NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, Bush is full of lies, and Reid and Pelosi are full of fail, if we believe the polls of the American people. Yet they still have confidence in the military...

First, a link to the nature of the institution that is behind the following news story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

The Brookings Institution is a United States nonprofit public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C..

Brookings, traditionally considered liberal,[1] is devoted to public service through research and education in the social sciences, particularly in economics, government, and foreign policy.[2] Its stated principal purpose is "to aid in the development of sound public policies and to promote public understanding of issues of national importance."

The organization is currently headed by Strobe Talbott, a former Clinton administration appointee in the U.S. State Department. Carlos Pascual, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, serves as Vice President of Brookings and as the Director of the Foreign Policy Studies program.

So, not a couple of neocons writing this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Will wonders never cease...

1. Irrelevant.
2. All lies.
3. The Brookings Institute is a haven for neocons.
4. They didn't really go to Iraq.

No comments, I see.

I'm waiting for someone to say:

1. Irrelevant.
2. All lies.
3. The Brookings Institute is a haven for neocons.
4. They didn't really go to Iraq.

I can only hope, I was always torn on this issue because neither choice (staying till the bitter...End?, or Packing up and saying "K, thx bi!") seemed like a good or humanitarian idea.

Only solution;

establish fortified bases away from population centers but at the most strategic locations possible. Grant sanctuary to any elected officials in Iraq who ask for it - then hard-close these bases and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves. Once the dust settles we deal with the survivors by either leaving or - if they are a criminal element - kicking as a second time. We lost far fewer soldiers doing that the first time than we have trying to help the poor schmucks put a respectable government together.

No comments, I see.

I'm waiting for someone to say:

1. Irrelevant.
2. All lies.
3. The Brookings Institute is a haven for neocons.
4. They didn't really go to Iraq.

So, two guys go to Iraq. For eight days. And they say "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

And this is supposed to be... what? Your raving endorsement and justification for the war? A declaration of ultimate victory? Supports statements about how Iraq was "liberated" by the invasion? What?

1. Irrelevant.
2. All lies.
3. The Brookings Institute is a haven for neocons.
4. They didn't really go to Iraq.

The time warp makes this post full of win.

And this is supposed to be... what? Your raving endorsement and justification for the war? A declaration of ultimate victory? Supports statements about how Iraq was "liberated" by the invasion? What?

At the very least, it makes Reid look like an uninformed goatse lover.

Reid hasn't even been there, and he's made the declaration that the whole thing is already lost.

Surely, two men who went there for eight days have more credibility than Reid in your eyes...

Brookings Institute is "Liberal"?

From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436

Extra! November/December 1998

Brookings
The Establishment's Think Tank

By Sam Husseini


"I want it implemented…. God damn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it." So railed President Richard Nixon (Abuse of Power, Stanley Kutler) to his aides about papers regarding the Vietnam War that he thought were at the Brookings Institution.

The documents the White House apparently wanted to get hold of allegedly showed that Johnson curtailed the bombing of Vietnam in 1968 to boost the Democrats' election prospects. How things have changed: In the strange world of 25 years ago, stopping a bombing boosted a president's standing, and Brookings could be at serious odds with a Republican administration.

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."

Try again RO.

Try again Ollie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

I said try again, not repeat yourself. :D

EDIT - time warp!!

Frankly anything you support at all instantly loses credibility in my eyes, because of you, and you alone. I've been here an awfully long time now, DK, and you invariably, and unerringly, always end up eating shit in every thread you post to. My guess is that trend won't end today.

Chillax

Brookings Institute is "Liberal"?

From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436

Extra! November/December 1998

Brookings
The Establishment's Think Tank

By Sam Husseini


"I want it implemented…. God damn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it." So railed President Richard Nixon (Abuse of Power, Stanley Kutler) to his aides about papers regarding the Vietnam War that he thought were at the Brookings Institution.

The documents the White House apparently wanted to get hold of allegedly showed that Johnson curtailed the bombing of Vietnam in 1968 to boost the Democrats' election prospects. How things have changed: In the strange world of 25 years ago, stopping a bombing boosted a president's standing, and Brookings could be at serious odds with a Republican administration.

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."

Try again RO.

Try again Ollie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

At the very least, it makes Reid look like an uninformed goatse lover.

Reid hasn't even been there, and he's made the declaration that the whole thing is already lost.

Surely, two men who went there for eight days have more credibility than Reid in your eyes...

Frankly anything you support at all instantly loses credibility in my eyes, because of you, and you alone. I've been here an awfully long time now, DK, and you invariably, and unerringly, always end up eating shit in every thread you post to. My guess is that trend won't end today.

Frankly anything you support at all instantly loses credibility in my eyes, because of you, and you alone. I've been here an awfully long time now, DK, and you invariably, and unerringly, always end up eating shit in every thread you post to. My guess is that trend won't end today.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I recall that a couple of days ago, people said I was full of shit for posting a link to a blog that showed that the New Republic hired a soldier to report on Iraq for them because he was married to a staffer...

And people said the traditional, "RO is full of shit..."

Oh, and that afternoon, the Washington Post quoted Franklin Foer.... the editor in chief of the New Republic...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html

The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."

Oh, the pain.... RO was right, and the people who said he was full of shit about it are so full of fail...

Hmmm. Let's see.

I recall that a couple of days ago, people said I was full of shit for posting a link to a blog that showed that the New Republic hired a soldier to report on Iraq for them because he was married to a staffer...

And people said the traditional, "RO is full of shit..."

Oh, and that afternoon, the Washington Post quoted Franklin Foer.... the editor in chief of the New Republic...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html



Oh, the pain.... RO was right, and the people who said he was full of shit about it are so full of fail...

:confused:

A trivial detail about a person I could give two shits about? What is this supposed to mean to me?

:confused:

A trivial detail about a person I could give two shits about? What is this supposed to mean to me?

I'm frequently made out to be 100% full of fail, and it's mostly not true - people will pick one element of the whole thing, and say the whole post is fail.

Which makes them look stupid, in cases like this, where it turns out to be true.

It's looking more and more like the entire Scott Thomas thing is turning out exactly as I had said, so all of those who think that I am constantly posting 100% fail - well, you have a chance to say you're wrong now.

I'm frequently made out to be 100% full of fail, and it's mostly not true - people will pick one element of the whole thing, and say the whole post is fail.

Which makes them look stupid, in cases like this, where it turns out to be true.

It's looking more and more like the entire Scott Thomas thing is turning out exactly as I had said, so all of those who think that I am constantly posting 100% fail - well, you have a chance to say you're wrong now.

The problem is, if I may use a metaphore, that you take tiny factoids that really have little meaning on their own, and then wrap them in fail paper, pack it in a fail box, and send it to the town of Failsburg, which is on the border of Failingstan and Failberia.

No major battles happening it's mostly just occupation now -

even less so (major battle is a hard term to use for the Iraq war.. though)

Brookings Institute is "Liberal"?

From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436

Extra! November/December 1998

Brookings
The Establishment's Think Tank

By Sam Husseini


"I want it implemented…. God damn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it." So railed President Richard Nixon (Abuse of Power, Stanley Kutler) to his aides about papers regarding the Vietnam War that he thought were at the Brookings Institution.

The documents the White House apparently wanted to get hold of allegedly showed that Johnson curtailed the bombing of Vietnam in 1968 to boost the Democrats' election prospects. How things have changed: In the strange world of 25 years ago, stopping a bombing boosted a president's standing, and Brookings could be at serious odds with a Republican administration.

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."

Try again RO.

FAIR has hardly any credibility when it comes to determining who is where on the political spectrum, as they are extreme-left. They have routinely attacked such perceived bastions of liberalism as National Public Radio and Brookings, as well as the NYTimes and others.

As they describe themselves: "progressive group that believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information." (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100)

Hardly a centrist viewpoint, hardly a liberal viewpoint, either.

They try portray themselves as centrist, by attempting to portray the center as being further to the left than any polling data would lead us to believe.

If anything, the article about Brookings from FAIR that you posted shows exactly how far to the left that FAIR is. Amongst other things, the article is shortsighted, poorly evaluated and entirely biased by the authors opinion of himself and his beliefs.

Where was the interesting bit?

I can only hope, I was always torn on this issue because neither choice (staying till the bitter...End?, or Packing up and saying "K, thx bi!") seemed like a good or humanitarian idea.

I gotta agree.

I'm frequently made out to be 100% full of fail, and it's mostly not true - people will pick one element of the whole thing, and say the whole post is fail.

Which makes them look stupid, in cases like this, where it turns out to be true.

It's looking more and more like the entire Scott Thomas thing is turning out exactly as I had said, so all of those who think that I am constantly posting 100% fail - well, you have a chance to say you're wrong now.

If you're actually interested in a response to this, I'll say I agree that you are sometimes right. I wouldn't say the examples given show you to be right more often than would be expected if you were just saying random things, but it would clearly be inaccurate to say you're guaranteed to be wrong.

However, you very often do try to stretch a point that could be made from a single article so far that the connection between whatever you originally posted and conclusion you made from it is so frail that NO ONE could be expected to maintain it. You'd likely be right a lot more often if you'd simply not try to get more juice from the evidence orange than it has. Much of the juice that people are bothered by includes a rind and part of the branch shoved in the glass while you're busily claiming that OJ is supposed to be crunchy and potentially deadly.

By the way, telll me you didn't laugh at how far I stretched that analogy out of shape. I dare you.

No comments, I see.

I'm waiting for someone to say:

1. Irrelevant.
2. All lies.
3. The Brookings Institute is a haven for neocons.
4. They didn't really go to Iraq.

This is primarily the problem, DK. You post something that may or may not be correct and then bait people with this kind of drivel. And then you complain when people react what they do. This kind of nonsense is not the actions of someone looking for reasonable debate. It's the actions of trying to turn everything into a battle between you and your detractors.

So, not a couple of neocons writing this article.Funny how you focus on the institution and not the authors of the piece.

While the Brookings Institution is probably the most liberal of the major Washington think-tanks (which are bastions of conservatism generally, set up to fund their research after they wash out of real universities), it certainly has its share of neocons.

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack are certainly two of them. When they say they have been critical of Bush's "handling" of the war, they mean they have criticized his strategies, not his policies.

I mean, fuck: Pollack authored The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, one of the greatest pieces of neoconservative ass-wipe paper ever published.

Two extra interesting ones out today -

One saying that corruption in the Iraqi government is stalling any kind of improvement to the average citizen.

The other says that the Iraqi government has utterly failed at least 8 million people in providing sustinence and a shelter over their heads.

At the very least, it makes Reid look like an uninformed goatse lover.

Reid hasn't even been there, and he's made the declaration that the whole thing is already lost.

Surely, two men who went there for eight days have more credibility than Reid in your eyes...

Why would they? So they were there for 8 days. That doesn't make them right anymore than it does you.

Sorry DK, I don't trust any threads by you.

Sorry DK, I don't trust any threads by you.

How come DK and Bruarong haven't hooked up yet?

*ponders*

How come DK and Bruarong haven't hooked up yet?

*ponders*

Lack of marriage counseling.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I recall that a couple of days ago, people said I was full of shit ...

Every time you post. Thats because you are. You're a bullshit artist who contributes nothing. Go way.

Try again Ollie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

Try again Remote Observer.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/media-ohanlon-pollack/

/thread

Frankly anything you support at all instantly loses credibility in my eyes, because of you, and you alone. I've been here an awfully long time now, DK, and you invariably, and unerringly, always end up eating shit in every thread you post to. My guess is that trend won't end today.
Thread winning post and bang on the buck!! :)

Thread winning post and bang on the buck!! :)

This one goes into the tray marked "Defending Beloved Dear Leader" right?

Frankly anything you support at all instantly loses credibility in my eyes, because of you, and you alone. I've been here an awfully long time now, DK, and you invariably, and unerringly, always end up eating shit in every thread you post to. My guess is that trend won't end today.

you realize, that now RO will post a "The Sky is blue and the Pacific Ocean is Wet" thread just to see if you won't support it. :p

This one goes into the tray marked "Defending Beloved Dear Leader" right?
Ummmm that tray is full of Kimchits already!! :D

If you're actually interested in a response to this, I'll say I agree that you are sometimes right. I wouldn't say the examples given show you to be right more often than would be expected if you were just saying random things, but it would clearly be inaccurate to say you're guaranteed to be wrong.

However, you very often do try to stretch a point that could be made from a single article so far that the connection between whatever you originally posted and conclusion you made from it is so frail that NO ONE could be expected to maintain it. You'd likely be right a lot more often if you'd simply not try to get more juice from the evidence orange than it has. Much of the juice that people are bothered by includes a rind and part of the branch shoved in the glass while you're busily claiming that OJ is supposed to be crunchy and potentially deadly.

By the way, telll me you didn't laugh at how far I stretched that analogy out of shape. I dare you.

I'll admit it. I fukkin lol'd.

Brookings Institute is "Liberal"?

From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436

Extra! November/December 1998

Brookings
The Establishment's Think Tank

By Sam Husseini


"I want it implemented…. God damn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it." So railed President Richard Nixon (Abuse of Power, Stanley Kutler) to his aides about papers regarding the Vietnam War that he thought were at the Brookings Institution.

The documents the White House apparently wanted to get hold of allegedly showed that Johnson curtailed the bombing of Vietnam in 1968 to boost the Democrats' election prospects. How things have changed: In the strange world of 25 years ago, stopping a bombing boosted a president's standing, and Brookings could be at serious odds with a Republican administration.

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal."

Try again RO.

An editorial. Try again, Ollieland.

An editorial. Try again, Ollieland.

Puppets? How sad. Man up and make your argument or admit you can't. Don't use puppets to ignore everything else and continue trolling.

It's great to hear good news from Iraq, and there has been a bunch lately. It's especially nice that casualties are at the lowest point this year. I think we can all be happy about that. :)

It's great to hear good news from Iraq, and there has been a bunch lately. It's especially nice that casualties are at the lowest point this year. I think we can all be happy about that. :)

*raises a glass* Every day my friends experience a bit of peace is a good day.

An editorial. Try again, Ollieland.

And wiki is the word of god is it? :rolleyes:

Lack of marriage counseling.

That would explain a lot ... but it's sad that at least DK was willing to see someone through one of the "advice" threads here, and Bruarong steadfastly refused. :(

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2



Will wonders never cease...

Their conclusions:
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

tl;dr version: Iraqi pols still aren't doing their part. We can't sustain the current situation. Let's stay another year.

Funny how you focus on the institution and not the authors of the piece.

While the Brookings Institution is probably the most liberal of the major Washington think-tanks (which are bastions of conservatism generally, set up to fund their research after they wash out of real universities), it certainly has its share of neocons.

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack are certainly two of them. When they say they have been critical of Bush's "handling" of the war, they mean they have criticized his strategies, not his policies.

I mean, fuck: Pollack authored The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, one of the greatest pieces of neoconservative ass-wipe paper ever published.

Indeed, indeed.