Ah, it's the PRESS who are losing the war
So says the Bushites, who are desperate to find an excuse for their incompetent mismanagement of a conflict that was supposed to end in weeks, and is now getting worse after three years.
The scary thing is, I can't believe it's been three frickin' years.
Look, the press is not to blame. In fact, they are far more courageous than those blinded-by-the-light fools that have never faced danger in their lives and sit in comfortable houses or studios and who think it's all good and dandy and if more positive stories were on the news then we'd be winning the war, the same war we've allegedly been winning for three years. If we've been winning so long, how come it's not over?
Jake Tapper talked about the story he ran on a television producer, a real feel-good deal, who was killed by insurgents after the story aired. A CBS reporter in Baghdad said that the CPA begged them to not run some of the good stories they found because it would endanger the people who'd be the subject of these pieces. It's a mix of straw-man and hypocritical arguments to blame the press. On one hand, they're to blame for not running feel-good pieces on a frickin' war zone and on the other hand, they don't want them to run those pieces because they don't want to jeopardize the safety of these Iraqis.
There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from this. Either the administration and the military is deliberately doing this to find a scapegoat for their miserable and spectacular failure in Iraq, or the administration isn't at all listening to the "military commanders" that Bush is so fond of talking about whenever timetables or troop levels come up. In both cases, the behavior is so disgusting as to be completely nauseating. In the first case, they would be using "security concerns" to push a political agenda (again) and in the second case, they're not only lying, they're jeopardizing the war effort by ignoring the people on the ground. It's that top-down ignorance of the ground troops that was one of the real reasons we lost Vietnam, not because "squishy liberals" protested or Cronkite turned on it.
If this war is being lost, it is because of the record-setting depths being plumbed by the most incompetent war administration in American history. If this war is being lost, it's because we never once did the right thing when the situation demanded it (more troops, leaving the Iraqi Army intact, not paying former regime workers, etc.). If this war is being lost, it's because we refused to bring in more worldwide help. If this war is being lost, it's because we attacked for reasons that were proven false. If this war is being lost, it is not the fault of liberals, the media, Democratic congressmen, or war critics. If this war is being lost, the only blame that can be factually placed (and I know facts are anathema to the Bush crew), it is the fault of the President of the United States, who signed off on decisions being made by the people he hired, and who has the power to demand change, but has not. This president and his administration is losing the war, and no amount of spin can save him from that reality.
The scary thing is, I can't believe it's been three frickin' years.
Look, the press is not to blame. In fact, they are far more courageous than those blinded-by-the-light fools that have never faced danger in their lives and sit in comfortable houses or studios and who think it's all good and dandy and if more positive stories were on the news then we'd be winning the war, the same war we've allegedly been winning for three years. If we've been winning so long, how come it's not over?
Jake Tapper talked about the story he ran on a television producer, a real feel-good deal, who was killed by insurgents after the story aired. A CBS reporter in Baghdad said that the CPA begged them to not run some of the good stories they found because it would endanger the people who'd be the subject of these pieces. It's a mix of straw-man and hypocritical arguments to blame the press. On one hand, they're to blame for not running feel-good pieces on a frickin' war zone and on the other hand, they don't want them to run those pieces because they don't want to jeopardize the safety of these Iraqis.
There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from this. Either the administration and the military is deliberately doing this to find a scapegoat for their miserable and spectacular failure in Iraq, or the administration isn't at all listening to the "military commanders" that Bush is so fond of talking about whenever timetables or troop levels come up. In both cases, the behavior is so disgusting as to be completely nauseating. In the first case, they would be using "security concerns" to push a political agenda (again) and in the second case, they're not only lying, they're jeopardizing the war effort by ignoring the people on the ground. It's that top-down ignorance of the ground troops that was one of the real reasons we lost Vietnam, not because "squishy liberals" protested or Cronkite turned on it.
If this war is being lost, it is because of the record-setting depths being plumbed by the most incompetent war administration in American history. If this war is being lost, it's because we never once did the right thing when the situation demanded it (more troops, leaving the Iraqi Army intact, not paying former regime workers, etc.). If this war is being lost, it's because we refused to bring in more worldwide help. If this war is being lost, it's because we attacked for reasons that were proven false. If this war is being lost, it is not the fault of liberals, the media, Democratic congressmen, or war critics. If this war is being lost, the only blame that can be factually placed (and I know facts are anathema to the Bush crew), it is the fault of the President of the United States, who signed off on decisions being made by the people he hired, and who has the power to demand change, but has not. This president and his administration is losing the war, and no amount of spin can save him from that reality.
posted by Thad at 9:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home