« brief lawblogging interlude | Main | You cannot live on other people’s promises, but if you promise others enough, you can live on your own.* »

December 08, 2003

Comments


The interesting thing is, the first half of it was pretty good. Up to the "FOR WHAT?" slide.

After that, yes, I agree.


Doug M.

I watched the first five seconds of it, before I got to the lie; maybe I'll go back and watch the rest of it now that you linked to it. I'm sure I'll agree with your judgment, but I probably won't get as angry, since K's a public joke and he's just doing this stuff to get a date.

The Bush team does enough stupid shit every week to fill reams of solidly researched diatribes. I'd like to lose the novelty candidates for Christmas. And yes, there would still be at least four left.

Watched it. Argh. Thanks a lot, Moe.

I don't know specifically, Moe, what you're referring to in the ad, but personally I think it's a little off, using the names of the recently dead for something like that.

I got as far as KRB, and then I went off to be ill.

Jesus, Moe and Moe's fellow Americans. You all are nuts. This is considered some kind of acceptable public discourse from a Presidential candidate in your country? Stop being nuts, please.

Thank you.

PS -- Oh, and I love the bit about Bush banning photography of the dead. I certainly have seen no footage of the funerals, the caskets, the wounded in the hospital, etc. Gosh, there wasn't even any footage IN THE F'ING AD. /sarcasm
What a loon.


Actually, there have been some restrictions on photographing or filming the war dead. Most notably, no photographs, TV cameras or videos are allowed of their arrival, or of the families coming to pick up the bodies. Since arrival and pickup take place at military bases, the government can make this stick.

Make perfect sense from their POV. This administration is full of people who were young during Vietnam, and who remember the grisly images of coffin after coffin being unloaded from military cargo planes, live on national TV night after night.

You can't stop people from taking pictures at the funerals, of course, which is presumably where these images come from. But that has a bit less impact.

Separate issue, sure. Which is one reason this sort of thing is so annoying. Hysterical and stupid accusations are a big distraction from the real and sometimes quite disturbing things that the government actually is doing.


Doug M.


In other news, Wings has risen to fifth place in the Wizbang poll, and is just a handful of votes away from fourth or third. It's shaping up as a very tight race for Place and Show. (The perky Canadians, alas, seem to be pulling away from the pack for Win.)

http://wizbangblog.com/poll

(Yes, I know. I'd put it in an open thread, if there was one. We now return you to your previously scheduled comments.)


Doug M.

Hysterical and stupid accusations are a big distraction from the real and sometimes quite disturbing things that the government actually is doing.

Amen, brother.

I haven't seen the ad in question, but the fact that Kucinich's camp produced it is enough to convince me it's garbage.

We Dems have wasted too much time dealing with loons like Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Brown. It's time for them to leave and get to the serious work of electing a Democratic president in 2004. They're an embarrassing distraction.

"monsterous"?

Sorry, it was a slow weekend. That's all I have to contribute.

Starting out Monday without my reading skills, too. Maybe too many PGGBs over the weekend. That's my story, at least.

Why don't the Dems ride this loser out of the party like the Republicans did Buchanan? That add is worse than LBJ's against Goldwater (the one with the little girl picking the flower).

Well, if it's any comfort I don't think he has the money or the audacity to show it on TV. I've not seen it, because I have a wonky dialup connection that plug-ins break, but from the descriptions it uses photos and names of dead soldiers. I think that's beyond inappropriate in a political ad.

Kucinich drives me crazy. I'm pretty liberal; I loved Wellstone, & I admire Feingold, Kennedy, and all the other usual suspects even though they're to the left of me. I've wanted him out of the race since he got in it. It's past time for Sharpton and Mosely Braun to step aside too--though Mosely Braun has done a good job in the debates making the case for a more reasonable liberalism in a way that's 1000X more appealing than Dennis the Menace. For that matter, I don't know what Lieberman and Kerry are hoping to accomplish at this point. (Edwards I could see finding a niche if both Dean and Clark stumble, and Gephardt has an excellent shot at Iowa.)

For the lighter side of Kucinich's wackiness, check out these e-cards:

http://resources.kucinich.us/card/gallerybrowser.php?cat_id=7

The Ad is junk, no one should be shocked and horrified by this.

The only reason Kucinich is recognized by the DNC is because the Dems can't kick Kucinich out without also kicking Sharpton, and Mosely-Brown out. That would not be a problem if the primary season had not been trunkated. You end with a series of debates which are more similar to "reality TV" than a political contest.

It also creates great photo ops for the general election.

Hmm. Okay, I'm just curious. As mentioned earlier, there are restrictions on the photographing of the returning dead. Not sure if that constitutes a ban, but I'm assuming this is the 'it starts with a lie' part of it. Okay. Then we have some casualty numbers. I'm assuming none of these are in dispute. Then there's the For What? section which is obviously subjective, obviously obvious, and pretty much off the rails. (Tho' naturally every one of the mentioned outfits has benefited in the aftermath.) Then we get the 'In the 5 Days it took to create this ad' device, which is always effective (usually used in anti-smoking, anti-gun, anti-choice ads), and again, I'm assuming the numbers are accurate.

Look, Moe, the ad is close enough to vile for me, and just as close to exploitation. So we agree. It also takes the deaths of young Americans and shoves them in our collective faces. That, I suspect, is the source of your anger, not a debate over the meaning of the word 'ban', or the feeling that Haliburton is being unfairly maligned. And I'm not so sure it's a bad thing to be reminded of the war's ultimate cost now and again. Tho' I could do with about the bad music. And I could do without Kucinich's overheated approach to same.

"It also takes the deaths of young Americans and shoves them in our collective faces. That, I suspect, is the source of your anger, not a debate over the meaning of the word 'ban', or the feeling that Haliburton is being unfairly maligned."

I am sorry to tell you that you are incorrect in both your suspicion and in your interpretation of my comments.

Sez you. (Pause to re-read comments.) Okay. You're pissed becuz he's using dead kids to pimp his Prez prospects (this is debatable, by the way, but if true, yes, despicable) and you're outraged that he's equating Multi-nationals with Satan. More or less.

Becuz: There are only two sentences in the entire post that deal directly with the ad. I counted. The rest is anger and emotion, most of which I agree with. But I'm not sure there's all that much substance to misinterpret.*

*An honest opinion rendered without the High Hat.

Crappy ad. Loony left. Dare I say, "unpatriotic" left?

Parsin' by Harley -- not convincing.

Is that a haiku?

Is Harley actually a persona constructed by Navy Davy. Or vice versa.

Signed,

Confus-ed.

Is Harley actually a persona constructed by Navy Davy? Or vice versa?

Signed,

Confus-ed.

That explains a lot, actually.

Nah, this ain't no Matrix deal -- I'm a real, live, flesh & blood, GOP votin' fool.

As for Harley, he's stuck in a McGovern-esque time warp.

As mentioned earlier, there are restrictions on the photographing of the returning dead. Not sure if that constitutes a ban, but I'm assuming this is the 'it starts with a lie' part of it.

Might want to find out when those restrictions date from, Harley.

(I found it interesting, for purely pedantic reasons, that among the desriptors "Americans," "Italians" and "Spaniards," they used "British" rather than "Britons." Anyway.)

I used to live in Kucinich's district, and always found him a well-meaning and responsive representative. He did a great job embarrassing Mayor Mike White on the hospitals issue. I wish I could pinpoint the exact moment that he went off the rails.

"Sez you. (Pause to re-read comments.) Okay. You're pissed becuz he's using dead kids to pimp his Prez prospects (this is debatable, by the way, but if true, yes, despicable) and you're outraged that he's equating Multi-nationals with Satan. More or less."

Close enough. This was one of those 'howl of pure outrage' posts, after all: there's a time for reasoned discussion of a policy position, and there's a time for a simple "Go to Hell". This was a time for the latter.

And I do recognize that you aren't attempting to defend the ad's message, so neither the howl nor the suggestion for travel destination is directed towards you.

Re howling, Moe, how does this make you feel?

Not deserving of a howl of pure outrage, but a howl of grief: the accidental killing of nine Afghani children.

"Re howling, Moe, how does this make you feel?"

I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with the ad?

I don't endorse the ad - I have a complicated reaction to it which I won't bore the blog with - but it's not as big a danger to our national interests (so it seems to me) as war profiteering of the sort cited above. I happen to believe in "Let the dead bury their dead" (assuming I understand what the man meant) - though I respect your right to feel otherwise - and I'm afraid of what may happen if we screw up Iraq.

Interesting... according to the person who put the animation together, some Dean people (not clear on who or how official they are) wanted it, too:

The day after I posted my announcement of my vacation, I was contacted by the Kucinich campaign, asking if they could use my "Mission Accomplished" animation as a feature in one of their daily mailings...the Dean camp is angrilly asking why I didn't give my work to Dean.

"I don't endorse the ad - I have a complicated reaction to it which I won't bore the blog with - but it's not as big a danger to our national interests (so it seems to me) as war profiteering of the sort cited above."

Ah. Well, in that case you can be assured that I deplore all forms of malfeasance, whether individual or corporate.

And the deaths of children are always tragedies.

Moe: I wholeheartedly support the concept of the simple Go to Hell. I was talking to my lawyer about a ridiculous demand that was being made by the other side in a negotiation recently*, and he said, "Well, it sounds like a tough shit problem to me." I asked him what he meant. He said he was going to call them up and say 'tough shit.' And, bless him, he did.


*I don't know if Dante has a circle of hell for Italian lawyers, but he should.

K's a loon, but Moe, I'm not sure I understand your outrage.

In particular, you've set some tight guidelines for commentary about this, so it makes it hard to offer feedback without simply echoing how shameless it is or risking offending people by discussing it objectively.

Using the soldiers deaths so shamelessly should be off limits and is unquestionably tasteless. It reminds me of the posters of aborted foetuses pro-life supporters carry in its subtlety.

But there's something visceral about your response Moe that I don't quite get. The line in the sand you mention. Can you elaborate on that?

Here is what offended me. (And, please recall, I have no dog in this fight.) What the ad is saying (not implying, saying) is that Bush (and, by implication, anyone who supported the war) has intentially killed those people just to give money to corporations. And that now Bush (and co.) are now somehow trying to lie and cover up the number of the dead.

This is fine for Democratic Underground/IndyMedia conspiracy ranting. This is just not civil discourse for grown-ups. Ascribing these venal disgusting motives to the opposition, when everyone knows they are not true, is not nice. Even if you think that the war was fought just for PNAC jollies and Saddam was not a threat, you have to admit that the intention behind PNAC is more benevolent than raisng Haliburton stock.

And here is an interesting perspective on the whole "photographing deplaning of dead soldiers: http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/004129.php
I am not military, so this may be pure BS, but, in conjunction with the fact that funerals, hospitals, soldiers names, etc., are not forbidden material, it just does not stike me as a very effective way to hide the casualties. (Which is what woss-name is saying in the ad.)

Anyway, Moe may have been offended for a totally different reason. This one is mine.

angua, I think the ad-maker would say that Bush&Co pursued policies sure to lead to those deaths, that they went to war for unworthy reasons, and that they have been downplaying the casualties and refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation for political reasons. I don't think we went to war for Bechtel/Halliburton/oil - but it seems possible that without those interests events would have played out differently - e.g., we might have invaded in a way that I probably would have opposed but not considered stupid.

Re the photographs of arriving "transport tubes", I think you underestimate the impact of Vietnam-like images.

And Angua hits it right on the nose.

Moe, hoping that you're not actually in a mood to kill ;-) but here's my thinking about the ad.

It is a fact that there are people on the pro-war side (people slightly saner than Ann Coulter, who refers to the hundreds dead and thousands maimed as "some soldier might get his hair mussed") who want to minimize the American casualties in Iraq (and ignore the Iraqi civilian and military casualties). And banning news cameras from taking pictures of bodybags returning is a part of this.

It is a fact that Bush & Co are treating the reconstruction of Iraq as one huge profit bonanza for the winners. I saw a news item today that said that Bush has officially made it policy that the only companies that can bid on reconstruction contracts are those based in countries that were part of the "coalition of the willing".

Agree/disagree with the first? I don't know. I don't like it, exactly, but then I don't like the way this ad plays on the deaths of these soldiers either. The one group is trying to push the deaths of these soldiers out of sight for political purposes: the other is trying to use them for political purposes. I don't think either one is particularly admirable.

The second? Is wrong. Is wrong all ways up. Reconstructing Iraq is necessary if the invasion is to have any positive outcome. Treating it as an opportunity to channel billions into the coffers of Halliburton, MCI Worldcom, or any other non-Iraqi company is wrong morally, wrong practically, wrong any way you like to slice it. Wrong and stupid and wrong.

I can see why this ad makes you mad. I don't even disagree with the issues you have with it. I don't agree with the direct message - that the war was fought in order to make these companies rich.

But someone needs to be up there saying that these companies are being made rich out of the invasion of Iraq, and that this is wrong. That allowing non-Iraqi companies to get the reconstruction contracts for Iraq is the exact reverse of what good policy ought to dictate - and it makes no difference whether they're US companies, companies from the so-called "coalition of the willing", or companies from countries that refused to support the illegal invasion of Iraq. None at all. Reconstruction contracts ought to be going to Iraqi companies. The object of reconstruction ought to be both to rebuild what GWI and GWII destroyed, and to stimulate the Iraqi economy. That Bush & Co appear to see the profit bonanza for Halliburton et al as a useful side-effect, a opportunity to reward supporters, shows the short-sightedness of their thinking and exactly why they ought to be out the door in 2004.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad