Posted on 05/26/2004 11:59:17 PM PDT by kattracks
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"
And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.
If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.
O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.
We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.
So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.
The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.
The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.
But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")
We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.
Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."
We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.
Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."
And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."
Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."
Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).
The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.
Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a Townhall.com member group.
©2004 Universal Press Syndicate
Bush has never been given the opportunity to "lead" the media. They start off with a prejudice against him right away, like an American of African descent trying to hold a news conference before the KKK. And that is the most similar phenomenon to how the presstitudes treat everything Bush says. Bush is just dumb (like the KKK would regard a n****r, never mind his other qualities), he talks funny, they can make funny pictures of him that make him look like a simian (chimpanzee, most often), he has no culture (just an ignorant rural peasant), and he is a congenital liar.
You're obviously a Roseanne Barr kind of guy Ezra. So pull up that couch cushion and have some Cheetos.
A pix on the third post. You are good man Lancey.
Wow. Thanks. But be careful. Two more pixs and the police might have been checking you out as a stalker.
Ann says it very well.
Last we heard from you, you were touting the wonders of fascism on Italian radio.
Ann bump!
Another great article....
I take it you go for the Helen Thomas look?
...Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Beautiful Mind bump
bump
Love Ann, but honestly guys, her thread has become the right's Playboy thread. Not that she's ever indecent, but some of us do read her columns for the intellectual stimulation. Just kidding, post all the pictures you want, it has to make Helen Thomas sick ( beauty and a mind!)
ROFL! Thanks Annie, I'll have to find a reason to use this when I get the chance.
LOL! Now that is funny!
This from a man named Pound...
A Conan fan! Cool beans! Back in the early 70's, I bought some underground comix - ZAP, Freak Brothers, Checkered Demon, etc. In one book, there was a story where the Frank Frazzeta Conan ran into the Barry Windsor-Smith Conan - who was drawing the book for Marvel at the time. Hilarious story!
Hot, cool, and smart as she is, I still think she needs to eat a sandwich or two.
"not mentally ill harpies"
Sorry, but you just crossed the line.
I don't see how you can call her mentally ill. For example, a person who is mentally ill is generally incapable of writing three well-researched books full of footnotes to original sources.
You might disagree with what she has to say, but she is not mentally ill.
I actually read all the books by Robert E. Howard -- probably late '60s early '70s. If you've never read them youi might want to give em a try. Howard was awesome.
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.