News-Record.com

Funny how liberals can never seem to tell us what going on in Raleigh! tell us about the democrats raiding the highway fund, tell how 750 million dollars earmarked for schools never found it way to the schools. Tell us about Dan Blue and his involvement in the Duke Case. Obama need to get a better memory, he can not seem to remember on tale from the other. Not that I like McCain any better than Obama.
I like my news, like I like my liquor straight. McCain kicked Obama butt, unless you like your answers, ugh, oh, mmm. Never saw this in any of the 6 papers I purchased the next day. Leonard Pitts is just another left wing ding bat. You should carry Ann Coulter. If I ran a newspaper, that was losing sales and ads, I try something different, maybe like printing the news. Who knows, the job you save may be yours. I buy your a paper for state news, pacify me, print some. I love shams, what better place to find them,than Raleigh.

Well, there's also a fine line between a thoughtful, nuanced answer and obfuscatory prolixity designed to impress, not communicate. Obama verged, IMO, toward the latter at several points at Saddleback. Surely he knows when, in his opinion, life begins. Opining that fighting evil may lead to evil sounds deep, but give us an example.

Agree with Doug J. on the coverage of state politics--pretty thin in the N&R. If you can afford a reporter to bludgeon us about the verdification of Greensboro (which I assume will include heroic accounts of the next bloke to add solar polars, the next second grader to fret about polar bears, the rainbarrel revolution, etc.), you can afford a full-time reporter in Raleigh.

With fascination, I watched the entire Saddleback show. At the end of the first hour I thought Obama had done a masterful job and I was sure McCain could not come near Obama's fine performance. After watching the second hour I was astonished at how well McCain had done (I was especially enthralled when McCain promised to pursue Osama bin Laden to the very gates of Hell). In my estimation McCain vanquished Obama at Saddleback and I'm betting Obama will not go head to head with McCain in another comparable format.

Seems like Americans much prefer to decide who's right or wrong based on whether they can understand what's being said without having to think about the answer too much. Shades of gray or being able to see things from other points of view are for wusses and Europeans.

Sad...

We have a full-time reporter in Raleigh who lives there and reports and blogs from there.
His name is Mark Binker.

"We learned that the hard way, from the current occupant of the White House, whose black-and-white views of the world have left America's image abroad -- and its foreign policy -- black and blue."

I'm not surprised the rest of the world has been led to believe how rotten we are by the mainstream U.S. media.
The rest of the world only knows what happens here through one medium...the mainstream media. It shapes the opinion that the world has of us. The media is overwhelmingly against the current administration, and that hatred is part and parcel of it's news coverage and beamed throughout the world so they can all hate us just as much as the media does.
Likewise, we here only know what's happening in the rest of the world via the same mainstream media. We're at their mercy and are fed what they want us to know and told how to think about it.

We invaded a country in a pre-emptive war based on erroneous and trumped-up intelligence.
Then we poorly planned the aftermath of the invasion, miscalculated the costs and duration, and have worn thin our overworked military with multiple deployments there.
And you blame the press?

Thanks, Allen, you've just proved my point with your slanted opinions. You state them as if they're fact; they're not. But your opinions mimic the talking points of the anti-Bush, anti-war liberal media. Imagine that.
I have watched (and participated) in the same war you reference. By my opinion is much, much different from yours on the same subject. Why is that, I wonder?

I've never claimed not to have an opinion on the war. And this is a blog. It contains my opinions by its nature.
As for the facts, please correct me where I'm wrong.

when asked a question concerning one's "opinion" there are no shades of gray! When asked whether or not there is evil, and how we should deal with it, there is no room for a convoluded, rambling response that included the caveat that we might be the evil ones!

Do you know how the "Messiah" campaign, and his avid supporters in the sycophantic media knew the "Messiah" (to my pleasant suprise!) got clobbered? They immediately told us that McCain "cheated." Of course he did, otherwise how could he have possibly out dueled the gift from God, as Nancy Pelosi described Obama while taking a short break from "saving the planet!" Please explain to me why you believe these people are not just a bit, well, insane. Can you be a "bit" insane? Maybe they'll let the "Messiah" use a teleprompter next time!

Tony:
You're kidding, right?
Or you serious that every opinion naturally is a simple yes or no, good or bad, black-and-white proposition?
I suspect even McCain would take issue with you on that point.

I wonder whether or not the Dems checked out the "return" policy on the "Messiah" before they (you) bought him!

If you can't say immediately that you would confront, and defeat evil you may be perfect to be the Dem's candidate, but the last person who should be in charge of our country! Of course if you are an old pal of the unrepentent, domestic terrorist William Ayers, and his terrorist wife, I can see where you might have a problem with an answer!

Tony, stop ranting and answer my question.

"As for the facts, please correct me where I'm wrong."

Allen, you wrote: "...erroneous and trumped-up intelligence."
That is your opinion and assessment on what is/was known. Some agree with you, some don't. Hardly proves that your opinion was "fact."
"...poorly planned the aftermath of the invasion..."
Were you privy to the planning? Were you there in the Pentagon or White House? If not, then this is merely your opinion as an outsider, probably based on the mainstream media as your source of information. The aftermath of the liberation may well have been perfectly planned, but flawed in it's execution. It may have been perfected planned and flawlessly executed by the Bad Guys didn't follow the plan. Again, merely your interpretation of events, hardly fact. You seem to be using the outcome as a judgment of the plan; hindsight is 20/20 and hardly constitutes a rational bashing of what happened before it.
"...miscalculated the costs and duration..." Again, do you know to the dollar just how much it was calculated that a war will cost? Were you there when it was planned? I'm betting you weren't.
"...worn thin our overworked military with multiple deployments there..." Nice opinion, but many real soldiers would vehemently disagree with you. So you're right and they're wrong? Again, just your opinion based on...what?...what you see from the mainstream media?
Face it, your opinions are based on information you see from news source, etc. You and I can look at the same event and come away with much, much different opinions based on many factors, not the least of which is whether we see the glass half full or half empty.
As to war in general, I'll compare it to having an old house remodeled. If you demand the contractor tell you exactly how many hours it will take, exactly how much $$$ will be required, exactly when it will be finished, and ask him to assure you that his plan will be executed flawlessly without any unforeseen delays or obstructions then I'd bet he'll fall on the floor laughing.

Allen Johnson said:
All of these points are easily documented and many come directly from the mouths of the administration:
1. Dick Cheney linking Iraq to 9/11, repeatedly.
2. His statement that we'll be greeted as liberators.
3. George W, Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished."
Shall I go on?

Allen, I'm not bashing you for having an opinion, we're all entitled to one. I just decry you stating your opinion as if it were fact based on your personal assessments and judgements.
At the risk of dragging this on, I'll address your above three points:
1. There is ample evidence of collusion between Iraq and Al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups.
2. Which part of Iraq were you in? In the areas I operated we were greeted as liberators. Did each and every one of millions of people in a country hold the same exact opinion? Of course not...but this is your assessment, not a fact as I can personal attest to the opposite.
3. You'd better go back and read the "facts" concerning that statement...Bush was absolutely correct. The mission was regime change, and we'd accomplished that. He didn't say "Everything is over." He was commenting on the mission.
Again, Allen, I respect your opinion. I express mine often and always try to state it as such, my opinion, not a fact. Opinions are influenced by many things; for events that we don't personally witness or are not personally involved we have to rely on the news media for our information. Unfortunately, the news media, which is admittedly liberal, often flavors it's reporting with editorial opinion. Many folks use the news as a basis for their opinion, and thus reflect the views of the media. I rarely do.

Thomas Friedman had it right: there was the real reason (establish an Arab democracy), the professed reason (WMD), and the right reason (liberate Iraqis from Saddam). This was a straight-up Wilsonian war to make the Arab world safe for democracy, and it wasn't managed well, mainly because Bush wanted to hand out soccer balls instead of killing people. That said, it worked: we have an Arab democracy that's beginning to function decently. Was it worth the cost? Use your own calculator.

On WMD, Bush had a plausible, believable case, which he used because it was his best weapon at the UN. It was always, however, a cover for the real reason. To call the intelligence "trumped-up" is borderline, IMO: certainly an opinion and not a fact. (And an opinion showing the kind of liberal bias that will appear tomorrow in the story about King Jorge courageously denouncing the inept home invasion of his Latin Thugs--see today's paper. Hopefully, however, this will cause the N&R pause in its campaign to annoint King J as the new "civil rights activist.")

Bias is built into perception. Conseratives, because they are right about everything, naturally see the world in starker, clearer terms. Liberals, conversely, subconsciously realize that they're wrong and thus trend toward a hemming, hawing discursive style.

Jaycee:
You make a good point about how troops were greeted -- and I very much respect your opinion as well -- but would you not agree with Brian that the administration used WMD as a cover for its real desire to invade Iraq because popular opinion would never have supported it otherwise?

And for the record, this what the vice president said to the late Tim Russert on "Meet the Press":

Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Allen:

The conventional wisdom was right !

Allen, in my opinion there were many good reasons for regime change in Iraq. I believe the overwhelming reason was stability in the Middle East given the potential for Hussein to continue his attacks on his neighbors and foment war in the entire region.

I don't disagree with that. But the administration should have been honest and upfront about those reasons instead of playing bait-and-switch with public opinion.

Allen, I thought they were very upfront. Your opinion, apparently, is not the same as mine. This is exactly where personal opinions come into play. Everyone has a right to their own. You and I see things very differently, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's what makes a free and democratic society work.

I agree. Jaycee. And I appreciate the civil free-for-all. But I'd sure like to press my point on how upfront the administration was. Or wasn't.
Even when they acknowledged no 9/11 connection to Iraq, they kept insinuating it.

You know, Allen, I've heard that same assertion (Bush administration claiming Iraq responsible for 9/11) from many sources. I believe it's a case of people hearing what they want to hear in spite of what was actually said. Could it be that folks who hate Bush/Cheney heard one thing and interpreted it in the light most favorable for their position? Or could it be that the mainstream media kept telling folks "that's what they really meant" and thus perpetuated the fairy-tale? Could it be that the mainstream media deliberately sought to cast aspersions on the Bush administration by insinuating that they said something they really didn't?
I watched in amazement after Katrina when Spike Lee and others were showcased on the mainstream media insinuating that Bush/Cheney blew up the levees in New Orleans. I watched in horror some months later when opinion polls showed that many people believed it based on the fact that they saw it on the news so it must be true.
I need only look at John McCain's joke the other day involving $5 million being "rich" to see how the media will showcase those who distort McCain's statements to their advantage. McCain made the statement jokingly, even told the audience it was a joke, and said that it will surely be distorted. And the media/liberals/Obama immediately went on the offensive by distorting the statement trying to make the public believe something that simply was not said.

Er, Allen, you wanted facts . I put them out for you above. No insinuation !! I can't hear you. Your willfull blindness is showing. Jus' sayin'....