The worst game show ever.
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
I don’t know ollie, but I am looking forward to you retracting your ridiculous “bush plugging in the wrong cord” story that has been revealed as (obviously to anyone with a room-temperature or higher IQ) a joke…
And while you are at it, why not hit you archives and show us your posts on the Duke “rape” case….
How does crow taste anyhow?
That’s great! We’ll call him the Commander-in-Chief.
I’m glad that Bush is delegating his war powers to someone else. In fact, while he’s at it, why doesn’t he cede the rest of his Presidential powers, get the hell out of the White House, go back to his ranch in Crawford and spare this country any more misery?
“… underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military…”
This is, first of all, the worst case of editorializing inside a news story I have seen in a long time.
Secondly, I don’t blame retired Generals for not coming out of retirement to handle a hornets’ nest.
Just today, Novak reported that “a troop removal will be underway in earnest by year’s end, no matter who is winning the war.”
Offer a star to a three - star to take the job, and watch what happens…
I am sure there are lots of pregnant Brush cows ready to give birth to little combs.
From the same link:
“…The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going,”
said retired Marine Gen. John J. “Jack” Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job…”
Could it be any more clear?
Aside from playing politics with our troops and our national security, the White House has NOTHING …
They just want to put another layer of scapegoatability between Bush and responsibility.
I wrote I believe one post on the Duke story.
Has Peedo ever been right? I think he lives on a steady diet of crow, marinated in Kool-Aid and drowned in Reagan-Era vegetable Ketchup.
well I was right in the last two cases at least eh….
But don’t expect any mea culpas from ol’e ollie the oracle…he is bomb-thrower I tell ya! A veritable font of wisdom and truth…him and his halleljuha choir of yes-men and sychophants
Feh….
“… underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military…”
This is, first of all, the worst case of editorializing inside a news story I have seen in a long time.
I have to agree. The reporter SHOULD have said:
“underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military and left millions of Iraqis dead, maimed, destitute or homeless in the midst of a catastrophic civil war.”
Stupid liberal media!
Paul: I assume I can put you down for “there is no liberal bias in the media”.
frank, are you suggesting that the last five years of warfare have not taxed the the United States and its military?
Seriously?
dude, this is an old story–didn’t the onion report it a year and a half ago?
Bush To Appoint Someone To Be In Charge Of Country
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41444
oh wait, that’s slightly different. (but only slightly.)
frameone: are you suggesting that that is what I suggested? Seriously?
Is it remotely possible that I took exception to another protion of that ridiculous, and irrelevant post?
Here’s a hint: left millions of Iraqis dead, maimed, destitute or homeless in the midst of a catastrophic civil war
Besides, my point was that WaPo was blatantly editorializing in the middle of a news story.
“Paul” just made it sillier…
Wait a minute! That wasn’t you, was it, Paul?
“Besides, my point was that WaPo was blatantly editorializing in the middle of a news story.”
Um, where did the WaPo editorialize in the middle of this news story? In your first post you identified precisely what you thought was editorial:
Which part of that sentence constitutes editorializing in your view?
“But don’t expect any mea culpas from ol’e ollie the oracle…he is bomb-thrower I tell ya! A veritable font of wisdom and truth…him and his halleljuha choir of yes-men and sychophants,” the quack himself.
How’s your choir singing these days, Mr. Pedro? And after supporting the GOP these past few years, what would you know about truth? You’ve lost the right to even be sarcastic about it.
frameone: What the hell do you care?
I’m not in the mood to fight with you.
If you can’t tell fact from opinion, why would I expect you to follow my lead?
But Frank, you initially claimed that the sentence was blatant editorializing but when I asked you if you thought the last five years of war had not taxed the military you responded:
“frameone: are you suggesting that that is what I suggested? Seriously?”
I don’t know frank. What were you suggesting. You certainly couldn’t have been suggesting that referring to the number of years that the country has been at war was editorial content. Right? That’s a simple fact. So I understood you to mean that it was only the reporter’s opinion that the military is taxed.
Really? You believe that the military is not currently taxed, that is stretched to the limits of its capacity by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? You think the facts show the opposite? That it isn’t taxed? Really? Just trying to clear this up …
You certainly couldn’t have been suggesting that referring to the number of years that the country has been at war was editorial content. Right?
If that’s the case, then why are you asking me what I meant?
I might ask you what that point was doing there. Was it in any way crucial to the story?
I believe not.
I might ask you what that point was doing there. Was it in any way crucial to the story?
It is one of the five W’s of reporting: Why is the president having trouble finding new fall guys for his incompetence.
Frank, I think you’ll save yourself and all the rest here a lot of aggro if you just admit up front that to you, reporting news that makes republicans look bad = liberal editorializing.
Wilbur, you can save yourself a lot of aggravation, by ending your feeble attempt to continue a discussion from another thread.
You said it yourself: “Why is the president having trouble finding new fall guys for his incompetence?”
If that is your impression of the meaning of that sentence (mine was similar, but, of course, not so skullpounding ly harsh), then you have perfectly grasped the editorializing in the article.
It is a news article. “[T]he administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team…” is an opinion.
I’m sure for you, possibly frameone, and nearly everyone on this blog, it is an opinion you share, but it is an opinion, nonetheless.
The irrelevant (to this story) fact the war has lasted five years and has “taxed the military” is simply a flourish.
Unless the story is totally inaccurate, “the adminstration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits…” is a fact. Getting to the “why” of that is a critical part of the reporter’s job, and the “why” offered here seems to be based not totally on the reporter’s opinion but on those of sources interviewed, such as Gen. Sheehan whose deeply embarrassing words were re-quoted by Wellstone above.
It’s legitimate reporting. Your problem is that you wish people like Gen. Sheehan didn’t think that way.
I know you start off with the assumption that everthing critical of the Bush regime is a result of liberal bias, but it simply isn’t a valid assumption.
Let me try to get this straight, frank. you are not disputing the facts of the sentence: we’ve been at war for five years and that those wars have taxed the government and the military. Is that correct?
Your big beef is that these undisputed facts found their way into a news article about the war?
frameone: You’re pulling the same old tired trick again: Putting words in my mouth, and then trying to force me to defend them.
This is the last time I’m going to say what I’ve already said: The statement “underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team” is an opinion, and represents editorializing in a news article.
And, Wilbur, you are incorrect: “Unless the story is totally inaccurate, ‘the adminstration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits…’ is a fact” is a misinterpretation of the story.
Why did you leave out “underscoring”? I’ll tell you why: Because that implies that the condition (the adminstration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits) existed beforehand, and this is more evidence of it.
That is not demonstrated in the article. And, it shouldn’t be. For the last time, it is not an editorial.
You said it yourself — Wellstone quoted an opinion.
There is nothing more to say. If anyone is making an assumption, Wilbur, it is you. You are assuming that an opinion with which you agree becomes a fact, by virtue of your agreement.
The FACT that I can disagree with their assessment, and the FACT that their assessment was not, and can not, be supported, is PROOF that it is an opinion.
And opinions do not belong in news stories. That’s Journalism 101
And opinions do not belong in news stories. That’s Journalism 101
Haha.
Tell it to Fox & Friends. Tell it to Hannity. Tell it to Scarborough.
Duros: Even you can tell the difference between news and commentary.
Perhaps you’d be so kind as to explain it to frameone and Wilbur.
They seem to be having trouble grasping the concept.
“You’re pulling the same old tired trick again: Putting words in my mouth, and then trying to force me to defend them.”
That’s hilarious. You say the statement is editorializing but you won’t say why. You just say it is. It’s obvious from the interviews presented in the article that the difficulties of the war and the incompetence of this administration are exactly why they are having a problem finding someone for the job.
General Sheehan says “…The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going.” Which is of course and opinion. But it is a fact that this opinion is one reason why no one wants the job: Some candidates don’t think the administration has a good plan for success in Iraq.
It is a fact that we’ve been at war for five years, it’s a fact that the war has taxed the military and it’s a fact that these two issues are giving candidates pause. But too you, to mention the why of it, as Wilbur points out, is editorliazing. To you, a complete news story would only consist of the information: The Administration has not yet filled an important position.
That’s all the info you’d need to feel like an informed citizen? Really? You wouldn’t immediately ask yourself, “gee, i wonder why? I wish that was in the story too?”
The bottom line is that you guys just don’t know what journalism or reporting is. You have nothing but contempt for what it actually is.
You say the statement is editorializing but you won’t say why
WTF?
As for “wondering why”, I can do that on my own time, whenever I choose.
I don’t need WaPo’s OPINION thrust upon me in the middle of a news story, and presented as fact.
If you don’t know what to think, or how to find out the answers to questions, AND you’re satisfied that the newspaper you’re reading speaks for you, that’s just fine.
But there are any number of sources of opinion, commentary and analysis. I can find them and read them myself.
Can’t you?
Oh, crap, Frank! Look at this headline from Fox News:
White House Struggles to Fill Opening for War Czar to Oversee Iraq, Afghanistan
Struggles? Struggles!?!?
How dare they editorialize like that? God damned pinko commie rag! You were right about the liberal bias in the media, Frank! It’s right there on Fox News!!!
Liberal bastards.
Why is it editorializing, Frank?
They are facts and those facts are playing into the difficulty in finding candidates. You’re suggesting that it’s only the reporters opinion that the war has taxed the military. You really believe that?
Frank, you should totally apply for the job.
ROFL. Stop. You’re killing me …
N D: Thanks for the perfect example of reporting without editorializing
frameone, I am not contesting the fact that “the war has taxed the military”. Is there another way to say it? This is the third time. As diplomatically as I can put it, if you have nothing else to say, will you please, please, Shut The Fuck Up!
There is no connection between taxing the military and having difficulty finding someone for that job.
Let me put it another way: There is no connection between taxing the military and having difficulty finding someone for that job.
But, on the other hand, another way to look at it is: There is no connection between taxing the military and having difficulty finding someone for that job.
You’re killing me
From your lips to God’s ears…
wow you sure do get pissy when someone calls you on your bullshit, frank. Hoping for my death? Classy frank. What a loser.
And what’s the connection frank? The military’s resources have been taxed. From new recruits on up to the highest levels of leadership, the military this administration are struggling (Fox’s word) to meet their obligations. The challenges faced by the military and the utter incompetence of this administration are both factors in why no one wants to take over this mess. And certainly its also a factor that after five years of war, the administration it still looking for someone to run the damn thing. Telling isn’t it?
Our company’s falling behind in meeting its obligations and because of our entrenched ideology driven management there’s with little hope for success on the horizon and a high probability that you’ll get blamed for our inevitable failure. So, wanna come on board ?
Yup, no connection at all. ..