After Speech

From an unsigned editorial in the New York Times:

President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world. [SNIP]

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

I think that’s enough for all to get the tone of the piece; negativity and parsing. Yes, I know; it’s the New York Times. But I wonder what such people expect the president to say and to do.. “Okay, it was a big mistake and I’m pulling our boys and girls out now. The ones that died did so for nothing and we’re going to leave the peaceful Iraqi citizenry to the clutches of the terrorists and insurgents. We’re going to leave them at the mercy of the Islamists so that there women and girls can be treated barely better than animals. We…”

I really think that people like the author of this editorial expect the authors of OIF to throw up their hands in surrender because of the bad things that are happening over in Iraq. (Bad things happening during a war: imagine that.) In fact, I think that many are angry that the Vietnam script isn’t quite being played out as hoped.

From Richard Dunham in Business Weekly:

TET ON THE TIGRIS? What were they [the Democrats] to expect, though? The President long ago realized that his critics would never be placated. Instead, he is trying to win back lost friends on the political right, to rebuild his 51% coalition, and to convince the troops that he -- if not the entire nation -- is on their side.

For a short time at least, he's likely to succeed. In the long run, however, it'll be the TV videos from Baghdad that convince most Americans whether the President is a modern-day Winston Churchill, resolutely leading the free world to victory over the evildoers -- or the second coming of LBJ, battered by an endless reprise of the Tet Offensive.

Mr. Dunham is right, but not in the way that he thinks. What Mr. Dunham doesn’t know or hopes his readers don’t know is that Tet was an American military success during the Vietnam War, but the American public was lead to believe that it was a failure by the traditional media; back then, of course, the only game in town.

That monopoly is impossible to be had now.

What we have to decide in this age in which we are bombarded with information is whether or not we’ll be lead blindly by the likes of the New York Times editorial page and Mr. Dunham or even by the National Review and Victor Davis Hanson (yes, I know; lopsided comparisons). There is no reason for most Americans to be fed his/her opinions; to believe, like some of my relatives do, that nothing save bad things are happening in Iraq.

Go read the accounts of those who are there, have been there, or are resourceful enough to find the good news.

Better yet, go read what Iraqis have to say. Get some balance in the information distribution.

*****

The after-speech I watched was that of MSNBC, hosted by Chris Matthews in a townhall meeting format in Tennessee. (After the speech, Fox News nearly broke its proverbial neck resuming the all-Natalie-Holloway-all-the-time coverage. I’ll get to that later.) The presentation was very good in spite of the negative tone of Mr. Matthews' questions to military wives, his propensity to obnoxiously demand answers and to interrupt those same answers. These ladies were unequivocally positive, upbeat and they understood the bottom line. Mr. Matthews couldn’t lay a glove on that foundation.

Additionally, two Muslim ladies stood up to rebuke terrorism and assert their desire to live in peace with other Americans of every race and religion. Let many more of their number speak up.

Mr. Matthews said one thing last night that I agree with, however:

“Talking politics is easier than fighting insurgents.”

Just so.

Comments

[Ken Summers]

“Talking politics is easier than fighting insurgents.”

But fighting insurgents would be a lot easier without the idiots talking politics.

[StinKerr]

Absolutely correct, Ken.

[Brad J]

We CAN lose this war, if we are diligent and try really hard to convince everyone else to give up. Except the terrorists of course. We must encourage them to keep fighting! THEN we can lose the war.

Hugh Hewitt said it so well that liberal's commentaries on foreign policy read like SUICIDE NOTES. Hahaha! An apt description.

I wouldn't mind so much as long as they weren't taking me with them!

[torchy]

"....taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world."

We hear this canard so often. I would think having our air, sea and ground forces deployed and the Atlantic/Pacific supply lines active and surging would improve our abilities to respond to other world threats, rather than having our troops barracked, training in simulations and their equipment warehoused and untested under real battle conditions.

[Brian H]

I've never much liked the expression, but, "I call bullshit!"

"at best unimproved". Now there's an unsupported and significantly counter-factual statement. This is a common tactic in these slanted propaganda rants; slip in a couple of assumption-laden postulates and then build to the preselected negative spin-out from there.

[Miguel]

I was born in 1949, always lived in Mexico. I remember the Tet offensive very well, and I remember the press down here (everywhere I guess) spinning it as an American defeat. I was young and naive then, so I believed it all...one more reason to despise those crapy journos, THEY LIED SHAMELESSLY to me and many others. Now I find that the offensive was AN AMERICAN VICTORY. Cheap bastards of the MSM, they are disgusting.

[baldilocks]

Don't feel bad, Miguel. I didn't know it until a couple of years ago.

[Miguel]

Thanks a lot Baldi :) Thank God lots of us are awakening to what's going on with the information.