Good God. Even now, after all the evidence to the contrary, the left still clutches desperately to it's manufactured fantasy that paints GW as some dumb hick. At this point, no one but the stupidest drone is buying it any longer; no one with half a brain believes this crap any more than the leftmedia itself.
This is good, actually -- nothing gives the battle away quicker than underestimating one's opponent. And these losers continue to wonder why they're such... losers!
Oh, this guy really nails it. He's got the two big reasons we lost this war and had so many of our troops slaughtered. Maybe nexy time we'll let the leftists run the diplomatic and military affairs.
Someone (the RNC?) should run an ad on national TV that says, "The following people or organizations were against the war, said we would lose, didn't support our troops or our president or hoped for our defeat. Just thought you should know." and then scroll down the names ... John Kerry, Tom Daschle, RW Apple, etc. etc. etc.
I LOL when I read the left describe President Bush's grand design to take over the world. I remember when the media was making fun of candidate Bush because he didn't know geography, didn't know world leaders' names, and didn't seem interested in anything outside our own borders. The media made fun of him because he wasn't sophisticated enough to engage in world affairs, and would be an isolationist president.
The American people didn't believe the media then, and they don't believe them now. They understand President Bush's motives for this war, they know it has nothing to do with imperialism, revenge, or greed.
No matter how Apple takes Dick Cheney out of context, it is not true this administration predicted a "cakewalk".
Many of us have documented it was none other than bill clinton, who was saying time and again in the week or two leading up to the beginning of the war, who predicted this. Obviously in a bid to set up a "false" expectation that Dubya wouldn't be able to meet.
Oops.
To wit:
It is quite true, as administration officials say with metronomic regularity, that coalition forces have scored singular successes in the early days of the war, and it is too early to rule out a speedy conclusion. But (THE BIG BUT!) there have been military surprises and diplomatic shortfalls.
Ah yes. The NYTimes editorial staff could have done it so much better. Maybe more support for the President when dealing with the UN might have helped sway opinion in our direction, but not from the "paper of record." Bah!
With every passing day, it is more evident that the failure to obtain permission from Turkey for American troops to cross its territory and open a northern front constituted a diplomatic debacle. With every passing day, it is more evident that the allies made two gross military misjudgments in concluding that coalition forces could safely bypass Basra and Nasiriya and that Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq would rise up against Saddam Hussein.
Hmmm. Seems like this piece was written before the recent permission from Turkey to allow troops and ammo through. Problem pretty much solved. As for Basra and Nasiriya, a couple of extra days to secure these towns and liberate the oppressive regime there hardly seem to be "gross" misjudgments. The recent rescinding of the fatwa against the coalition the chief Shiite cleric was forced to issue has greatly resolved the Shiite issue, both in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere.
The war could last so long that the American public loses patience, having been conditioned by predictions from American officials (to quote one of them, Vice President Dick Cheney) that Mr. Hussein's government would prove to be "a house of cards." This has not happened yet; the polls indicate that nearly three of four Americans remain unshaken in their support of Mr. Bush's war policies, despite surprises on the battlefield. (Should be written: This has not happened, yet the polls indicate that more than 3 out of four Americans etc..) The White House believes that public patience, often fickle in recent years, was fortified by 9/11.
So much wishful thinking by the NYTimes!! Last night's surrender of 2500 "elite" Republican guard soldiers and the slow realization that Saddam is dead or deserted the country lends credence to the "house of cards" theory of the vice president's.
Street-by-street fighting in the rubble of Baghdad and other cities an eventuality that American strategists have long sought to avoid now looks more likely. Mr. Hussein's aides have promised savage resistance. The "mother of all wars again?" If it materializes, it could produce large coalition casualties, challenging American resolve, and equally large Iraqi civilian casualties, with dire consequences for the coalition's attempt to picture itself as the liberator of Iraq.
Whoa!! Major doom and gloom!! The might want to talk to some Iraqis in Basra etc, and ask them how they feel about the liberation. A heart-rending picture of a wounded 2-year-old was widely published today after a Baghdad market was ripped apart by an explosion Iraqi officials attributed to a coalition bomb.
Well, if you can't believe Iraqi officials, who can you believe? The NYTimes? LOL! The coalition is pretty convinced that the Saddamites set that explosion themselves.
The hunt for weapons of mass destruction could prove futile a development that would make the war look like a wild-goose chase.Better check last night's news.
Of course, all that is a worst case prognosis. As the war in Afghanistan showed, hard military slogging can give way suddenly to victory. But will victory in Iraq take the shape the United States so badly needs?
Could the NYTimes be grudgingly admitting that we might actually win?! Without the help of the UN and France? I guess they want to continue their fine record of achievement in predictiong doom for this operation.
Mr. Hussein seems to have decided that he can turn this war into Vietnam Redux. He appears willing to take casualties and to give away territory to gain time. Over time, his strategy implies, he thinks he can isolate the United States and build a coalition of third world nations. Already he is seen as less of an ogre and more of a defender of Islamic honor across the Arab world.
There it is!!! The inevitable reference to Viet Nam!! I guess they have to recycle it from their Afghanistan stories. At least it will give "Ameircan regime change Kerry something to talk about!
The longtime Republican pollster Robert Teeter said recently, "If we've gotten rid of Saddam and stabilized Iraq, then things will look pretty good." Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, steadfast in his argument that that is precisely what will happen, told the naysayers on Friday that "it's a bit early for history to be written."
It is always too early to predict victory, but never seems to be too early to predict defeat, as the bulk of this article proves.
Democrats are more dubious.
Understatement of the year. Fortunately, their predictions are as ill founded as the NYTimes (or identical for that matter).
Still, for presidents, especially for wartime leaders, political capital can drain quickly from the White House account. After the guns fall silent, voters' eyes turn elsewhere, often to social and economic needs. It happened to Winston Churchill late in World War II, and as this president remembers better than most, it happened to his father, too.
And you can bet that the NYTimes was in the thick of it, predicting disaster for the allies, like a good little fifth column.....
The first sentence has rendered this article so out of touch I am not even going to read the rest of it.
AAAGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
Now I feel better.
This much at least, is certainly true.