 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: A Breach in MSM's "Maginot Line"? |
 |
|
Last evening (Sat. 10/24), I happened to tune into "The Beltway Boys" at an opportune moment. Juan Williams and Fred Barnes were trading bon mots on implications attendant to the apparent breach in MSM journalism's "Maginot Line" against printing ANYTHING suggesting postitive developments in Iraq. While Barnes could barely control his euphoria at the appearance of formerly near-heretical news in the MSM, Juan Williams, apparently cutoff at his ideological knees with the recent collapse of democratic congressional opposition, was reduced to uttering platitudinous and banal non-sequiturs such as "We just wish we could see our troops home for the holidays." I swear. He said that...or something very close to that.
Here's a clue Juan. The troops WISH they could be "Home for the Holidays" as well. But do you know what they wish for more Juan? They'd wish to see VICTORY in Iraq (and Afghanistan) as the culmination of their 4+ years of blood and sacrifice.
But what really struck me after a few moments of reflection on this apparent sea-change in MSM reportage (and prompts this missive) is my considered opinion that the MSM, in reading the political tea-leaves, is now re-positioning itself so as to lay the "journalistic" foundation of support for a continued commitment to Iraq under the presumed future leadership of the Dark Queen herself. Whaddya think?
In the interim, bookmark the following...it may be a watershed moment in the history of our middle-east involvement (or is that Mesopotamia?).
| Quote: | Baghdad’s Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves
By DAMIEN CAVE and ALISSA J. RUBIN
The New York Times
November 20, 2007
BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 — ...The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real...As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city.
The New York Times |
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With the dramatic gains in Iraq, the MSM and Dem politicians are slowly recognizing that
they can't continue to pretend its not happening.
Their meme is slightly changing, but they certainly don't want to credit Gen. Petraeus, our
troops, or Pres. Bush for their steadfastness in ridding Iraq of AlQaeda.
If a Democrat wins the White House, they want to take credit for victory.
So they will continue cling to the 'civil war' meme and we should just get our troops out of there.
They will dwell on whatever negatives they can.
This story today in the New York Times
| Quote: | November 25, 2007
As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
By PATRICK HEALY
As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.
Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.
But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.......(cont'd) |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. |
If I've ever read a more disgusting acknowledgement and admission of the crass politicization of this war, I don't remember it.
I would suggest to the author that the same holds true for the Editorial board of the New York Times and other like-minded political propagandists who now dwell in subjective vs. objective truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1451
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I heard Juan say that also and cracked up laughing!
geeze!
next thing ya know they'll be saying it's their hard nosed push on Bush to
end the war that caused the surge to work...
Pelosi and Reid'll be taking credit for it! lol!
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | | Quote: | | Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. |
If I've ever read a more disgusting acknowledgement and admission of the crass politicization of this war, I don't remember it.
I would suggest to the author that the same holds true for the Editorial board of the New York Times and other like-minded political propagandists who now dwell in subjective vs. objective truth. |
Me#1, I don't know if you saw this excellent read from Noeme Emery, but I saved it to my "Its A Keeper" file for future reference.
| Quote: | The Stab That Failed
The congressional Democrats' surge-against-the-surge -- a case study in political futility.
by Noemie Emery
12/03/2007, Volume 013, Issue 12
Eagerly anticipating the defeat in Iraq to which they are so much attached, some on the left have also been preparing for another contingency: the assault that they think they see coming, a drive to pin the whole wretched failure on them. Apparently, this will be "stab in the back" redux, a new iteration of the theme deployed so successfully in interwar Germany by a resourceful, ambitious Austrian corporal, who managed to propel his rise to power with the claim that World War I would have been won by his country, if not for sinister forces at home. Then, it was subversion by Jews and other disloyal elements. This time, in the left's imagining, the blame will fall on the press and the Democrats who, by pulling the plug at just the wrong moment, caused the loss of Iraq. "Nobody I know in a rational condition believes that the United States is going to have any kind of a military victory," Mark Shields said in August. "So the idea is going to be, 'We were on the cusp of victory and the rug was pulled out from under us by these willy-nilly, weak-kneed, nervous Nellies back home."
The problem with this is (1) that we may really win, and have no failure to blame upon anyone, and (2) that the nervous Nellies really did try to keep us from winning, indeed fought fang and claw to derail our best efforts. If they had had their way, Iraq would still be the quagmire they are so fond of invoking, and the United States--or George W. Bush, which may be the more relevant factor--would have incurred a definitive and, at least in his case, legacy-blasting defeat. It is unfair of course to call this a stab in the back, as the Democrats have been engagingly open about their intentions. In the course of the past year, they have gone from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done. If not backstabbing as such (see above), it is diverting enough a spectacle to merit a replay. Let us look back at this last year of battle and see how the story played out.
When our tale opens, it is the last month of 2006, Democrats have just scored a blowout in Congress, Iraq is in shambles, and the country is calling for Bush to change course. He does. But he changes course in the other direction, radically revising his Iraq strategy, adopting aggressive new rules of engagement, and sending in 30,000 more troops. Even before the plan was announced to the public on January 10, 2007, Democrats launched their assault. Senator Christopher Dodd declared the plan useless: "A 'surge' of American troops will do nothing." Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrats in the new Congress, released an open letter to Bush on January 5, decrying his redoubled effort as futile: "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed." The surge was "a sad, ominous echo of something we've lived through in this country," according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. "I'm confident it will not work," said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama. "Verdict first, trial afterwards," said the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, unaware of her future as a role model for America's congressional Democrats. And then it really got strange.
~snip~
The depth of the left's investment in an Iraq defeat came out during the last week in July, when, hearing from General Jack Keane that the surge might be working, Representative Nancy Boyda was so shaken she fled a congressional hearing. "There was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while," she explained. "Democrats like Boyda would like to preserve in amber the state of public opinion that prevailed during the 2006 election and the first half of this year," noted Michael Barone. "The more cynical among them want to make political gain from that; the less cynical want to end a conflict that is taking American lives as fast as they can." Democrats claim that their motives are pure, but it is a strange form of patriotic dissent that attacks a plan as having failed before it has started, anoints a commander, attacks him, and then tries to sandbag his efforts; calls a plan a failure in April when it has been explained many times that it will be June before it can be implemented, and then, when qualified observers see some signs of progress, either collapses in an attack of the vapors or erupts in howls of unrelieved rage.
Since then, the Democrats have moved on to controlling nondamage; i.e., putting the worst face on good news.......Cont'd |
Its a long article which chronicles every pusillaminous act of the Dems to bring defeat in Iraq. I don't know how the defeatocrats wiggle their way out of this.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: A Breech in MSM's "Maginot Line"? |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | But what really struck me after a few moments of reflection on this apparent sea-change in MSM reportage (and prompts this missive) is my considered opinion that the MSM, in reading the political tea-leaves, is now re-positioning itself so as to lay the "journalistic" foundation of support for a continued commitment to Iraq under the presumed future leadership of the Dark Queen herself. Whaddya think?
|
Following Bush 41, the MSM turned their manufactured recession into the greatest economy the world had ever seen, all within a few months after Clinton became president. Suppose this could be used as precedent.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shawa wrote: | | Me#1, I don't know if you saw this excellent read from Noeme Emery, but I saved it to my "Its A Keeper" file for future reference. |
I hadn't till now...and it's an INCREDIBLE indictment. In fact, it's a terrific resource for a bulleted list of sedition with NAMES and DATES all laid out in good order...
Let me also note that ONE name appears with considerable less frequency on that list...and that would-be presidential aspirants were/are decidedly scarce in that ignoble timeline of defeatism. Such "Profiles in Courage"!...more like "Profiles in Political Perfidy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
