New York Times: A War We Just Might Win

Well, this thread has turned out exactly how I thought it would.

Liberals denying first-hand reports from their own because it might be a success for the administration.

Liberals denying that they want us to lose over there so Bush looks bad.

But most of all, liberals really, really fearing that we might win over there because they know it would be bad for them.

My signature stands. In fact, it's probably not strong enough.

 

Ragu,

I have no idea why the esteemed Washington press corps does things the way it does. But I do not throw monikers around lightly; as Fenian said, there is years of documentation to back it up.

They have failed this nation spectacularly, and in spite of what you want to believe, I do not feel this way because they have not written enough nice things about Democrats. Their performance in treating the 2000 election as if it were a race for prom queen was atrocious, their performance in the run up to the Iraq invasion was Category-5 negligence.

If you think that can all be dismissed with jokes about cigar smoking and back rooms and conspiracies, well, then, have at it.

(That said, though, I am wondering when we'll start seeing the Washington post write about Elizabeth Dole's cleavage on the Senate floor, or how much Mitt Romney's haircuts cost, or when we'll see Chris Matthews speculate on how the infidelities of Rudy Giuliani himself, rather than Hillary Clinton's husband, might impact the next election. Funny how such "stories" only target Democrats.)

As far as my speculation on what the eventual Republican nominee will say regarding Iraq -- because an unapologetic war hawk will not win in 2008 -- and how the esteemed Washington press corps will react to it, if you'd care to make it interesting, we can certainly talk.

And tony, see you in a few months, when nothing's changed in Iraq. And if you'd care to make that interesting, we can certainly talk.

 

At least you hope so.

(Go ahead. Admit it. You'll feel better.)

 

I don't think it is some sort of cabal, but it is pretty clear that some have personal agendas.
The NYTimes, eight years after the fact, finally ran a correction that said Naomi Wolf never advised Al Gore about clothing choices.
Yeah, it goes back to Reagan, at least, but you have an astonshing pattern of things that happened in the Clinton years and on.
Just look at any of the press corps manufactured mythology on Gore and I firmly believe that a tight-knit group of reporters decided to take down Gore. Nothing else makes sense.
And look at the coverage in the runup to the Iraq war. Look at the failure to closely examine any of Bush's appointments.
Now you have people analyzing Hillary's boobs and reading the mind of Chelsea Clinton.
Given what we know about the political beliefs of the people who own the media companies, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

 

Sorry, O_T, the "we could win this thing if only we had more support from those traitors on the other side" trope didn't work for Vietnam, and it doesn't work here.

 

Hey old_tony, do you think the 'furnace-like heat' over there has anything to do with global warming?

 

Yes, I will admit that I have zero confidence in the current leadership to change things in Iraq.

Coming to that conclusion through my own deduction and not swallowing whole the saccahrin sentiments dished out by spectacularly- and repeatedly-discredited war apologists -- and, despite their insistence to the contrary, the Brookings duo is just that -- does make me feel better, thanks.

And your unwillingness to suggest that I'll be wrong is duly noted. See you in a few months.

Ragu,

I make no claims of a one-sided agenda. Do you think the term "shit for brains" suggests an agenda? I would hope it suggests laziness and incompetence; if not, I need to find a new moniker.

I abhor the media's perpetual reliance on scripts; I thought the seizing on George H.W. Bush as out-of-touch in 1992 (He doesn't know what a grocery scanner is! He looked at his watch during the debate!) was unfair, although those stunts were of much less magnitude that what happened to Al Gore in 2000.

You and I could probably find a lot of common ground on what ails the political press. Another big factor is that the Republican spin-machine over the years has been much more effective than the Democrats' operation.

(That said, as Fenian and Jay have pointed out, whatever has broken the political-reporting process in this country has politically advantaged Republicans. That is undeniable.)

Please don't seize on this paragraph to suggest that all my press criticisms are politically motivated:

I was just talking about those particular kind of stories, not the entire body of coverage.

 

Fredo's support is now down to one American: Old Tony.

Congrats.

 

Yes, and Republicans haven't tried to use tragedy for their own political gain. : That's why we're in this mess in the first place.

 

Judging from what I've read, the troops are finally able to lead the horse to water, but the horse doesn't seem too thirsty. If the Iraqi government can't get their act together, Bush should say, "hey, I tried" and bail.