How many times have the “all of the Great and Glorious Victories we are Winning over Al Qaeda” turned out to be ephemeral? It happens over and over again. What was yesterday’s “glorious victory” has become today’s total disaster. Here’s one example.

Back in October of 2005, the city of Baquba, Iraq was the latest “triumph” being trumpeted as proof of our impending glorious victory. The Christian Science Monitor in an article titled, “An Iraqi city becomes turnaround story” told the story, but did put in a small caveat at the end of the article, “How long the peace will hold in Baquba is unclear, as the city has been pacified before.”

So let’s look at this triumphant turnaround town today. Here’s Juan Cole’s update:

So the Sunni Arabs in Baquba are done out. They have a Shiite government in their province that they don't want, and they have a Shiite/Kurdish government in Baghdad that sends Shiite troops of the Iraqi Army against them. The Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baquba have thrown up local militias, and they have made alliances with Baathi and Salafi Jihadi cells.

The US military spent last week trying to 'clear' these Sunni Arab neighborhoods of 'al-Qaeda.' But I doubt they have Bin Laden's telephone number. They are just local guys or foreign volunteers who don't like seeing Sunni Arabs subjected to Shiite ayatollahs and secessionist Kurds.

As US troops fought on Sunday, they discovered that the guerrilla leaders had set mines and then made themselves scarce.

So after 6 days of hard fighting, in which US troops were killed and wounded, what do we have?

A sullen, defiant Sunni Arab urban population.

A guerrilla leadership that slipped away.

An Iraqi army unable actually to hold the 'cleared' neighborhoods, which are likely to throw up more guerrilla leaders and campaigns.

A continued dominance of Sunni Arabs in Diyala by a Shiite government completely unacceptable to them.

A US commitment to upholding the Shiite ("Iraqi") government.

So I am angry because this looks to me like we sent our guys to fight and die for a piece of political quicksand in which the entire endeavor is likely to sink.

It is not right.

And this city, remember, was touted as a sure sign of our impending victory. And they condemn us for not believing their very latest sign of success? Please.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1031/p06s01-woiq.html

http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/baquba-cant-be-held-by-iraq-troops.html

As usual, the true "fringe" in our country are Bush followers and their establishment media allies.

So why isn’t the establishment media influencing America opinion in the way they want to? Why don’t they have more influence on the way the public is thinking? Why is this?

It was obvious to Andrea Mitchell that most Americans think Libby should be pardoned (and she’s a serious person not a dirty hippie) but, ignoring her (and establishment opinion) completely, the public came out overwhelmingly in favor of no pardon. Why?

Certainly, the left-wing blogosphere doesn’t have that kind of influence. So when (and why) did the public stop taking “the serious people” seriously?

Actually, I think it’s not so much that the public has rejected “the serious people” as much as it has rejected the people, policies and ideas that they are promoting.

The public, unlike the establishment media, doesn’t socialize with Scooter’s crowd. And for them, it was just plain ol’ common sense that you shouldn’t pardon someone unless there’s a good reason to.

I don’t really think the public at large is (at this point) really aware of just how dysfunctional our press has become. Rather, I think Bush’s policies and actions have become so extreme, so disastrous, and the reasons for them so obviously phony, that it doesn’t matter if those policies are promoted by the establishment media – the public is no longer buying what they’re selling.

Vitter uses his wife and kids as “props” to promote “family values” just like Bush uses American soldiers as “props” to promote lies about his “war on terror.”

For them, both definitions of the word “prop” work: l) an object used to keep a structure from falling, a support; and 2) a theatrical property.

Both the campaign for “family values” and Bush’s “war on terror” are based upon fear.

Fear is the common denominator in all of the far right’s policies. Just think how frightened people must be to believe that there’s not any issue “more important than this one.”

As long as people like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani promote that campaign of “fear” (catapulting the propaganda) no one will question their personal lives – they are judged not on their behavior, but on how well they can instill fear in others.

What these people have in common is their faith in fear as a “prop” – a means of support to keep the Republican power structure from shaking and falling.