not have the audacity nor the desire to second guess his decisions, because I don't have the same information as the President had/has. I will not play "Monday Morning Quarterback," and assume that because I have the benefit of hindsight, I know better than he.

Personally, see all of the above. In addtion, however, I'm surprised the "Downing Street" memos didn't catch on in May. While in Iraq, I didn't have the access to the media I have typically, but it seemed to be a "flash in the pan." I do however, think it's a dangerous game we play when we second-guess everything our leaders (regardless of political affiliation) decide. After all, that's why we pay them, and that's why they were elected.

I agree with you that this whole issue is getting worn out. I think at this point everyone's mind is pretty well made up and the people discussing it are probably (not speaking for anyone, just guessing) the ones who are most adament about there positions and thus have zero chance of changing their minds. I disagree on the statement that we shouldn't question the president. I think it is our obligation to question the president (and any other official) when we think they are wrong. That is one of the primary things that separates us from a lot of countries. Dictatorships are the kinds of places where you are expected to follow blindly and fall in line. I don't think this is limited to decisions concerning the military, but to every decision concerning the country's interest. I was very against the tax breaks of a couple of years ago because I thought they were bad policy, not because they were Bush's plan. I was disappointed that Baucus (bipartisan quarterbacking) went along with them and helped get it passed. It shouldn't matter what party they belong to, our government officials are there to guide us, not to mandate what we are and aren't allowed to think.

[Cat Grad]

Okay, as a tired old Infantry Officer, I greatly appreciate 93HonoluluCat's statements. If I were to apply the educational analogy to any of this discussion it would be that we as a member of the military must trust and obey knowing our leaders are privy to information that would terrify the general populace and only after the fact, e.g., ex post facto are we allowed to perform an after action analysis. Hindsight is 20-20. It would have been hell to pay had we had somebody such as Jimmy Carter (whom I will go to the grave believing 911 would have never happened had he and his Georgia Mafia never been allowed in power) in control of this great country at that point in time. The hardest thing a young, dumb Lieutenant must learn is to make a decision, if the decision is wrong, adjust fire and move on, but damn it make a decision. Our leadership made decisions and are adjusting to a fluid situation better than any of those sitting in the bleachers ever could. I'm proud of what we've accomplished thus far and know there's great change in the future.

['93HonoluluCat]

I disagree on the statement that we shouldn't question the president. I think it is our obligation to question the president (and any other official) when we think they are wrong. That is one of the primary things that separates us from a lot of countries. Dictatorships are the kinds of places where you are expected to follow blindly and fall in line.

I don't think I've explained myself well. I do believe that questioning the actions of our political leadership is a fundamental right and responsibility of American citizens. However, there is a difference, in my mind at least, between "questioning" and "second-guessing."

"Questioning", to me, is the debate prior to and during the decision-making process. "Second-guessing", on the other hand, is taking information gained after the original decision was made, and deciding the wrong stance was taken, primarily as an emotional response--so called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking."

That's not to say there can't be honest dialogue after the decision-making process. In the Air Force, we call them "hot washes"--meetings where parties involved in the decision and the actions get together and analyze the processes and the eventual outcome. Therein lies the crucial difference between "second-guessing" and a honest look at how we can do things better; the person that second-guesses is a person that doesn't offer up a different way of doing things, or how things would have been better a different way. The analytical "hot wash" process offers alternatives which may or may not be affordable or actionable.

Honest debate is what made this country great--but second-guessing is just a easy way to snipe at policies with which we don't necessarily agree.

[DCC2MSU]

I do see your point, but that makes for a fine line between "questioning" and "second-guessing". What about someone who was openly against invading Iraq - if they still think it was a bad idea and publicly say so is that "second-guessing"? I guess I would define that as still questioning. In the case of a politician it may be beneficial to continue pushing your differences from potential opponents going into an election. I see second-guessing as someone who either didn't have an opinion or had a different one than what they are now insisting someone should have done (I would say Kerry fits that). Using the QB analogy: TV announcer before the play saying they need to throw the ball deep, it gets picked off and now he says they should have run it. Had he said before the play they should have run it, and it gets picked off, he is just reiterating what he would have done. Maybe we are thinking the same thing and just not understanding each other. Not sure.

[Cat Grad]

Us ground pounders are taught to lay every damn thing we think could go wrong on the table before the operations order is given; once all the contingencies have been argued and the commander makes that famous command decision, it's balls to the wall in compliance and finish the mission--no questions asked.

[DCC2MSU]

No questions asked would mean no lessons learned for failure and thus allowing history to repeat itself for the wrong reasons.

[Cat Grad]

You're correct. And that's why we rip every warning order apart from front to back. But, when it's time to make the move every Swinging Dick and Bouncing Betty understands it's time to support the command decision. After the fact, we don't know "I told you so" either. Hindsight is 20-20. We can all look back on any endeavor and see our mistakes--but the little people concentrate on the mistakes of others.

[El_Gato]

...our government officials are there to guide us...

That is one of the SCARIEST comments I've ever read. Is this sentiment prevalent? Could this be why government in the U.S. at ALL levels is OUT OF CONTROL?

I neither look to nor want "government officials" to guide any part of my life. LAWS guide our lives, at least as far as how we interact with each other (society). Politicians are elected to enact laws that will protect individual rights. Government officials should truly only exist as the "enacters" or "enforcers" of the laws passed by politicians.

What guides my life are my values; the moral codes my family and others have instilled in me since birth. These values & codes combine with our laws to "guide" how I live, day in & day out, not some nameless, faceless, unelected "government official"...

Sorry for the mini-hijack here, but that comment REALLY scares the hell out of me and I fear that far too many liberals share that sentiment; that goverment is the source of guidance for our society. If that sentiment IS prevalent in America, be afraid, be very afraid...