Ted Koppel speaks out aganist the War

[Guest Astro]

On Friday, Ted Koppel will do nothing on his "Nightline" broadcast except read the names of soldiers who've died in Iraq.

 

http://www.tvbarn.com/ticker/archives/020496.html

 

Is this the post 9/11 version of Cronkite's "Did our best" anti-Vietnam editorial? Or is it just vapid dead-air?

 

 

Now I want to tell you about this Friday’s broadcast. We’re going to do something different, something that we think is important. Friday night, we will show you the pictures, and Ted will read the names, of the men and women from the armed forces who have been killed in combat in Iraq. That’s it. That will be the whole broadcast. Nightline has been reporting on the casualties under the heading of “Line of Duty.”

 

But we realized that we seemed to just be giving numbers. So many killed in this incident, so many more in that attack. Whether you agree with the war or not, these men and women are serving, are putting their lives on the line, in our names. We think it is important to remember that those who have paid the ultimate price all have faces, and names, and loved ones. We thought about doing this on Memorial Day, but that’s a time when most media outlets do stories about the military, and they are generally lost in the holiday crush of picnics and all. We didn’t want this broadcast to get lost. Honestly, I don’t know if people will watch this for thirty seconds, or ten minutes, or at all. That’s not the point. We think this is important. These men and women have earned nothing less.

 

One point, we are not going to include those killed in non-hostile incidents. There’s no disrespect meant here, we just don’t have enough time in this one broadcast. But they are no less deserving of our thoughts. I hope that you will join us for at least part of “The Fallen” on Friday.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------

 

Sorry if this is "fluff",but it seemed like it could spark some intellegent conversation

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Where exactly is Koppel speaking out against the War? Unless I'm blind.

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't know if this is supposedly "against the war" but it certainly isn't in support of it. I don't want to say this is a rating stunt BUT Nightline has been sagging for a very long time which probably has something to do with the producers green lighting this.

[Guest Astro]

Well Listing off the dead isn't exactly a glowing endorsement

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Well Listing off the dead isn't exactly a glowing endorsement

But how is it against the war?

 

Paying respects, sure. Although, I agree - nothing but a publicity stunt. Nightline hasn't been interesting in some time.

[Guest MikeSC]

On Friday, Ted Koppel will do nothing on his "Nightline" broadcast except read the names of soldiers who've died in Iraq.

 

http://www.tvbarn.com/ticker/archives/020496.html

 

Is this the post 9/11 version of Cronkite's "Did our best" anti-Vietnam editorial? Or is it just vapid dead-air?

 

 

Now I want to tell you about this Friday’s broadcast. We’re going to do something different, something that we think is important. Friday night, we will show you the pictures, and Ted will read the names, of the men and women from the armed forces who have been killed in combat in Iraq. That’s it. That will be the whole broadcast. Nightline has been reporting on the casualties under the heading of “Line of Duty.”

 

But we realized that we seemed to just be giving numbers. So many killed in this incident, so many more in that attack. Whether you agree with the war or not, these men and women are serving, are putting their lives on the line, in our names. We think it is important to remember that those who have paid the ultimate price all have faces, and names, and loved ones. We thought about doing this on Memorial Day, but that’s a time when most media outlets do stories about the military, and they are generally lost in the holiday crush of picnics and all. We didn’t want this broadcast to get lost. Honestly, I don’t know if people will watch this for thirty seconds, or ten minutes, or at all. That’s not the point. We think this is important. These men and women have earned nothing less.

 

One point, we are not going to include those killed in non-hostile incidents. There’s no disrespect meant here, we just don’t have enough time in this one broadcast. But they are no less deserving of our thoughts. I hope that you will join us for at least part of “The Fallen” on Friday.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------

 

Sorry if this is "fluff",but it seemed like it could spark some intellegent conversation

Thank God I never watch Ted Koppel.

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

Where exactly is Koppel speaking out against the War? Unless I'm blind.

He said the write words there. Let's see what happens Friday.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Ehh... well, I do think that we shouldn't be hiding from the cost of the war, which we have deemed is worth what we are fighting for. Too many people are too desensetized to what war really means.. But i dont think Koppel should be doing this on air, he is not in the position right now to be doing it. I'll wait till I see how it's handled though, before saying anything definitive (since I know everybody is breathless with anticipation to see what I think )

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Thank God I never watch Ted Koppel.

You're not the only one.

 

Well, it Ted Koppel is so-called against the war then I must be, too.

 

Good think Koppel didn't pull this stunt during WWII -- he'd still be reading the list...

[Guest hunger4unger]

WWII was justified. Iraq war wasn't. The American government were keen not to allow pictures of the coffins of fallen US soldiers to appear in the media. The American public have a right to know just how many soldiers have been killed because Bush wanted some oil.

[Guest Goodear]

When exactly do we get our oil anyway? Because I'm still paying $1.78 a gallon for regular and I really want the conspiracy for oil to work.

[Guest BDC]

WWII was justified. Iraq war wasn't. The American government were keen not to allow pictures of the coffins of fallen US soldiers to appear in the media. The American public have a right to know just how many soldiers have been killed because Bush wanted some oil.

You keep repeating this, yet never back it up. Makes me think of the Princess Bride, really.

 

"You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Here's something that just crossed my mind -- will there be ads run during this broadcast? If so, will the money go to the families of those dead, or will Koppel and his employers make a quick blood that has been washed with the blood of our brave men and women in Iraq?

 

Oh, yeah. I voted for Bush in '00 -- Hey SHRUB (lol2004), I want my gallon o' free oil owed to me, too...

[Ripper 0]

I think that Koppel is just pulling a Andy Kaufman. Years from now people will appreciate the comedic genius that this is. If he bust out a quick "HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY~!" to keep hype the audience up and goes back to reading names it will be a little to apparent though.

 

Either way, that is going to be some boring television.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

As opposed to the usual, riveting, episodes of "Nightline"?...

[Ripper 0]

As opposed to the usual, riveting, episodes of "Nightline"?...

You haven't watched it lately.

 

A girl randomly runs by the screen and flashes a tit every 10-15 minutes and Koppel is involved in a fight club and he brings back hidden footage every week. Old mans got a right. They were having the hardcore sex segment, but people kept looking at the camera and screaming "KOPPEL RULEZ~! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" during the scenes so they had to pull the plug because it lack journalistic integrity.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

As opposed to the usual, riveting, episodes of "Nightline"?...

You haven't watched it lately.

 

A girl randomly runs by the screen and flashes a tit every 10-15 minutes

Big deal. I can get that watching the Super Bowl halftime show.

 

and Koppel is involved in a fight club and he brings back hidden footage every week.  Old mans got a right.

 

And how many years has COPS been showing white/ghetto trash doing this? Next.

 

They were having the hardcore sex segment, but people kept looking at the camera and screaming "KOPPEL RULEZ~! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" during the scenes so they had to pull the plug because it lack journalistic integrity.

 

I have so many downloaded clips burned onto CD-Rs that Koppels' list will be over long before mine finishes.

 

Like LT said (paraphrasing) to that Jets QB in that NFL Films video: "Son, you gotta do better than this." Of course he also said "Give me some crack now Honkey" but the liberal sports media edited that out...

[Ripper 0]

Big deal. I can get that watching the Super Bowl halftime show.

 

Can you see Koppel grab the tit and shake it in the screen and say "Now thats a Titty~!" at the superbowl halftime show? Well can you? CAN YOU?

 

 

And how many years has COPS been showing white/ghetto trash doing this? Next.

 

You haven't seen a fight until you have seen Ted "K.O." Koppel give Jimmy the bartender or Julio the waiter a uppercut.

 

 

have so many downloaded clips burned onto CD-Rs that Koppels' list will be over long before mine finishes.

 

Hey, Koppel produces great amatuer porn for you and you complain?

 

You know what I think this is? I think you are hating on Ted Koppel because he is WHITE.

 

you RACIST~!

 

 

 

Ripper- Koppel shall overcome someday.

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

Here's something that just crossed my mind -- will there be ads run during this broadcast? If so, will the money go to the families of those dead, or will Koppel and his employers make a quick blood that has been washed with the blood of our brave men and women in Iraq?

 

Oh, yeah. I voted for Bush in '00 -- Hey SHRUB (lol2004), I want my gallon o' free oil owed to me, too...

Nightline is commercial free if I remember correctly

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Fact: The US Economy is much less energy dependent than it was in the 50s/60s/70s

Fact: Greenspan doesn't think these high oil prices will have the effect naysayers have been talking about.

Fact: We didn't go to war with Iraq for oil.

Fact: Military guidelines suggest that an occupying for needs 1 troop for every 10 occupied civilians

Fact: 130,000 troops are right now occupying a country of 23,000,000

Fact: Most everyone in Iraq IS NOT FIGHTING THE US!

 

Koppel disgusts me. I can't HELP but think someone's trying to get political gain out of dead people. For Christ's sake, they're dead. Respect their damn memory, have a moment of silence, an hour of silence. But don't use their deaths as a crutch to prop up campaign that's dying right in front of us.

 

Yes I said it. Kerry's campaign is dying(The candidate who wakes up and has to justify himself from the start of the morning loses), and can't help but think of connecting these two.

 

Ugh.

[Ripper 0]

But...where DID he speak out against the war?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Ok, Popick. Sorry if you can't help but connect Koppel and Kerry's campaign. I think it's an awfully silly thing to do. Those damn K-named bastards, always conspiring...

 

This looks like a well-meaning, if kinda fruitless gesture. Not a lot of people will watch, but the idea is respectable.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok, Popick. Sorry if you can't help but connect Koppel and Kerry's campaign. I think it's an awfully silly thing to do. Those damn K-named bastards, always conspiring...

 

This looks like a well-meaning, if kinda fruitless gesture. Not a lot of people will watch, but the idea is respectable.

Too bad Koppel won't speak out against Sen. Durbin of Illinois. This is, of course, from the Senate floor.

MR. DURBIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PRESIDENT. I THANK THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA FOR YIELDING PART OF HER TIME. MR. PRESIDENT, OVER 35 YEARS AGO JOHN KERRY FACED HIS ENEMIES IN VIETNAM. THERE WERE ENEMIES THERE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN SNIPER FIRE AGAINST JOHN KERRY, TRIED TRYING TO TAKE HIS LIFE AND KILL HIM BECAUSE HE WORE THE UNIFORM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

SADLY, THE VIETNAM SNIPERS ARE STILL TRYING TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO JOHN KERRY. THE NEW VIETNAM SNIPERS COME FROM THE BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN: KAREN HUGHES, SADLY, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OTHER CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES WHO ARE NOW ATTACKING JOHN KERRY BECAUSE HE SERVED OUR COUNTRY, HE WORE THE UNIFORM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HE VOLUNTEERED AND PUT HIS LIFE ON THE LINE IN VIETNAM.

 

THIS SHAMELESS EXERCISE BY THE BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN MUST BE CALLED FOR WHAT IT IS. MANY OF US DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY, EVEN THOSE OF US IN THE VIETNAM ERA. WE DID NOT VOLUNTEER FOR SERVICE AS JOHN KERRY DID. WE DIDN'T WEAR THE UNIFORM OF OUR COUNTRY PROUDLY, AS HE DID. WE DID NOT RISK OUR LIVES. INCLUDED IN THIS GROUP IS VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY, WHO USED HIS DEFERMENTS TO AVOID MILITARY SERVICE, AS HE WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO. AND YET WE HEAR NOW VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY LEADING THE ATTACK AGAINST JOHN KERRY, A MAN WHO VOLUNTEERED, RISKED HIS LIFE, AND RECEIVED AWARDS FROM THIS COUNTRY FOR HIS HEROISM.

 

THE BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN. THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK MACHINE ON JOHN KERRY HAS, FRANKLY, CRITICIZED HIM FOR HIS TOUR OF DUTY IN VIETNAM, TWO TOURS OF DUTY IN VIETNAM. APPARENTLY, THAT WASN'T ENOUGH. THE FACT THAT JOHN KERRY EARNED A SILVER STAR, A BRONZE STAR, AND THREE PURPLE HEARTS WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THESE BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES WHO NEVER MISS A CHANCE TO ATTACK JOHN KERRY FOR HIS MILITARY RECORD. THANK GOODNESS SENATORS OF THE STATURE OF JOHN McCAIN HAVE STOOD UP TO DEFEND HIS FELLOW VIETNAM VETERAN, JOHN KERRY. THEY HAVE SAID THAT JOHN'S SERVICE IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL. HE RISKED HIS LIFE FOR AMERICA.

 

NOW, I'VE MET MEN WHO WERE IN HIS CREW, THOSE WHO TRAVEL WITH HIM IN HIS CAMPAIGN, HIS SO-CALLED BAND OF BROTHERS. THEY'RE IN THEIR LATE 50'S AND EARLY 60'S AND THEY GIVE UP WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS JOIN JOHN McCAIN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. THEY TELL THE STORY. THEY TELL THE STORY OF A YOUNG NAVY LIEUTENANT VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE THIS COUNTRY, LITERALLY RISKES HIS LIFE FOR THOSE AND HIS CREW OF THE AND THEY JOIN HIM ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL SAYING THEY'RE PREPARED TO FOLLOW HIM INTO BATTLE AGAIN.

 

BUT LISTEN TO WHAT'S DMG FROM THE OTHER SIDE-- BUT LISTEN TO WHAT'S COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE. TO THINK OF IT. TO THINK THAT THOSE WHO DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY ARE NOW CRITICIZING JOHN KERRY FOR HIS WAR RECORD IS REPREHENSIBLE. IT'S TIME TO PUT THE CARDS ON THE TABLE. JOHN KERRY NOT ONLY HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHEN IT COMES TO HIS MILITARY RECORD; HE CAN BE VERY PROUD OF IT. AND FOR THOSE WHO SAY THAT WHEN HE CAME BACK AFTER THE WAR AND WAS CRITICAL OF OUR VIETNAM POLICY THAT SOMEHOW THAT WAS WRONG, ONCE AGAIN, LISTEN TO SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, A MAN WHO NOT ONLY SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES NATIVE AS WELL BUT-- --IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY AS WELL BUT WAS A PRISONER OF WAR. JOHN McCAIN HAS COME FORWARD AND SAID THAT JOHN KERRY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS AFTER THE WAR ABOUT HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

 

AND SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WE FACE TODAY IS AN INCREDIBLE THING. THAT THE BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN IS GOING TO ATTACK A DECORATED VIETNAM WAR VETERAN, RAISE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS DESERVING OF A PURPLE HEART, HOW COULD THEY STIEWP SO LOW?

 

HOW COULD THEY DO THIS WHEN SO MANY HE OTHER MEN AND WOMEN WHO OAVE SERVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY, W HAVE BEEN WOUNDED IN BATTLE, WHO HAVE RECEIVED PURPLE HEARTS, HAVE GIVEN ALL THAT WE WOULD EVER ASK OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AND MAO TO DISEXAIRJ JOHN KERRY AND SAY THAT PERHAPS HE DOESN'T DESERVE ALL OF THE RECOGNITION HE'S BEEN GIVEN FOR HIS SERVICE IN VIETNAM IS ABOUT AS LOW AS IT GETS. I'VE LISTENED TO THESE COMMENTS. I'M PARTICULARLY DISTURBED THAT VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY HAS BEEN THE AUTHOR OF SO MANY OF THESE COMMENTS AS WELL. YESTERDAY HE WAS IN THE MIDWEST AT WESTMINSTER COLLEGE IN FULTON, MISSOURI. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO GIVE A SPEECH ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: TIME OF THE SENATOR HAS EXPIRED.

 

MR. REID: I YIELD ONE MINUTE FROM SENATOR LEAHY'S TIME TO THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.

 

MR. DURBIN: VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY WAS SUPPOSED TO SPEAK AT WESTMINSTER COLLEGE ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY, ISSUES IN IRAQ. INSTEAD HE WENT ON THE ATTACK, THE ATTACK ON JOHN KERRY AND HIS PATRIOTISM IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA. IT WAS SUCH AN EMBARRASSING MOMENT THAT WHEN HE LEFT, FLETCHER LAMPKIN E-MAILED THE STUDENTS, STAFF, AND FACULTY BASICALLY APOLOGIZING FOR WHAT VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY HAD SAID AT WESTMINSTER COLLEGE. VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER. HE SHOULD KNOW THAT JOHN KERRY SERVED OUR COUNTRY AND SERVED IT WELL AND WITH

 

DISTINCTION AND HONOR. WHILE VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY, JOHN KERRY DID. IT IS TIME TO END THIS SHAMEFUL BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN TAIK TACTIC

 

AND TO RECOGNIZE THE OBVIOUS: JOHN KERRY LED PEOPLE INTO BATTLE. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

 

Yup, CLASSY.

 

BTW, add the NY Observer to the list of liberals who feel that Kerry might be a REAL bad candidate for the Presidency.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Given the slant the media's been on a tear recently with such headlines as

"Retention Rates Drop to Record Lows"

"155 killed! That's the same as the whole war!"

"600 killed"

<Insert pictures of Iraqis who hate us>

 

Yeah okay, so I think there's a slant here. The way the deaths have been portrayed has always been that of a crisis. Polls taken before the war had the average survey response to an American operation in Iraq by the average American for the acceptable number of casualties at 23000!

 

No one ever mentions that yes retentions dropped, but they're at a wartime high and cnn barely posted something about how its way above expectations. We hear nothing about the activities of the vast majority of Iraq that is being peaceful. Sure, they might want their own government and we should give them that, but MOST of them aren't shooting at us.

 

And with the kidnappings, such people are running out of resources. duh.

Do we ever hear about Soldiers successfully defending a position? No. The best publicity the soldiers got was by our recent hero's death in Afganistan. At least that's story has been fairly told.

 

New media outlets today, All of them, CNN to Fox, are out for ratings and the story. Happy stories don't sell ad space, crises, catastrophes, calamitys, THEY sell.

 

And that in turn changes perceptions...falsely changes them.

 

That's why I don't trust Koppell's motives.

[Guest hunger4unger]

When exactly do we get our oil anyway? Because I'm still paying $1.78 a gallon for regular and I really want the conspiracy for oil to work.

The Oil prices won't be lowered. The American companies which have the contracts (and in some cases have ties to actual members of the US government, such as Haliburton/Cheney) will be/are keeping the same prices in order to reap maximum profit.

[KingPK 0]

But wouldn't it work better if prices were LOWER? As far as I've seen, higher gas prices this summer would force people to drive LESS (i.e. find vacation spots closer to home, don't go away at all) and conserve what gas they have. If the oil companies have all this excess oil, wouldn't lowering prices be a smarter buisness decision? You know, supply and demand and all that jazz?

[Guest Cerebus]

A fascinating commentary from the biased, right wing, neo-con controlled Washington Post:

 

On 'Nightline,' a Grim Sweeps Roll Call

 

By Lisa de Moraes

Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page C01

 

ABC News's "Nightline" will devote its entire broadcast on Friday to reading the names of the more than 500 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen who have been killed in action in Iraq.

 

As anchor Ted Koppel reads the names for the entire half-hour, viewers will see photographs of those killed since March 19, 2003, as certified by the Defense Department.

 

In its announcement yesterday, ABC News said the program was its way of paying tribute to the dead. And "Nightline" executive producer Leroy Sievers called it the program's way to "remind our viewers -- whether they agree with the war or not -- that beyond the casualty numbers, these men and women are serving in Iraq in our names, and that those who have been killed have names and faces."

 

That is good to know because otherwise we might be left thinking that Friday's broadcast, which ABC will simulcast on its Jumbotron in New York's Times Square, is a cheap, content-free stunt designed to tug at our heartstrings and bag a big number on the second night of the May ratings race.

 

Koppel, also in the announcement, acknowledged that Memorial Day might have been "the most logical occasion" to do the program. Ya think?

 

"But we felt that the impact would actually be greater on a day when the entire nation is not focused on war dead," he said.

 

Ah yes, and, of course, Memorial Day falls outside the May sweeps, when viewer levels are used by the networks to set advertising rates. Memorial Day is also traditionally a day of very low television viewing. He forgot to mention that stuff.

 

Sievers and others we spoke with at ABC News insisted they did not realize that the May sweeps start tomorrow.

 

Additionally, he told Poynter Online yesterday that the idea came out of a brainstorming session and Koppel was all for it, as was the management of ABC News. Imagine, nobody at ABC News stopped to think that telecasting this thing on the second night of the May sweeps might appear like an unseemly sweeps ratings grab.

 

Who'd have thought that the only people in broadcast TV with no awareness of ratings sweeps periods all work at ABC News? I mean, what are the odds, really?

 

"Honestly, we did not know that's when the sweeps begins," Sievers told The TV Column. "We don't pay a lot of attention to that."

 

He also said he and his colleagues don't expect the "Nightline" telecast "to be a huge ratings hit -- we don't know whether people will watch the whole thing or 20 seconds."

 

"Obviously we want people to watch -- not because of ratings, but if nobody watches, it's a shame. But that's not what we're trying to do," Sievers said. "If somebody watches 20 seconds and says, 'I got it,' that's fine with me."

 

A TV executive producer. Not knowing when May sweeps start. Either they are utterly imcompetant to the point of stupidity or they are lying. Anyone want to guess which? And anyone know if Koeppel read off the name of the 3000 dead on 9/11?

[Guest Astro]

With God on his side, facts are ignored and allies are scorned, making America more vulnerable. This is George Bush’s War, not America’s war.

By Gerald S. Rellick

 

 

We generally assume there is a consensus among Americans that the Vietnam War was a hopelessly misguided venture from the start. We have for the record Robert McNamara’s mea culpa telling us that he and the other driving forces behind the Vietnam war failed to understand the most fundamental dynamic of that conflict--that North Vietnam was not part of a larger monolithic communist effort, but rather, was a divided country engaged in an intense nationalistic fight for unity and independence from colonial rule.

 

But there is another interpretation of what happened in Vietnam. To right wing hawks it was a failure of American will. They saw in Vietnam only defeat and humiliation. They wanted the U.S to expand the war into the North with ground troops, and some even proposed using nuclear weapons. It reflected an incredibly infantile, never-say-die fantasy of macho America. America’s failure in Vietnam, vastly more political than military, was viewed as “a double defeat of the Right,” as the Carnegie Endowment’s Anatol Lieven writes:

 

In Vietnam, unprecedented military defeat coincided with the appearance of a modern culture which traditionalist Americans found alien, immoral and hateful beyond description. As was widely remarked at the time of Newt Gingrich's attempted ‘Republican Revolution’ of the mid-1990s, one way of looking at the hardline Republicans--especially from the Religious Right--is to see them as motivated by a classical nationalist desire for a return to a Golden Age, in their case the pre-Vietnam days of the 1950s.

 

After the Soviet Union fell and America entered what has been called its “unipolar moment,” there emerged in 1992 a remarkable policy document that called for a bold reassertion of America’s military dominance in world affairs. This policy, crafted principally by Paul Wolfowitz and later to become known as “Project for a New American Century,” was quickly rejected by the first president Bush as dangerously reckless. Through eight years of Clinton rule the Neo-cons bided their time and never let the dust settle on their proposal for American hegemony.

 

Then 9/11 altered everything. The enormity of this event on the American psyche cannot be overestimated. The Neo-cons got their Gulf of Tonkin--but this time in spades and without the ambiguity about what had occurred. Just as fear and national humiliation were the raw material for the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich following the German defeat in WWI, so the Bush Neo-cons exploited 9/11 to mobilize support for their long-cherished cause.

 

There were some small details to get out of the way--the Taliban government and the al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan--but the real target, as we now know, was always Iraq.

 

Unlike with an earlier, wiser president Bush, the son, George W., embraced the Neo-con philosophy. More significantly the son’s vision went even beyond the Neo-con domain of geopolitics. For Bush the Neo-cons were thinking small. As he said with conviction in his recent press conference, referring to the war in Iraq, “Freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world…. And, as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to carry out the Lord's mission.”

 

We learn from Bob Woodward’s new book, Plan of Attack, that the Bush decision making process in going to war was hardly a “process” in any normal sense of the word. The CIA was intimidated. Facts were irrelevant. Diplomacy was scorned. Allies were rebuked. Internal debate was stifled. And Colin Powell, the last hope for sanity, surrendered.

 

Remarkably, the younger Bush admitted to Woodward that he never consulted his father. The elder Bush was not just any former president, but one who had gone down the same tricky road with Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and all the Middle East ramifications 12 years earlier--and ironically, with counsel from Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. According to Woodward, Bush said, “He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.” And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to. And so, George W. Bush, a man lacking in analytical acumen, disdainful of “pointy-headed intellectuals,” but always certain of his divine mission, directed that the United States begin the next Christian Crusade.

 

What we see then are two arrogant and reckless worldviews--one growing out of cold war remnants and the wreckage of Vietnam, the other rooted in one man’s Messianic impulse--coalescing with the tragedy of 9/11 to make the “perfect storm,” the nightmare of Iraq that no sane person could ever have envisioned, even after 9/11.

 

Polls tell us half the country still supports Bush’s war in Iraq, despite the evident misrepresentation and deceit, despite the enormous financial cost, despite the turmoil in relations with critical allies, and despite the tragic and senseless loss of precious American lives, now headed for 750.

 

How can this be? Perhaps we should not be surprised. One of the more disturbing statistics to come out of Vietnam was that even at the war’s end, with the American death toll at 58,000, and Vietnamese dead estimated at 2 to 3 million, more than half the country still supported the war--insane as that seems to us now.

 

So who are these people today who support George Bush’s personal war? Their support, as reflected in polls that the White House monitors closely, only embolden Bush on his mission from God. We have a right to ask these people to stand and be known to us. Let them step forward and explain how they can cheer on our troops with a kind of juvenile glee as these young men and women surrender their lives daily in the sinkhole of chaos and death that has become Iraq. Let them send their sons and daughters to fight for Bush’s holy war. Ante up, America. It’s time for some shared sacrifice. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker puts the matter in good perspective:

 

Reading biographical profiles of dead American soldiers, I am struck, always, by their ages--22 or 19 or 24. For most, childhood is all they get; their lives end even as their adulthood begins… Rare are children of those policy-makers who decided this war was necessary. Only one senator--Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)--had a son or daughter in the enlisted ranks. No more than five members of Congress have children in the military…. It is unconscionable that this republic could be so cavalier about duty and sacrifice, sending its poorer sons and daughters off to defend liberty for the rest of us…. It is a peculiar war on terror that requires so little sacrifice from most Americans.

 

The evidence mounts every day that George Bush’s mind is not connected to the realities that the rest of us see and experience every day. As Molly Ivins put it recently, “There are moments of cognitive dissonance in listening to President Bush, when you realize that what he is saying simply does not accord with any known version of reality.” The disconnect, the denial, indeed, the delusions, of Bushworld--so evident in his press conference and his 3½ hour interview with Bob Woodward--force us to view this president as supremely dangerous to American security and global stability, particularly with a Republican controlled congress that refuses to confront their party’s leader.

 

Let there be no mistake: Iraq is George Bush’s war. In contrast, America’s war against international terrorism requires patient, thoughtful and consensus-building leadership. With terrorists able to move easily cross porous international borders, it requires sound intelligence--including the cerebral type--and close cooperation with foreign governments and their intelligence services, something difficult to achieve when Bush-America’s policies and intentions are now so universally distrusted. Add to this the heavy investment of American military resources in Iraq, and it is difficult to imagine that America is safer today than it was a year ago.

[Guest Cerebus]

Thank you for that utterly useless and irrelevant "article." any thoughts on the subject?

[Guest Crazy Dan]

When exactly do we get our oil anyway? Because I'm still paying $1.78 a gallon for regular and I really want the conspiracy for oil to work.

You are only paying 1.78? Damn, where is this? I think I am living in the wrong state. Out here in wacky Cali, we are paying about 2.15, what I paid for today, but I think it did jump to as high as 2.30 for just the cheapest unleaded.

 

As for Ted Koppel, uh, we should care because? I normally watch the big two Cable channels for all my news. But, if Ted Koppel wants to speak out against the war, more power to him. And if I was to watch, I probably agree with many of his points, being that I was never for going to war in Iraq (I am really hopping that we don't get attacked again, it is discovered that going to war took our focus off the real threat). But at the same time, an anti-war TV personality should not come as any big suprise, nor should it really garner headlines. Heck, many personalities on Fox, for example, have been firmly for the war and they use their shows to get out there support. Again, this is not news to me. We have the right to believe what we want. It is just that most don't have TV shows to express their opinions. I know I wouldn't watch a show hosted by me, my public speaking skills suck.