Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/14/2005 08:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nooooooo! Say it ain't so. I love Dave Barry.
I love this line: "A sense of humor is a measurement of the extent to which we realize that we are trapped in a world almost totally devoid of reason. Laughter is how we express the anxiety we feel at this knowledge."
#7
I like Dave Barry myself. I believe he and other noteworthy columnists or thespians, etc. should stay around for as long as posssible - it seems to me that the more Networks there are, the more these personas should continue with their works instead of hanging it up after 7 years. Instead of hours or quarter-hours or minutes of ratings, the now-larger numbers of Networks are fighting for milliseconds and nanoseconds for ever-larger pools of personages, for which the blogosphere and any future successor(s) will only make it worse. If there was ever justification for the status quo and stereotyping, now is it.
IS Iraq ready to hold perfect, orderly, all-inclusive elections? Of course not. But by the unfair standards critics are raising, the United States might not qualify for nation-wide balloting, either. Iraq's elections are going to be deadly, disorderly and deeply flawed. And they will still be the most open and authentic elections ever held in the Arab world. Anyone who needs proof of the importance of these polls need only look at the ferocity and duplicity of those intent on delaying or preventing them. From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq have a common goal: They desperately want the American experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East to fail — the first for reasons of power, the latter to regain its lost prestige.
The terrorists' alarm is understandable. Ditto for the Sunni Arab insurgents. They could never win an election in Iraq, and they know it. The terrorists believe in religious tyranny, while the insurgents believe in secular tyranny. Neither care in the least about the aspirations of the common people. For its part, the Times believes in the tyranny of the intelligentsia. Blinded by its hatred for the Bush administration, it attempts to portray every development in Iraq as a disaster. Even marginally successful Iraqi elections would prove it wrong yet again. Shouldn't we raise an eyebrow when we find America's self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" shoulder-to-shoulder with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the leftovers of Saddam Hussein's regime? Does the NYT really want the terrorists to win? Is their editorial vanity so great?
American critics of the elections lately have shifted to complaints that the Sunni Arabs may not be adequately represented in the voting. In other words, if less than 20 percent of potential voters choose not to participate it negates the election's validity. By that measure, the United States hasn't held a valid election in living memory. The critics whine that the poor Sunni Arabs aren't ready. The truth is that the Sunni Arabs, who benefited under Saddam at the expense of the majority Shi'a and the Kurds, will never admit that they're ready for elections. Elections mean they lose. If the elections were postponed for a decade, the Sunni Arabs would still argue that they needed more time. Well, if they refuse to vote, it's a lick on 'em. And if they're too cowardly to vote, they don't deserve the benefits of democracy. Let those who brave the bullets and bombs shape Iraq's future. The truth is that some Sunni Arabs will show up to vote, at great risk. But even if not one participated, it would still leave us with over 80 percent of Iraqis anxious to go to the polls.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
01/14/2005 9:17:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
clap, clap, clap...standing ovation!!
From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq
oooh...ouch NYT!
You canât play the intellectualâs game of endless procrastination, sunk in dreams of impossible perfection. There is no substitute for the courage to act. Damn, the man can write.
#2
I believe that is almost the Engineer's Creed - you know, the people who get shit done, instead of talk it to death. Somewhere on USS Clueless, is the item I'm referring to - Stephen and Ralph would definitely get along fine, heh.
#3
The terrorists believe in religious tyranny, while the insurgents believe in secular tyranny. Neither care in the least about the aspirations of the common people. For its part, the Times believes in the tyranny of the intelligentsia. Blinded by its hatred for the Bush administration, it attempts to portray every development in Iraq as a disaster. Even marginally successful Iraqi elections would prove it wrong yet again. Shouldnât we raise an eyebrow when we find Americaâs self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" shoulder-to-shoulder with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the leftovers of Saddam Husseinâs regime?
This just about says it all with regards to the NYTs. Their credibility is absolutely zip, nada, zero. MSM again. The NYTs and Dan Blather are self-appointed intellectual smart asses with an agenda that says they know what is best for the rest of us. They have not seen the truth in years.
#4
American critics of the elections lately have shifted to complaints that the Sunni Arabs may not be adequately represented in the voting. In other words, if less than 20 percent of potential voters choose not to participate it negates the electionâs validity.
Reading the pages of foreign-policy journals, between the long tracts on Bush's "failures" and neoconservative "arrogance," one encounters mostly predictions of defeat and calls for phased withdrawal — always with resounding criticism of the American "botched" occupation. Platitudes follow: "We can't just leave now," followed by no real advice on how a fascist society can be jumpstarted into a modern liberal republic. After all, there is no government handbook entitled, "Operation 1A: How to remove a Middle East fascist regime in three weeks, reconstruct the countryside, and hold the first elections in the nation's history — all within two years."
Almost all who supported the war now are bailing on the pretext that their version of the reconstruction was not followed: While a three-week war was their idea, a 20-month messy reconstruction was surely someone else's. Yesterday genius is today's fool — and who knows next month if the elections work? Witness Afghanistan where all those who recently said the victory was "lost" to warlords are now suddenly quiet.
Heads You Lose, Tails We Win
Indeed, from the oscillating analyses of Iraq, the following impossible picture often emerges from our intelligentsia. It was a fatal error to disband the Iraqi army. That led to lawlessness and a loss of confidence in the American ability to restore immediate order after Saddam's fall. Yet it was also a fatal error to keep some Baathists in the newly constituted army. They were corrupt and wished reform to fail — witness the Fallujah Brigade that either betrayed us or aided the enemy. So we turned off the Sunnis by disbanding the army — and yet somehow turned off the Shiites by keeping some parts of it.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
01/14/2005 9:14:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Heads You Lose, Tails We Win"
Beautiful summary of the ankle-biters and pundits. They'll have their fun decrying everything in Iraq that isn't perfect - at least until something of substance occurs, such as the elections. If they come off with any measure of success, the wankers will pull their Afghan Ploy, shifting focus without a word of fess-up for being wrong and asinine in extremis, and go write about some other as yet undecided ongoing issue and decry it - until substance drives them away from it, as well.
Substance is something about which the wankers are understandably wary - having none themselves and never having created any.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/14/2005 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
NPR, WaPo, NYT, Dummycrats all make half arguments. For example, their claim that unless the Sunnis vote in mass the election will be (presumably) illegitimate.
Do they offer the other half of the argument which is: What happens if no election takes place? NO
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/14/2005 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I always love the WWII analogies that VDH uses so well. Lucky for us the MSM 24hr spin cycle did not exist at that time - we would have pulled out before ever getting to Normandy. It never ceases to amaze me how many short-sited spineless pussies have so much access to shaping people's opinions on this war. How quickly this country forgets its own past wars.
#5
Spot on, Jarhead, lol! Those who can't do, angle for the jobs where they can pass judgement on those who can and do. The Zero Deliverables crowd. They own the MSM, most of the Education System, the Civil Service, much of the upper and upper-middle management corporate positions, and a helluvalot of the political postions, both among officeholders and consultants. Sad and pathetic.
If we could take their children away from them to prevent indoctrination in LLL memes, why then it would only take about 1.5 generations to end it.
#6
.com, I was just discussing w/a friend the other day that IIRC only about 40% of colonists favored going to war w/England and roughly the same amount of Northerners during the CW supported fighting to keep the Union together - amazing. Thank God for the 'cowboys' Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and GWB.
#7
We lost 7,000 soldiers trying to cross the Elbe river in Italy in 1943. Many blame Mark Clark for lapses in leadership, and I second the motion. But, Mark Clark did carry on and yes the Allies did reach Rome. The question here is Rumsfeld's head is on a platter because we don't have armoured Humvees. Armour is a good idea and the men doing the fighting deserve the best we can give them. Note: "the best we can give them". The Media want us to fight a war where no one dies. That's why censorship gave us the victory in WWII and could cost us defeat in WWIII.
#8
Jarhead - Sorry I didn't see #6 sooner. I think you're dead right about the CW - that topic I know a little about, thanks to Shelby Foote and a few others who can tell the story. For the North, it was a close-run thing, given Lincoln's back-stabbing cabinet and the low support. The NY draft riots are a good example - Lincoln had to suspend habeus corpus and use harsh methods to subdue them.
As for the support level in the RW, I'm not sure, but it was not better than 50-50. I read a fascinating account of Franklin vs his son - on opposite sides, of course, with a very sad end - and I believe that it was stressed that public support was less than 50%.
Observation: I think the real key was the rural nature of America in both instances. People had a full plate running their farms, for the two time periods I think approx 80% and 65% (respectively) of the population were farmers, working from dawn to dusk... didn't leave a lot of time for getting involved in politics.
Today we have the opposite - way too many people with way too much time and doing way too little thinking before jumping, lol!
#9
Given the recent study showing that only 4 in ten trust MSM, I suspect that the pundits have had far less impact than envisioned.
The credibilty challenge for MSM and armed chair generals is that it is hard for them to stake a winning position, given so many angles and the fluidity of Iraq.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/14/2005 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
