advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: The world is more complex than J. Karl Miller says

Friday, December 17, 2010 | 2:31 p.m. CST

I wonder if J. Karl Miller realizes how rigid and unbending he appears to discerning readers. Or, maybe he does know and wears that inflexibility like a military award. His columns are unashamedly one-sided. I find myself wondering what color the sky is in the world he lives in because he certainly doesn't seem to live in the same world I do.

A while back he had a long rant about the travesty of the movie "True Grit" being remade. He thought that it was terrible to mess with a "classic." Has it never occurred to him that countless films have been remade, sometimes using the same title and other times renaming the film but having basically the same plot? There have been more than one version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," "The Maltese Falcon," "Love Affair," "The King and I," "The Philadelphia Story," "King Solomon's Mines," "A Farewell to Arms," "The Blue Bird," "Anything Goes," "Pride and Prejudice," "The Champ," "Assault on Precinct 13," "Ben-Hur," "Of Human Bondage," "Lady for a Day," and "Waterloo Bridge," to name a few. Therefore, why Mr. Miller is so horrified "True Grit" has been remade, as if it is shocking and something that is rarely done, is beyond me.

MoreStory


Related Media

In the same article, he waxed nostalgic, as he often does, about the "good ol' days" when movies were good. I felt as if he was trying to say that "back when" movies like "True Grit" were being made movies "meant something" or had higher morals. I would point out to Mr. Miller that "True Grit" was released in the same year as "Midnight Cowboy," "Easy Rider," and "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice," and after the releases of "If...," "Bonnie and Clyde," "Georgy Girl," "Alfie," and "Sweet Bird of Youth," to name a few movies that did not exactly have heroes or protagonists who followed the Ten Commandments or obeyed the law.

So, Mr. Miller, it seems more likely that you are simply disheartened that a movie for which John Wayne (a true hero to conservatives) won an Academy Award has been remade. Maybe you see it as besmirching his reputation or good name. Otherwise, I see no reason for being upset a movie was being remade or for reminiscing about the "good ol' days" when films had high moral values. They are both moot points.

There was also a recent column in which Mr. Miller defended FOX News and aimed to show that no television news channel is unbiased. While it is apparent that MSNBC is going head-to-head with FOX in an effort to win an audience who wouldn't watch FOX anyway, it is factually incorrect to say that FOX is no more biased than any other news show. Studies have consistently shown that people who receive most of their news from FOX News are misinformed about actual facts. For instance, more FOX viewers thought weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. More FOX viewers thought Iraq was involved in the hijackings on September 11, 2001. Both of those statements are factually untrue.

When viewers are watching a station that is purportedly devoted to "news"—which would mean the dissemination of information—yet they are misinformed instead of informed, that is a serious problem. I also would like to know how Mr. Miller justifies the level of rhetoric, hatred, and invective that is spewed out regularly on FOX News. Is it necessary to do that? Is it helpful to society to do that? Doesn't it just pander to the lowest common denominator amongst people instead of trying to educate them and inform them?

Personally, I just want the facts with appropriate background information, when I am given "news." I do not want hyperbole by either side. (That's one reason I grew disgusted with Michael Moore.) I don't need to have name-calling and fear-spreading and exaggeration. Just tell me what happened and let me decide how I feel about it.

Finally, Mr. Miller's column proclaiming that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be disastrous for the troops was typical of his columns. Mr. Miller stated in the second paragraph, "Further, when nearly 60 percent of Marines and Soldiers in combat units...believe that openly gay troops will pose strong potential for disruption...a red flag is warranted."

In the last paragraph, Mr. Miller stated, "Finally, I know of the polling procedure identifying 70 percent of the military as either ambivalent or open to serving with gays and lesbians. But the military in which I served for 30-plus years was not governed by opinion polls."

Does Mr. Miller realize he can't have it both ways? If he is going to cite as one of his reasons for opposing the policy change the survey showing 60 percent in combat being against repeal, he cannot then say he doesn't pay attention to polls just to ignore the 70 percent who are okay with the repeal! If the poll numbers for one segment are valid, the poll numbers for the other segment should also be valid.

When President Truman issued executive orders desegregating the armed forces, I'm sure many people through the country opposed the policy. Perhaps if a poll was taken of troops, the majority of them would have been against it. But President Truman apparently did what he thought was the right and honorable thing to do, not what might have been the politically popular thing to do. He ordered the desegregation because he knew he would not be able to get it passed as legislation.

Would Mr. Miller say President Truman made the wrong decision? Would he say that was a "different" situation because it happened when the U.S. was not actively fighting in a war? Even if the U.S. was temporarily between wars when Truman issued the orders, the U.S. was an occupying power in Germany and Japan and was already in the Cold War. There were certainly a lot of stresses being placed on servicemen. At that time, military service was not a "privilege," it was an obligation via the draft.

I think most Americans probably look back at the time of slavery and Jim Crow laws with disgust and repulsion and wonder how our ancestors could have "gone along" with such blatant discrimination. Likewise, I think a few decades from now people will look back and wonder why gays and lesbians were discriminated against in so many ways.

Congress has the opportunity to repeal a policy that discharges qualified, trained, and competent people when their only fault is having been born with a different sexual identity. Why wouldn't repeal be a good thing? Why should Congress cave in to the prejudices of some? If Truman had lacked the courage to act independently and waited for Congress or the courts, how much longer would the armed forces have been segregated?

Mr. Miller, isn't it better to take a stand for something that is right, and that will historically be seen to be right, than to appease people who want to feel superior to others and thus choose different reasons (religion, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) as ways to reinforce their "superiority?"

Jane Ralls resides in Columbia and enjoys history and traveling.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 4:25 p.m.

It's interesting to see the evolution of liberal thought: For a long time, it was "Fox is biased" with no mention of bias in other news outlets. Now it's more of a "Your show is more biased than my show" thingie.

Somehow I don't think that argument helps much. Sounds like a playground argument to me.

I don't watch much TV, but over time I've watched the full spectrum of "news" shows...not a lot, but just enough to get "flavors". IMO, there is little difference in bias between the various shows when it comes to presentation of "news". You can see it via the choices of words, phrases, sentence structure, facial expressions, choice of stories, and the little yips of joy when Florida falls for Gore, but the real bias is evident in the various pundits and interpreters (talking heads) that appear. I've seen the dripping sarcasm on ALL shows. To argue that one show is more biased than another is...well...the pot calling the kettle black when the fact is that both are biased.

It's interesting that I've heard conservatives say "Fox is indeed biased" (first hand knowledge...me), but I've never heard a similar statement from a liberal about MSNBC, other left-leaning news show, or even this newspaper. Why is that?
___________________________

Did you really use a SINGLE 2008 PEW poll to justify the statement, "Studies have consistently shown that people who receive most of their news from FOX News are misinformed about actual facts"?

Studies? You need more citations to use the plural. And, in your cited survey, your term "misinformed" is based upon answers to three questions? THREE? Perhaps this paragraph should have been further developed before reaching your conclusions. Or have more supporting references.

I found it interesting that your citation showed women don't know squat about science and technology. Does that mean conservative women are REALLY dumb about stuff? (for the comedians out there, I've just set you up for a Palin joke.....wait for it.....careful, tho, don't let your misogyny against good-lookin' women show).
______________________________

It's just a guess, but I bet Mr. Miller would like to know how you "...justif[y] the level of rhetoric, hatred, and invective that is spewed out regularly on [The View and other shows you watch]."
______________________________

Anyone else notice how the word/phrase "compromise" and "can't we just get along" only enters our lexicon after liberals lose an election?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 17, 2010 | 5:41 p.m.

Mike,I reread the article a couple times at high speed and I did not find instance where she said anything that resembles the statement you made in your first paragraph. So therefore your argument is what sounds adolescent.

I differ with you regarding the "news" portion of that network. I saw last night where it was revealed that Rupert Murdoch had ordered anyone discussing any climate data to add a line something like "which has been called into question by scientists" each time any climate data is used as a reference. The questions referred to some accounting over a short period of time which was subsequently overblown, probably by the same media we are discussing. We will probably never hear the end of that slight, and it is not inserted into the commentary section of the news. It is inserted anywhere and everywhere it can be inserted. That's an example of what makes FOX news FOX news. There are probably a thousand more examples that I could find and none of them are really worth remembering because it's that completely obvious when I view it.
The study she described is not the same as the one in the link the author provided, so you can believe that there is more than one source revealing what you don't want to hear. Remember, Mike, it is a PRINT newspaper as well as an electronic one.
But I did gain this treasure from the link she gave - A list of what media enjoys a lower portion of college graduates than FOX "news":
personality magazines, the weather channel, Access Hollywood, the National Enquirer, religious radio, and CBS.
See it for yourself. And then I might have to start in about the quality of the average graduate being churned out these days...It's not really the best indicator, but it is a start.
The rest of your rant is a degradation of your usually bad writing style and doesn't merit a comment other than "wow". And then I have to remember that YOU are one of those college graduates.

(Report Comment)
Yves Montclear December 17, 2010 | 8:53 p.m.

From the article, the first sentence:
--I wonder if J. Karl Miller realizes...--

All J. Karl Miller realizes is how to push the buttons of people like you, lady.

I quit reading your article halfway through the second paragraph because it was...inane.

But I did do a word count on it, that was a lot of words.

How long did it take you to write the article? And you probably made it heartfelt and thoughtful.

That many words about such a trivial thing as J. Karl Miller and any opinion he might have, can only make me believe, that you must have a lot of free time, lady.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 9:14 p.m.

Yves: The article was simply an effort to repudiate Mr. Miller's positions and...to an extent...his credibility. That's ok...we're all fair game if we participate in this place.

But, she certainly should not have started with the petty, minor, and irrelevant "True Grit" bit....or even mentioned it at all. I'm still wondering why it was in there. I almost quit reading, which I suspect would not have been her intent at all.

(Report Comment)
William Moore December 18, 2010 | 1:34 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Gregory Brown December 18, 2010 | 8:28 a.m.

I try to read Mr. Miller's columns sometimes. They offer relief from any tedium I might feel from random moments of joy or appreciation I have for good sense and reasonable argument. His writing is a sort of anti-humor, taken like an antidote to pleasure.
However, I'd never think to complain that his columns are "unashamedly one-sided" because that's as obvious and lazy as saying that everybody is born naked. Of course they're not balanced: Mr. Miller is a columnist, not a reporter, and his often irritating and patently wrong-headed opinions aren't presented as news, just the ramblings of a cantankerous and "nostalgic' scribbler.
Jane Ralls has given a catalog of her personal objections to Mr. Miller's opinions. I agree with several of her observations but don't think she ought to have subjected us to such a deluge of verbiage. The points could have been made in less flabby prose. The earnestness of her ire is bright and shiny but covers the fact that she hasn't said much worth saying. I suspect that I'll choose Mr. Miller's outpourings as an occasional purge before I ever look at anything bearing Jane Ralls' by-line.

(Report Comment)
Gregory Brown December 18, 2010 | 8:32 a.m.

And I note my own error in referring to Ms. Ralls as "Jane" when she is actually "AJ". No offense intended there. It was carelessness induced partly by insufficient amounts of strong tea this morning and a murkiness in my mind induced by her column in combination with the memory of Mr. Miller's louring visage.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller December 18, 2010 | 11:13 a.m.

Ms Ralls: I certainly expect people to disagree with my opinions--in fact, I look forward to that dissent for the instance of objective, original thought as well as for the amusement generated by some of the nitpicking. You appear to take umbrage at nearly everything I write--which is your inalienable right.

However, your post "Mr. Miller, isn't it better to take a stand for something that is right, and that will historically be seen to be right" would seem to establish YOU as the ultimate "decider" of that which is right. I seriously doubt that many readers will grant you that self aggrandizement; nevertheless,I thank you for your opinion. After all, a letter of censure is better than no mail at all.

(Report Comment)
KEITH WILLIAMS December 18, 2010 | 11:35 a.m.

DEAR MS RALLS

YAWN

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush December 18, 2010 | 11:41 a.m.

MW - here's justification for the plural.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/p...
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...
There's more, but I wouldn't want to rob you of the opportunity for self-insight - it's like spoiling the surprise of Christmas morning!

"...don't let your misogyny against good-lookin' women show)" - nor your lechery.

The View is a news show...ha ha ha!

AJ - much appreciated!

(Report Comment)
John Bliss December 18, 2010 | 12:26 p.m.

OK, is it AJ, Jane, or just Ms.Ralls? You sure had a lot to say about nothing! Oh, Jane, there is such a thing a spell-check: A while....OH Awhile! Then you simply pointed out what Colonel Miller was saying, with all these remakes, people are too damn lazy to write NEW scripts! I tend to agree with him, the casting on this one, "True Grit", is messed up. In regards to the Don't ask, don't tell: 1. I will take the word of Marine Veteran of 30+ years, over most anyone else's. 2.On polls,"when it comes to life and death issues, you can't depend on public polls." Sound like a GOP right? WRONG!That was Hillary Clinton, 12/15/10!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith December 18, 2010 | 1:17 p.m.

Ms. Ralls:

Are you familiar with the collected plays of William Shakespeare?

Your tirades remind me of the title of one of Shakespeare's plays, "Much Ado About Nothing."

Regardless of what he chooses to write, Miller's commentaries represent a needed respite from what the two Liberal-leaning columnists are presenting every week. If columns in this "teaching newspaper" only present a single point of view, what sort of "teaching" is THAT?

Write on, Karl.

(Report Comment)
James Perryman December 18, 2010 | 2:06 p.m.

Well, I finally got down to para 11 & 12 after falling asleep twice. My comment re her comparison of Truman's desegration of the Armed Forces and DADT: If I were a "black", I would really be pissed by continuing liberal comparisons of my race and homosexuality! And OBTW, should Mz Ralls even suggest that Colonel Miller USMC (Retired) has a drop of racist blood in him, she just doesn't know the USMC (or much of anything else for that matter)!

Colonel James Perryman USMC (Retired)
and confessed admirer of John Wayne

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 2:09 p.m.

Ms. Ralls starts her articles with this:

I wonder if J. Karl Miller realizes how rigid and unbending he appears to discerning readers.

She immediately assumes the liberal stance that her readers are superior (discerning).

If fact, Ms. Ralls and her ilk are merely the faux intelligencia. Colonel Miller on several occasions put his life on the line - literally - in service to his nation to preserve the right that he supports Ms. Ralls exercise of.

However, I doubt very much that 99 out of 100 liberals would do the same for conservatives. We see time and again liberals attempting to use the weight of government or violence to crush the right of free speech of conservatives.

On the other hand, conservatives via the market place and the polls just exercised their right of free speech and beat the snot out of whatever message Ms. Ralls and her supporters had to offer.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 2:13 p.m.

Gregory, Jane is understandable. However, you would have been in real trouble if you had called her Lou.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 2:28 p.m.

Oh, if WMDs were not found in Iraq, why does this June 21st, 2006 memo from the Director of National Intelligence list those that were found?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq...

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 2:39 p.m.

This speaks for itself. The first 9 are FOX.

Top 10 Cable News Programs, Q1 2009 (by total viewers)

1. The O'Reilly Factor: 3,438,000 total viewers
2. Hannity: 2,579,000 total viewers
3. Glenn Beck: 2,271,000 total viewers
4. Special Report with Bret Baier: 2,092,000 total viewers
5. On the Record with Greta Van Susteren: 1,977,000 total viewers
6. The FOX Report with Shepard Smith: 1,927,000 total viewers
7. The O'Reilly Factor (repeat): 1,457,000 total viewers
8. America's Newsroom: 1,445,000 total viewers
9. Your World with Neil Cavuto: 1,428,000 total viewers
10. Countdown with Keith Olbermann: 1,327,000 total viewers

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 18, 2010 | 4:07 p.m.

Isn't it great? A single network has a virtual monopoly on every right wingnut. Murdoch probably has as much power as the first lady.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 18, 2010 | 4:15 p.m.

Oh, and those were discarded canisters that had been buried in an underground facility, canisters that YOUR government sold to the country something like twenty years prior. They were buried most likely because there was no available facility to safely destroy the same. These were not what the Bush administration was alleging was contained inside the country. What you discussed is something so minor in comparison that it did not even register as part of any investigation until the ancient canisters were found. I bet we could find a lot more of them inside our own borders...

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 4:34 p.m.

Paul, take another look. That said munitions, NOT containers.

But let's look at Iraq again. Saddam had WMDs, Saddam USED WMDs, Saddam failed to prove he destroyed WMDs as required in the 1991 cease-fire agreement. It was not up to us to prove he had them. It was up to Saddam to prove he did NOT have them. Now only a fool would think he didn't. But let's look at what Dems said about Saddam and WMDs, much of it before George Bush became President in 2001:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdqu...

All the top Dems stated Saddam had WMDs.

Now let's add to that Paul that in 1991 the Iraqis signed a CEASE-FIRE. Every time they fired on our planes patrolling the no fly zone, they violated the CEASE-FIRE, correct Paul? Now Paul, what happens when you violate a cease-fire? Does that not make you immediately eligible for a butt kicking?

For heaven's sake Paul, if you're going to throw out specious arguments, at least base them in fact and proper historical context.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 18, 2010 | 4:50 p.m.

I know that you feel better now, knowing that your country has doubled it's debt and debased it's currency after experiencing many years of high unemployment because leaders chose to engage in war in a failed attempt to capture someone who is no longer relevant and to find chemical weapons that didn't exist. And NO, the small bit of canisters full of degraded mustard gas that we had sold them so many years prior were not the chemical weapons that any republican or democrat alleged to exist.
Specious arguments? What's the matter, nobody on the trib to talk to anymore? Can't say I blame anyone, really.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 18, 2010 | 4:51 p.m.

Oh, and you're gonna LOVE this....
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/t...

(Report Comment)
Jim Clayton December 18, 2010 | 5:05 p.m.

Dear Ms. Ralls; While Mr. Miller says he believes it is a travesty to remake a classic like True Grit, it is only his opinion. He is not saying they shouldn't remake movies. Most of the time when they remake a classic it bombs anyway. The remake of "An Affair to Remember" wasn't nearly as great as the original. My favorite is the original King Kong from 1933 which still holds up today and I've given presentations on the making of it. I've seen all the incarnations of it and they all bombed. Whenever I see they are remaking a movie from a TV show like "The A Team" or "Addams Family" of making a movie from a TV show like they did with "Batman" and now the "Green Hornet" I know they are going to bomb and they do.
As far as saying FOX News is biased and not objective, FOX shows you all the things the other networks don't show you or don't want you to see. Before cable all we had was ABC, NBC, CBS and among those stations all we had was Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Brian Williams and Walter Cronkite. Then came CNN. I was impressed by them and their vast programming, but I never realized how left leaning biased they all were in reporting until FOX News came along. On the Sunday morning talk shows they have three liberals and one conservative and they call it balance. The same goes for "The View" with Elizabeth Hasselback being the only conservative. That's why on Sean Hannity's Great American Panel he has three conservatives and one liberal. I know news programs are supposed to be objective as is newspaper reporting which I spent most of my life in, but in 1992 at the media network's and print media annual convention where they decide policy they voted unaminously that they don't have to be objective anymore and can take sides. That's why today all the stations and print media are biased, mostly towards the liberal side. FOX has liberals on it to balance it off such as Geraldo and Juan Williams who by the way had his own people screw him over on NPR. I watch FOX because I already know what all the other media outlets are going to say before they say it when something happens and FOX shows the other side.

(Report Comment)
John Bliss December 18, 2010 | 5:44 p.m.

Colonel Perryman, I have known Col. Miller for a few years, and our household has been open to Marines for much longer, as I live somewhat close to Pendelton. Our Family has a great love for the Marines, and I wish to THANK YOU for your service Sir! Our nation owes so much to all of you that have served! God Bless!

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 6:00 p.m.

Paul seems intent on using this statement:

small bit of canisters full of degraded mustard gas

He keeps ignoring that 500 shells were found containing mustard and sarin. While it's true that sarin gas rapidly deteriorates, mustard gas can keep for a very long time. Even in the 1960s people in the Europe were being injured by mustard gas in the soil from WW1.

A lethal does of concentrated mustard gas is 900 milligrams per cubic yard. That's about 1/30th of an ounce. A normal 105 millimeter artillery shell has an explosive charge of about 3.5 pounds. A chemical shell about 7 pounds. 7 times 28.35 grams per ounce times 1000 milligrams per gram times 16 ounces per pound times 7 pounds.....hmmm, in full concentration enough to kill 3,528 people. But let's presume it down to 25% strength. Gee, only 892 per shell.

Paul, how were they going to know what Saddam really had until they actually went in and looked? After all, he denied having the degraded ones too.

Now Paul, I presume you're going to ignore the meltdown caused by Fannie and Freddie, which Barney Frank said didn't have any problems. The Bush administration started warning about Fannie and Freddie in April, 2001....less than 3 months after Bush took office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuG...

By the way Paul, it's not a war on Osama. It's a war on terror. Islamic terror - something that has been with us for 1,300 years.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush December 18, 2010 | 6:01 p.m.

The comparison between Sean Hannity's Great American Panel and The View is equitable since neither are news.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 6:58 p.m.

Gregg, the big difference between Hannity's show and The View is that the conservative viewpoints given on Hannity are grounded in common sense....something rarely seen on liberal shows.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 18, 2010 | 7:22 p.m.

So you are going to say that Saddam H was denying that he had something that your government sold him. And then there's this that you said...
"Even in the 1960s people in the Europe were being injured by mustard gas in the soil from WW1."

So who used that mustard gas and why are they not being held accountable? Also, who sold the mustard gas to Iraq? What should we do about that?

I can think of one good reason why someone would not mention having the mustard gas, and if you were being honest with yourself you would already know it. It had been disposed of. The canisters were essentially excavated from what only can be considered a dump. They had been placed there so long ago that it is even possible that nobody knew they were there or that nobody thought about it. There certainly was no effort on the part of any armed units to retrieve or use them, so all your talk is baseless, as is the skewed perspective provided by the network in question, your beloved FOX news which is incapable of presenting anything without a severe twist. Again though, can you not see the hypocrisy of faulting someone for having something that you had sold them?
On your other subject, the economy, you can choose to lay the blame on whichever brick in the dam you want to, but you know who was filling the reservoir by launching two long pointless wars while extending tax cuts to the wealthiest among us.

"By the way Paul, it's not a war on Osama. It's a war on terror. Islamic terror - something that has been with us for 1,300 years."
So then it is, in your words, a religious war, and you are alright with that and would like more. I suppose this would explain your double standards regarding the "WMDs". Possibly you could expound on the long term effects of depleted uranium.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 7:31 p.m.

By the way, I must apologize to everyone. I posted earlier that FOX held the first nine of ten most popular cable news shows. That was an old poll. In fact, FOX holds all top ten as of as of the end of the second quarter of 2010.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 7:48 p.m.

Paul, we sold Saddam fertilizer plants. He used them to make chemical weapons. Not us. If somebody sold you a car and you used it to drive drunk or escape from committing a robbery, would the person who sold you the car be at fault?
Try to use an argument with some common sense Paul.

I did do a web search on depleted uranium. I found a bunch of left leaning websites critical of it. I found major news sources that quoted left leaning websites. What I did not find was a major university study on the effects of DU on people. I only found an NIH project on rats and mice, and there was no comparison of the toxicity levels between rodents and humans.

Since the dangerous effects of DU tend to come when it is vaporized upon contact with a target, and that is normally at a long distance from which the projectile is launched (usually anti armor capabilities) and we haven't used DU
projectiles against Iraqi armor in seven years, I'd say that there would be little effect on our military. Possibly some on surrounding civilian populaces. But that would still be a far lower casualty rate than would be a given from using high explosive rounds.

Again Paul, your left wing diatribe just doesn't stand up when exposed to facts. You really need to work on this.

(Report Comment)
Philip Vassallo December 18, 2010 | 7:59 p.m.

Jane Ralls comment on JK falls very short on facts and can be compare to a dysfunctional opin on such matters. (His columns are unashamedly one-sided. ) And Jane yours are PC Right ? His columns are what they are his Opins not a fact finding mission or trying to solve the worlds intense promblems.

You also said (a long rant about the travesty of the movie "True Grit" being remade. ) RANT ? is this how you show your respect to other fellow column writers on this web page ?

Also you said ( Studies have consistently shown that people who receive most of their news from FOX News are misinformed about actual facts. For instance, more FOX viewers thought weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. More FOX viewers thought Iraq was involved in the hijackings on September 11, 2001. Both of those statements are factually untrue.)
lol Jane Ive been watching Fox news for 10 years now becase I got tired of Watching half truths and out right LIES on the other media news programs and Trust me I know alot of people on line back then as well as NOW and no one thought Iraq was invole in 9/11 .I think you should apologize to us readers thinking you can write something like that and think you can get away with it.I think I prove my point that your facts and Dysfunctional opins hold more then water... PHILIP

PS THANK YOU JK for being my friend on line

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 18, 2010 | 8:02 p.m.

The mustard gas you keep discussing was found in the same containers that it was in when we sold it to him. We found no evidence of the manufacture of chemical weapons in Iraq. But you know this. You post junk because you are sure that one of your fellow wingnuts doesn't. Your first paragraph in the above post that you made is complete junk. You know it is, but you post it anyway. If I ran a forum and someone came on it and posted complete garbage repeatedly, as you just did, I would kick them off with great haste. I would do that even if that person had chosen my "side" of an argument. Tell me how long it takes the radioactive uranium to decay and then tell me how we plan to extricate it from the Iranian soil.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush December 18, 2010 | 8:17 p.m.

"Gregg, the big difference between Hannity's show and The View is that the conservative viewpoints given on Hannity are grounded in common sense....something rarely seen on liberal shows."
We agree on Elisabeth Hasselbeck's opinions.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 18, 2010 | 8:47 p.m.

Paul, do you have an credible source proving that mustard gas was sold by us to Iraq, and that it was found in the same containers? Back it up.

Philip, many instances of interviews with liberals show they are totally clueless as to what is going on in the world. Whether is was Hannity or Jay Leno, they proved liberals in the street are about as informed as a box of rocks on government, history, or current events.

(Report Comment)
D.G. Cayse December 18, 2010 | 8:54 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Paul Allaire December 19, 2010 | 2:51 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 20, 2010 | 2:29 p.m.

Paul, your second source provides nothing against the US. Your first source foot notes all kinds of things, but not once does it give a link to any credible documentation. You have to do better. Source documents. Or maybe really good media outlet....like the Wall Street Journal. They don't have an entire page for retractions like the NYT.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 20, 2010 | 3:33 p.m.

As I said above, I work from my memory. Six years = a long time. If you read through the first link I provided then you will understand the hypocrisy of your position completely. The second link validates my claim that the canisters had been buried for a long period of time. Nobody would do that if they were intending to use them. The first link I provided documents the fact that we had been selling a lot of arms to the country. There's a LOT more there, but I'm assuming you can read. Do your own damn google search if you don't like mine.

Oh, and you haven't provided ANY documentation for any of your "facts". So you sound like a wind tunnel.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop December 21, 2010 | 4:11 p.m.

Paul, here is your exact statement:

Oh, and those were discarded canisters that had been buried in an underground facility, canisters that YOUR government sold to the country something like twenty years prior.

Those were not cannisters that were found. They were buried munitions....mortar rounds and artillery. Since the Iraqi army used Soviet type military munitions, which are different in size from ours, it wouldn't be our cannisters or munitions. They never said in those articles our cannisters or munitions provided by us were found. Those comments about cannisters provided by the United States are an invention of Paul Allaire.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 22, 2010 | 12:46 p.m.

I looked a bit and you are probably right on your small point. I was working from memory, and six years is a long time. I may or may not have read an article that matches my exact words. I do remember hearing or reading a blanket statement that the gas was obtained from the United States. The articles I gave links to either spell out or link to articles that spell out a statement that a number of chemicals were sold to the country by your country, with obvious undesirable uses. The articles do also establish that the United States had knowledge of how the chemicals were used and the fact that they were being used and did intentionally look the other way while extending continued arms sales to the same, because the administration(s) thought it in their best interest. My view is that when our government acts in such a manner they are as guilty as if they had ordered someone to launch the ordinance (canisters). I will admit that I am probably wrong regarding the packaging the poison was in when it arrived. I am correct in that we did sell the chemicals to the country with the knowledge that is would be used as weapons.
I am also correct in my statement that the country had no chemical weapons program at the time we invaded the country. The weapons we are discussing were buried and had been for a long time. You have been trying to spin that like the most dishonest media tool imaginable.

(Report Comment)
John Bliss December 22, 2010 | 6:09 p.m.

Paul Allaire, awhile back, there was a report of former CIA agent that came forward, and told reporters that in Syria, pretty much all of the reported WMD had been moved, prior to the invasion. Bush waited so long to get approval, Saddam had plenty of time to do this. It never came out, as they didn't want us invading Syria, as well!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 22, 2010 | 7:05 p.m.

I recall the rumor. And our "intelligence" agencies start a lot of them. That one looks a little funny. Iraq never had a good relationship with Syria. It would be like us handing nuclear weapons to Venezuela. Not plausible. Also it sounds like it did "come out", since we both heard it.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements