Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (38734)	4/9/2004 7:41:09 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793843

Hugh Hewitt - "I don't see any shadows of Vietnam here in Iraq," Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez told the Boston Globe today. This doesn't surprise anyone but Ted Kennedy and a column of media alarmists, because the differences between the conflict thirty years ago --with hundreds of combat deaths weekly, an enemy conventional army operating in tandem with sophisticated guerilla forces supplied by one-and-a-half super-powers from a base off-limits to attack by U.S. troops, and an American home front riven by massive protests sparked by an unpopular draft-- are obvious to anyone without an agenda of beating George Bush in November. The Los Angeles Times' Mark Barabak provides a hilariously obvious example of this agenda journalism in today's paper, which actually is labeled"News Analysis" by the paper, and given the title: "Bush Presidency Could Be Ultimate Casualty of War." (When will the far more plausible "News Analysis" appear titled "Kerry Candidacy Could Already Be Doomed By Candidate's Combination of Incoherence and Reflexive Appeasement: With a Record of Having Been Wrong On Viet Cong, Sandinistas, and Soviets, Aides Fear Voters Will Not Trust Candidate Kerry Who Thinks al-Sadr and Others Like Him a 'Voice' --Legitimate or Not-- That Must Be Heard.") Clip and save Barabak's fourth paragraph for some future hall of fame of bad journalism: "But if the death toll mounts and Iraq spins out of control, even Bush supporters concede his reelection prospects could be seriously jeopardized, regardless of how strongly the economy is performing this fall." If A and if B, then C might possibly occur, leading to D. This is analysis? Let's apply the same "analysis" to sports: If Jeter is injured and out for the season, and A-Rod can't handle Third and hits .220, even Yankee fans concede that their team might struggle in the post-season." No self-respecting sports editor would allow a columnist to pass that off as "analysis" in the season-opener special, but such an inanity gets space in a major daily? Predictions are fine, but not a jelly-spined listing of possible bad events followed by a wheezy maybe. Nostradamus had more analysis than Barabak. Why then do such columns get printed? For the obvious reason that newsrooms across the country are dominated by silly, inexperienced, and not-very-bright partisans rooting for a Bush defeat. The battles in Iraq of the last week have allowed these partisans to sing again from the quagmire songbook from which they crooned in the early weeks of the Afghanistan battles, and during last year's sand-storm induced delay in the march to Baghdad. No wonder "journalists" are mocked throughout America. Readers don't forget the record of the chicken-littles of the last two years because a few months have passed. For real analysis, stick with blogs like Command Post, Belmont Club, and Little Green Footballs, and milbloggers like Blackfive, Smash and Mudville Gazette, and of course Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson has a fine piece, "Western Cannibalism," over at today's NationalReview.com. Here's a teaser graph: "Another pundit assures us that terrorists after American action in Iraq are more active now than before. Well, again yes -- in the sense that Germany was messier in 1944 than in 1933, or that Japan was more dangerous for Americans in 1943 than in 1935. Danger, chaos, and death are what transpire for a time when you finally decide to strike back at confident and smug enemies." To repeat from yesterday: I think the U.S. military will put down al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" within a few weeks; that the Marines will subdue Fallujah, that the hand-over will occur on June 30th, and that a wobbly transitional government will grow stronger with each passing month, though violence will remain a feature of Iraq for at least a year as neighboring Iran has a huge incentive to thwart this scenario. The war is far from over, and "over" doesn't mean the transition to stability in Iraq. It means the destruction of radical Islam as a force capable of dealing a devastating blow to the civilians of the United States. Whatever the Kerry shills like Barabak have to say about "what ifs" and "might happens," I think the American electorate knows the score and will vote accordingly. Appeasement didn't work in the '30s, running away didn't work in the '70s, and courting the French and the Germans won't win the global conflict in which we are now engaged. It is all one war, and the voters know it. They also know we have zero choice whether we want to fight it or not. It will be fought in Fallujah or in New York, Los Angeles, D.C. and other homeland cities. No matter whether you are observing Easter, Passover, or some other religious holiday this weekend, pray for the safety of the troops and the civilians in Iraq, but also pray for victory.