[L]iberals aren't afraid that the Midwest Heroes are
wrong. They're afraid they're right.
"Midwest Heroes" Come Under Attack
Power Line
Progress For America has put together a terrific video called "Midwest Heroes." You can watch it here.
midwestheroes.com
The video features three servicemen who have served in Iraq: Lt. Col. Bob Stephenson of Minnesota, Captain Mark Weber of Iowa, and Staff Sgt. Marcellus Wilks of Iowa. The theme of the video is that "American troops are making real progress in Iraq." I was delighted to see that PFA is playing the video as an ad, not only on cable TV, but as a sponsor of the Winter Olympics.
"Midwest Heroes" is a straightforward defense of the Iraq war. Here are some excerpts; all narration is by the three servicemen:
<<< The media only reports the bad news, but American troops are making real progress, securing free elections and defending our country from radical al Qaeda terrorists who want to destroy Americans, starting in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is one of history's biggest mass murderers. The blood of a million people is on his hands, with countless more raped and tortured.
You'd never know it from the news reports, but our enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda--the same terrorists who killed three thousand Americans on 9/11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London, and many more.
American troops overwhelmingly support the mission President Bush has given us.
Where do you want to fight terrorists? We want to fight them, and destroy them, in Iraq. >>>
It's hard to imagine a less controversial exercise of freedom of speech than this message of support, by three servicemen who have returned from active duty in Iraq, for their mission there. But to liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman, their defense of their own service in Iraq was out of bounds. Coleman's column today attacks the ad and the servicemen who made it as "devoted to political spin more than truth."
Coleman writes:
<<< The news [from Iraq] was grim: There were 2,500 insurgent attacks in December, and although there are peaks and valleys in the numbers, each peak is said to be higher than the peak before.
But for those devoted to political spin more than truth, there was a positive development in the war, a development which, oddly, took place on TV sets in Minnesota.
A commercial featuring veterans of the war in Iraq began airing here, telling viewers that the war in Iraq is against the terrorists of 9/11 and that it is going swimmingly.
These are dubious assertions, given that the war was billed as a war against Saddam Hussein and that it had cost the lives of 2,267 Americans as of Friday (almost 1,800 since the president said the mission was accomplished). >>>
Of course, the video doesn't say the war is "going swimmingly;" it says our soldiers are "making real progress." Do the statistics that Coleman quotes refute that assessment? Not at all. If there were 2,500 insurgent attacks in December, that was below the monthly average for 2005. More important, the terrorists' attacks are becoming less effective. Currently, fewer than 10% of the attacks on American troops result in casualties, down from 25% to 30% a year ago. American casualties and fatalities declined last year, compared to 2004.
And Coleman says nothing about the progress the servicemen spoke of in "Midwest Heroes": Iraq's steady transition into the Arab world's first democracy.
Coleman quarrels, apparently, with the idea that "the terrorists of 9/11," al Qaeda, are the enemy in Iraq. But why? Hasn't he heard of Zarqawi? Is he unaware of "al Qaeda in Iraq"? The fact that we are killing al Qaeda members and supporters in Iraq is inconvenient for liberal opponents of the war; but how, exactly, does Coleman propose to deny it?
Coleman continues:
<<< But more curious than the dubious assertions is the agenda of this big-bucks ad campaign: Who is paying for this pro-war propaganda?
News reports identified the sponsor as "the conservative Progress for America Voter Fund," but that barely scratches the surface. Progress for America is a campaign front for President Bush, meaning we have reached the point when the money men for a president who no longer faces election keep spending on spin to try to shore up support for a mistaken elective war. >>>
Note the quick transition from debating the message to smearing the messenger. In fact, Progress For America is a conservative issue advocacy organization, just as MoveOn.org, ACT, etc., are liberal issue advocacy organizations. (Except, of course, the liberals have more money.) Coleman derides PFA as "money men." But how, exactly, does he expect three servicemen to get their message out? Does he think they can afford to buy ads on television? Does he think that liberals will underwrite their message? Does he think his own newspaper will print it?
And Coleman has never been heard to criticize the liberal issue advocacy groups that now play a dominant role in the Democratic Party. Together, MoveOn and ACT delivered Minnesota for John Kerry in 2004. Not a peep was heard from Nick Coleman.
He continues:
<<< According to the Center for Media & Democracy, Progress for America and its voter fund raised $38 million for the 2004 Bush campaign. Its first chairman, according to the Washington Post, was Ken Adelman, who was the Bush 2004 campaign director. It also used the services of Ben Ginsberg, who quit the Bush campaign after it was learned he had given legal counsel to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the attack group that smeared Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
Fellow Americans, the Swift Boating of Iraq has begun. >>>
Strictly speaking, PFA didn't raise money for the Bush campaign, just as MoveOn didn't raise money for the Kerry campaign. But, just as MoveOn supported Kerry, PFA certainly supported Bush. But what about Coleman's next claim, that Ken Adelman, the first chairman of PFA, was "the Bush 2004 campaign director?" He got it from the Center for Media and Democracy, the far left organization that he cited in his article. But where did they get it? Their link doesn't go anywhere, and a simple Google search shows that Ken Adelman was not the "director" of the Bush-Cheney campaign.
In fact, the Bush-Cheney campaign didn't have a "director." Marc Racicot was Chairman; Ken Mehlman was Campaign Manager; Mark Wallace was Deputy Campaign Manager; Terry Nelson was Political Director. It's possible that Adelman--who is an arms control expert, not a political operative--played some minor role in President Bush's campaign, but I can't find him anywhere on the campaign's organization chart. To say that he was "the Bush 2004 campaign director" is simply false. As Coleman would easily have discovered if he had done any research beyond relying on a far-left web site.
For the rest, Coleman ranges far afield to smear PFA by writing that lawyer Ben Ginsberg, a partner in the Patton Boggs firm who specializes in "election law issues, particularly those involving federal and state campaign finance laws," has provided legal advice to both PFA and the Swift Boat Vets. That would be a disgusting case of guilt by association, except, of course, that the Swift Boat Vets weren't guilty.
Coleman says the "Swift Boating of Iraq has begun." It's hard to tell just what he means by that, but in a sense, I hope he's right. The Swift Boat Vets came together, raised money and went first online, and then on television, to spread their message--a message that they knew to be true from first-hand experience, but which the mainstream media wouldn't touch. To the extent that "Midwest Heroes" represents something similar, that's a good thing.
Coleman continues by turning to "Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America," to rebut "Midwest Heroes." Coleman describes Rieckhoff's group as "a nonpartisan organization." What he doesn't say is that Reickhoff, who has made a career out of opposing the Iraq war--Google his name--delivered the Democratic Party's official weekly radio address in May 2004.
Some nonpartisan.
But what, exactly, does Rieckhoff say?
<<< "The troops do not overwhelmingly support the president in Iraq," says Rieckhoff, who notes that polls show the troops' approval sinking to the low 50 percent range. >>>
Actually, the ad says the troops overwhelmingly support the mission, not the President. But put that to one side. Rieckhoff is presumably referring to a poll done by Military Times at the end of 2005. But that poll showed that by 56% to 26%, respondents believed the decision to go to war in Iraq was a good one. By 54% to 25%, respondents approved of President Bush's handling of Iraq. And by 73% to 25%, respondents believe that the U.S. is likely to succeed in its mission. So the troops (all troops, not just those who have served in Iraq, where reenlistment rates and anecdotal evidence suggest support would be greater) support the President on Iraq by better than two to one--in other words, "overwhelmingly."
Rieckhoff continues:
<<< "And the CIA said there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. They still say that.
"So this ad is simply not true." >>>
Coleman must be hoping his readers haven't actually seen the ad. It doesn't say Iraq was behind 9/11; it says al Qaeda was behind 9/11, and we're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Which is both indisputably true, and highly important.
Coleman concludes with a venom that surpasses even that which came before:
<<< Be warned: Despite the patriotic music, the flags and the burning Twin Towers, these ads aimed at Minnesota's heartstrings are not about supporting the troops. They are just a desperate attempt to salvage support for an unpopular president's reckless war. >>>
Well, that's what the Left thinks, all right. But why is Coleman so exercised at the fact that three servicemen, who together have served for years in Iraq and observed conditions there with their own eyes, want to express a contrary view? What is so threatening about the idea that "American troops are making real progress"? And why do liberals find it necessary to smear servicemen who offer a message of hope and optimism?
My own guess is that liberals aren't afraid that the Midwest Heroes are wrong. They're afraid they're right.
powerlineblog.com
progressforamerica.org
startribune.com
usatoday.com
sourcewatch.org
gwu.edu
pattonboggs.com
releases.usnewswire.com
michellemalkin.com |
