Posted on 04/19/2004 5:00:32 PM PDT by quidnunc
"This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper." I'm saving the end of the world for my final column, but T S Eliot's words seem at least as pertinent to the present war or "war", according to taste. It will be decided not by the bangs whether in Fallujah or Bali or elsewhere but by the whimpers. And, although the bangs have got a little louder in recent weeks, it's the whimpers that have become deafening.
Whimpers, whimpers everywhere. On American TV, the network sob-sisters tut sympathetically with the "Jersey Girls", four media-savvy 9/11 widows who've decided that metaphorically speaking George W Bush was at the controls of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Centre. Beltway reporters are a-twitter about the biennial doorstopper from The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, this time a huge book sourced up the wazoo portraying the President as a simpleton Christian avenger whose obsession with Iraq is a dark pathology as ingrained as paedophilia.
For some reason, this is being portrayed as some kind of dramatic revelation rather than media conventional wisdom for the past three years or, come to that, the President's openly stated position: judging from the Campaign 2000 press coverage, he more or less campaigned as a religious halfwit bent on toppling Saddam. Does anyone actually read Woodward's books? I know I've never finished one. But every cable news channel is pretending to be riveted by the change to some alleged "Gotcha!" moment on page 743.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Steyn, as he so often is, is right on the money.
Iraq is not Vietnam. But if we want to be realistic about it, Vietnam was not "Vietnam". "Vietnam" has become the all purpose leftist bugbear of a intractable quagmire that is unwinnable. This was not true of Vietnam at the time and it is doubly not true about Iraq today.
The one parallel between Vietnam and Iraq is that if we pull out before achieving victory, the region will degenerate into internercine genocide which defies the imagination.
In Cambodia the Khymer Rouge executed everyone who wore glasses, on the suspicion that they were part of the literate elite. If we withdraw prematurely in Iraq, the coming bloodbath will make us long for such days.
If you'd read a piece by Kenneth Timmerman in the July 1998 Reader's Digest, you'd have been much more informed.
Indeed:
What We Knew
and Didn't Do
By Kenneth Timmerman
April 13, 2004 http://www.rd.com/common/nav/index.jhtml?articleId=9527512
In July 1998, Reader's Digest published Kenneth Timmerman's report, "This Man Wants You Dead." Three weeks later -- with more than 200 innocent civilians torn to bits by al-Qaeda bombs in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam -- bin Laden's face was plastered in newspapers around the world.
That's easily explained. "The Jersey Girls" = "Peaceful Tomrrows" brought to you by "The Tides Foundation" brought to you by "The Heinz Endowments" brought to you by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
More and more, I am finding that journalism is a wholly fraudulent enterprise. Oh, there are good journalists here and there, but most of them are intentionally deceptive most of the time.
The especially bold liars like Woodward are loved and admired by the rest for their ability to be dishonest.
the so-called incriminating memo is notable mainly for its confirmation of the woeful state of US intelligence. The mention of "media reports" in the first sentence is a sly admission that you could have found out all the stuff in this "classified" briefing by reading the papers. If you'd read a piece by Kenneth Timmerman in the July 1998 Reader's Digest, you'd have been much more informed.LOL! And thanks for the link, I'll follow it as soon as I post this.
As you go on to point out, he could be one. He just wouldn't be a legend in his field. And he wouldn't be Woodward.
Kenneth Timmerman: This Man Wants You Dead
[1998 article about Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda]
Reader's Digest ^ | July 1998 | Kenneth Timmerman
Bingo! That's the guy! To Conservatives, who value facts and morality, he has NO credibility. To Libs, who value Liberalism, he's a hero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.