Things you never hear from the MSM!

[tomchamp]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20050826.shtml

 

[Larry Gude]

Zing...

Matt Laeur: Don't get me wrong, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks. . . .What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?

Captain Sherman Powell: Well, sir, I tell you -- if I got my news from the newspapers also, I'd be pretty depressed as well.

Zing.

Or how about this one:

(my take) The people who may feel that way at home did not volunteer to serve their country. It's a service thing. You wouldn't understand.

 

[Penn]

"(But)...... another Vietnam? No -- not when such strong support for the war comes from the very soldiers who are in harm's way. Their high morale, their faith in their mission, their conviction that they are doing the right thing for both America and Iraq -- those are the signals to heed, not the counsels of despair on the TV talk shows.


It will be time to give up on Iraq when the troops give up on Iraq. So far, there's no sign they will. "



That about says it all - in a nutshell.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that Iraq is going the way of Vietnam, but that has nothing to do with troop morale, it has to do with the way we're fighting the war. In Vietnam we had to tread very carefully because we didn't want the war to expand in scope due to increased CHICOM and Soviet involvement. As a result we fought to hold out for a political victory rather than a military victory, and we lost.

It's the same deal in Iraq, only instead of CHICOMs and Soviets we have the Democrats and Liberals to deal with. I just wish Bush would wake up to the fact that the Democrats are going to criticize whatever he does, that the liberal medias of the World will condemn him no matter what he does, and just let our high-moraled troops do their job and finish the war.

 

[SamSpade]

It's the same deal in Iraq, only instead of CHICOMs and Soviets we have the Democrats and Liberals to deal with. I just wish Bush would wake up to the fact that the Democrats are going to criticize whatever he does, that the liberal medias of the World will condemn him no matter what he does, and just let our high-moraled troops do their job and finish the war.

Bush has a tough row to hoe, because a loss of support at home will finish the war better than anything that happens in Iraq - and Iraq won't be "done" fast enough. If support erodes enough at home, he won't be able to keep the troop strength up - and that will make things worse on the men who are already serving there.

I was watching Meet the Press yesterday, and one guy mentioned that too much of the war coverage here is centered completely on casualties, to the utter exclusion of almost everything else. And I'm not just saying the 'good news' of how many schools and hospitals have been re-built, opened or how fast the economy is improving over what it was, and so on. The entire political process gets a quick glance, but the coverage is basically on the deaths. He mentioned that if the Normandy invasion had been covered solely on the basis of casualties, we *might* have considered it a failure. He was stretching a bit there, because people generally knew what the world was or would be like with the German war machine running amok. But he had a point - if people can't get a good grasp of what a decent democracy in Iraq - perhaps not an American like democracy but perhaps LIKE a Turkish democracy - then they just see the invasion as a pointless bit of saber-rattling and empire building. A successful and democratic Iraq has the potential to change the Middle East *forever*.

Unfortunately, failure in Iraq has the potential of making matters MUCH worse, and failing is a much easier option for those who stand to gain politically from just that happening.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think that Iraq is going the way of Vietnam, but that has nothing to do with troop morale, it has to do with the way we're fighting the war. In Vietnam we had to tread very carefully because we didn't want the war to expand in scope due to increased CHICOM and Soviet involvement. As a result we fought to hold out for a political victory rather than a military victory, and we lost.

It's the same deal in Iraq, only instead of CHICOMs and Soviets we have the Democrats and Liberals to deal with. I just wish Bush would wake up to the fact that the Democrats are going to criticize whatever he does, that the liberal medias of the World will condemn him no matter what he does, and just let our high-moraled troops do their job and finish the war.

[kidding]Nuke L.A., San Franciso, Chicago, and Boston. End of liberal and Democrat problem.[/kidding]


[kidding][/kidding] added for those that think I might mean it.

 

[Bruzilla]

Bush has a tough row to hoe, because a loss of support at home will finish the war better than anything that happens in Iraq - and Iraq won't be "done" fast enough. If support erodes enough at home, he won't be able to keep the troop strength up - and that will make things worse on the men who are already serving there.

I disagree. I think Bush has a fairly easy row to hoe, he just needs to decide to hoe it. Bush needs to take the limits off the troops and let them destroy the enemy wherever/whenever he/she is found, and prosecute attacks until victory is achieved. Instead you have teams of lawyers reviewing every battle to see if anyone's rights were violated, and news crews following behind the action to record every unfortunate civilian casualty they can find.

If we don't get good operational intel, the Dems complaign. If we're even a little bit rough with detainees to get that intel, the Dems complaign. If we don't level a city and kill every combatant, the Dems complaign. If we kill Yohammed and his kids while killing every combatant, the Democrats complaign. If we have too many troops, or too few troops, or any number in between, the Democrats complaign.

There's been a lot of discussion about a "Third Question" that pollers should be asking in addition to "Do you support the war in Iraq" and "Do you approve of President Bush's handling of the war?" The third question should be "Would you approve of President Bush allowing the troops to use increased levels of force to go out and kick ass?" Ask that third question and I think an easy majority would say YES!

 

[2ndAmendment]

... The third question should be "Would you approve of President Bush allowing the troops to use increased levels of force to go out and kick ass?" Ask that third question and I think an easy majority would say YES!

 

[vraiblonde]

Ask that third question and I think an easy majority would say YES!

Which is why they don't ask it, I'll bet. To me it's natural to follow up questions like "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the War on Tara" with "Why?"

They also ask "Do you approve or disapprove of Bush" but they never ask why there, either. They should follow that up with "What topics do you disagree with Bush on?" then ask, "Do you think he's being too easy/aggressive/whatever?"

This is why poll numbers are so stupid and don't really tell you anything. Bush is smart to disregard them.

 

[Bruzilla]

Bush is sure listening to something, and it's not the leaders in the field or the kinda folks that won Desert Storm for us... it seems to me he's listening to the Colin Powell crowd and the Democrats when he should be dragging Stormin' Norman Schwartkopf out of retirement.

 

[Larry Gude]

He's listening to the same crew...

Bush is sure listening to something, and it's not the leaders in the field or the kinda folks that won Desert Storm for us... it seems to me he's listening to the Colin Powell crowd and the Democrats when he should be dragging Stormin' Norman Schwartkopf out of retirement.

...from the get go; Pearl and Wolfowitz, basically.

The 4th ID was suppossed to come flying down from Turkey on day one of the invasion to be the net that 3rd ID and 7th marines were flushing everything into.

Much would have been different from a stability point as the places to run and hide would have been severely restricted. More bad guy leader types would have been captured or killed much sooner and the looting and rioting would have been minimized.

As it was, Turkey ####ed us and we've been dealing with the repurcusions ever since.

In the mean time the Pearl/Wolfowitz model says that of all the Arab peoples, the Iraqi's have the strongest sense of nationality, Iraqi over tribe, and thus Iraq is the best place in the region to try and sprout democracy and democracy, rule of law, constitutional minority rights, is the path to the freedom and the responsibility that will trump the dictatorships and fanatics in the area; viola...a lovely world for all with less threat to global oil markets.

Bush I screwed Iraq over in 1991. He said 'revolt and we will come'. Well, we didn't and all the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons and Patrcik Henrys were given death. We left Iraqi patriots hanging out to dry.

We owe these people and Bush II is trying to use as little force as possible and as much coaxing as possible to get people to stick their necks out and take charge. Sunnis, Shia's, Kurds, everyone.

These people saw what happended last time we said 'trust us'.

It is working but it does take time and it will take time.