Letters to the Editor
-
Sarcasm
This article slips in and out of sarcastic mode awfully quickly. Perhaps too quickly for readers who might not be as familiar with the principals.
-
war-perpetuating behavior
"Today's war-perpetuating behavior from Mike O'Hanlon, Joe Lieberman, John McCain and David Ignatius is an excellent guide for what has happened over the last six years."
Greenwald would do well to remember the one act of 'war perpetuating behavior' he fails to register. Bush was re-elected over the jelly-spined Kerry. I have no doubt and neither should anyone else that, if Kerry were elected, heavy draw downs would have begun already and we'd be well on the way to what Greenwald so desires; complete and unfettered defeat.
The bottom line is the American people don't get to choose via 'opinion polls'or - they get to choose via elections, every 4 years. They re-elected George Bush as commander in chief, and they did not elect Democrats in sufficient numbers to force instant defeat upon us.
They may choose to do that next year - the choice will be pretty clear-cut, whoever the candidates end up being. They will forced to stick with choice for 4 years as well. That's how it works.
-
The War inside the beltway: Ed Gillespie's Messaging Machine
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801846_pf.html
Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting
By Peter Baker, Karen DeYoung, Thomas E. Ricks, Ann Scott Tyson, Joby Warrick and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers and Researcher Julie Tate
Sunday, September 9, 2007; A01[...] Another new arrival in the West Wing set up a rapid-response PR unit hard-wired into Petraeus's shop. Ed Gillespie, the new presidential counselor, organized daily conference calls at 7:45 a.m. and again late in the afternoon between the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy and military in Baghdad to map out ways of selling the surge.
From the start of the Bush plan, the White House communications office had been blitzing an e-mail list of as many as 5,000 journalists, lawmakers, lobbyists, conservative bloggers, military groups and others with talking points or rebuttals of criticism. Between Jan. 10 and last week, the office put out 94 such documents in various categories -- "Myths/Facts" or "Setting the Record Straight" to take issue with negative news articles, and "In Case You Missed It" to distribute positive articles or speeches.
Gillespie arranged several presidential speeches to make strategic arguments, such as comparing Iraq to Vietnam or warning of Iranian interference. When critics assailed Bush for overstating ties between al-Qaeda and the group called al-Qaeda in Iraq, Gillespie organized a Bush speech to make his case.
"The whole idea is to take these things on before they become conventional wisdom," said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan. "We have a very short window."
Petraeus was doing his part in Baghdad, hosting dozens of lawmakers and military scholars for PowerPoint presentations on why the Bush strategy had made gains. Many Republicans and even Democrats came home impressed, and suddenly even critics were agreeing that Petraeus had made some progress in security even though the Iraqi political situation remained a mess. Petraeus also persuaded intelligence officials to revise some key judgments of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to reflect security gains.
Some visitors suspected a skewed picture. "We only saw things that reinforced their message that the surge was working," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). [...]
- - Washington Post
-
The great disconnect
I've been around for a while (I was a college student during the Vietnam War) and I can't recall a greater disconnect between what the voters want and what politicians in Washington, and their media enablers, support. I don't believe that public opinion was as opposed to American involvement in Vietnam at any time during that war as it is presently opposed to our involvement in Iraq. Nor do I recall during Vietnam the timidity or outright cowardice that "antiwar" Congressional Democrats display at this time.
It's obvious that a year from now we'll still be mired in Iraq at roughly the same level that prevailed pre-surge, at a cost of $10 billion or so per month, and that Americans will be dying at their present rate or, at best, at slightly less than that. In the meantime, I fully expect that we will attack Iran between now and next year's election, with the tacit support of many Congressional Democrats.
I've given up on the possibility that this Congress will force a meaningful change in course. At this point the only hope for a true change is a dramatic upswelling of public opinion in the next election. And, I believe that outcome is possible. There have been moments in American history when the disconnect between Washington and the country has produced huge landslides in support of change. Perhaps next year will be one of those moments.
-
What about Pakistan?
Yeah, yeah, yeah? But what did we see today in Pakistan? Is that Democracy in action, or what?
I think we've lost this whole region, not to mention a huge slice of the world's population.
W was right when he said this war could not be won. He's made damn sure of that.
-
Update on my previous post
Bill Schneider just came on CNN and announced both a CNN and a Gallup Poll found that, respectively, 53 and 54% of respondents believe Petreaus will present a report that overstates progress in Iraq. Schneider then contrasted that result with the NYTimes result I mentioned earlier, where the public trusts military commanders in general to make the best policy for going forward, with 68% saying the military commanders would be better than Bush or Congress. I think there is real encouragement to be taken that the public understands Petraeus to be a tool of Bush rather than a straightforward military commander.
-
Would a change in perspective help?
Mr. Greenwald refers to the situation in Iraq as "the greatest strategic disaster in America's history" and makes clear that the views and opinions of the American people are being ignored.
I wonder if it might help to remember, that first and foremost, this is a disaster for Iraq and the Iraqi people? What if this tragedy was consistently framed and viewed from the Iraqi perspective?
I think the unimaginable (and largely untold) suffering visited upon the Iraqi people might be a more compelling sell than the disgruntlement of Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, for whom this horror is literally unimaginable. If the gut-wrenching pain of the Iraqis could be put - and kept - center-stage, making this something more than an American story (which it's not), maybe moral suasion could have a chance of trumping cynicism of domestic (US) politics.
I dare those #$%@#& pundits and experts to downplay or spin the tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of dead and the millions of refugees.
Make the Iraq war about Iraq instead of about the United States. You'll find it becomes a much more indisputable story to tell...and sell.