Books by Greg:

Comics by Greg:

Media by Greg:

Email the webmaster

News Feed

Blog Feed

Well, Duh.

I’d actually been thinking about posting on this point for the past couple of days; that the increase in US military action on the Pakistan border was, it seemed to me, a transparent attempt by the Bush Administration to score a “big win” in the “GWOT” and thus boost McCain.

And now I see that, according to NPR that is exactly what they’re doing.

Which begs the obvious question of why they didn’t go after him sooner. But we know the answer to that, don’t we?

17 Responses to Well, Duh.

  1. lithera

    There are some days where I just want to start yelling throwing things.

    And then I take in a deep breath, let it out slowly and the urge subsides. Mostly. And then I go to rallies and volunteer and donate and sometimes feel better.

    Grrrrr.

  2. electricvinyl

    Sigh… :(

    Things like this make me feel sick to my stomach…

  3. kozemp

    Not that I am a fan of our colobus monkey of a President, but isn’t trying to kill Bin Laden a good thing?

    Admittedly the timing is less than desirable.

  4. admin

    Saying, well, shouldn’t we try to kill this guy is kinda like asking if I’ve stopped beating my wife — that’s not the point, and it’s mistaken question. Are you asking if I think stopping the fomenting of hatred and Islamofascism is a good thing? Absolutely.

    But that’s hardly the point. It’s 7 years since Bush the Lesser declared we would hunt down and kill these people. Since the initial operation in Afghanistan, there has been no public display of a devoted pursuit of bin Laden, even though it has been widely reported that he’s hiding in the NWFP, and has been since Tora Bora. There’s some debate about the quality of intelligence surrounding his whereabouts.

    But I find it grotesque beyond words that a party that bills itself as the True Defenders of This Country and that has actively campaigned on fear and claims of protecting us has found the search for bin Laden to be not worth their time…until they’re in danger of losing the White House. That kind of naked opportunism turns my stomach, frankly, and coming from these bastards who wrap themselves in the flag and are running, yet again, on 9/11, the hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.

  5. kozemp

    Hey, I’m on your side.

  6. admin

    Oh, no, I know that. I just wanted to clarify, and as I did, found myself getting all cranked again.

    My apologies — really didn’t mean to sound like I was coming down on you at all, man.

  7. admin

    Just re-read what I wrote again, and, wow, I came off as a total ass, didn’t I?

    Again, my apologies.

  8. kozemp

    Nah, I pretty much agree with you.

    That said, I accept apologies in the form of cash or Best Buy gift cards.

  9. thatnickguy

    Ooh, I know! I know!

    Because there’s no oil to drill out of Osama?

  10. cpxbrex

    Makes me wonder what the actual October Surprise is gonna be. ;)

  11. jonlaw

    Not to get all technical, but I heard that report on NPR, and the “evidence” presented that the increase in efforts were tied to the election was not based on anything other than quoted speculation. I don’t defend the administration on the overall performance on . . . well, pretty much everything. However, I can’t stand conviction by innuendo. I don’t like it being done to those I support, and I can’t abide it on those I dislike. It is reasonable to raise the question, but there is no direct evidence that what is being done is for purely or even largely polical reasons.

    Could it be? Yes. I don’t fault NPR for reporting that there were individuals to whom they spoke who voiced concern that the increase in activity was based on political motives. I do fault NPR for leading with the political motives being “fact.” They open with “The plan is part of an effort to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders by the time the president leaves office.” But that is nowhere supported as “fact” anywhere in the story! That is speculation by someone or several someones to whom they spoke. And, given that they have no one saying that on tape, no one as an identified source, and not even a general description of these folks making the accusation, it is really a worthless piece of information, because there is no way to evaluate the bias, intent, knowledge, credentials, background, veracity, accuracy of the so called “sources.”

    I could print an article that said “Sources contacted in the course of this investigation indicated that Greg Rucka was an #$#$!##, a #$$%(@&^) and further that he once #^&@%* his dog.” What news have I really reported. Have I established that Greg ever did anything to his dog, letalone put forward a single fact that really tells you anything?

    In my opinion, no, the reporting is just about without value. I’m not mad at NPR specific. Just disgusted with journalism in general, even as regards NPR, where the standards are so low, the accuracy so questionable and reporting so spotty, and reporters so poorly supervised that I really can’t extend much trust to anyone claiming to be a journalist anymore.

    I want to see what the FACTS that are being reported, and then I am really questioning whether I am even being given those accurately.

    Again, not to absolve the administration, but, the facts in the story could similarly support a story that said “Increased efforts spurred by new intelligence.”

  12. morchades

    Another movie from Bin Laden Pictures?

    They’ll fake Palin’s son’s death to crank up the sympathy vote?

  13. morchades

    No wait… Iran. The October surprise will involve Iran.

  14. cpxbrex

    I might say that an Iranian October Surprise would be a repeat of Reagan’s in ’80, but since pretty much everything McCain has been doing is a repeat of Reagan I think that’s a good guess. ;)

  15. cpxbrex

    It’s not innuendo in the sense that the Bush administration has, for the past seven years, used “military intelligence” as a way of deflecting legitimate criticism to take responsibility for their failures. The Bush administration has cherry-picked and outright lied about so many things relating to intelligence – like the “intelligence” about “weapons of mass destruction” and uranium in Niger to name just a two of the biggies – that when a government official uses “new intelligence” to create increased efforts (and those efforts are efforts most Americans think should have been made five or six years ago) – no, I don’t think it’s innuendo to attribute it to political maneuvering. I think that’s a fairly reasonable estimate of the administration’s behavior based on past evidence. These guys lie about “intelligence” all the time for political purposes, after all. They do it all the time. Attributing political motives in this simply follows a well established pattern of behavior for the Bush administration, I think.

  16. jonlaw

    I did not say it is not a fair inference, but you are missing the point. The press can’t report speculation as fact. They can’t report fair inference as fact. If they want to interview a person who wants to present your reasons as a basis for the fair inference that you have made (hell, they can interview you) and present it as the informed OPINION of someone identifiable. That is fine.

    But NPR has reported on neither facts nor identifiable opinions, and they do not get a pass, just because I agree with their conclusions. When we start making leaps across chasms of facts just because we like where the speculation or inference is taking us, then we are as lost as the supporters of the administration. Informed speculation, reasoned inference, are tools, no more to focus our search for facts, for truth. For me, they are not sufficient in and of themselves.

    And no news organization should ever present anything but fact as fact, no matter how likely the informed speculation is to turn out to be fact. It is not good enough. It will NEVER be good enough, and we all need to demand more.

  17. gobama

    Islamofascism? Really? Oh wait..its Greg Rucka we’re talking about! ofcourse he uses that term..

Leave a Reply