So, for the past number of years, we've been inundated with only one side of what is happening in Iraq by our news media. The AP's head stated something along the lines of it is the job of the media to help end warfare - rather than report the news. You have Democrats saying incredibly stupid things, like this in the WaPo: (via Best of the Web)
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."As James Taranto noted,
"What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be "a real big problem for us"?"What does it say? Simply put, that people have their agendas, and to many, it is more important that the war end no matter the long-terms costs so long as it destroys the President and his party in the short-term. That's why the already much-discussed op-ed in the New York Times earlier this week was so shocking - and so incredibly nice to see. I think it's quite possibly the most important thing the Times has done all year, because it directly contradicts just about everything they have been reporting for months on end. It discusses the great success the US and Iraq have had against the terrorists, particularly since the surge President Bush ordered a number of months ago. Written by two people who are no fans of the war or President Bush, it truthfully discusses the progress being made in so many areas. It basically argues that this is actually working, and we just need to have a little more patience to keep seeing it - exactly what was cautioned by so many 4-1/2 years ago.
Hopefully, not only will these successes continue, but the stupid and petty partisan politics that would rather have us be unsuccessful so certain people can come into power will end. It is shameful that we have politicians who are de facto rooting for our troops to be driven home by a terrorist army, even if that is not what they believe in their hearts. It is more important to so many to try and discredit Gen. Petraeus and President Bush and the idea that we might actually be succeeding - simply so that political points can be scored and troops brought home, no matter the cost. Senator Barack Obama - a leading Democratic Presidential candidate - essentially shrugged off a possible genocide in Iraq, saying such a thing is not our responsibility.
There is but one focus on the left: Pull back the troops, declare failure, and blame that failure on President Bush. It is becoming increasingly hard to understand their motives in any other way.
Ezzie, this makes me so mad. Read Obama's comments, not the "liberal" AP's distortion of them. Read Clyborn's statement, which you reproduced, not Taranto's hateful misrepresentation of it. A mixed or positive Patraeus report would be a problem for the Dems, not because it would mean Iraq was going well, but because it would prolong the argument that no-one outside of the Bush admin and a few neocons (including the authors of that piece in the NYT who have been wrong about EVERYTHING regarding the war since 2002) believes anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that half our country (more, if we include all those who think we are losing) are rooting for us to lose so that a Democrat can be elected is asinine and gravely offensive. Why would we even want a Democrat if it meant the world would be a worse place?
It's easy to assume the worst about your opponents' motives. Try putting yourself in our shoes. Those of us you know through the blogs, or even personally. Would we really prefer to lose in Iraq? Do we want to see more troops and civilians die?
Why don't you stick to arguing about facts and values and quit calling your political opponents terrorist sympathizers.
See this article about the ridiculousness of the so-called "liberal" media, particularly with regards to the two idiots (who earned my label by being wrong about everything so far) who wrote that op-ed in the NYT. The "liberal" media pumped them up as war critics, when they've been gung-ho supporters and propagandists since 2002.
ReplyDeleteThat the media are liberal is the Big Lie, especially with regards to war. They continue to employ idiots who have been wrong at every turn and deride any antiwar sentiment as "out of the mainstream," despite it now being a majority view.
JA - Huh? You're using Glenn Greenwald - in Salon! - as "proof"?!
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, Greenwald is saying absolutely nothing that shows them to be "on the right". He's attacking them for not being on the fringe left, advocating an immediate pullout. They stated their opinions regarding the *facts* of what was going on, and pronounced the situation dire just a year ago. They noted that to have any chance of success a "surge" was necessary - which is exactly what countless people on both sides have been saying for a while! That's not a "neocon" position, that's not even on the right! They *were* critics of US policy the last few years, noting all the things that weren't being done. What are you talking about?!
Obama's comments are perfectly clear, and I did read them. Taranto's article wasn't anything but a spelling out of the implications of Obama's statements.
Clyborn's was absolutely clear - and honest. The WaPo article spells out what he said very nicely, and he is clear (and the article is clear) that this hurts the "pulloutnow" agenda. Are they "rooting" for us to lose? Of course not. But it bothers them that things aren't going the way they expect/need. They want an immediate pullout, no matter the consequences, and think that any success only prolongs our staying in a no-win situation - ignoring that this is nowhere near such a thing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Why would we even want a Democrat if it meant the world would be a worse place?"
ReplyDeletePossible answers from possible people:
1. The Revolution can't get off the ground until the prevailing system sinks into chaos.
2. America deserves to be defeated whenever possible, regardless of the immediate effect on the world. My own clique will come out OK in the end because it has identified with the soon-to-be victorious forces of progress.
3. I reject logic and prudence when they get in my way.
Other than to be nice, why should we assume that the most radical Democrats are not terrorist sympathizers?
See http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
JA - Huh? You're using Glenn Greenwald - in Salon! - as "proof"?!
ReplyDeleteI never used the word "proof," nor implied it. But he uses specific quotes, in context, to show that those two authors have always supported the president's line on the war -- and have often been drastically wrong with their predictions.
You can't just dismiss the facts because they're provided by Greenwald or the "liberal" media. The facts are the facts regardless of where they come from.
He's attacking them for not being on the fringe left, advocating an immediate pullout.
You just made that up.
Obama's comments are perfectly clear, and I did read them. Taranto's article wasn't anything but a spelling out of the implications of Obama's statements.
No, it's complete BS. Taranto implies that Obama thinks genocide is A-OK when in reality, Obama was just exposing the hypocrisy of those on the right who suddenly pretend to care about a genocide when they've ignored the actual genocide going on in the Sudan at the same time, a genocide Obama has done more about than most politicians, left or right.
But no, Obama's a Democrat, so he must be anti-America and pro-genocide. What a bunch of offensive, hateful garbage.
Are they "rooting" for us to lose? Of course not.
And yet, you pretty much wrote that they are in your post: "It is shameful that we have politicians who are de facto rooting for our troops to be driven home by a terrorist army, even if that is not what they believe in their hearts."
But he uses specific quotes, in context, to show that those two authors have always supported the president's line on the war -- and have often been drastically wrong with their predictions.
ReplyDeleteHe never shows once where they were wrong, nor once that they were supportive. Merely that they noted exactly how things *should* be done should we wish to succeed. The implication in this is that anything less than calling for an immediate pullout (or being against the war from the get-go) is unacceptable from the liberal point of view, so they must not be on that side. That's foolish.
Taranto implies that Obama thinks genocide is A-OK
You didn't read Taranto then. He's quite clear about how he interprets Obama: By being indifferent as to the consequences of a pullout, he is essentially saying that he is willing to risk a possible genocide of others in exchange for the (short-term) safety of our own troops.
Obama was just exposing the hypocrisy of those on the right who suddenly pretend to care about a genocide when they've ignored the actual genocide going on in the Sudan at the same time
AH! You didn't read Taranto's piece on this in BOTW. Taranto notes that while both are obviously horrible, there is a stark difference between a genocide that is happening and doing nothing to stop it and actually *causing* a genocide to take place by our own actions (in this case, pulling out). I'm sure Taranto would be happy to send many troops to the Sudan.
Are they "rooting" for us to lose? Of course not.
And yet, you pretty much wrote that they are in your post: "It is shameful that we have politicians who are de facto rooting for our troops to be driven home by a terrorist army, even if that is not what they believe in their hearts."
I was perfectly clear in the post. While they may not be rooting in their hearts for troops to get killed, their actions and wishes in terms of the outcome of what is happening in Iraq are accomplishing the same. Hoping for failure in Iraq undoubtedly involves the loss of life, both in the short-term and more importantly, the long-term.
He never shows once where they were wrong, nor once that they were supportive.
ReplyDeleteExamples he gives or links to of when they were wrong:
2002: "POLLACK: What we know for a fact from a number of defectors who’ve come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can."
In 2003, O'Hanlon said, "I think the counterinsurgency effort is going fairly well" and "I'm not trying to say that this is a country at peace, but overall, we really do run most of the country together with our Iraqi partners and the resistance forces are very small pockets who operate only at a given moment here or there."
Also in 2003: "In my judgment the administration is basically correct that the overall effort in Iraq is succeeding."
Also: "the battle for Baghdad will almost surely not last more than a week or two. And its hero will be the American and British soldier, not fancy technology or awesome battle plans."
And: "Saddam is not eliminating his banned weapons of mass destruction voluntarily, and hence we soon will need to lead a military coalition to do the job ourselves. The case is that simple."
2004: "Coalition and Iraqi security forces will ultimately defeat the rejectionist remnants of the Ba'ath Party, as well as foreign terrorists who have entered the country. These dead-enders are few in number and have little ability to inspire a broader following among the Iraqi people."
2003: "The insurgents are not really committed," he said. "They're doing this because they're being paid to do this. The Iraqis making these attacks are not willing to stay and fight when more American soldiers show up."
Taranto notes that while both are obviously horrible, there is a stark difference between a genocide that is happening and doing nothing to stop it and actually *causing* a genocide to take place by our own actions (in this case, pulling out).
The genocide, if it happens, was caused by removing Saddam in the first place and failing to have an adequate reconstruction plan.
While they may not be rooting in their hearts for troops to get killed, their actions and wishes in terms of the outcome of what is happening in Iraq are accomplishing the same. Hoping for failure in Iraq undoubtedly involves the loss of life, both in the short-term and more importantly, the long-term.
Maybe you can explain the difference between rooting for failure and just "hoping" for it, then.
All the 2002-2003 quotes are in line with what everyone believed to be true at the time. Many of them actually are or were true. Saddam WAS determined to acquire WMDs. Before the war, the efforts were going very well. The war WAS very fast, the heroes the soldiers and not technology. The case against Saddam as understood then WAS simple.
ReplyDelete2004 comment was accurate as well. Al-Qaeda makes up most of the current fighters, and these are largely not the same people.
The genocide, if it happens, was caused by removing Saddam in the first place and failing to have an adequate reconstruction plan.
That's stupidity. It's the unwillingness of a large group to stomach the hard times necessary to complete an adequate reconstruction plan.
Maybe you can explain the difference between rooting for failure and just "hoping" for it, then.
That's exactly the point. They're trying to say that there is one, but in reality, it comes down to the same thing. They don't wish troops to die, but they aren't happy that the troops are being successful. You can't have it both ways.
Saddam WAS determined to acquire WMDs.
ReplyDeleteThey said, "Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can."
2004 comment was accurate as well. Al-Qaeda makes up most of the current fighters, and these are largely not the same people.
I'm honestly shocked that you believe this. Even hawkish sources list them as a minority of the insurgents AND al-qaida in Iraq is only loosely tied with the international organization.
That's stupidity. It's the unwillingness of a large group to stomach the hard times necessary to complete an adequate reconstruction plan.
If we thought it could work, we would stomach it.
That's exactly the point. They're trying to say that there is one, but in reality, it comes down to the same thing. They don't wish troops to die, but they aren't happy that the troops are being successful. You can't have it both ways.
Please demonstrate that they are unhappy the troops are being "successful."
JA,
ReplyDeleteForget the thread on your blog, your busy giving Ez a hard time. Concentrate on that, it's more important and more entertaining :)
Ezzie your wasting your breath.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what happens, to these guys, Republicans are evil oil hording war loving monsters and Democrats or idealistic, peace loving, heroes.
Come on .. I mean, J.A. thinks the AP and NY TIMES are conservativce mouthpieces and if anyone on the left says anything positive about the war, the were never liberals to begin with.
We'll win this war without them, and then when we do win, the voters will remember who tried to cut and run and surrender and who wanted to see it thought to the end and allow for the impending victory.
We'll win this war without them, and then when we do win, the voters will remember who tried to cut and run and surrender and who wanted to see it thought to the end and allow for the impending victory.
ReplyDeleteOr, like Vietnam, you'll lose the war after wasting tons of lives and then you'll blame it on the liberals.
Because you've redefined "losing" so that as long as we refuse to admit we've lost, we haven't.
They said, "Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can."
ReplyDeleteHe was. He just didn't have the important part yet. He didn't have tubes, etc?
I'm honestly shocked that you believe this. Even hawkish sources list them as a minority of the insurgents AND al-qaida in Iraq is only loosely tied with the international organization.
That's no longer the case whatsoever. I'd question if it ever was, or if the media simply kept saying so.
If we thought it could work, we would stomach it.
I don't buy that from most of the crowd, sorry.
Please demonstrate that they are unhappy the troops are being "successful."
Read the quotes. "a real big problem for us" - ?
G - :P
Chaim - if anyone on the left says anything positive about the war, the were never liberals to begin with.
That's something that I've noticed is happening every single time. Rational thought from the left is used to show that "they must not have been liberal/they're staunch neocons". It's an old card.