Posted on 12/06/2004 5:10:58 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
it has nothing to do with american journalism caring about anyone. if the civil war breaks out, that will be the reality that drops US public support for the iraqi war. if it doesn't happen, the journalistic spin won't matter.
sometime we here on FR think everything we see from the news media is a false reality promoted for their political purposes. of course, they do engage in that. but let's not ignore reality. the insurgency in iraq is real, has lasted longer then anyone predicted, the security situation in iraq is not the best, the performance of the iraqi police has been horrible. those facts are not an invention of the american media.
| Any delay = Major defeat to freedom/Major victory to terror. No delay + massive violence + failed election = Minor defeat to freedom/Minor victory to terror No delay + massive violence + successful election = Minor victory to freedom/Minor defeat to terror No delay + some violence + successful election = Major Victory to freedom/Major Defeat to terror No Delay = No choice |
Journalism's negative, superficial, and arrogant perspective colors its output so heavily that is quite literally difficult to overestimate it.Reality will always prove to be more in line with conservative principle and less in line with the perspective of journalism than you think. You will always look back to historical perspective and realize that you did not sufficiently discount journalism's perspective enough. Always.
Excellent!
Problem would be that as soon as they were postoned, the terrorists would claim victory, saying that the US had never intended to hold elections and that the Iraq government could not get popular support for democracy...and too many in the Middle East would agree (sad), and far too many in Europe would agree (sadder), and that many in the US--including the MSM--would also agree with the terrorists (saddest)
The problem I see with your argument is that, although security should improve over the next 3-6 months under current conditions, delaying the election may (would) embolden the insurgeants.
I heard that a number of Sunni groups have now announced they will join the elections--and are presently fielding candidates. Have you heard anything about this? I wonder how widespread that movement is? It would be a very good sign indeed.
I think they are emboldened already - it comes down to whether we can kill enough of them, and break up the organizations significantly enough before the election (whenever it is) - to prevent mass slaughter at the polling places. can we? are the iraqi forces and the police up to it, or do they need more time?
Fallujah didn't go as we expected, we have to face that. The weeks and weeks of advance notice, leaflets, warnings - and then we act surprised that a good number of the insurgents simply relocated someplace else and continue the fight.
the scenario that scares me is this - right now, US public support for this iraq effort is in the low 50s. if we have this election, and its a mess, and it leads to civil war, the media is going to go nuts with their coverage, and US public support is going to drop into the low 40s/high 30s. Rumsfeld is hanging by a thread right now, what do you think is going to happen to him in light of that? so then we have this new iraqi government in place, its now up to them to fight the civil war. are they up to it? are their security forces going to go in there, house to house like our Marines are doing, and root these guys out? I don't see any evidence that the iraqi police are up to it. and how long is US public support going to hold up, how long will this be sustainable? what happens if we lose Rumsfeld? if this iraq effort implodes, its the last time you will ever see the US use the military in a pre-emptive strike like this (this is what the Dems and the liberal MSM really want, they want us neutered).
are all these risks worth it, to stick to the 1/30 date? that's the question we have to ask.
Pre-12th amendment, each elector had TWO votes.
but the two votes were undesignated -- in effect, though not in intent, they were BOTH votes for President. Now, you cast one vote labelled as for a Pres, and one for a Vice-Pres. Thus, GW could only have gotten a maxiumum of one-half of the votes cast, which he did (unless you could cast both votes for him, which you couldn't).
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.