Thursday, August 02, 2007


Deborah Saunders is shocked that the NY Times would behave this way:

When a New York Times poll found that 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."

Read it all.

Of course to a simple person like myself, it is "counterintuitive" that the editors at the NY Times would be so desperate to have people believe that the US did something wrong in going into Iraq and toppling Saddam the Butcher.

Saunders is absolutely correct when she suggests that it is likely that most of the criticisms of the Bush administration's policies (especially those engaged in by the Democrats and the lunatic left) are designed more to "hurt Bush than to win the war".

The antiwar crowd and their media whores are very worried, you see. What will happen to them and their cause, if "the unthinkable" happens? That is to say, if things start to improve in Iraq.

Imagine how frightening it must have been back in March to learn that Iraqis are "optimistic"; and that they "don't believe their country is in the middle of a "civil war".

With things going fairly well to date regarding the surge (as much as they can in any war); and with some of their own people even beginning to recognize that fact, the leftist template for Iraq is in danger of being cracked wide open.

Even Barack "I never voted for the war" Obama, is getting his ducks in a row to prove that he isn't your typical Democratic/leftist antiwar wimp on matters military and that he is a strong supporter of military force--just not anywhere Bush would be likely to use it.

Both the opposition to the Iraq war and its supporters are completely invested in their respective narratives; with the political left invested in a narrative of defeat; while Bush and his allies are invested in a narrative of success.

Think about that carefully for a moment.

A significant portion of our population is completely invested in making sure that America suffers a significant military defeat at the hands of an enemy who is acceptable to do things like this; and this.

Oh yeah, how could I forget. The compassionate left and the Democrats are adamantly against this war (and all wars, of course), "for the sake of the children." If they are ever to be found in favor of a war, it is always for a any war (TBD) we are not actually fighting (e.g., think of Obama's rhetoric regarding invading Pakistan or the Dems outrage that Iraq has left us militarily unprepared to confront North Korea or Iran). These wars are the wars that Bush should be waging.

Except of course, if he did invade Pakistan or North Korea or Iran, they would be outraged at his unilaterality and his imperialism. Waivers are automatically granted to any Democrat (except Lieberman who is beyond the pale and a warmonger).

Mouthing the usual platitudes and frolicing semi-naked in the streets for the sake of "peace"; or engaging in pious--and meaningless-- posturing during Congressional debates makes all of them feel so darn good about themselves and what great (and tough!) guys and gals they are, though. But such behavior does very little in the real world; nor does it solve any real problems except to augment their already excessive and undeserved self-esteem.

It's hard to ask them to give up their narrative of defeat when so much of their precious self-esteem is utterly dependent on it. Even the facts don't phase them (see here and here for example).

How long can they ignore reality? Wretchard notes in a post about Keith Ellison's awakening after a visit to Iraq:

In any fight against terrorism, it is not enough for ordinary people to inwardly realize that terrorists are bad people. They know that already because the first goal of terrorism is to impress on the public mind -- and politicians -- that it is absolutely, positively, irremediably and mercilessly bad. That's why it's called terrorism, because it terrorizes. And the consequence of terror is that the average man praises it publicly or risks a visit from its representatives in the dead of night far from the protection of Amnesty International, far from the tender attentions of the International Criminal Court. Far from all the instruments of protection we are told to rely on. As long as terrorism is feared a large percentage of the public, many politicians and not a few media outlets will unendingly praise it. Many of the Ramadi sheiks must have secretly harbored reservations about whether al-Qaeda was fit representative of Islam before now. What made them blurt out their doubts now? Confidence that US and Iraqi forces in the neighborhood Joint Security Station down the street will drop ordnance down on al-Qaeda's sorry head if it shows up again, that's what.

To hear the left tell it, America is bad. Really really bad. Bush is worse than Bin Laden. Bush is a dictator. Civil rights are being trampled. No, even worse; people as we speak are being rounded up and herded into jail cells where they will rot forever, if they aren't taken out an summarily executed by the Gestapo administration. The U.S. is imperialistic and warmongering; and our enemies are peaceful, loving people. Christians are trying to take over control of the U.S. to impose a theocracy. Muslims fanatics are poor persecuted and misunderstood people whose religion is being constantly defamed by evil western values.

In their warped reality, real patriotism is the act of exposing all this rottenness under the surface of decadent American life; as you enable and apologize for dictators and tyrants around the world, praising them for their progressive policies and concern for their people. Real patriotism consists of defaming the actions of the U.S. military whenever possible; and hamstringing American foreign policy to ensure defeat by any group of politically correct thugs who taunt and disparage American values.

Is it really any wonder that the official propaganda outlet of the left is stunned that the American people's support for Bush and Iraq could be swinging the other way? After all their hard work to make Iraq seem like a hopeless quagmire run by a group of incompetents?

Personally, I'm shocked that anyone would think the left would behave otherwise.

No comments: