Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Hardball - Christopher Hitchens

Posted By: Liberal on 2006-09-01
In Reply to:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/  Click on Marching Towards War with Iran (but a perfect appetizer for this clip is the interview with Katherine Harris).


I was struck by one comment by Hitchens, below.  I've placed blanks where I felt another name could have been used:


Well, it can be a mistake to take the rhetoric of a nut case like President, so-called President puppet leader _____ at face value but from his rhetoric which at least the _____ allow him to utter, it does look as if _____ does appear to want to fight and believes that it has God on its side.  Now that's actually a very dangerous combination of things.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Doesn't the beloved Christopher Hitchens write for Vanity Fair.???
 He was a liberal and now has become a conservative of immense proportions, so I guess he is a new conservative.
Hitchens asks "What Reason Do We Have to Trust the State

to Know Best?


What Reason Do we Have to Trust the State to Know Best?



 


Christopher Hitchens


 


Although I am named in this suit in my own behalf, I am motivated to join it by concerns well beyond my own. I have been frankly appalled by the discrepant and contradictory positions taken by the Administration in this matter. First, the entire existence of the NSA's monitoring was a secret, and its very disclosure denounced as a threat to national security.


 


Then it was argued that Congress had already implicitly granted the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on the territory of the United States, which seemed to make the reason for the original secrecy more rather than less mysterious. (I think we may take it for granted that our deadly enemies understand that their communications may be intercepted.)


It now appears that Congress may have granted this authority, but without quite knowing that it had, and certainly without knowing the extent of it.


This makes it critically important that we establish an understood line, and test the cases in which it may or may not be crossed.


Let me give a very direct instance of what I mean. We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of national security however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.


We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet (whose underlings have generated leaks designed to sabotage the Administration's own policy of regime-change in Iraq, and whose immense and unconstitutionally secret budget could not finance the infiltration of a group which John Walker Lindh could join with ease) was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.


I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true.


The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.


 


Hardball
Reporter said Palin being surrounded by Bush press handlers to control her exposure to press.  Achtung, baby.
I watched Hardball too
I saw the gentleman that you are talking about. I almost can't watch those shows anymore because it is so scary. I have a feeling that the candidates will have to discuss this issue more and more as the time goes by. Our economy is on the verge of very big trouble and the rising gas prices are a significant part of that. Hopefully, people will start demanding that the candidates come up with a plan.
That's why they call it Hardball....
The guests are well aware what they are in for by agreeing to go on his show - I wouldn't want to debate him, I know that!  Actually, the ratings of Olberman and Matthews is what keeps them on the air - they have the highest.
If anyone can catch Hardball tonight

on MSNBC, there's a wonderful interview with parents of one of the Marines who was killed in the last couple days in Iraq.


These people gave the ultimate sacrifice, and IMHO their voices are very important.


To Liberals intersted in the truth: Hardball
Tony Lagouranis, former Iraqi interrogator, is on there and is describing his personal experiences.  It's a very interesting show.  I'm watching it now on MSNBC, and it is reaired at 7:00 p.m. EST.
Another post below mentioned Hardball. This is an interview with parents

of a Marine who was killed this week in Iraq.  Here is the transcript of the show.  I think it's very compelling.  These people certainly gave the ultimate sacrifice, and to me, their views are very important. 


The interview with Ken Allard is also very interesting. This can all be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8838904/


MATTHEWS: Tonight, we begin with the parents of Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, who was among the 14 Marines who lost their lives in yesterday's attack in Iraq. His parents, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, join me now from their home outside Cleveland.

Well, it's a terrible thing to do, but I want to talk to you both about the war in Iraq and the loss of your son.

Ms. Palmer, did you sense that this war was very dangerous for your son, even before yesterday?


ROSEMARY PALMER, MOTHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, war is always dangerous. And there were so many deaths that it was starting to mount to the point where I was actually thinking yesterday that if Auggie (ph) were not among the 14 killed, I was almost to the point of calling the Department of Defense and just saying, for mental health reasons, he had to come home, that I couldn't handle it anymore. It was just too much.


MATTHEWS: What made you feel that the danger was growing?


PALMER: Well, it's the old game of the fewer. And the 325 unit that he's in has been having more and more casualties. And if you have fewer guys and the same number of people, well, then, the other—the chances are growing that your person is going to be the one that's hit.


MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Mr. Schroeder, why do you think we're in this war? What do you think is the real reason for this war in Iraq?


PAUL SCHROEDER, FATHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, I really don't know why. I could guess, which might be unfair. But I would guess it has to do with oil. It has to do with deposing a dictator that we used to love and came to hate.


MATTHEWS: Yes.


SCHROEDER: That goes on repeatedly.


MATTHEWS: What did your son say was his motivation for fighting? Was it just patriotism to our country or a belief in the mission?


SCHROEDER: He did not have a motivation to fight. He had a motivation to do his duty to the Marine Corps and to be part of the Marines. His entire life was devoted to doing what he promised he would do.


MATTHEWS: What did he tell you...


(CROSSTALK)


MATTHEWS: What did he say about how the war was going?


SCHROEDER: Well, early on, when his unit arrived there in March, he was talking about the friendly Iraqi people. After May and June, he stopped talking about the friendly people, not that they weren't friendly. But he stopped talking about it.
Two weeks ago, in the last conversation I had with him, he simply said, the closer we get to coming home, the less worth it this is.


MATTHEWS: How did you interpret that?


SCHROEDER: I took that to mean that his participation in Operation Matador, Operation New Market, Operation Sword, Operation Spear, and a couple others that I don't know the names of were failing. And that's, basically, the operations were intended to go into these towns, kick out the insurgents, take their weapons, arrest whoever they could, and then they would withdraw.

They only had to go back and find more insurgents in the same places. The fact that these 14 fellows were blown up indicates to me, logic would say, that this policy, this strategy, this tactic has failed.


MATTHEWS: Let me go to Rosemary...


SCHROEDER: If it was successful, if it was successful, then he would still be alive, as would all those other kids.


(CROSSTALK)


MATTHEWS: Rosemary, let me ask you about the—what is your feeling about this war and the goal of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? And do you think that was a smart thing for us to try to do?


PALMER: It was a very naive thing for us to do.

You don't go to another culture and try to impose yours and expect it to work. We're not Iraqis. We don't have the same culture. And while I understand that we're a multicultural nation, we don't act like it sometimes. We act like the whole world thinks exactly the way we do.


MATTHEWS: Do you think that the war is going to get any better now that your son—I mean, you have paid the ultimate price? And, by the way, thank you. I don't know what it means to say thank you for your service, except I mean it. The courage of these young guys and some women over there is unbelievable. And I guess everybody wonders about the conduct of the war, whether they're being—these lives are being wasted or these lives are being put to good purpose.
What is your feeling about that now?

PALMER: Well, I personally believe that, since it is not working, then we have to make a change, that it is not worth the sacrifice if it is just more bodies on to the heap.

Like President Bush said, he wanted to stay the course and honor the memory of the ones who died by continuing to fight. If it didn't work before, why does fighting more—you know, you do the same thing over and over, that's—expecting a different result is, I think, the explanation of insanity.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

Well, the way you describe it, it is like pouring water into a sand hole on the beach and having it drain right through and start over again. It seems like a repetitive process that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

PALMER: Exactly.

SCHROEDER: Well, the repetitive process has been going on for 27 months, since the active invasion phase ended, 27 months of doing the same thing over and over and over again, with no evidence that it is getting better.

If there were evidence it was getting better—and I have yet to see it—and I—frankly, if it was getting better, these fellows would still be alive after all of this strenuous effort. Then it is time to make a change. Either put the number of troops on the ground that you need to really do the job or get the heck out.

MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense...

SCHROEDER: We have a saying—we have a saying in the Midwest, piss or get off the pot.

MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense, because of your son's tremendous, permanent, total sacrifice of his life and his experience in these months fighting this war, that the middle-level officers, the majors, the captains, do they have a sense of a clear vision of what they're getting done over there?

SCHROEDER: I can't speak to those fellows. I have great respect for the Marine officers at that level and the sergeants who made these troops, great respect.
I would tell you that they probably are frustrated, just like a lot of the ground troops, the lance corporals and the privates are. I would say that one thing that we have to make crystal clear, which is why we agreed to talk today, is that there is a—you cannot equate. There is a clear difference between supporting the troops on the ground and supporting the policies that put them there.

The president likes to make those—to equate those two things. If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. And too many American people are buying into that. I don't buy into that. Rosemary doesn't buy into that. It is time that we say, look, we can support the troops all until the cows come home.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHROEDER: We don't support the policies that put them there.

MATTHEWS: You two have more right to answer this question than anybody else in the country today. After reading those headline—and to most of us, they're just headlines. They're American G.I.s, Marines in this case, giving their lives for their country, 20-some this week, in that one part of the country in Iraq.

What should be the reaction of the American people who pick up their newspapers, watch television, and learn of these horrors? What should they do as a result of seeing that news, Mr. Schroeder?

SCHROEDER: They should stand up and tell President Bush, enough is enough. You've had your chance. Now let somebody else come up with a different plan. If you can't come up with a different plan that is going to work, in my view, that is more troops, then get out.

MATTHEWS: Rosemary, is that your view? Is that how we, all of us, not in the news business, regular Americans from your part of the country, across the country, getting this horrible news, how should they react to it?

PALMER: Well, I think most people are just saying, you know, the latter, just get out, because it is clearly—well, it is obvious that the politicians are not going to institute a draft. And with the number of deaths and the dangers being what they are, they are not going to get the recruits.

So, therefore, if you can't—you can't get enough guys to do the fighting, well, then you have to get out. Do it or get out of the game.

MATTHEWS: I got you. I heard your views and they sound similar.
Thank you very much for this hour of—this time of anguish, to be giving this information. I think the public needs to hear from folks like you.
Thank you very much, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, who lost their son, Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, just today, last 24 hours.
We'll be right back with HARDBALL.


Also, did anyone look at the Hardball segment listed on the Conservative board?
It was called "The Truth about Iraqi Freedom," I believe.  I THINK it was considered meaningful dialogue supporting the neocons.  However, I felt it was damning.  The only "Truth" the rather strange and creepy neocon lady reporter seemed to come up with was that the soldiers handed out candy and softballs.  The other guest was a former soldier in Iraq who, if only given time, was making some excellent statements regarding the real truth of the war.  The whole segment was rushed and, well, kind of weird. As I said, check out the lady reporter - she seemed most disagreeable and offensive.  Or maybe it was just my take on it!!!!