This Huge Event Slipped Right Past Most Folks. Gee, Why Is That?
Yes, it was reported. Sort of. Other stories, much less newsworthy, were hammered into the public consciousness, however.
It’s no fun to be proved wrong. Just ask Mad Mary Mapes, or any newspaper editor. Too, this story did not benefit The Obamessiah, so the major media reported it once and then dropped it without any analytical commentary that reflects on critics of the Iraq campaign.
NEW YORK TIMES: U.S. Hands Back a Quieter Anbar. Plus, some further thoughts from J.D. Johannes. Remember that just a couple of years ago — heck even a year ago — most people seemed to think that a Vietnam-like debacle in Iraq was inevitable. And it would have been, had we given up instead of pursuing the Surge. The hurricane story is getting all the attention, but this is the big news.
Words They Do Not Have To Eat
They told us the imposition of regime change in Iraq was a huge mistake. Then they told us the Surge would never work. If they were totally, utterly, hopelessly wrong about the second assertion, might they still be right about the first? Answer: only if the people of Iraq and the Middle East in general are not demonstrably better off without Saddam than they were with him.
Herewith, from this weblog, a list of quotes in which the leading lights of the New York Times deliver themselves of Truth. As the filters of their ideology allowed them to perceive it, of course.
The only real question about the planned “surge” in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07
There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. — NYT Editorial, 1/11/07
What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. — Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07
Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. — Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07
W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07
The senator supported a war that didn’t need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won’t work. — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07
Now the “surge” that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr’s militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq’s army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. — Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07
Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. — NYT Editorial, 3/29/07
There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. — NYT Editorial, 4/12/07
… the empty hope of the “surge” … — Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07
Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. — NYT Editorial, 5/11/07
Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 5/27/07
Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. — NYT Editorial, 7/25/07
The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07
Ah, the prescience of the media stars! Blind seers, deluded by bigotry and cultural self-hatred…how they must have cringed to see this headline in their own propaganda organ:
U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency. — NYT, 9/1/08
The Pentagon is sopping up large numbers of undereducated young people, putting them into uniform, and getting them slaughtered in its pointless war in Iraq. Or something like that, according to some people like John Kerry, who is not important any more because he lost the election. Now Barack Obama is set to win the presidency, and one of the things he talks about every day is the hopelessness of the Iraq quagmire and how we have to get our people out of there.
Well, OK, he does not talk about it all the time, but once in a while he mentions it…maybe…that is, nobody seems to remember the last time he said anything about it.
Jeez!! So OK, OK, he has dropped the subject, all right??
Never mind that. We have to, like, get our people out of there, y’know. So somebody has a plan to do just that, and it turns out to be The Pentagon.
Don’t believe it? Maybe this will convince you. It’s even got pretty colors!
More People Who Need Killing
While Iraq is on track, Afghanistan is a mess. So expect Obama to resume his howling as the Pentagon responds to the resurgent Taliban.
Before long, we are going to be hearing that there is not and never was any excuse to attack Afghanistan, that we cannot win there, and that the price we are paying in lives is too high to be tolerated. That and a lot more. Why? Because we shall be winning there, and more quickly than we won in Iraq.
For news from the old front that is about to become a new front, your best source is almost certainly Michael Yon. Yon’s website is valuable because it is candid, unbiased and brutally blunt. It contrasts sharply with, for example, the BBC:
Those familiar with the BBC’s bias towards and promotion of the Islamic faith and its regular apologias on behalf of Islamic extremism will have barely raised an eyebrow at the news that £20,000 from one of the corporation’s charity appeals ended up in the hands of the Muslim terrorists who murdered 52 people in London in 2005.
…the political and cultural mindset of the BBC, rooted as it is in the twin shibboleths of political correctness and multiculturalism, makes incidents such as these inevitable.
With regard to Islam, the mindset dictates that any religion which challenges the Judaeo-Christian hegemony so despised by the Left must necessarily be a good thing — particularly if the majority of its adherents happen to have dark skin — and so under no circumstances must anything be broadcast that might possibly offend Muslims. (Don’t take it from me — take it from the leading BBC figures who admitted as much during an “impartiality summit.”)
…just this weekend BBC reporter Lyse Doucet told a broadcasting conference that the Western media was failing to convey the “humanity” of the Taliban to viewers.
The Internet Is A Blessing That Can Be Used Against Us
This is yet another damned thing to worry about.
The quandary is one of the anomalies of our time: Islam, the most profoundly anti-scientific religion ever, cripples the educational and intellectual life of the nations in its grasp even as it uses sophisticated technology to wage war on Western Civilization. Nuclear physics, computers, chemistry, virology and bacteriology are in the service of homicidal lunatics. It is clear that once the universal caliphate is in place, those disciplines and technologies will languish. To Koran-adherent Muslims, they are weapons, not science.
A Guide From The Left: Oliver Kamm Provides Perspective And Wisdom
Kamm is a weblogger whose words the PenPo and its predecessor have followed, and recommended, for years. He has recently become a columnist for the London Times.
Many of his essays are opaque to those in the New World because they deal with British domestic politics, but Kamm’s interest in international news, coupled with his incisive intelligence, allow him to provide us with valuable insights. A recent sample:
The decade after the end of the Cold War was not, as it turned out, the end of history. It was instead a period when the worst regimes in the world practised appalling depredations with little to check them. Astonishingly, and not just on the fringes of political debate, you could find an alliance of the nativist Right and totalitarian Left that regarded such figures as Milosevic and Saddam Hussein as aggressed against rather than aggressing. At the extreme, some pitiful eccentrics – the Austrian writer Peter Handke; the American lawyer Ramsey Clark – regarded these genocidal autocrats as anti-imperialist stalwarts.
How Do You Measure Tragedy? Do Numbers Of Lives Lost Mean Anything? And If So, What, Exactly, Do Numbers Mean?
It’s a tragedy every time a US warrior falls in Iraq. Is it ten times the tragedy, if ten are killed?
While you ponder that, try to recall how many in the USA lost their lives in automobile accidents last year. If, that is, you ever knew.
If you don’t know, what’s your guess? Five thousand? Twenty thousand?
Any way you look at it, when thousands of folks die pointlessly, needlessly, without losing their lives for some cause — no matter how controversial — it should be big news, shouldn’t it?
And what about violence, as opposed to accidents? How much does that matter to us? When people kill each other because that’s what theywant to do, shouldn’t we respond differently than we do when people die in genuine accidents?
Surprise! The following statistic was reported by CBS, of all outfits:
CHICAGO (CBS) — An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer ( in Chicago alone — Ed.). That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
It’s likely that this story was the work of some did-not-quite-buy-into-the-mindset maverick in the Chicago CBS TV station. Whoever wrote this is probably atypical, and probably also due for a reprimand.
Data like these, and like the fact that over forty thousand people die each year in the USA in auto accidents, are dangerous. Data like these may get some folks thinking. And think is just about the last thing many in the major media establishment want you to do.
A Word To The…Well, Expedient
Easy does it, Nan-Nan!
Palin Will Have A Colorful Opponent In The Debates. Here’s Proof
Eighty-six proof. If Biden was not intoxicated when this video was made — well, the vice-presidential candidates’ debate will be a spectacle to behold.
Watch Out, You Don’t Want To Step On A Rusty Nail…Yikes! Oh, Boy, That’s Gonna Hurt!
This bit of uninspired rhetoric will prove useful to the GOP as the weeks go by. It will alienate people who welcome children into their lives. There’s just no way to “spin” it so it appears intelligent or principled.
Obama has made some mistakes, the biggest of which has been to ignore the PenPo’s advice on how to run his campaign. He should be talking about other issues — issues McCain is ignoring.
Venom, Invective, Lies And Damned Lies
There’s Only One Question One Can Ask About This: Will Obama Make Good On His Promise, And Fire This Guy…Or…What?
It’s impossible to interpret this prolonged, embarrassing dialogue so it gives the candidate any option. His response will reveal a lot about his ethics.
This Is How They Think
Whatever it takes to win…and, if the government is elected by the populace, that means whatever it takes to convince the voters to hand you victory.
Here is an instance of this mindset. Of course it was taken down as soon as it garnered attention from beyond the pale, but it was grabbed (probably by a screenshot) first, and then reported to the world at large. Oops!
NoodleyAppendage (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-30-08 10:26
122. What many here don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.
The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:
Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin’s last kid (if hers), then that’s FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The “rising above it” bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn’t it?
If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the “concern trolls” are not helping shape the message.
(Translation: “STFU” means “shut the fuck up.”)
We have seen this before — as when Markos Mulitsas Zuniga explained to the leftist faithful who read his weblog that the best tactic was to explain G. W. Bush won the last presidential election because the political middle voted against the perceived agenda of homosexual activists. The president was president, in other words, because lots of voters hate a minority. Zuniga went on to say that generally speaking, he did not like to lie, but in this case it was best to do so. (He freely admits: “I’m just all about winning.”) That would allow the left to ignore the real issues on which Kerry lost “flyover country.” As far as PenPo staff can determine, Zuniga’s suggestion that his partisans make a false accusation has been removed from his website.
What’s a voter to do? The rational and principled citizen will be interested to know which candidates are supported by scoundrels like Zuniga and the mouth-breathers who infest the lower strata of the DemocraticUnderground website. The catch: decent office-seekers can be backed by indecent folks, and sometimes are. Yes, it’s not always true that “By their followers shall you know them,” but that’s the way to bet. Birkenstock Brigadiers don’t march with the Brownshoe Bourgeoisie.