Now if only the NY Times had some Credibility
Photo Credit: NY Times
In one of my previous posts I asked, Is there anything more irrelevant or worthless than the New York Times? So now, when they finally print the truth, who is there left to believe them?
New York Times,
A War We Just Might Win
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
For an interesting analysis of this matter go read
The Surge, the Times, the Democrats, and Success
The "Iraq disaster" scenario has worked extremely well in advancing the political agenda shared by the Democrats and the Times (as well as by al Qaeda) but has always depended on continuing failure in Iraq. Once victory in Iraq appears as a real possibility and progress toward such a goal has become undeniable, the Times/Democrats will be seen to have pressed a losing strategy; at that point they will find themselves in a serious dilemma.
Of course it will be very difficult for liberals to accept victory because of their previously having so readily accepted defeat. Although anything is possible and the surge may fail, suppose one day there is a peaceful, stable Iraq; will the defeatist coward Harry Reid be able to take back his shameful The war in Iraq is lost and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country?
Alert The Media! The Surge Is Working!
Question: why should the authors have been "surprised" if we have been getting accurate and balanced reporting from the mainstream media?
Here's a clue. The public does not get its news from the Bush administration.
We get it from the media. The fact is, the Bush admistration has been telling us the Surge is working; a message which seems to be confirmed by the authors' trip to Iraq. It is the media who have relentlessly worked to undermine and refute that message. And now, two Democrats, one a Clintonite, are saying (after travelling to Iraq to find out for themselves) that the White House is telling the truth.
Related to giving up on Iraq, Adrian Cronauer, the vet of "Good Morning, Vietnam" fame, tells us that Vietnam was not lost by the military, but by the defeatist Democrats.
When we withdrew our military in 1973, the Viet Cong were still recovering from the defeat they suffered during the Tet Offensive while the South Vietnamese military was more than able to defend their country--but only if they continued to receive equipment, ammunition, other supplies, and miscellaneous logistical support from the U.S. which we promised to give them indefinitely. No sooner had our troops returned home ("victoriously" one could argue) when the liberals (I refuse to use the false designation of "progressive") in Congress started to pull the plug on South Vietnam. They blocked any funds to support the S. VN military and, hence, it was only a matter of time before the North Vietnamese Communist troops were able to overrun the South and either "re-educate" or massacre all those who were loyal to the South or had anything to do with the Americans.
Would it be too much of a stretch to see what the Dems are doing in Congress now regarding Iraq as a direct parallel?
My previous articles on the New York Times can be found here.