Tonight's 'Nightline' -- tribute or politics?

ALL he needs do is consider the program (Nightline) and the people (Ted Koppel) as well as the time frame of the deaths of those named.

Pure Politics.

"Liberal press" your a__ off another time. Please let us in.

... liberal media? I am merely pointing out that there is a difference between underscoring deaths on 9/11 and deaths in Iraq. IF the point was to honor those who died in the war on terror, then those who died in Afghanistan would be included. The politics of Koppel are thus clear

Evie

Sounds to me like you're saying:

1) Ted Kopple is a flaming liberal.

and:

2) Liberals are incapable of grief for our Fallen without ulterior motive.

Have I got that about right? Can we please take 'em one at a time without partisanizing what is really only raw data?

I think yall're paranoid or insincere or both. This is data. Data is not for or against. Data just is. This is the same as my complaint against religion. Demonization of what is. Suppressing awareness of facts irreconcilable to human weaknesses may be the kind thing, but there's a price to be paid.

You're swinging your 'unpatriotic' dead cat, Evie. "With us or against us." The thing about dead cats is the same as hand-grenades and horseshoes: Even if you don't actually hit someone dead on, you might spray 'em a little and that's almost as good.

You guys have got to quit this! But then again, you must know that you're going to get what you're ask for, so I guess I'm wishing for too much. We're gon'a squeal, and you're counting on it. You're 'Wagging The Dog' here. Driving a wedge. Spiting off your bloc with 'aid-and-comfort' outrage in hopes of a big vote turn-out for your side. Data just is.

Believe me, when we have a complaint we'll say so. We present data and THEN draw conclusions. If you accept the data, you rebut the conclusions. See how that works? You can't honestly debate by demonizing the data. If the data brings out emotions, it does so for both sides, but 'ya know what? We're actually only one side when it comes to our Fallen. What really IS 'aid and comfort to the enemy' is you guys implying otherwise.

.

I am not saying that he is a flaming liberal. Nor am I saying that liberals can't mourn the fallen without ulterior motive.

What I AM saying is that Koppel is SUPPOSED to be a NEWS anchor and objective journalist. As such, he has cast aspersions on himself (with no help from anyone else) by appearing in a forum on which he offers opinions. If politics weren't the motive, the equally deserving fallen from Afghanistan would have been included.

I'll leave the rest of your rant for another night. Don't quite have the stomach for it right about now.

Evie

...of what he considered unnecessary deaths, but lacking in what he would have done differently. Surely Koppel wouldn't have expected us to depose Sadam and then just leave the country in shambles and come back home. Personal feeling is after all this, maybe that's what they deserved, but if that is true, then probably should have left Sadam there in the first place. If Sadam hadn't invaded Kuwait, and then hadn't made it seem he wanted to start a World War, he'd probably still be in power.

With us now courting some Bathists, it seems we may be changing our opinions of them ever so slightly, or it's changed more than that, but only being shown officially in the smallest manner.

Maybe the best way to handle the situation is to threaten to put Sadam back into power if the Shiite groups don't settle down more.

Necessary - unnecessary deaths shouldn't play any part in this. It has nothing to do with our soldier's gift to us. I think you're right. When Kopple drew a line at Bush's flightsuit, he focused on and made that a question. Our millitary guys just keep on giving until all the giving is done.

"With us now courting some Bathists,.." Man! What is up with THAT? Christian forgiveness is one thing, but I mean Damn! How desperate does THAT make us look? Major aid and comfort if you ask me.

I don't know chapter and verse, but somewhere form George Bush's book I recall something about the sin of "nation building". Opps! Minor flippity-flop?

... former Iraqi military, not those closest to Saddam or with ties/loyalty to the Baath party. It's a gamble, and no way to be sure the vetting is perfect, but I was listening to someone "in the know" on TV and he said that the Iraqis themselves know who in the former military were the "baddies" and will out them.

Evie

Hi, James.

Did you listen to Koppel's commentary after the reading? The one where he began by talking about "the War in Iraq -- which I support --" Seems to me that y'all are paranoid -- maybe deep down in your hearts YOU aren't sure the war is worth the price? If not, why are you so callous as to see ulterior motive where there is none?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I've not been singing the long song about the program being a deliberate slam on the President. I do think it's timing and timeline used is suspect. I think it's unreasonable to not expect that some notice of dead soldiers and discussion of them within news and commentary broadcasts will occur from time to time. Even if it was aimed at Bush, I think it's nice the families had their loved ones sacrifice acknowledged publicly. It's not as big an issue for me as it seems for so many of you.

Distinguishing between Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of what is "arguably" the war on terror IS political. Please don't give me the this is Bush's war nonsense. EVERY Democrat, including Kerry, was on the same page based on the same intel, etc. The French, Germans and Russians were NEVER gonna come on board because of their corrupt financial dealings with Saddam. Those WMD's are slowly turning up BTW. Even Kerry has backed off that because I suspect he knows they will be found. The military who died ALL died for a noble cause, and it is only a matter of fate who is stationed in Afghanistan or Iraq at this point. Does the soldier that dies in Afghanistan deserve less *tribute* because he is fighting in a war that Bush detractors deem the right one? I think NOT! POLITICS pure and simple and it stinks!

Evie

Based on ALL EVIDENCE and the evidence was agreed on by the Clinton Admin and Democrats such as Kerry until well AFTER we attacked there was no rush.

Saddam had NOT lived up to the terms of the Cease Fire nor had he abided by SEVERAL UN resolutions.

Hi, Bob.

Stick to your guns, and don't let Ed's usual shoot from the hip without data nonsense sway you. The program began "The war in Iraq began on March 19, 2003. Since that day, according to the Department of Defense, 725 Americans have been killed in Iraq." So Ed's claim that it was only "since major combat" is bogus.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

.

actually lowered myself to SKIMMING as Dave is wont to do and sure enough it did the same to me that it ALWAYS does with him--got some inaccurate info posted.

Regardless, it was done for political reasons and likely to boost show ratings as there was no Anniversary type reason which would be the only real reason to separate casualties from Afghanistan and Iraq as they are all results of this "War on Terror" as well as a few casualties around the Philippines that were also not mentioned.

The "Excuse" about not having enough time doesn't wash because accidental and illness related deaths were included and had the emphasis been on "war deaths" as was stated ALL could have been named from ALL theaters.

.

Dave, when Ed used the population number of 300,000 for the population of Fallujah, you trounced on him specifically for that number, rather than the person who first started using it. I noticed your silence when this was mentioned.
O.K. he made number error, and you tag him with "As usual, Ed is dead wrong". Sorry but it seems to me that you are sometimes not interested in the accuracy of numbers given, but in an opportunity to label negatively people whose views are not yours.

Hi, J.

The clear implication of Ed's comment about the Fallujah population was that the number was much lower than 300k, not that it was much higher. The rest I don't want to argue, except to say that I see a pattern of behavior.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I went with the number provided and even mentioned that Dan appeared to be fixated with the number.

YOU come up with a new number and although it was a larger number did nothing to change the facts. That fact remains that Dan stated (AFTER using the 300,000 several times) that the number was the population of Fallujah and tried to claim that the entire population was innocent and even you are aware that they are not.

There is indeed a "pattern of behavior" here that most of us have noted for a long time and if you go back and re-read your posts you might just see it too.

Dave, why is it that the soldiers who died in Afganistan were not included? Are they not also worthy of be included in a tribute?
Could it be the good war/ bad war situation idea in action? Good/bad for what is the key. The action in Afganistan was basically successful, not an optimum situation to use as an anti-administration ploy. So focus exclusively on Iraq, the "bad" situation currently. Now there's a political ploy that is better for the goal. Just call it a "tribute", and hope that nobody notices that the soldiers who died in Afganistan were edited out of the list of names in that tribute. And, let us not forget, anybody who notices that deletion and mentions it needs to be quickly accused of being the ones who are playing politics.
Dave, what would you have said if the 9/11 roll that you mentioned had been a partial one, excluding a particular group of people?

.

Inserting to word optimum does not bear on the subject. The subject was not including Afganistan numbers. This does not say that Afganistan was "optimum"
The line of thought you are trying to side step is the good/bad way of explaining the non-inclusion of the Afganistan numbers. As there was not a great public opinton that going into Afganistan was "bad" and shouldn't have been done, those numbers are "bad" in a sense for the desired political purpose. Yes, there is opium poppy growing on, and most people say that is not optimum, this does not mean that therefore the majority of Americans feel that going into there was an error. There have been no recent big demonstrations calling for us to withdraw from Afganistan and/or saying that we should have never gone in there in the first place.
So for political purposes, the numbers from the Afganistan situation were left out so all the names were from the Iraq situation with it's currently much better posibility as a political attack "weapon".

Yeah, J. I hear what you're are saying. I don't know how strong a complaint it is, but I understand. It was billed as a clean and simple tribute to our dead. Iraq is somewhat contentious. (Made more so by you and me hammering this.) If Koppel had included the deaths in Afghanistan, then all possibility of politics would have been avoided. Right? I don't know. The two are a little bit separate in MY gut. (you know why) If he'd lumped them together I might have felt that he was saying that Iraq was a necessary and unavoidable part of the war on terrorists. I might have, but probably not.

Believe it or not, I'm not wholly and adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq. I have questions and I have points to make and the deaf ear they get has turned me brittle, I'm afraid, on the subject. I understand your reasoning and I concede that yall feel Koppel was making a statement. If so, we've defiantly risen to the bait and that's sort of a shame.

I still say that an assassination is what was called for, or a coup. (You know. Like Florida.) I remember the "Bring it on!" 'New American Century' Iraq page from long before 9/11, even though nobody else seems to. I have real doubts that the administration believed what it was saying before the war, and I think they must have been counting on a big welcome and a lot of cooperation after. I think they were full speed ahead and no listening required from the very first. Maybe the 9/11 Commission report will ease my mind on that.

Knowing what to leave out of a post is more important than missing something, so I'll stop here. There'll be a better thread for criticism of GW.

Hi, J.

As I just explained to Evie here, I think time was the reason for limiting the subject to Iraq. BTW, Ted's commentary at the end indicated that one of the reasons for the program was to remind Americans that men and women very much like them and their relatives are making the ultimate sacrifice. One very unusual thing about this war is that the President is not requesting sacrifice form the general populace in support of the war -- instead of selling war bonds, he's trying to hide the actual financial cost.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

It's more a question of big story/little story. There's much less mention of Afghanistan in the press or from the administration.

Since bush has forgotten Afghanistan why should the rest of us remember?

Dan