Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Michelle Malkin is on crack. She gives us a paragraph full of things that make it look nearly impossible to solve the Iraq problem, then, perplexingly, tells us she left Iraq with hope. Nowhere in between or afterward does she give us any indication of something to be hopeful about -- and I looked for it fully expecting it to be there.

Then there's this piece of brilliance:

Quote:

These soldiers are well aware of the history, culture and sectarian strife that have wracked the Muslim world for more than a millennium.

"Really?", I said to myself. That's great. I sit on the edge of my seat for examples and anecdotes that will illustrate their understanding of the complexities of the culture.

Michell Malkin in reply wrote:

"They love death," one gunner muttered as we heard explosions in the distance while parked in al Adil.

Brilliant.

think you need to need more Earnest Hemingway, missus. You show too little respect for the concise eloquence of those strong, silent soldier types.

It may be that your reactions are merely attributable yo your evident desire to judge the essay as a complete, all-encompassing historical analysis, as opposed to the impressionistic piece the author so obviously intended. I wonder what would be the result if you applied the same standard to any of the many journalistic pieces opposing the effort in Iraq.

f we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die."

But on Nov. 2, 2006, Peters wrote a column in USA Today announcing, "Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. If they continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave." The same columnist who warned just a year ago in the most alarmist tone that withdrawal would gravely endanger the U.S., now claims that "Contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that."

All of these self-proclaimed super-patriots who spent the last three years shrieking that anyone who criticizes the war is a friend of the terrorists are now being forced to admit that the war is unwinnable. But rather than acknowledging their reversal, they seek to erase the public record, both to salvage their reputations and to obscure the intensity of their attacks against those who were right. Such vitriol against critics muted debate in the first place and ensured that we stayed in Iraq, pretending all along that things were going great.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging one's errors and changing one's mind. When genuine, this should be encouraged. But these pundits are not doing that. They know that they were on the wrong side of the most vital issue of the last decade, and in trying to reverse their predictions reveal themselves to be deeply flawed not only in judgment but also in character.
_______________________________

Glenn Greenwald is author of How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From the Bush Administration.

No, I know Malkin's writing and I know exactly what it was intended to be. I don't think my critique was about historical analysis but rather about her writing. If there's good news, tell it! She spent a whole paragraph listing the impossibilities of it but hardly a blip about why she still had hope. Her illustration of the understanding our soldiers have of the culture in Iraq is "they love death". It's a disjointed and sloppy piece that only doesn't seem so to the people who are already inclined to feel good by reading it. Similar tripe is certainly trotted out by oposing voices, and in those cases you or Tico or others always come and show it for what it is -- saving me the effort. I'm doing the same for you here.

... I also many times witnessed the very patronizing amazement of journalists who suddenly discovered that soldiers and sailors can think and observe quite well on their own.

However, I think you are cutting it rather fine. For example, I don't think she was saying the soldiers interpreted Iraqi culture simply as "they love death", but rather the people there whom they are fighting. Seems like an accurate characterization to me. Moreover if it came from one who had the experience of being their target, it sounds very human and believable to me.

I have a good deal of past experience in that world, and it didn't seem phony to me. I also many times witnessed the very patronizing amazement of journalists who suddenly discovered that soldiers and sailors can think and observe quite well on their own.

Here's another one of those liberal rants that show what a bunch of lying gutless bastards Bush's neocons are.

January 15, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

Selective Amnesia

The pundits who sold the Iraq War change their tune and bury their records.

by Glenn Greenwald

When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq.

But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush's policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.

Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits.

On the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war.

Now, as the war he demanded lies in ruins, Krauthammer uses his Post column to revise his record: "Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government." His hysterical obsession with WMD has been whitewashed from his pundit history, and in its place is a goal that Krauthammer barely mentioned prior to the war.

As recently as Oct. 28, 2005, he mocked foreign-policy realists for their belief that democracy could not take root in Iraqi culture, insisting that "the overwhelming majority of Iraq's people have repeatedly given every indication of valuing their newfound freedom." But now, Krauthammer claims that the war he urged is failing because Iraqis are incapable of understanding what freedom is about:

[T]he problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Hussein's totalitarianism. Is this America's fault? No. It is a result of Iraq's first democratic election. It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not.

The dynamic is also evident among former Bush supporters now trying to distance themselves from the unpopular president. Many who loyally supported and even venerated Bush when he was riding high now pretend to have recognized his flaws all along.

f we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die."

But on Nov. 2, 2006, Peters wrote a column in USA Today announcing, "Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. If they continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave." The same columnist who warned just a year ago in the most alarmist tone that withdrawal would gravely endanger the U.S., now claims that "Contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that."

All of these self-proclaimed super-patriots who spent the last three years shrieking that anyone who criticizes the war is a friend of the terrorists are now being forced to admit that the war is unwinnable. But rather than acknowledging their reversal, they seek to erase the public record, both to salvage their reputations and to obscure the intensity of their attacks against those who were right. Such vitriol against critics muted debate in the first place and ensured that we stayed in Iraq, pretending all along that things were going great.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging one's errors and changing one's mind. When genuine, this should be encouraged. But these pundits are not doing that. They know that they were on the wrong side of the most vital issue of the last decade, and in trying to reverse their predictions reveal themselves to be deeply flawed not only in judgment but also in character.
_______________________________

Glenn Greenwald is author of How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From the Bush Administration.

I believe you. And that's what I was hoping Malkin would illustrate in the following sentences. But she didn't.

Lots of Bald Eagles hanging around Wichita lately. Several pics can be seen ... here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6279729.stm

Cold winds blowing round GWB's ally, the Bliar.