Comments on: A Bodyguard of Lies

By: nameless

nameless — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:35:47 +0000

Sullivan is a contemptible hack and Limbaugh is a vile, hate spewing bigot. Along with Savage and Coulter, they are the lowest of the low. None on the left even closely compares.

By: nameless

nameless — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:35:36 +0000

Sullivan is a contemptible hack and Limbaugh is a vile, hate spewing bigot. Along with Savage and Coulter, they are the lowest of the low. None on the left even closely compare.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:14:57 +0000

Thorley, if making fun of the “White House dog” while showing a photo of Chelsea Clinton doesn’t count as “vicious” to you, then you really and truly have ideological blinders on.

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:26:21 +0000

Ok, I have checked up a little on the numbers, and I think I have found out why the Danish numbers, at least, are so low. According to a guy I study with, who were wounded in Afghanistan while there as part of the Danish troops, many of the Danish troops in Afghanistan is not counted as soldiers in the statistics, as they either are doing “civilian jobs” (mine clearing etc.) or aren’t there (officially). Given that many of the Danish troops there are from the Danish elite divisions, which always have a tendency to keep their current work secret, the last part is hardly surprising. As an example, I can mention that officially no Danish troops were involved in the land part of Desert Storm, even if someone (some SAS soldiers) took pictures of Danish elite soldiers there. I haven’t got a clue if the French work at all in the same way.

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:33:41 +0000

Well, Tom even if those numbers are correct, and I can’t see why the shouldn’t be (even if the Danish numbers are a little low), I can’t see why this should invalid the BBC observation that they are helping a lot in Afghanistan. There are other ways of helping than just by providing troops – for example: French forces provide logistical support to the Afghan theater, transporting coalition troops and equipment with the assistance of French detachments stationed in Uzbekistan, and resupplying U.S. warships and U.S. Navy fighter planes.

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:19:35 +0000

And that said, if someone finds the a more impressive figure, please contact the French Embassy in NY. They have this: Afghanistan: France takes part in ISAF (539 French troops maintain the security of the Kabul airport and its environs). Only the United States, France and the United Kingdom are providing officer training for the new Afghan army. Now, they also mention that they sent troops “to the region” during more active hostilities: After the tragedy of September 11, France supported Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (some 5,500 French soldiers were deployed to the region). France is the only country, alongside the United States, to have sent bombers to Afghanistan, from Kyrgyzstan and the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. French forces provide logistical support to the Afghan theater, transporting coalition troops and equipment with the assistance of French detachments stationed in Uzbekistan, and resupplying U.S. warships and U.S. Navy fighter planes. I stand by whatis reported. OTOH, one might think it would be, somewhere.

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:22:34 +0000

Tom, when I read the article you linked to, I noticed: At a ceremony held in Kabul, the Alliance formally assumed a leadership role in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a UN-mandated force tasked with helping provide security in and around Kabul. I know for sure that Denmark has more than 49 troops in Afghanistan, so my guess would be that France has more than 548 troops as well. Like the US has more than the 100 troops that participate in the ISAF force. There are other places than Kabul that NATO tries to protect.

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:24:16 +0000

Well, as to the point about French and German troops in Afghanistan, we will give some props to the Germans (who are also big in Bosnia, IIRC). The US has about 11,500 troops in Afghanistan under a separate command outside of Kabul; NATO just took over the role of ISAF, leading about 5,500 troops, of whom 548 are French. File that under “BBC Accuracy”, and alert Andrew!

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:49:36 +0000

Isn’t NATO basically running the campaign in Afghanistan now? More or less, and several NATO countries have been involved from the start of the campaign. Among them Denmark, whom the US asked to supply elite troops (Jægerkorpset/the Hunters Corps especially). The Afghan police is also trained by European NATO countries, and the UN is heavily involved in removing land mines (it’s not that many months ago some German and Danish troops were killed while doing this duty). A few days ago someone on BBC commented that one of the things that pisses France and Germany of, is that they are helping a lot in Afghanistan, and they still have to hear all the “Old Europe” crap, and listen to Bush’s retorics.

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 06:38:27 +0000

One qualifier though, I categorically reject the notion that Rush Limbaugh would be anywhere near as vicious as the lot of leftist demagogues I’ve listed

Ofcourse you do.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 04:12:17 +0000

One qualifier though, I categorically reject the notion that Rush Limbaugh would be anywhere near as vicious as the lot of leftist demagogues I’ve listed (although Savage and the post-9/11 Coulter certainly qualify). Limbaugh may be partisan, but on that score he’s more akin to a Paul Begala or James Carville with the difference being that Limgaugh is actually entertaining to listen to and doesn’t look like one of the patients from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 04:06:35 +0000

You make a good point about the blogosphere (and about current political discussion, more generally), but you then lose me when you equate Ann Coulter with Michael Moore. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is nobody-I repeat, nobody-on the left who is the equivalent of people like Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage, and Limbaugh. Once again, I am willing to be proven wrong.

Quite a few actually – Michael Moore, Garrison Keillor, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Robert Sheer, Alan Dershowitz, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Jim Hightower, and I haven’t even touched most of Hollywood or the ever-forgettable writers/editors for The Nation.

By: Julia Grey

Julia Grey — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:51:36 +0000

Note this difference between Dole in ‘96 and GWB in 2000: Dole ran a ‘Democrats lie’ campaign and Bush didn’t. Bush didn’t have to because the PRESS did.

By: Ted H.

Ted H. — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:01:43 +0000

Since this thread has taken on the appearance of a exchange between Sullivan bashers and Sullivan-basher bashers, let me go on record that, despite my claim above that Sullivan is untrustworthy—though not dishonest (in any case I know)—as an expositor of others’ views, I often find his commentary insightful. (There’s no contradiction there.) I too am sick of the ‘liar, liar’ trope that has now infected the left to the same extent as it infected the right in the Clinton years. Note this difference between Dole in ‘96 and GWB in 2000: Dole ran a ‘Democrats lie’ campaign and Bush didn’t. We Dems don’t have a prayer of winning in ‘04 unless we drop this silly rhetoric.