Things clearly have turned because of the pressure of us Democrats.” If that misconstruction helps defeat AQI, then so be it.

and from acleaver on July 11, 2007 at 11:06 AM

I agree completely. I’d rather beat AQI and let the Dems take credit for it because it means so much more to the Iraqis and to us in the long run.

Which were comments from my post earlier:

when, not if the Anbar strategy is successful broadly all over Iraq, some (or all) MSM journalists will take credit for not only this original strategy idea, but also for reporting it; and to boot get this blame president Bush for not being behind this idea in the first place, as to why we were not successful these last four years.

Well exactly, I don’t really care who takes credit for winning either. It only further serves to devalue the credibility of the MSM and Bush haters.

Short of violent revolution, I know of no way to force the media to report what we all know: That the anti-insurgent operations are going our way.

georgej on July 11, 2007 at 7:02 AM

We here at HA (and the blogsphere collectively) are the revolution! “Managing the news” has become impossible.

Apparently they’re not convinced by George Voinobitch’s arguments. Oh, they want us to leave, of course. But when? According to a leader of the 1920s Brigades fighting alongside Americans and IA units against Al Qaeda: “I ask one thing,”……

georgej on July 11, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Maybe we need a fairness doctrine after all !

I agree completely. I’d rather beat AQI and let the Dems take credit for it because it means so much more to the Iraqis and to us in the long run.

I want what is best for this country in both the short and long term. Which also means that I would really like to see the Dems held accountable for what they are doing. A loss in Iraq is going to be bad for us and for the Iraqi’s, the only question is, will a loss in Iraq be as bad for us and the Iraqi’s as a win for the Democrats, which their being able to claim a win in Iraq would probably give them.

So in other words what I am suggesting here is that allowing the Dems to take credit for a success in Iraq, especially after they betrayed our troops and the current administration could quite potentially be even worse than a loss in Iraq alone would be.

Two wrongs never ever make a right, nobody ever makes a deal with the devil and come away still in possession of their own soul.

I just read Mcguyver’s post, (that Dems will take credit and blame Bush for surge’s eventual success). Although it may be too late to save surge from the current “failure” mantra, I’d be all in favor of surrendering to the Dems in the politics in exchange for victory on the ground. That is, if it can turn the tide, let the new Dem narrative be: “Of course Bush took too long to try the surge in Iraq, he never really had a plan for post-invasion and he finally is trying to come on board with what we Dems have been saying: have a plan. We got Rumsfeld out who wanted to do everything with a couple troops, and we gave Petraeus a chance. Things clearly have turned because of the pressure of us Democrats.” If that misconstruction helps defeat AQI, then so be it.

I agree completely. I’d rather beat AQI and let the Dems take credit for it because it means so much more to the Iraqis and to us in the long run.

The goal is victory for the country not for Republicans.

Sadly the Dems dont see it that way. The Dems see their only chance at a political victory here at home in a military defeat abroad for the current administration, and that administration just happens to be republican. The Dems are happy, even joyous to commit treason if doing so puts their party in political power.

I agree with you totally. The most important thing is the outcome in the middle east. Even if the Dems and the media get undeserved credit (which I think would be transparent anyway.) who cares so much. The goal is victory for the country not for Republicans.

Thanks to the Administration and its intelligence advisors failing to study the history of miltant, expansionist Islam, or recognize the 1300 year old Sunni-Shi’ite schism war in the region.

Now that we’re in, we should conquer our way out.

Even if it was a mistaken opening strategy, once you throw the first punch and get in the fight, you either go out on your feet or on your ass.

I prefer kicking theirs.

The media’s take is totally aligned with the Democrats, and reporters like John Burns, Yon, Johannes, and so on, are simply not heard and their information is blackholed.

Short of violent revolution, I know of no way to force the media to report what we all know: That the anti-insurgent operations are going our way.

I don’t understand why anybody links to or quotes Gleen.

It’s quite simple really: because Kos told them to. Kos made Greenwald.

Ouch! That’s gotta hurt. Thank God, or something, for the new media.

Nope the mainstream media will never allow the average American to see it, nor will they if there is any way they can avoid it allow the average American to find out that the surge is working.

Hey, if the heat’s so bad they should send Gore over there, it’ll cool down in no time.

Good DAY sir.

Tman on July 10, 2007 at 10:30 PM

…you could use manbearpig as bait

So it’s time to quit. Now Republican Senators want to pack up and go him. And leave Iraq to become a terrorist-exporting hot bed and a Taliban state that will make the average Iraqi long for the fascist dictator, Hussein.

Brilliant. Thanks Republican Senators. Read one or several military history books first, a-holes. Wars go badly and those who persevere win them. Those who give up hope, lose, often with superior resources on their side.

You morons are going to do a bad turn for the world, the region, and your country.

That is my bet.

On a side bar note here, I have written the script for them, only to be revealed when they figure out how to do it.

Of course this will only further serve to devalue their journalistic paper’s reputation. Only then it will be worth less than recycled toilet paper.