Posted on 04/10/2003 12:43:55 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:13:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
April 10, 2003 -- WITH the Iraqi people dancing atop a dictator's fallen statue, the pundits who forecast an American bloodbath have begun to change their story. Implying that our military achievement wasn't all that grand, they tell us Saddam didn't even have much of a plan to defend his country.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Damn, talk about un-PC! Nobody's allowed to badmouth the cannibalistic, mass-murdering, slave-taking, ritual sacrificing Aztecs, they are noble 3rd-world people in touch with Mother Nature in a way that makes them vastly superior in every important regard to the Pale Penis People... The Aztecs would have won the battles against Cortez if they hadn't alienated so many of their fellow indigenous people with their insane cruelty.
I appreciate what you're saying, but you are committing the same sin Peters points to in this most excellent article. You are refighting the past.
In my fourty years I have never seen the left pay such a price for their duplicity and moral penury. The media as we have known it can no longer provide the left with "close air support" as it has enjoyed up till now. If the Iraqi war has done anything beside display the might of the United States Armed Forces, it has shown NeoCons can and will make full use of the changed landscape of twentyfirst century technology, and that to good effect. The media represented the left's idealogical Maginot Line to the hearts and minds of the American people, so we went around it.
The election of 2000 was the first skirmish in this political war, and harbinger of what was to come. With this latest encounter, in which the left pulled out all the stops while still maintaining its defensive peace, they similarly went down to ignominious defeat.
It's a new world, and not just on the battlefield.
The Democrats are far too pitiful and GW is far too popular.
Ross Perot
Sorry to break your bubble, but the military acquisition of the technical means to conduct this war have taken more than a decade. One of the guys who is repsonsible for this capability is Admiral Bill Owens who pushed the "system of systems" concepts. That arose from the lessons of GWI.
What is really astonishing is the ability to keep track, in real time, of all of the things going on in the battlespace so that you can target it with precision munitions. We have finally gone from the WWII way of doing things where you blow up half the world hopping to kill most of the soldiers and instead keep track of every target individually and kill it while leaving the world around it intact. There are two major developments - the development of affordable precision guided munitions (i.e. JDAMs), and the development of integrated surveillance, intelligence, command, control, communications, and targetin in real time.
Rummy's genius was understanding better than Generals such as Wesley Clark and a lot of whiners who have been retired - what all of this stuff was good for.
Ross was only around for the FIRST 4 years. To what do we blame the second 4??
swing voters watch abccbsnbc news for about 10-30 minutes a day. I believe GWB will win because I think that unlike his dad, his high numbers are due to people actually liking him personally and trusting him. Pop's high numbers were based solely on the first stunning military victory since Vietnam. Another factor is no Ross Perot, and even if there is a Ross Perot, people won't bite. After the Clinton years, knowing that their Perot vote meant 8 years of filth in the White House independent men will not soon make the same mistake. So overall, I believe Bush will win.
But I thought it was impossible for Clinton to win twice. To me, it was completely unfathomable. I won't make that mistake again. If Hillary wins in 2008 I am starting my own country on a small Pacific island.
The most dangerous sentance in journalism is, "More Americans get their news on ABC NEWS than any other source."
Good post.
Not that I want to antagonize, but I don't think you "get it." Airpower is assumed in the combined forces concept. Taking sky is as important as taking real estate in the twenty first century combat.
Not that we should be complacent, but the situation if far different.
As well, the differences between GW Bush and Bush Sr are equally as astounding. In 1992, Bush Sr. was "tired" and ran one of the most lackluster and uninspired presidential campaigns that I can remember. Bush Sr. was saddled with an unpopular VP (I liked Quayle but let's face it, he was not an asset to the ticket). There was a very strong third party candidate that managed to draw 20% of the vote. But most importantly, Bush Sr. disappointed his base by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge and allowing Saddam to remain in power after Gulf War I.
On the other hand, GW Bush is vibrant and energetic and will likely run a very strong campaign. Unlike his father, Bush sticks to his word and people will respect him for that, even though they might not agree with all his policies. There is no indication that a rogue third party candidate will come along and split the vote this time around. The war on terrorism is a success so far and more successes may yet follow between now and election day.
While I'm not going to say that Bush is a shoo-in in 2004, his re-election is a pretty good bet.
If they stay true to form, they will use the courts even more to try to win/manufacture votes, they will be even more shrill in their messages, they will run an almost exclusively Socialist campaign grounded solely by attacking the ideas of others (and providing none themselves), the vote-buying will get outrageous, and the TV ads will be simultaneously hilarious and/or shockingly insulting.
If they get their heads out of the sand, and run to the Center, tone down the rhetoric and public race/class/gender warfare messages, conceal their cheating well, and run a handsome charmer with some actual ideas and a history of success in GOP areas (eg Bayh, but preferably a Governor), they have a real chance. There's a huge "anyone but the usual names" contingent out there.
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.