California Conservative

That’s essentially the question that Peter Hegseth asks in this NY Post op-ed. He’s asking why some Democrats still see Iraq as an unending nightmare. To be more accurate, he’s asking why Democrats are insisting on using 2006 data to formulate their opinions:

War critics painted a similar picture when violence in Iraq peaked in ‘05 and ‘06, using terms like “civil war” and “sectarian violence”, as they pushed for a rapid draw-down or immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. An Iraq “at war with itself” shouldn’t be America’s problem, they argued. In fact, the existence of a “religious civil war” remains the chief antiwar talking point to this day.

Problem is, the new U.S. strategy has changed the facts on the grounds.

A year ago, the assertions of Sanchez and the antiwar critics were an accurate description of the violence throughout Iraq: Armed death squads freely roamed the streets in Baghdad and outlying areas, responding to massive bombings committed by al Qaeda. And vice versa. Each week saw hundreds of innocent Iraqis, the victims of sectarian attacks and reprisals, kidnapped and killed. Worst of all, compromised members of the security forces (Iraqis in uniform) were complicit in many killings.

Mr. Hegseth then makes a forceful case for using today’s data:

The critics had a point: American soldiers were simply caught in the middle, not permitted to take action to stop the violence, and yet still very much in harm’s way. But what the critics failed to see was that it didn’t have to be that way, that what the troops lacked was an adaptive strategy that recognized and addressed underlying causes of the violence.

Enter Gen. David Petraeus and a strategy that did just that. (The term “surge” is far too simplistic, as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus’ changes in tactics are even more important).

The new counterinsurgency approach, namely, to take territory from al Qaeda, hold it, secure it and empower tribal sheiks to work together and rebuild their communities, finally provides an effective “counteroffensive” to the chief tactics of al Qaeda militants and Shiite death squads.

Simply put, the Agenda Media cares infinitely more about carrying the Democrats’ water on this than they care about reporting all the facts about Iraq. That was proven when Howard Kurtz caught Robin Right and Barbara Starr admitting that declining casualty rates weren’t news but an increase would’ve been treated as news:

The U.S. military reported last week that troop deaths in Iraq went down for the fourth month in a row, and the Iraqi government reported that civilian deaths declined by half in September.

What to do? Well, CBS and NBC gave the new casualty figures a few sentences on their evening news programs, and the major papers played the news far from their front pages. Only ABC led with the story. In fact, the Washington Post’s media critic, Howard Kurtz, wondered about the short-shrift the media gave this news after four years of “continuously depressing” news. On CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” he asked the Washington Post’s Robin Wright and CNN’s Barbara Starr whether the news should have received more attention. Perish the thought, they both said; we’re not sure there is a trend yet.

OK, four months is not a trend. But Kurtz then asked the obvious question: If those casualties figures had gone up, wouldn’t that have made front pages? “Oh, I think inevitably it would have,” replied Starr. “I mean, that…by any definition, is news.”

The good news for the Bush administration is that lots of blogs are informing the people that the tide has turned. That’s what’s behind the Agenda Media outlets finally talking about positive developments in Iraq. I was talking about the Anbar Awakening in July. The Washington media elitists started reporting that a little over a week ago.

The debate is essentially over. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid talked tough yesterday about not being a rubberstamp for President Bush’s Iraq supplemental but everyone knows that they’ll fold like a lawn chair once President Bush starts pushing. Here’s what Reuters reported:

“Isn’t this getting to be a little old?” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democratic war opponent from Nevada, asked on the Senate floor after Bush spoke. Reid and other Democrats noted Bush had recently vetoed a bill to expand a popular children’s health program. “We’ve been fighting for America’s priorities while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy,” Reid said.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, said there would be no “blank checks” for the war. “Every line-item will be scrutinized,” he said. “Hearings will be held to determine the need for this spending request. Tough questions will be asked of this administration.”

Sen. Reid’s endless rants are getting tiring. It’s apparent that they’re getting on Nevadans’ nerves, too, with his approval rating hovering 15 points lower in Nevada than President Bush’s approval ratings.

As for Robert Byrd saying that “Every line-item will be scrutinized,” that’s code for “I won’t sign off on this until I get my cut.”

Here’s Ms. Pelosi’s official statement:

“Demanding nearly $200 billion for Iraq while vetoing health care for 10 million children exemplifies the Bush Administration’s misplaced priorities. On key issues – from the Iraq war to children’s health insurance – the President continues to oppose the will of the American people and obstructs the New Direction Congress’ bipartisan agenda.

“For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year.

“The colossal cost of this war grows every day, in lives lost, dollars spent, and to our reputation around the world. The American people long ago rejected the President’s planned 10-year occupation of Iraq and want the Administration to provide a concrete plan to bring our troops home.

The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq. We must end this war.”

Talk about irresponsible. Ms. Pelosi is saying we should redeploy now that victory is within sight? That isn’t responsible. That’s irresponsible. Ms. Pelosi doesn’t think that we’re getting the news from the internet, not demagogic politicians with a political axe to grind.

Organizations like Vets For Freedom and Victory Caucus are aggregating news articles telling us what’s really happening. their credibility is still high. Pelosi and Reid don’t have any credibility left on this issue. Here’s Sen. Reid’s machismo-laden statement:

“President Bush wants us to rubber stamp another $200 billion in war funds, all borrowed money, none of it paid for, for next year alone. But when we sent a bipartisan CHIP bill to his desk to provide health insurance for the children of working families, the President called it too expensive. Let’s remember, every dime of the money for CHIP was paid for.

That’s spin if ever I heard it. It gets worse:

“The Iraq war is leaving us less secure, unprepared to fight an effective war on terror or respond to the unexpected. President Bush should not expect the Congress to rubber stamp this latest supplemental request. In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight for the change in strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue.”

TRANSLATION: Over the next coming weeks, we’ll pretend to hold this bill up to the light of day so that our campaign contributions keep rolling in. Then we’ll fold like a lawn chair the minute President Bush starts pressuring us. We’ll talk about changing strategies and redeploying our troops to pay lip service to our nutroots allies but we can’t afford to listen to closely to them because following them blindly would spell disaster for us next November.

It’s also curious what information Sen. Reid is using in claiming that “The Iraq war is leaving us less secure.” That’s been the Democratic mantra since Howard Dean’s campaign in 2003. We still haven’t had a terrorist attack her in the US and violence is dropping dramatically in Iraq. Does that sound like we’re less secure?

Reid, Pelosi and Murtha haven’t figured it out that the New Media is making them look like idiots. We’re the ones who are knowledgeable and trustworthy. We aren’t spinning the news. We’re the people exposing Reid, Pelosi and Murtha as spinmeisters who’ll say anything to advance their agenda.

We’ve done our jobs so well that informed voters are now asking where the nightmare is. I suspect that the nightmare is the electoral implications winning will have on Democrats.

Technorati Tags: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Iraq War, John Murtha, Nutroots, Peter Hegseth, Vets For Freedom, N.Z. Bear, Victory Caucus, President Bush, Anbar Awakening, Agenda Media, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 24th, 2007 at 11:48 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Iraq, Liberals, Military, Pelosi, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.