Tag Archives: Iraq War

media news

Williams is likely gone, but at what cost?

Brian Williams’s future as NBC News’s anchor seems to have been settled.

He’s gone.

Williams embellished his wartime experiences during the Iraq War, contending his helicopter was shot down when it wasn’t. There were some other fabrications, but that’s the one that got him in trouble. NBC suspended him without pay for six months.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2015/06/10/the-brian-williams-endgame/71009594/

Williams has become the object of jokes around the world. His credibility is blown to smithereens.

What escapes me, though, is how someone could — in effect — be terminated for cause, but still get all kind of big money to “settle.” Williams holds a huge contract with NBC. But then he squandered the trust he had cultivated, that his bosses at NBC News had cultivated.

So, as USA Today reports, the network is going to replace him in the anchor’s chair with Lester Holt and then pay him millions of dollars to leave quietly.

I don’t understand a lot of things in the business world. This is one of them.

 

International news, military news, national news, political news

Sen. Graham ‘ready’ … to take U.S. back into war

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s “ready” to run for president, and to be president.

He’s also ready, it sounds to me, as if he’s ready to send Americans back to the Middle East, to fight radical Islamic terrorists face to face.

Haven’t we been there, already? Haven’t we lost sufficient numbers of American lives in the fight against Islamic terrorists?

Apparently not, says Graham.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/im-ready-lindsey-graham-officially-enters-2016-race/ar-BBktaAk

The South Carolina Republican jumped into the GOP nomination fight today, vowing to ratchet up our military posture abroad. Interesting, yes? We did that during the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks. We went after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we should have done. Then we decided — wrongly, it turned out — to take the fight into Iraq. We flexed our military might quite nicely in that country, then kept fighting and fighting and fighting as resistance rose up and the Islamic State became a serious force with which we’re still trying to reckon.

Graham’s campaign speech makes it sound as if we’ve rolled over. We have done nothing of the sort.

Someone needs to slip him a note with these words: “We killed bin Laden.”

Other terrorist leaders have been killed. ISIL remains a serious threat, but the United States is striking hard at that outfit as well.

Do we really want to re-enter the ground war in Iraq, or in Yemen, or in Syria? Do we really want to re-engage an enemy face to face? Graham seems to think it’s all right. I disagree with him. The Associated Press reported: “Graham is a prominent Senate voice in seeking a more muscular foreign policy and one who casts the threats facing the United States in particularly dark terms.”

Our foreign policy is muscular enough.

International news

Iraqis need the ‘will to fight’

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter appears to be a blunt speaker.

That’s a good thing. We need some of that frank talk when it involves war.

However, he’s now having to out-blunt the vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, who’s now trying to make nice with Iraq leaders angry over what Carter said about their troops’ ability to defend a key military target.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/biden-tries-to-patch-things-up-with-iraq-118265.html?hp=l2_3

Carter asserted over the weekend that Iraqis lack “the will to fight” the Islamic State terrorists, which overran the Iraqi city of Ramadi against forces that outnumbered and outgunned them. What did Carter say? “We can give them training, we can give them equipment. We obviously can’t give them the will to fight.”

Flash back 40 years. The United States fought North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops for a decade trying to save South Vietnam from a communist takeover. Our troops pulled out in 1973 after training, equipping and dying alongside South Vietnamese troops. In March 1975, North Vietnam launched its final offensive and in April claimed the entire country.

Why and how did they succeed? South Vietnam lacked “the will to fight.”

So, what’s happening in Iraq isn’t necessarily a new development.

It’s not too late to get the Iraqis ready to defend their country. But defend it they must. This must be their fight, not ours. We’ve already lost more than 4,000 precious American lives in the effort to rebuild Iraq into a free society.

 

 

 

media news

More ‘lies’ from O’Reilly

2 Comments

Bill O’Reilly is a serial liar, according to one of his former colleagues at Fox News Channel.

OK, that doesn’t surprise a lot of folks. What’s a bit surprising to me is that the allegation of lying comes from Eric Burns, who was a host of “Fox News Watch” for a decade until 2008, when the network let him go.

I’m not sure if Burns is spitting out some sour grapes here, but he did tell CNN’s Brian Stelter that O’Reilly long has been known to embellish his credentials, if not lie outright about what he reported on.

The clip attached to this link is about 8 minutes long. It’s a highly interesting critique on O’Reilly’s time at Fox and whether his bosses and colleagues at the network expect much from him. Burns said no, they don’t.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/ex-fox-host-tells-cnn-olbermann-was-right-all-along-fox-is-a-cult-and-oreilly-is-a-liar/#.VPy5tRDsw1s.twitter

Why is this such a big deal? Well, maybe it’s not huge. But in the media world, O’Reilly has become cable the biggest star on cable “news,” although I use the term “news” guardedly where it involves O’Reilly or, for that matter, Fox News in general.

About the time Brian Williams got suspended by NBC for fibbing, er, lying, about being shot down in Iraq, O’Reilly came under criticism for his reporting from the Falklands War “front” in 1982 when, in reality, he never set foot on the island territory when British forces landed to take it back from Argentine forces.

Williams got suspended — and likely won’t get his news anchor job back — while O’Reilly’s ratings have soared, as Burns told Stelter on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

That seems to be the aim at Fox: ratings. Burns said the network is giving O’Reilly a pass because the more he comes under fire, the more his rating soar. Burns suggested to Stelter that’s a likely consequence of the audience that tunes in to Fox. He calls Fox News watchers “cultish.” Watch the clip and listen for yourself to what he says.

It’s interesting that in all the discussion, I didn’t hear a mention of what now-Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has called O’Reilly over the years. Back when he was a mere political humorist, Franken would refer the Fox News host as “O’Lie-ly,” which enraged O’Reilly so much that to this day he refers to Franken by his former “Saturday Night Live” character, Stuart Smalley.

Whatever the case, the interview with Eric Burns is worth your time.

Well, at least was worth my time.

International news

No, senator: Obama didn't 'create' ISIS

It’s time to correct a misstatement uttered by one of the probable Republican candidates for president in 2016.

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that the Islamic State is the creation of Barack Obama.

The creation? Yes. He said that.

Check out the link here. The statement comes at about the 2:30 mark of the 3-minute video.

http://www.msnbc.com/way-too-early/watch/is-the-us-winning-the-fight-against-isis–449161795946?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native

I believe the more accurate assessment is that the Islamic State is the creation of the failed Iraq War that was launched in March 2003 by President Bush.

ISIL comprises Sunni extremist militants — monstrous terrorists, at that — who are fighting to get rid of the Shiite government in Baghdad. Why are the Shiites in power, and not the Sunnis? Because we removed the Sunni in chief, Saddam Hussein, after we invaded his country on the false premises that (a) he possessed chemical weapons and was developing a nuclear bomb and that (b) he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

President Obama did not “create” the Islamic State. He inherited its creation from a mistaken notion that overthrowing the Iraqi government and then remaking Iraq in our image would produce a nation that stands as a bastion for the freedom and liberty we all cherish.

So, let’s cut the crap, Sen. Santorum.

 

International news, military news

Say 'no' to U.S. ground troops in Iraq

Americans have been down this road already.

We invaded a sovereign nation. Tossed out its leader. Captured him. Tried and convicted him. Then we executed him.

Americans sought to help rebuild a government in our image, with mixed results.

All the while, nearly 5,000 of our young men and women died seeking to make Iraq a beacon of freedom and light in the Middle East.

Then we pulled out.

Obama: US not losing war against ISIS

Do we need to go back into a country and put “boots on the ground” in an effort to defeat the Islamic State, which wants to claim Iraq as its own?

No. Why? The country has no more stomach for additional loss of American life. We do not want to expend one more young life in a country into which we never should have entered in the first place.

President Obama says the United States is “not losing the war” against the Islamic State. He acknowledges “tactical setbacks” with ISIL’s taking of Ramadi, a key Iraqi city. But the air campaign will continue. We’ll continue to train Iraqi soldiers to fight the enemy on the ground. We’ll continue to provide intelligence to hunt down and kill ISIL leaders when and where we find them.

This fight continues to look as though it will take a long time to conclude. That, I submit, is the very nature of this new kind of “world war” in which we’re engaged.

Do we put our troops back onto the battlefield once again? No way.

 

national news, political news

Fibs = lies? Sometimes

Someone asked me the other day if I could explain the difference between a “fib” and a “lie.”

My quick answer to him was that I “like the word ‘fib’ better.”

“Fib” has a less-damaging ring to it than “lie.”

I’ve given some further thought to the question, which actually is a pretty good one.

Here’s my more thoughtful answer: A fib is meant to describe a false statement that doesn’t carry as much consequence as a lie.

I used the term “fib” to describe, in this latest instance, what NBC reporter/news anchor Brian Williams had said about being shot down in Iraq. He fibbed about it. He wasn’t shot down. He was riding in a helicopter that accompanied the ship that actually was shot down.

Why is that a “fib” and not a “lie”? Because all it means is that one man’s career is likely ruined. The rest of us will carry on.

What, then, constitutes a lie?

Let’s try this one: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” That came from President Bill Clinton as he wagged his finger at the American public and told a lie about what he did with the White House intern. All by itself, that shouldn’t constitute a lie. Except that the result of that untrue statement — which he also made to a federal grand jury — resulted in his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives.

I suppose I could go on with more actual lies, such as when the Bush administration kept telling us about Saddam Hussein’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks. We all know where those lies led us.

It’s one thing to fib about a personal experience and another thing to lie when it involves the future of the country.

Awww, what the heck. I still like the sound of the word “fib” better.

 

national news, political news

Dr. Carson: I wouldn't have invaded Iraq

There you have it.

The growing field of Republican presidential candidates is being sprinkled with individuals who actually are breaking with a key policy of the most recent GOP president.

Dr. Ben Carson said this week he would not have “gone into Iraq.” He said the United States could have employed other means to get rid of the late Saddam Hussein. He said the nation lacked a clear long-term strategy once Saddam had been toppled.

Carson says Iraq invasion was a mistake

“When you go into a situation with so many factions and such a complex history, unless you know what you’re doing or have a long-term strategy, it just creates more problems,” Carson told The Hill in a telephone interview.

He becomes the second major Republican figure to put daylight between himself and former President George W. Bush. The other one, more or less, was the former president’s younger brother, Jeb, who took a more awkward approach to trying to take back what he said initially in a clumsy response to a TV reporter’s direct question.

There well might be others GOP candidates who will realize the folly of going to war on what is now known to have been faulty intelligence regarding Iraq’s supposed possession of chemical weapons.

The Iraq War was a mistake. It’s good to hear Dr. Carson acknowledge as much.

I’m now waiting for former Vice President Dick Cheney — who’s been blasting Democratic officials’ criticism of the war — to weigh in against his fellow Republicans.

Well, Mr. Vice President?

 

International news

World is better without Saddam, but …

Marco Rubio said that thing that all of us know to be true.

The world, said the U.S. senator from Florida, “is a better place” without Saddam Hussein walking among us. He told Fox News Sunday that President George W. Bush made the right call in invading Iraq in March 2003, even though he acted on intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be faulty.

Presidents, said Rubio — who’s running for president himself — don’t have the benefit of hindsight when they make critical decisions.

Again, true enough, senator.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rubio-iraq-invasion-was-not-a-mistake/ar-BBjTt0s

But here’s the issue, as I see it — and no doubt others will see it differently:

The world would be a better place without a long list of sovereign leaders. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe comes to mind. So does North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. How about getting rid of Vladimir Putin in Russia? Other countries are ruled by tinhorn dictators and despots.

Is it our place to invade any of those other countries to get rid of evil rulers?

Rubio was standing behind his fellow Floridian, former Gov. Jeb Bush, who (now) famously told Fox’s Megyn Kelly he would have invaded Iraq, too, even with what we now know about the missing WMDs. Bush also, let’s add, is likely to run for president as well as Rubio and a host of other GOP candidates.

The problem with the Iraq War and the precedent it set is that we’ve now laid down a predicate for future efforts to rid the planet of evil men in high places.

The tough economic sanctions we had imposed on Saddam Hussein after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91 had contained that madman. The invasion was unnecessary, costly and far more troublesome than any of the president’s inner circle led the nation to believe it would be.

Oh, and one more thing: Saddam Hussein had nothing, zero, to do with 9/11.

Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Sure it is. Is it a safer place because we got rid of him? Only if you discount the presence of the Islamic State.

 

media news

Williams, O'Reilly: double standard?

The thought occurs to me on this rainy day on the Texas Tundra: Brian Williams is likely out of a job, while Bill O’Reilly is still going strong for doing essentially the same thing that got Williams into trouble.

How come?

Williams once was the much-admired anchor for NBC’s Nightly News broadcast. Then it came out that Williams fibbed about a story he had told over a decade that a helicopter he’d been riding in had been shot down during the Iraq War. His chopper wasn’t shot down, but he was riding in the same group of air ships that included the one hit by the rocket-propelled grenade. NBC investigated the matter and suspended Williams for six months — without pay. He has become the butt of jokes and the network is highly unlikely ever to return him to his former job.

O’Reilly, meanwhile, was revealed to have embellished his own record, talking about how he “covered” the Falklands War in 1982 while never setting foot in the war zone while Argentine troops were fighting British troops that had landed on the islands to take back Britain’s territorial possession. O’Reilly who “covered” the war for CBS News, has since become Fox News’s No. 1 commentator. He reported how he had been put in harm’s way in the Falklands. Except that he wasn’t ever exposed to hostile fire. It was revealed the potential harm came from rioters in Buenos Aires, from where O’Reilly was “covering” the war.

Fox stands by its man. O’Reilly called the reporting of his embellishment the work of “guttersnipes.”

One man gets kicked off the air. The other is still goin’ and blowin’.

O’Reilly often laments what he calls “double standards” in media reporting.

He’s right. There well might be a double standard at work here.