Media Muddles?  I prefer Media Myrmidons myself.

How embarrassing for the Union-Leader. Their own sources disprove their argument, and then, on top of that, they have to resort to name calling to prove their argument, and then say "continues to diminish its own credibility (what there is of it)." That sounds like a comment a blogger would make. 

Very embarrassing.  

Seeing Drew Cline, on newsprint, is a fool without information integrity, can expect that handicap transfers intact onto the internets blog screen.

Such minds in misery have the company of editors at many blindly rightwing editorial pages -- this one, for example -- and as much as they dubya dubya dubya, they may seek to form a self-help group together, dinosaurs obsolete anonymous, DOA, or something.

Clinton should just be more clear and specific, but it seems pretty obvious to me that she could not at all have been referring to the "surge" in a March 15 interview!  Come on, any conservative can tell you that the "surge" hadn't even started by then!  Isn't that what they've been saying for the past 6 months?  'you can't criticize it because the troops aren't all there?'  in the meantime, of course, anything that looked like a success for 2 seconds was attributed to it, even though it hadn't begun...god these people are too stupid to live!~

The Union Leaders editorial uses grade school name calling and logic.  There own sources provide details that weren't in the speech to the VFW clarifying Clinton's position and yet they still say nanna nanna boo boo were right your wrong...umm no you just did an excellant job of proving the other guys argument...better go back to the drawing board on this one.  I think it is pretty clear from all of Clinton's statements that she does not believe the surge is working to further the stability of the Iraqi government and realizing the bench marks set for them...and according to the GAO she is correct they have only made 2-3 of the 18 bench marks of success. 

Some of our homeboy Bush Apologists keep mindlessly repeating that the only new tactic is "the surge", despite evidence to the contrary. I guess feeble minds think alike.

I heard an interesting story this morning on BBC about Iraq. I wonder how many of the 30% crowd know that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis living in refugee camps? In fact, how many normal Americans know that? I haven't seen any stories about it in our media.

I've seen lots of stories about it, converging on a number between 2 million and 3 million Iraqis huddled homeless and dispossessed.

I have NOT seen any of "our media."  Ignoring them saves me in pocket about 50 bucks a month.

Here's the thing...how hard is it to recruit teenage boys living in those conditions? If some guy wanders in there and offers them food, something to do, and a gun...well, you see the problem.

I wonder if they have to fill out one of those Al Qaeda "application forms?"

If MMFA indeed muddles

Then the Union Leader befuddles

It's incompetent spin

Shows what league it is in

It's not fit to be in our huddle

In a world where ordinarry people live, and a think like logic prevails much of the time, when someone says something controversial, and there's a dispute over it, you ASK HER what SHE MEANT.

But the right treats the quote like a hockey puck. Pass back and forth to each other, keep it away from the other guys--and SCORE!

Time after time after time...

Obama wants to Invade Pakistan!

Michelle Obama dis at Hillary!

Fidel endorses Clinton/Obama!

Hillary says the surge is working!

In none of these ases are they being quoted accurately. In all the cases (except Fidel) they've sad what it was they meant--but no credence is given to the refutation.

The Union Leader (who, on Joe McCarthy's death of cirrhosis of the liver, published the headline COMMUNISTS KILL JOE McCARTHY!) is playing this weird game of gotcha.

Does Hillary think the Surge is working? They don't want to know.

They've got their hockey puck.

Perhaps if the left held it's hockey puck with more ownership and didn't try to turn it into a football, it wouldn't get so easily tossed around by the other team.

Game, set, slam dunk and home run, Tommy.

I didn't really get your point, I'm just impressed with the hybrid sports metaphors.

Point lost?  Who cares.  Cute little sporting metaphor given credence by you HBL, I'll take it.

:)

The Yanks swept the Sox.

Yipppeee :-)

Sorry, please return to your disscussion.

The point was pointless.

"People with too many arguments should always be approached with suspicion. Dialectic and endless reasoning are usually used as resistance against disagreeable truths"

 - This is a quote from a 1949 book by A M Merloo MD. titled Delusion and Mass-Delusion.

TOMMY, every time you reiterate and recycle your bag of deflective talking-points (which seems to be at least once per topic) that comes to mind. Sorry, I can't help it - it's just such an uncannily accurate description of you.

You spend so much time being contrarian here, I wonder if it's your profession - or your hobby. Either way, I think it's a waste.

"People with too many like opinions, parrotting one another endlessly, should always be approached with suspicion.  Rubberstamping and mindless reasonings are usually used as resistance against disagreeable truths"

-This is a quote from Tommy, titled Delusional and more Delusional Liberals. 

Feel free to use it anytime, free of charge.

You talking about 'liberals' or 'conservatives' here... I get confused.  Seems most of your comments today could be thrown at either.

i prefer tommy's books "why is this here, and even if it is misinformation the best way to deal with it is to ignore it",  editions 1 through 4,658. 

Well said PBG.  I would also go one step further in saying if all of these quotes were taken in contgext and the remainder of the comment/speech/article were read in full most times there wouldn't have been any need for clarification because reading past the one sentence would have been clarification enough.  An example would be Fidel--you only have to read it to know it was by no means an endorsement of any kind.

It gives me great joy to think that Drew Cline checks out Media Matters to see if he is being taken to task and that when he finds this article, he can read all the contempt smart, thinking people have for him.

"But the articles that Cline cited for support show that she attributed the progress in Iraq's Al Anbar province to U.S. agreements with local tribal leaders that began in September 2006."

 um... so HRC thinks that the tactics in Iraq have been working for about a year?  (or since Sept 2006!)

 This "argument" only makes HRC look like a bigger jackass.

Is al Anbar region ALL of Iraq? I dont think it is and YOUR argument just makes you look like more of an idiot and that is quite a feat.

From www.openleft.com

Hillary Clinton is upfront that she thinks Petraeus has made progress in Iraq with new military tactics, she's also upfront that she thinks that the surge can't work.  She also wants to leave troops in Iraq to continue the military progress Petraeus is making.  That's why I don't trust her on Iraq.  Here are some clipped comments from the AFL-CIO debate in which she nearly trips over herself discussing her withdrawal plan for Iraq, while offering a very confusing suggestion that we pursue Al Qaeda the way Petraeus is doing in Al Anbar province.

----------------------------------------

I found this honest assessment of HRC's statements from a lefty source.  If only more leftists could be so honest.

Except this source doesn't *prove* that Clinton believes the surge is working.

What it does prove if that if you look at HRC's statement on this issue (or any other issue) you can never tell exactly what she means.  She is a slippery little weasel.  The fact is that the honest lefty knows that HRC is manipulating the left and trying to have it both ways.  Does HRC think that the "surge" is working?  Well, she doesn't use the word, but the clear implication of HRC's words is that the "tactics" are the current things that Petraeus  is doing to win the war in Iraq.

The best proof of my claim that HRC is a dishonest weasel is to simply ask you guys on the left: What has HRC promised to do with regard to troop levels in Iraq is she gets elected POTUSA?  Will she bring them all home?  If she doesn't bring them all home, how many will remain in Iraq?  Go ahead and look at all her statements on this issue and see if there is a clear and consistent answer.

My argument is that there is no clear answer to this question from HRC.  Is asking for a clear answer on one of the most important issues in this campaign asking to much?  Can we really afford another "it-all-depends-on-the-meaning-of-IS-is..." Clintons in the White House?

John, what does Bush have scheduled for January '09, regarding the troops?

i would rather have a "what the meaning of is is" clinton than a "we had to invade because saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in" bush.

So did Drew Cline not read the articles he referred to because he is an idiot and is content to live in a fact free consersvative land of fanatasy, or did he read the article and purposely mis-represent the content because he is a dishonest man?

He's an editor, he knows how to read, I believe he is dishonest.

Thanks to MediaMatters for pursuing this issue. Unfortunately, you're going to be busy considering that sources on the right and the left and the middle *all* have lifted Clinton's remarks out of context and repeated them endlessly. Folks at HuffPo have been going ballistic about Hillary's "support" of Bush's surge. Unfortunately, they seem to be immune to any sort of reality check, like a complete transcript of her remarks.

 But I appreciate your efforts to set the record straight.

I thought the reason for the surge was to stabilize Iraq so the legislators could make some much needed political compromises.  Since, the legislature left for the month, with little chance of any meeting of the minds to save their country when they start the next session.  Obviously, just another lie to salve the American public. 

But the most disturbing part of this war is the total lack of remorse, accountablity, compassion for the young people lost in this fiasco.  Republicans seem to be so cavalier with the lives of GIs.  They send them into a meat grinder w/o any anxiety, fear, or regret.  Since the Iraq war cannot be won in the traditional sense they need to pull out now and save lives.

I read recently that Nixon knew early in his term that the Vietnam war could not be won, but for political reasons he continued the war.  It cost the USA 25,000 plus lives and an unimaginable number of Vietamese lives.  And for what?  And it still is galling that the jackasses that started this mess did not have the courage to fight in Vietnam but can send other peoples sons and daughters there(Iraq).  If there was any justice all of the Bush administration, and the cheerleaders for the war were all given 15 months of grunt duty in Iraq.