Redstate

The Left will portray success as failure, and consider the triumphant return of our troops as an ignominious retreat. And they will claim credit for making it happen. The timing of the Murtha adventure makes the strategy clear.

Is number 1 on my Christmas list.  Any off-topic comments regarding your take on the new platform appreciated.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Was sayin this when it was thought that Murtha and Pelosi had staged their event in anticipation of the President's upcoming speech.

We've always known there is no low the Libs won't stoop to to damage the President (and any collateral damage, the troops, Iraq, etc be damned), this is just another example

The innovations in gameplay are great. Awesome. Let's get that out of the way first.

But...

All the changes they made to the graphics and the interface are unnecessary, and have caused some disastrous bugs. I highly recommend you check out civfanatics or appolyton for a rundown of the bugs.

I have a very recent, top end Dell laptop. It will barely run the new Civ, thanks to the "bleeding edge" graphics.

This is not a game that needs flashy graphics.

It's been out over a month now and still no patch for all the bugs.

...is that their megaphones are bigger than ours. They will have a certain amount of success with this, if only because it's approximately true that "more Americans get their news from network television than from any other source."

Once again, I must disagree with pretty much everything you wrote (as I am apt to do).  But I most vehemently disagree with your plans to buy Civ 4.  Probably the worst debugging and beta testing to ever happen since the old days of 386's and conventional memory hog programs.  Just an awful, awful progam with little or no QA/QC that seems to have been done.  Even the new patch hasn't made it work on a lot of computers (particularly with ATI and nVidia video cards).

you control the white house and congress.

Isn't that weird?

The easiest way to be seen as a leader is to find a parade and get in front of it. That does seem to be what has happened here.

Should I stick with CivIII for a while longer? I was kind of hoping to get IV for Christmas, but my wife isn't happy about it. It may appease her to hold off until a workable patch is out.

Fans of the 'metric system' should take a look at the July 2005 quarterly report delivered to Congress on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq here, minus its classified annexes regarding ISF upseldom (don't know if that's the expression used nowadays). Since the next quarterly report is due any day now, and since congress has no doubt already received it (see Murtha's timing), I'm guessing that there's been a lot of positioning based on the progress that has been made. If progress dictates rotating guys out, the left will call it a victory, and since few people read these reports, who's the wiser?

continues here

When polls are down, blame the media... that's what I say.

sometime ago.

Correctly, unfortunately.

The dems are hoping to steal the victory.

out any specifics about his plan for Iraq, and he has chosen to repeat "stay the course" and "freedom on the march" platitudes.

Meanwhile we lose about 75 troops a month and many more severely wounded, spend billions of dollars, and see an increase in attacks and a supposed decrease in battle ready Iraqi troops.  (not to mention Shiite death squads if the rumors are true).  Is your answer to this "Trust the President"?  

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Well, what does that mean? How many combat ready divisions capable of unsupported Ops is that? The administration has political goals that have been stated, but in a counter-insurgency such as this it is difficult to articulate metrics that can show you are winning.

Therefore, the administration has made statements such as this one that is really more of a bumper sticker or talking point slogan than an actual goal. It is easy to counter this with other equally vacuous talking points and then argue endlessly over what it all means.

If the Administration had put forward a plan that following the December elections and the successful deployment of X number Iraqi battalions, we will begin repositioning and drawing down forces at a continuous rate, while shielding Iraq from possible foreign threats such as Iran or Turkey, then all the sting would be taken out of the anti-war position.

If that is what the president does during his speech, then it will greatly change the dynamic of this debate. The problem that is occurring among the Republican base is that our position in Iraq is looking like an open-ended commitment with no end in sight. It doesn't look like the president is really serious about rapidly stabilizing the situation and pulling the troops home. That is the perception that needs to be combatted in speeches. If the president does not do that, then it really will be a failure.

President Bush needs to articulate his vision for how Iraq should look at the point in which U.S. forces can begin withdrawing. I have never seen that articulated other than in generalizations. Without it, I can't see support not eroding.

I'm blaming the Left. The media are just trying to make a buck.

n/t

message itself though, right?  Just those wily Dems.  

on this before.

I don't see how anything you mention here affects the conversation one way or another. He says we begin withdrawing at X battalions. At X+5 battalions there is a terrorist attack. Bingo. He was overly optimistic. He pulled out too soon.

Beyond that, the idea of laying out your internal terms of reference and measurement for others to use as a pinata just makes no political sense whatsoever, muchless announcing to your enemies - foreign and domestic - what you intend to do.

don't you read the report I linked? In it you'll find that in July, there were 171,000 ISF forces trained and fitted, and that 2,000 ISF soldiers had been KIA up to that point. Any more info than that is classified, the report says so itself, so your 'supposed' decrease is just that. If you're for pulling out right now, it's probably not a good idea to mention Shiite death squads as a) over 26,000 Shia have been murdered by Sunni death squads and b) its our presence that's keeping the Sunnis alive. We all mourn our own, but the price they've paid is for a better world for all of us.

it's too hard. It's much easier to cut and paste talking points.

Just wait until Thursday after the speech.

one of the problems in getting more specific about withdrawal is that the plan really is to keep significant forces in Iraq in perpetuity (like in Germany and Japan).

While no doubt the administration wants to get the troop level down significantly from the current 150,000+ level, I'd expect that even if the insurgency was totally pacified we'd still want to keep at least 20,000 troops on the Syrian and Iranian borders, respectively (along with another 20,000 in Afghanistan on Iran's other border).

Could it be that if Bush starts talking too specifically about X Iraqis trained by Y date = Z Americans coming home, that formula can be extrapolated to say that we should be fully out by 2007/2008/whatever, when in fact the plan is to keep a significant US presence in Iraq for the long, long term for reasons that extend beyond Iraq's borders?

Bush clearly has been a poor communicator, but perhaps some of the lack of clarity has actually been intentional- could you imagine what the reaction would be if Bush publicly said he has no intention of ever completely withdrawing?

... when they are 40 Democrats for every one Republican at the New York Times, and 10 Democrats for every Republican at every other major news organization ... maybe, just maybe, a message doesn't get through.

Capiche?

Or are you saying you wouldn't be shrieking about "propaganda" if Bush, Frist and Hastert were to constantly demand air time each and every single week for two hours to push the GOP agenda?

Do you believe that we've lost in Iraq, and it's time to admit it and stop the killing? That would make sense, wouldn't it, since that's what the media will probably say, and they are committed to objective reporting.

completely pacify Iraq prior to any drawdown of forces? Given the longevity of almost all counter-insurgencies, there is a 100% chance that regardless of when you plan to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq, a terrorist attack will occur shortly thereafter. Terrorism is too easy to carry out in the Iraqi environment to expect that a small unit won't be able to blow something up.

Putting this kind of plan forward will help stabilize U.S. support. It will also help take the fire out of the insurgency. How much harder will it be for Jihadis to get support from locals for attacks on Americans if the Americans are leaving anyway?

I understand your tactical objections to telegraphing moves to the enemy. But the political dimensions here are the most important in an insurgency. Americans will not support an open-ended commitment of forces in a hostile zone. Since complete pacification is impossible in the window supported by U.S. opinion, then some kind of situation short of 'total victory' must be acceptable. The Iraqi government should be capable of sustaining itself against a low-grade insurgency at some point in the mid-term future. Articulating that point brings political support to the Bush administration, and may make the situation politically speaking in Iraq easier as well.

Don't forget that the recent Cairo meeting ended with a communique insisting on a timetable for withdrawl. That was signed by Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. That's a good sign, but it is also a warning that we need to manage the expectations better.

working toward a semi-permanent presence then I'd be questioning the administration's intelligence.

many of the items listed in the speech, but he will fault the Administration for not listening to him sooner.  He will also quibble with parts, stating that they should be done differently.

The assembled press will nod in unison, clad as they are in their BushMisled/CheneyLied rubber bodies and Halloween masks.

("BushMisled/CheneyLied" was created by Joe Biden on NBC's Meet the Press, Sunday.)

But the political dimensions here are the most important in an insurgency. Americans will not support an open-ended commitment of forces in a hostile zone. Since complete pacification is impossible in the window supported by U.S. opinion, then some kind of situation short of 'total victory' must be acceptable.

I don't see the evidence of this. There isn't a draft to galvanize widespread dissatisfaction and the Brits proved you can fight a 10-year insurgency with a volunteer military, they did it in Malaysia.

I don't know why we'd ever agree to anything short of "total victory." If you don't have 100% of a win you have 100% of a loss. I don't agree that anyone in a position of responsibility has ever defined victory as a function of insurgent activities. At least no one in the administration has.

Don't forget that the recent Cairo meeting ended with a communique insisting on a timetable for withdrawl.

I think you are misreading the communique, it specifically links a timetable to pre-requisites: trained Iraqi security forces and gaining control of internal security. Equally, it makes clear that the US forces are not an occupation but invited in by the Iraqi government.

but I don't think they can say that out loud.

useless number without the classified information about readiness backing it up, so the debate will still come down to "Trust the President" (or Rumsfeld).  Iraq had, what, the 4th largest army in the world in 1991.  Numbers just don't mean anything unless they are linked with effectiveness.  I don't have enough faith in this administration to trust that they aren't constructing a paper tiger of the Iraqi forces for political reasons of their own (or because there methods are ineffective).  The only thing we have to go on are how many attacks there are, how many deaths, etc..., and that certainly hasn't improved much lately.

unclassified data in that report for you to do your own calculations. Of course, it would require reading something produced by the (gasp!) Pentagon.

From the WSJ today:

Yochi J. Dreazen, Greg Jaffe and John D. McKinnon write in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "President Bush, in an address at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., Wednesday is expected to emphasize progress in training Iraqi troops. But the administration's endorsement comes as Iraqi forces increasingly are operating as sectarian militias, targeting Sunnis on behalf of their Shiite political patrons and raising the possibility of all-out civil war."

Try here. Leaving the President out of this, speaking for myself, and understanding how naive it may sound, I would not doubt the word of a U.S. military officer speaking on this subject. But that's just me.

The Republicans are saying things are going well, so we can start withdrawing. The Democrats are saying things aren't going well, so we must start withdrawing.

In the end it amounts to the same thing, really. It is up to Iraq, now.

It was never proposed to permanently occupy Iraq. The goals for withdrawal were clearly and consistently announced and are being met.

there are hundreds of successful conservative radio hosts and there are zero on the left.  fox has the highest ratings of any news network .  newspapers are dead so i don't see the problem being exclusively with MSM.  the president has had the same silly "they step up, we step down" message for the past two years.  no wonder he has given in to appeasing the left.

is out.  1.09, to be exact.  Now even my stupid intel 855 graphics chipset will run it, and most of the other bugs have been fixed.

Patch Link

and they have focused on the same areas that they had previously.  2,000 have been KIA, but that could be blown up by a suicide bomber for all I know, which doesn't tell me much about readiness.  Show me one other single piece of info in there that concretely illuminates the readiness of security forces one way or another.

I have been suspecting for a while (and this thread confirms my suspicions) that the current Dem brouhaha over bringing the troops home was in anticipation that Bush would be announcing troop drawdowns.  Now, the Dems can claim credit for 'pressuring the White House into doing the right thing' on Iraq.

And I think they keep that one Republican down in the mailroom.  Or locked in the restroom, perhaps.

pretty obvious that you haven't read anything published on the subject, including six pages of discussion in the report on that very subject, and I further don't intend to play semantic games with you over whatever the heck "concretely illuminates" means.

Your post just received a considerable amount of air-time on Rush...

Redstate's credibility continues to rise in the world of the new media.

Well said Walter.

Nothing is easier than to "demand".  Nothing was simpler than for Rep. Murtha to stand up and demand withdrawal. To manage a War to Victory is a much tougher thing, which tends not to fit neatly into sound bites.

• We got into the war for the right reasons,
  
• Progress has been difficult but steady - from almost every perspective,
  
• We will stay until we have achieved a reasonably stable and peaceful Iraq that is no longer a threat,
  
• Then we will leave.

The only open questions are whether this is all worth the 2,000+ U.S. casualties and the continued risk of 5-20 casualties per month, and exacty when the job will be finished (Think Germany or Korea).

To try to frame things differently than this is inherently misleading and borderline dishonest.

as W's dad:

..."wouldn't be prudent, at this juncture."

"If you don't have 100% of a win you have 100% of a loss."

If you stabilize the situation into one in which there is an LIC in some provinces, but no actual threat to the stability of the Baghdad regime - then how is that a loss? Is it even feasible for the U.S. to be able to fully penetrate and destroy the terrorist cells? Isn't that a job for which Iraqi security is more suited? After all, Chile and Argentina did this for themselves against communist insurgencies. If the government in Baghdad is freely elected and operating under a stable Constitution, does it really matter if there are terrorists running amok in the An Bar province which the Iraqi security forces will have to clean up?

The Brits in the 1950's and 1960's are not the U.S. in 2005/06. There is no draft to galvanize support, that is certainly true. But at the same time, there is no compelling reason for the average Red State voter to continue supporting our daily involvement in this conflict. I think that support is breaking down. You think it isn't. We could go back and forth on that, but Harry Summers pegged it when discussing Vietnam in 'On Strategy,' the people in a Democracy are of paramount importance. I don't see this White House properly managing the conflict to suit the temperment of the people of the United States.

The Cairo communique included quite a bit. The communique stated that resistance to the foreign occupation is legitimate, but condemned terrorism. It also said that certain milestones had to be met for withdrawl of forces, but clearly the intent of the communique is that foreign forces will be withdrawn as quickly as practicable.

The Iraqis are clearly trying to work through negotiations to create a stable political order. This document reflected the give-and-take of various sides and is a very good sign. Within this framework, the Iraqis themselves are going to have to work this situation out. At some point, I think both the facts on the ground and the U.S. public opinion is going to demand that we let the do exactly that. And that point is almost certainly going to be before total security is reached in all areas of the country.

or more to CIV III, and I bought CIV IV and played for about hours.  

Terrible let down.

alright alright...Traitor is too much of a damaging word, nevertheless, it is unthinkable that during times of war, major sections of a country would work so hard at sabotaging the war efforts.  Hey, you can disagree with the war, but flat out work to sabotage it? Come on...that's going too far.  This war has given me a new light to look at the left in this country.

also fits on a bumper sticker but that doesn't mean it isn't right. General rule of thumb, the more words it takes you to explain something the less you know about it.

If you stabilize the situation into one in which there is an LIC in some provinces, but no actual threat to the stability of the Baghdad regime - then how is that a loss?

I don't think it is. In fact, I said just the opposite.

The Brits in the 1950's and 1960's are not the U.S. in 2005/06.

Yes. We aren't still rationing food and licking out wounds from 6 years of total war plus 2 years in Korea.

I think that support is breaking down. You think it isn't.

Until Iraq becomes the most important issue in most people's minds it doesn't matter so long as the Army and Marines are able to fill spaces. Right now they are. I suspect they can do so indefinitely.

The communique stated that resistance to the foreign occupation is legitimate, but condemned terrorism.

But it also specifically did not call the US occupiers, it says they are there by invitation.

The Iraqis are clearly trying to work through negotiations to create a stable political order. This document reflected the give-and-take of various sides and is a very good sign. Within this framework, the Iraqis themselves are going to have to work this situation out. At some point, I think both the facts on the ground and the U.S. public opinion is going to demand that we let the do exactly that. And that point is almost certainly going to be before total security is reached in all areas of the country.

Largely in agreement, though how all this ties into your persistent calling for some form of measurement I don't know.

for doing what's right if it had any concept of right.

troop readiness, but not what those levels are.  So I'm glad they have a system in place, but I don't know that they are implementing it, because they can't or won't release that info, which is the entire issue anyway.  Some people are tired of taking the administrations word for it.

The Left and The Media are one and the same!  Yes?  I thought that was one of the Great Tenets of Conservative Thinking(tm).

how many people are in an average battalion, how many battalions are in different categories, and what constitutes the standard to fall in each category I don't know what else they could possibly tell you that would help you out. I daresay you can't interpret a US military readiness report so I doubt that anything you are told by anyone other than a Juan Cole or Fred Kaplan is ever going to be believable.

use it. A traitor is one who betrays his country and to my mind the words of many on the left, including in Congress, fit that definition. They have gone beyond questioning and have long since moved to aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'd agree that the administration wants a permanent military presence in Iraq.  And that they wisely feel it's not a good idea to tell the public that.

But it's extremely risky.  The public already mistrusts the administration.  And more lies by ommission aren't going to help that situation.

The terroristscan say they pressured America to pull out of Iraq and the Left can say they pressured Bush to leave Iraq.

How many times have the terorists and Democrats been on the same side of an issue?

Supposed torture at Gitmo, US citizen rights and trials for enemy combatants, release of more Abu Graib pictures, outlawing Christianity, support of Palestinians, hatred of Bush, etc.

Plus the Democrats are always giving Al Jazeera sound bites and giving terrorists recruiting propaganda.

The Left wants to see America lose to regain power and the terrorists want to see America lose to regain power.

Do you have any examples of Congressmen giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Which Congressmen are you accusing of being traitors?

Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy accused US troops of torture with no evidence. Durbin compared troops to Nazis! Both could have gone to Gitmo to investigate for themselves but instead chose to make unfounded allegations on the floor of the Senate.

Both of these men have been featured on Al Jazeera for their statements against the US.

Ted Kennedy, the mentally retarded offspring of Satan and Helen Thomas.

your first and only warning on trolling.

I thought you were serious, but now I see you're just a troll trying to make RS look bad. Ha!

has a loved one who is retarded. Most mentally retarded people are good hearted and can not control their condition. Kennedy is not good hearted and could help his condition.

But Kennedy and Durbin have aided the enemy, that is a fact.

a permanent presence in the region-it is a smart move on our part-especially with hotbeds of terrorism and down right scarydictators in Iran, Syria and other places.

they will want a significant US military presence for some time to come. A squadron or two of US Air Force, several batallions of US Army. If for no other reason than a deterrent to their more 'adventuresome' neighbors.

We have 37,000 or so troops in Korea that serve basically as a tripwire, a message to the North; cross the border and you are not just at war with Seoul, you are are war with the big kid on the block. There are smart Iraqi leaders who recognize the value of having powerful friends.

And a significant force presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan places some serious contraints on a number of countries in the region.

My guess is you will see this start to roll out as our footprint drops toward the end of 2006, early 2007. The discussions will most definately be mutual.

giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not.

You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind (or a Democrat --- but that may be redundant) not to understand that large parts of what has spewed forth from the silver tongued orators of the Democrats in the US Congress is aid and comfort to the enemy.

How about:

"this war is unwinnable";

"we are losing this war";

"bring the troops home now";

and you think that doesn't encourage the enemy to keep on fighting --- they understand they have convinced a large part of the political class to give up. This is the only part of Iraq that is like Vietnam; the enemy understands they can't win on the battlefield and who their friends are.

where it gives how many battalions are in different categories please?  I can't find it.

I prefer Star Wars: Battlefront, myself... playing a Rebel Marksman.

It ends to be very satisfying...

on page 29 give the number in the top two categories.

23 pages.  Maybe I'm looking at the wrong one.  I guess we've been arguing about different data.

link

Liberals can't tell the American people that the reason Durbin and other liberals were screaming about abuses at Guantanamo Bay is because abuses happened at Abu Graib and the liberals know that the US military is the US military everywhere, so who needs proof before leveling an accusation of torture at the US military. And the liberals also know that it is OK to compare US troops to Nazis because everyone(liberals) knows that the people who join the US military are thugs with buzzcuts who can't wait to torture and kill 'brown people'. I mean why else would someone join this imperialistic war machine voluntarily? They are sadistic racists, just like the Nazis!

If Murtha just proposed what Bush was about to do, why did the White House (and other Republicans like Hastert and Schmidt) attack Mertha's proposal as cowardly and as "surrender to the terrorists" (as the White House press secretary called it on November 18)?

We'll be in Iraq (or the very near vicinity) for a good long time.  If we aren't, then we won't have the kind of check against Iran we think we need - which is prob'ly what most of this whole thing was about to begin with.

it was? That's my guess.

today that because things are going well, we can (in effect) desist from active patrolling over the next 6 months and that we can begin troop withdrawls over the next year.

I said I want a vision statement, delivered by the President, that would outline the min conditions under which we would withdraw from Iraq. That should not include metrics such as number of enemy KIA, hospitals opened, etc. Those metrics are counterproductive. Body counts are unconvincing in the post-Vietnam era.

But a lack of those metrics doesn't mean that we can't articulate a vision of what Iraq should look like prior to an American withdrawl. Something along the lines of:

• Successful election and swearing in of new government in Iraq.
  
• Fielding of 'X' number of Iraqi troops
  
• Successful security and control over key cities, including Baghdad.

We can also get ahead of this curve and state that it is not necessary for 100% pacification to occur prior to turning over active insurgent suppression duties to the Iraqis. That innoculates the administration from being accused of 'cutting and running' when the withdrawls start but some terrorism is ongoing. It also means that we are not dependent on actions by the insurgents.

By the way, Britain in the 1950's had been through a brutal WWII, but it also had a several hundred year history as a colonial power. Colonies had become key to Britain's self-image. The U.S. has no such pre-occupation, nor much willingness to occupy foreign nations. We can quibble over semantics of 'invited' versus 'occupation' but the net result is that Americans aren't thrilled with the idea of being policemen in a foreign country. As other commentators have pointed out on this site, the Jacksonian nature of Americans tends to make them averse to nation-building style foreign adventures.

In any case, it isn't about recruiting only. It's also about winning elections, and if the only message out of the WH in November 2006 is 'stay the course' we will be in trouble. That will mean that almost a year after elections for a new government, we will still not have an answer as to when our forces can come home. The President can do a much, much better job of that than he is doing at the moment.

imagination to get from

In the coming year I think we will reduce the number of troops in Iraq. And in the next six months, rather than leave, I think our soldiers will be able to take a step-back and let the Iraqi troops stand forward to defend their country with our help.

to

Jack Kingston said, on this blog today that because things are going well, we can (in effect) desist from active patrolling over the next 6 months

As to the rest, whatever.

that Murtha's "plan" was not the same as the administration's plan. Murtha simply wanted out regardless of the outcome i.e. "surrender to the terrorists." The administration's plan is to succeed then leave. Big difference.

administration's plan is to announce success leave, and blame any subsequent chaos on the Democrats.

The biggest problem is on that page. A dozen militias have been identified. 9 were slated to be absorbed into the ISF. To date, this has not happened. The Badr and Peshmerga continue to operate independently. Those organizations that were integrated into the ISF are acknowledged to have retained their organization and largely their loyalties.

This is the biggest problem I see right now. I didn't have a problem with getting rid of the Baathist military. That was a necessary step. However, not dealing with the militias is a potentially huge problem down the road. That is something that should be tackled.

Thanks for the link.

Around here, we prefer to actually think.

but considering the total lack of proof that the administration even cares about the Democrats' non-position on the war it's kind of hard to take this very seriously.

in charge in Iraq will understand that a US presence is a good thing.

Having Iran and Syria as neighbors can't be much of a comfort.

And your comparison to South Korea is a good one.  The South Koreans may hate our presence, but watch their reactions when the US even hints at troop draw downs.

... when they are 40 Democrats for every one Republican at the New York Times, and 10 Democrats for every Republican at every other major news organization ...

Why do you think this is the case?

 This is less directed at you but rather more reflective of a need to get something off my chest, namely: Does anyone really think that an ISF trained by the absolute best army to have ever marched on this earth, an army that Caesar himself would have been proud and privileged to lead, a professional, volunteer army that was just a dream 32 years ago, and one that has become the best led, best trained and best armed fighting force the world has ever known would ever expect less than total professionalism from the soldiers it has trained? Does anyone really think that a ragtag, Sadr City street gang is going to stand up to people trained by our guys? The gangster militia (some aren't) can hold hands with the 'unbeatable' insurgency and march together to the double bottoms of hell, if that's what they want.

 BTW Streiff, thanks for covering my sorry a** and providing the October quarterly report, hope everybody reads it and sees what's really going on and maybe, just maybe, realizes the committment, sacrifice and effort made by our guys. Sorry for the speechifying.  

The Times itself did a study and determined that their reporting IS biased, and it's caused by hiring, in their words, "too many like-minded people."

What I mean to ask is, why do you suppose the major media organizations hire Democrats?  Where are the Republican-run news organizations?

that appeals more to liberals and progressives.  That is:  Young reporters are typically low-paid idealists -- and frequently unionized. Young conservatives don't want to work split shifts and get paid half of what their friends make (if they are lucky), and have their upside limited by a union contract.

Hmmmm.

Foxnews is watched by around 3-5 million people each night.

The other broadcast networks collectively have 40+ million viewers each night for their news broadcasts.

That's a significant difference.

Newspapers are far from dead. They are still easily the most influential form of media we have. How do the talking heads on TV decide what to talk about? Whatever is in the papers that day.

The newspapers are the ones that do actual reporting. If TV was left to their own devices, they would have nothing to report on. They are just there to put on a show.

FNC is not that great either... I can't stand to watch it and most of my conservative friends can't either. It is still TV news... pointless and dumbed down. They still have a whole lot more in common with CNN and the local Channel X news than they have differences.

Conservatives control neither, though.

then they should leave the gates open more often..  Captain Toke is factually right on every single point.

and "speak thruth to power" so they become journalist or lawyers.  Or work in other goverment paid jobs like social workers, college profs, or fed , state and local goverments.  The left do not wish to live in a merit based society they would rather live where everthing is desided politically.  So when they hire they look to political affilliation before merit and hire leftlys.  Conservatives would rather work in the private sector and stay as far away from goverment as posible. They are not out to change the world, in fact they like things the way they are.

Will we be seeing clips of this speech on the news tonight?

I guess I must have imagined the incessant wailing about liberal media.  O that baleful persecuted howl, how I will miss it!

You'll hear incessant, baleful, persecuted wailing about the conservative, pro-Republican MSM. Then you won't miss our howls.

Interesting debate. I'm still relatively unclear of where we are in Iraq, myself.

Don't think it's as bad as some claim it to be, but don't think it's as good as others would like to believe it is.

Here's an interesting take on the current state of things in Iraq from two senior Army analysts:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_road_ahead_2

An interesting discussion if nothing else.

although very similar in its lack of humor.  Redstate and Kos both take themselves far too seriously.  Also I live in a blue state, and an even bluer city, where I don't need a dailykos.com to get discussion of issues that I am interested in with people who agree with me - all I need to do is go outside.

And in my humble opinion, folks who identify as conservative are far better at the persecuted howl.

I would not say it was a failure, but what was new?  All I heard was rehashed talking points that we have heard since 2002.

Read the New York Times. Buy the subscription service so you can get MoDo and the Krugmeister. Then you won't have to worry about liberal bias, or lack of humor.

as I do more holes in my head.

folks who identify as conservative are far better at the persecuted howl.

Of course we are. We're better at everything.

... that the reason you keep hearing the 'same old stuff' is that the problem, and the solution to it, have not changed since 2002? I didn't have a chance to hear the speech myself, but I'd guess that's the reason Bush keeps saying the same things.

Do you suppose that global Islamofascist terrorism is still out there and we need to continue banging on their heads until we get rid of them?

Do you suppose that the plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq is the same as it was in the beginning: (a) win; (b) setup Iraqi 2.0; (c) make sure it is secure; (d) withdraw troops as appropriate.

Sometimes I have a real problem understanding my fellow countrymen. I suppose it comes from the Madison Avenue/Television generation syndrome; if there isn't something "new" every five minutes people get bored. Take two aspirin, call me in the morning.

All newspapers affiliated themselves with political parties. It wasn't until later that independent newspapers began to have the concept of fair and balanced reporting.

For a time it was fair and balanced and a journalistic ethic was entrenched in newspapers.

It seems we have come full circle now and newspapers, tv news, and radio news, have begun to align themselves with parties again.

https://www.nber.org/books/corruption/GGG_CR_12-1-04.pdf for more about the 4th estate.

But tell me again, What victory? Are you saying the Iraq War is over? That it's a victory? In what ways?

Sadr, who was once wanted for murder, who's militia killed a lot of American troops, who still advocates the killing of Americans, who aligns himself with radicals in Iran, is now a powerful force in Iraq's new government.

Chalabi, who lied about many things when advising the administration during the build-up to the Iraq War, who shared sensitive information with Iran, who was also once wanted for murder, is now a powerful political force in Iraq's new government.

So, leaving now, and turning the country over to these people is victory?

Enlighten me please.

if you want.

George HW Bush the Prophet?

In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations --allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power.

His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs...

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?

We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

so that's what the Iraqis are, eh? "these people"? And they aren't entitled their own representatives?

So now, in your view, stating your opinion, when it conflicts with the opinion of our government, is now a traitorous act?

Openly questioning your governments actions and motives makes one a traitor?

Even if I do not agree with what Kennedy or anyone else says, I support their right to say it. Sound familiar? Freedom of speech and all that ring a bell?

Aid and Comfort to the enemy is a totally different thing than openly saying you disagree with something your government is doing or that you are not for the war, etc.

Please don't make such exaggerations. It makes everyone look bad.

know who or what you are, but I know who and what you're not.

You, of all people, are not empowered to decide what makes everyone look bad. You're way out of your lane.

Wow, gosh.  It sure is a good thing that absolutely nothing happened in the intervening 12 years between Gulf War I and II, so that we can compare statements made about one to the other in a vaccuum.

Because, you know, the critical thinking required to take into account the fact that situations in the real world constantly change and statements made over a decade ago may no longer be applicable is so hard.

I am entitled to say whatever I want, whether it is popular or not, whether you personally like it or not, whether it agrees or disagrees with our government.

People have fought and died in wars to defend that basic principle. The fact that you do not recognize that right tells me all I need to know about you.

People who claim that disagreeing with government or a president on issues is unpatriotic do not know the meaning of the word.

You might find there are a lot of things I agree with you on, but you will always hear me tell you when I disagree. You don't like it that we have that right in this country, go someplace else.

To call people traitors for voicing their opinion publicly is ridiculous and as un-American as anything I can think of.

I'm not defending the individuals who were mentioned, nor am I agreeing with what they said. I am defending their right to say whatever they think.

Enlighten me. That post didn't.

When I said "these people" I was talking about Chalabi and Sadr as "these people".

I didn't say all Iraqis are "these people". get hooked on phonics.

"statements made over a decade ago may no longer be applicable is so hard."

That's convenient.

I just happen to think they were correct.

Apparently, the Dems are all about "success" now that they have been shamed by the public for their defeatist attitude.  "success in Iraq" is one of those market-tested phrases the Dems will distribute to the MSM as an acceptable substitute for "winning in Iraq".  

in Iraq for decades now. So the point of a pullout is almost irrelevant. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the United States forces are, in the words of an old SNICKERS candy bar slogan, "not goin' anywhere for a while."

We're in a very gray holding pattern with a lot of vague language about what an independent Iraq means. Does anyone think that any administration, Bush or otherwise, will ever consider making Iraq a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam?

Also, what's being done about domestic terrorism? I remember ten years ago when people worried about terroristic militia groups and people like the OKC bombers. Are they less important than Iraqis who don't even have WMDs?