The blogspere already has bloggers covering Iraq....THE IRAQI BLOGGERS!

Zeyad at 'Healing Iraq' has a fantastic post up currently regarding the roots of violence. Check out his last two posts.

http://www.healingiraq.blogspot.com/

Maybe Time should be reading Zeyad too.

Time is running the following commentary:

"Blue Truth, Red Truth. The CBS flap is one more sign of the ferocious struggle between political partisans to see the world their way."

Where is the condemnation of CBS for the lies and deception? Is it just me that see's this as a blatant attempt to change the outcome of a presidential election? There is no "seeing the world a certain way." CBS aired forged materials and is standing by them after they have been proven to be forgeries. Sorry for the ranting, I am pretty angry. This headline essentially speaks to the common liberal fallacy that truth is relative to how you see it. It speaks to the idea that somehow CBS could be seen as having provided truth.

HOGWASH!!!

Do they really want bloggers opinion on Iraq? I'm guessing it's a lot more balanced than the take the MSM have taken. Every time there is a rough patch, they seem to scream "Tet!" and go all Peter Arnett.

I find all the cavils and caterwauling over the insurgency vastly amusing.

Just remember what people were saying 3 weeks into Afghanistan. "We have lost the initiative." "It's already a quagmire." "Soon the Pentagon will begin massaging the news." It was called a "tar-baby." Then the next week, Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif fell to our spec-ops-backed Northen Alliance allies, embarassing the hell out of the defeatist crowd.

Let me say this very clearly: There is no militarily significant resistance in Iraq. We can crush this insurgency the minute we want to.

100,000 insurgents? So what? How many soldiers did Saddam have? They are totally outclassed.

This is a classic counter-insurgency campaign startegy for facing a militarily much weaker opponent: Give them a safe haven, let them all gather there in the illusion of safety, then crush them all at once. Additionally, we are using the time to build up Iraqi forces that can more legitimately fight the insurgents.

Every day, the Iraqi gov't forces get stronger relative to the insurgents. Every car bomb makes the Iraqi soldiers and populace that much more apt to agree the insurgents must be dealt with whatever the cost.

In three months, I think you will see the difference.

I first heard the separation of the world into Blue Truth and Red Truth on Fox News Channel shortly after the story broke. I think it was Jane Hall on Fox News Watch, but I may be mistaken.

This new focus on Iraq comes directly from the DNC with the help of their willing accomplics in the press. "The economy stupid" hasn't worked, Bush's military records "Fortunate Son" blew up in their faces, so it's off to a new topic of the week as evidenced with talking points key words "Bush has sugar coated..." which appeared on the Sunday talk shows today.

Why is the DNC using "sugar coated," a quote from one of the forged Killian memos? Are they that stupid and desparate?

> If you absolutely need INDC Journal to render a quick analysis on a pressing topic of the day, you can send a specific request along with a PayPal donation of at least $5.

Done! Now here's my question. Is this document genuine?

Dance, monkey! Dance, please! Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new focus on Iraq comes directly from the DNC with the help of their willing accomplics in the press. "The economy stupid" hasn't worked, Bush's military records "Fortunate Son" blew up in their faces, so it's off to a new topic of the week as evidenced with talking points key words "Bush has sugar coated..." which appeared on the Sunday talk shows today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I'm quite happy the DNC is focussing on Iraq. Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, this is one of the most important issues in this campaign. There are those who feel Kerry should stick to talking about domestic issues where Democrats typically have the advantage, but I disagree. In fact, in the past I've been angry with Democrats for trying to play it safe and avoiding the issues of war and terrorism. I think it hurt us badly in the 2002 elections.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the DNC using "sugar coated," a quote from one of the forged Killian memos? Are they that stupid and desparate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummmmm.... Are all phrases that appeared in the Killian memos now officially off limits? :)

As far as the press spreading DNC talking points, that's the way the game is played, I'm afraid. Reading liberal blogs I've been aware for some time of how RNC talking points get percolated through the media. It's interesting to discover how it works on both sides.

Would I prefer we had a more independent press that thought for itself and relied less on talking points from either the RNC or the DNC? Would I prefer that we had a national dialogue with more breadth and depth? Yes, definitely, yes yes yes yes yes. That's why I've been getting more and more of my information online; there seems to be a bit more independent thought going on. But as long as the press is the way it is, I would certainly hope the DNC would work with it as effectively as the RNC has.

--Rick Taylor

No, that document is certainly not real.

First anyone with a brain and a modicum of experience with blogs should understand bills point. Its why I have a list of like 20 blogs as RSS feeds.

Second Time is gibbering pack of slack jawed morons especially on the memogate issue.

Thrid there seems to be a large amount of frustration about the focus on memogate on the part of journalists. They are genuinely frustrated that people aren't focussing on other issues and really see this as just some silly scandal.

Well I disagree. This is as important as any issue. The founding fathers purposely put freedom of the press in the constitution. The Fourth estate was widely regarded as a check against government, even though most of them disliked the press they still made sure it was enshrined in the constitution.

And now we have one the major elements of the fourth estate aiding and abating a possibly criminal act to affect an election. Are they exposing truth to check the government? No they are inculcating lies to further their own political ends. Or at least it seems that way. If this isn't serious, what is?

Oh yeah and if they were serious about Iraq they would read belmont club so screw Time, Bill, link to Belmont's 2 part actually intelligent essay on the matter. At least that's my opinion.

What this Time article (and the attitude behind it) does is confirm to me what I've thought for a long time. The Left does not BELIEVE in truth. To them, there is no such thing. The world is nothing but spin and human interaction is based upon how many people you can get to believe your story.

Their problem is that they assume everyone thinks the same way they do. How else to explain their behavior over the years? They believe 100% in the Time headline Blue Truth vs. Red Truth, because "truth" is not a static concept to them - it is flexible to suit the moment, if it even exists at all in their world.

They do not believe their own BS, because to them belief in ANYTHING is impossible. That is how they are able to stick to their guns about the most absurd, obvious issues, such as Rathergate and Clinton's impeachment being based upon infidelity rather than perjury.

They're not lying. To them, there is no truth, therefore there is no lie either.

I'm really getting fed up with the Bush-National Guard story. I say: If Bush's daddy tried to keep his son out of harms way, so what; if Bush didn't take a physical exam, so what. Did Time Magazine ever think of doing a story on John Kerry's meeting(s) with North Vietnamese officials in Paris while Kerry was still technically in the military? Did they ever think of doing a story on Sen. Tom Harkin, one of Bush's biggest critics and name-callers? Harkin lied about his own military service: He claimed he flew combat missions over Vietnam, a claim that was uncovered as a big fat lie. He never even served in Vietnam.

Or how about Time Magazine investigating Dan Rather's claims of machismo? Rather, in his bio, claims he's a former Marine. Well, Rather never made it out of boot camp. He was there exactly 44 days. According to Marines in the know, including Lt. Col. Oliver North, Rather couldn't hack it in boot camp.

So what do we have here? A Vietnam vet who served 4 months and 12 days in Nam; a Vietnam vet who wasn't even in Vietnam; and a so-called newsman -- calling himself a former Marine -- who never made it out of basic training, all calling the President of the United States a liar. And Time Magazine will never cover those stories -- not in my lifetime, anyway.

The Time headline reads:

Jim quoted a Time headline that read:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Blue Truth, Red Truth. The CBS flap is one more sign of the ferocious struggle between political partisans to see the world their way."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read Time magazine and won't comment on it either way. But in the wake of this scandal, I have become more aware how some political partisans on my own side of the aisle are willing to ferociously struggle to see the world their way. How else to explain arguments by Democrats that the memos raise legitimate questions even though they're forgeries?

--Rick Taylor

Rick:
Yep, but lets be clear here those sorts of people exist on the right too. However they don't run major media oragnizations.

Chris - you've hit upon the fundamental division between left and right: moral relativism.

For the Left, there is no absolute truth or absolute morality. There are only opposing points of view.

I guess you could say that CBS has "sugar-quoted" this whole story!

:)

First, Jim quoted Time (and I haven't seen the actual article, so I'll base this on an assumption that the quote is accurate) with the following:

"Blue Truth, Red Truth. The CBS flap is one more sign of the ferocious struggle between political partisans to see the world their way."

Then, TallDave offered up the following:

For the Left, there is no absolute truth or absolute morality. There are only opposing points of view.

This is the essence of postmodernism, which happens to be the catchall philosophy favored by the humanities elite in just about every major university across the country. At least part of it boils down to the idea that there can never be one "truth" because of the subjectivity of individuals. Some of the wackier pomos have even tried to apply this stuff to science and math. And a wackier subset of these folks have gone so far as to argue that science and math are (and I'm not kidding) racist constructs imposed upon the world by a white male tyrrany.

And just where do these journalists come from? I wonder...

My jaw just dropped in reading this for a completely different reason.

I just noticed that of the top 30 blogs, all of the Kerry-supporting bloggers, save one, is either a paid political operative or is paid to run his blog (Yglesias doesn't do this for a living, does he?).

Of all the top Bush-supporting blogs, not a single on is a paid political operative or is paid to blog.

That's really rather stunning in its own right, isn't it?

Why, yes. Yes it is ...

I will be your paid dancing pundit monkey for five * Canadian * dollars! So there!