NYTimes: It's working

I would love if the war could be won. I will even believe it if you are able to provide credible evidence that shows it is possible at this point the way Bush is fighting the war.

If you can't do that, if you could answer the questions posed to you in this and the Vietnam thread, then that might also help others understand how you place faith in those who have been wrong so much of the time.

Otherwise you calling people soulless without any backing or evidence as to why, or you even refusing to address the lack of credibility to the evidence that you provide then it is pointless.

I don't know how to make it any more plain for you.

 

HO HO HO!

A thread celebrating the courageous troops' efforts in Iraq is once again overrun by liberals claiming that the troops are failing. Why not take the good news for what it is? GOOD NEWS. The WSJ had a big piece on the surge working last week as well. The fact of the matter is that the liberals are invested in securing defeat in Iraq. They would rather save face personally than win a major strategic struggle with an enemy of the United States -- al Qaeda. Repeat after me:

THE LIBERALS' POLITICAL EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON THEM ENSURING DEFEAT IN IRAQ.

This is the undeniable truth, as evidenced by years of negativity towards our troops' efforts and their attempts to suppress and distort any positive story coming out of Iraq. The liberals have polluted all forms of media with a concerted effort intended to secure defeat in Iraq. At this point, anything short of waving a white flag and handing the keys to Baghdad (and the region) over to al Qaeda would be disappointing to the libs. Want proof? The surge is working and the liberals are upset. What more do you need to see from them to prove my points to be correct?

 

You haven't been correct about anything in 4 years.

It's telling when the lunatic fringe of war supporters have to desperately hang their hat on a disingenuous report by two people who have been some of the administration's greatest cheerleaders for the war, who have now "seen the light" in a desperate attempt to salvage some type of possible outcome.

To use one of Jorge's favorites… NO CRED

 

Here's someone who agrees with the O’Hanlon-Pollack Op-Ed. How's that strool in Bagdad going there John?

 

via tpmcafe --


Why The Media Lavishes Coverage On Pollack And O'Hanlon

So the media lavished an endless amount of coverage yesterday on the now-infamous Times Op ed by Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon arguing that the "surge" is working.

Which prompted Glenn Greenwald, Atrios, and Think Progress to all raise the eternal question again today: Why were Pollack and O'Hanlon granted so much media play yesterday to trumpet their views despite having gotten it so wrong so many times in the past?

Why hasn't their repeated wrongness undercut them among peers, cast doubt on their judgment, and made the big news orgs reluctant to offer them a platform to continue being wrong from?

Let me take a crack at offering an admittedly simple answer: Their professional peers simply can't judge them harshly and hold them accountable for getting it so disastrously wrong, because to do so would require judging themselves harshly and holding themselves accountable.

At risk of oversimplification, a huge swath of the pundits, editors, columnists, think-tankers and all-purpose "insiders" that make up what we roughly call the Beltway establishment made the same catastrophic misjudgment that O'Hanlon and Pollack did.

Only in some ways, what they did was worse: Terrified by the so-called "taint of dovishness," they allowed themselves to play along with a con game transparent enough for a ten-year-old to see through. With willful blindness they obligingly followed the O'Hanlons and the Pollacks -- the "experts" -- down a path leading the country over the edge of what now looks to be a bottomless pit. They -- and the troops and the country -- are still falling.

Bottom line: If these people were to conclude that O'Hanlon and Pollack's disastrous failings should cast fatal doubt on their judgment, and all but disqualify them professionally, they'd have to disqualify themselves, too. They'd have to come to terms with the fact that their own awful judgment and disastrous professional failings rendered them complicit, in however limited a way, in bringing us the unending disaster we've got on our hands right now. And these folks just aren't going to do this. The denial just runs too deep.

No mystery here.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...edia_lavishes_coverage_on_pollack_and_ohanlon

 

No basso, I've read the pathetic piece of propaganda and it is surreal in its twisted rationalizations.

It cannot be denied that O’Hanlon-Pollack, while criticizing the handling of the war (hell everyone with any credibility has done that, ask McCain), have been major cheerleaders of the war and administration's mid east policies. That is undeniable.

But you keep chasing that windmill.

 

McCain was wrong then, O’Hanlon-Pollack are wrong now.

 

I have to admit that it does appear that liberals are more interested in maintaining the notion that things are going badly in Iraq and it's a failure then being open to re-evaluation of the situation.

 

I read the article, but an author claiming something and actually doing the same thing is different. These two "analysts" may have criticized the handling of Iraq, but that was only after they crowed in support for several years.

rimrocker posted a great montage of the water carrying that these two authors did for Bush, maybe you can find some of the harsh criticism they talked about.

 

the D&D looks more like a game of..



nowdays than anything else..

basso pops his head up.. whack... tj enters.. smack... lather, rinse, repeat...

 

Gee...

Why would any rational thinking person think that things are going badly in Iraq? Just this morning...


Sunni bloc quits Iraqi government
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Bombs rock Baghdad, killing dozens, as unity government crumbles
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007080...70801134939;_ylt=AhKc91lJ6kVxcKl2ETZKY21X6GMA

Baghdad bombs kill at least 69
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007080...70801124943;_ylt=ArmEvTendCmT..vF86kz6ZRX6GMA

 

hey texx, how do you feel about leaders in your party wishing for more terrorist attacks in america so people will support bush again?

 

Is this a pathetically botched Don Quixote reference? You can't even get THAT right. It's charging (or tilting) at windmills, not chasing windmills. How does one chase a stationary windmill? Please answer that.

 

That's a pathetic attempt even from you Jorge. You're slipping.

Answer jo mama's question.

 

Otto has already taken much of my response but to follow up you are failing to see the possibility of other options than either you support the war so you have to support more troops or you don't support the war so you don't support more troops. There are many who support the war and many who want to see the war won, in terms of having a stable Iraq cabable providing for its own security, yet would disagree with sending more troops.

Many of the people who worked on the ISG supported the war and want to see it won. Speaking for myself I would like to see the war won too. The difference is that I don't see a military solution that leads to victory and neither did the ISG or even several generals. Those of us who share that view then would disagree with the President sending solidiers into harm's way as it is a needless risk.

While the President is empowered by the Constitution to do so he is still a politician and is accountable to Congress and the people which can act to legislatively thwart the President along with diminish his standing in history. Ultimately if Congress wishes it could end the war by rescinding authorization or impeachment and removal of office. So the idea that once the President commits troops it is futile to criticize that decision is mistaken. The President while Commander and Chief isn't without checks.

 

What a foolish thing to say. Why don't you provide some credible evidence that things in Iraq have changed to the point where it should be re-evaluated.

I would love to see real evidence that things were going swimmingly there. So far I haven't seen it.