For all the Democrats’ talk about us making enemies by invading Iraq, if Iraqis could vote in American elections, for whom would they vote for President?

Ron Paul!

So it is up to Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to revive the national debate on Iraq

Funny, it seems like the only Presidential candidate talking about Iraq these days is John McCain. The others are hoping we’ll suspend disbelief until November and think we’ve lost the war.

For all the Democrats’ talk about us making enemies by invading Iraq, if Iraqis could vote in American elections, for whom would they vote for President?

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Can one dare to hope that if/when Obama does indeed go to Iraq he’ll come to the same conclusion?

Why is no one reporting the success in Iraq?

The fact that someone has to ask this question worries me…

As I understand it (Michael Totten has written about this), the Sunnis see us as another “tribe” that treats them fairly and that they can work with equitably.

SteveMG on June 1, 2008 at 10:43 PM

And I just wonder whom they think is the alpha dog? After all the bowing and scraping and Koran kissing I know where I would place my bet.

Ironic, isn’t it? We overthrew a Sunni dominated government and now, five years later, we’re allied with them.

SteveMG on June 1, 2008 at 10:43 PM

And five years from now what will such a marriage of convenience look like?

Only a fool or a traitor would vote Dhimmicratic this year. And I am not going to believe anything else whatsoever.

Subsunk on June 1, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Well then you had best prepare yourself for the very real possibility of living in a nation that you feel is made up of a majority of fools and traitors, or get ready to move. Not a position I would want to be in.

Buford Gooch on June 1, 2008 at 11:59 AM

It’s not bragging. It’s the truth.

Indy Conservative on June 1, 2008 at 12:05 PM

I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one’s self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one’s own powers.

Why has coverage of Iraq over the past year or so declined so much?

SteveMG on June 1, 2008 at 10:47 PM

I’m not convinced that it has declined as precipitously as you suggest. Like I said, every day I pick up the paper I see three, four or even more items on Iraq. Of course, one must pick up serious papers, not the Boondocks Herald-Bugler. Maybe the reports don’t reflect the views of military spokespersons as breathlessly as they did five years ago, but they are certainly there. Still, I’m willing to believe that there is less coverage of Iraq than used to be, I just fail to see this vast left-wing conspiracy hoping for a defeat.

I’m sure part of the reason is that “37 Bodies Ripped to Pieces in Marketplace Bombing” is just a more exciting headline than “Unknown Sheik in Desert Hellhole Now Friends with USMC, Not AQI”. Also, there is this election thing going on here in the US of A (a sizable part of the population is contemplating regime change, I’m told), and it tends to take up space on front pages. Maybe the press is less willing to take the government’s assessment of the situation at face value, given that the government repeatedly lied (remember the coverup of Pat Tillman’s death or the tall tales about Jessica Lynch?).

Just an opinion — thanks for your thoughts and for not calling me an idiot.

Sorry, I’m not the “cultured” statement is mine; any resemblance to yahoo.com is purely coincidental.

As such you are an enemy of the state, plain and simple!

dmann on June 1, 2008 at 10:46 PM

This looks like a direct quote from Zhenmin Zhibao. If that’s the kind of newspaper you normally read, no wonder you are dissatisfied with the American press.

Only a fool or a traitor would vote Dhimmicratic this year. And I am not going to believe anything else whatsoever. It is our Men’s and Women’s lives at stake. NOTHING is more important than Victory against Islamist Jihadists.

Press on. To Victory.

Subsunk

I’m sure I am. I rely on facts, and facts have a well-known liberal bias.
But do explain the error of my ways.

Why has coverage of Iraq over the past year or so declined so much? As I understand, all of the studies by independent and non-partisan media groups (Pew, et cetera) show a precipitate decline in coverage.

A story here or a story there isn’t sufficient especially when we’ve seen some major and dramatic changes taking place (the rejection by the Sunnis of AQ, the ability of the government to independently move Iraqi troops into Shi’s neighborhoods, et cetera).

The coverage simply hasn’t matched the sea change that is taking place.

Clueless….if you can equate a “Feature Parade” article on the poor civilian bastards in Basra to the success of a geopolitical strategy tactically executed by the finest military the planet has witnessed, you are indeed lost. Maybe clueless is not the correct word since it does imply a degree of ignorance or lack of information, unfortunately you do not exhibit either trait. Your argument is based entirely on an all to predictable desired outcome and as such discounts and ignores observed fact and documented reality. As such you are an enemy of the state, plain and simple!

Hasn’t that been widely reported (although not by the White House)…

Sure, I’ve seen it reported (in fact, I’m pretty sure both Petreus and Crocker acknowleged this at the last hearings) that no one knows whether the alliance (for want of a better word) between the Sunnis and the US against al-Qaeda will extend to a willingness of the Sunnis to integrate into the government.

As I understand it (Michael Totten has written about this), the Sunnis see us as another “tribe” that treats them fairly and that they can work with equitably. There’s a level of trust. But they certainly don’t have the same trust with the government.

Frankly, I don’t see them turning against us for the above reasons. I.e., they’ve turned against AQ (from which they can no longer receive help) and they now see us as a ally or neutral party against any potential Shi’a reprisals/revenge killings.

Ironic, isn’t it? We overthrew a Sunni dominated government and now, five years later, we’re allied with them.

factoid on June 1, 2008 at 9:55 PM

You are truly clueless!

dmann on June 1, 2008 at 10:03 PM

I’m sure I am. I rely on facts, and facts have a well-known liberal bias.

But do explain the error of my ways.

Well, I’m not sure where you got the “most US commanders” bit. But it’s certainly a concern.

Hasn’t that been widely reported (although not by the White House)… I don’t think that anyone is saying that the Sunnis politically / fundamentally support either the US or the Iraqi government. It’s a strategic move, and one that’s been very effective when you look at what’s happened to the Sunnis immediate enemies.

You are truly clueless!

You see, this is not just a coincidence. Somehow every time Ed starts another one of these “the MSM is suppressing news of our glorious victory in Iraq” I’m somehow able to count four, five, six prominently placed Iraq-related stories, many of them objectively reporting successes, in that day’s New York Times or Washington Post. The truth is, these papers are actually pretty fair and thorough about reporting what goes on in the world. Even if they sometimes miss crucial stories like the kafiyeh hidden in the Dunkin Donuts ad.

And here’s an exit thought. The press in this country often portrays the world in ways that are different from the Government’s views. That’s just the way the American media is. If you prefer a press that’s more perfectly aligned with the Government, consider reading Chinese, North Korean or Saudi papers.

All Hail the F’in P.O.S.

What does the price of Salon’s stock have to do with well written and resourced articles?
If, (and that’s a big if), you followed the links
HERE, and followed the links in those articles, please point out Greenwalad’s errors.

I guess almost all here loved how the MSM stenographers beat the war drums for Bush back then. Now that they acquired some balls and are asking questions like journalist, you are pissed at the MSM. Even though concerning Iran the MSM is practicing stenography again.

..Hope this doesn’t break the paradigm or anything.