Thursday, August 09, 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
How could "Winning the War" be a big problem for any American?
The following story by two writers from the NY Times (yes, the NY Times!) and published in the very liberal "Brookings Institute" should be read and give pause to those who repeatedly state the war in Iraq is lost (Pelosi, Reid, Murtha to name just a few). Stability in Iraq: "A War We Just Might Win" and there is plenty of caution in the story as well.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/pollack20070730.htm
Add to this the following from a New York Times poll: the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."
Round Two found that 42 percent of voters think America was right to go into Iraq, while the percentage of those polled who said that it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61 percent to 51 percent. The headline for Elder's piece read, "Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm." But it should have read: "America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."
The WashingtonPost.com ran an interview conducted by Washington Post über-reporter Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza of WashingtonPost.com with Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina who also happens to be the House Majority Whip.
Balz asks Clyburn:
"What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September, and says, 'This is working very, very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it'?"
Clyburn responds:
"Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."
No, Jim. No. That would not be a "real big problem." That would be what most non-medicated people would refer to as "good news."
How could hypothetical good news ("working very, very well at this point") be consider a "big problem" by Clyburn? Is this about politics or is this about winning the war in Iraq? My point isn't to suggest things are great in Iraq or that Bush hasn't blundered at times. But if we honestly look at any war the US has fought in, there have been very edgy moments when all seemed lost! Never from my readings of American History (excluding wars fought from Vietnam forward) have such statments of defeatism, surrender and alarm been raised to such shrill heights when glimmers of hope and success were shared with the public. And these are the people we voted into the majority in our Senate and Congress?
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/pollack20070730.htm
Add to this the following from a New York Times poll: the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."
Round Two found that 42 percent of voters think America was right to go into Iraq, while the percentage of those polled who said that it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61 percent to 51 percent. The headline for Elder's piece read, "Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm." But it should have read: "America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."
The WashingtonPost.com ran an interview conducted by Washington Post über-reporter Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza of WashingtonPost.com with Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina who also happens to be the House Majority Whip.
Balz asks Clyburn:
"What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September, and says, 'This is working very, very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it'?"
Clyburn responds:
"Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."
No, Jim. No. That would not be a "real big problem." That would be what most non-medicated people would refer to as "good news."
How could hypothetical good news ("working very, very well at this point") be consider a "big problem" by Clyburn? Is this about politics or is this about winning the war in Iraq? My point isn't to suggest things are great in Iraq or that Bush hasn't blundered at times. But if we honestly look at any war the US has fought in, there have been very edgy moments when all seemed lost! Never from my readings of American History (excluding wars fought from Vietnam forward) have such statments of defeatism, surrender and alarm been raised to such shrill heights when glimmers of hope and success were shared with the public. And these are the people we voted into the majority in our Senate and Congress?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)