Do liberals have the courage to read this column?

Question

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/EmmettTyrrell/2007/08/02/this_war_is_lost

Read about the war critics at the NYT who changed their toon once they accually went to Iraq, unlike most haters in this room.

Answer 1

I'll preface my answer by stating that I consider myself a liberal and I objected to this war from the very start. I read this article and the NY Times op-ed piece referred to in it. I hope that the optimism in these pieces becomes a reality. It would be nice to see something positive come out of Patreus' report. It would be nice to reach some stability in Iraq and leave things in the hands of the Iraqis. I notice that there is becoming an emphasis on relative stability rather than on "victory". Perhaps stability is the best we can hope for in this region. As far as attaining our political objectives, I wouldn't count on that as the Iraqi parliament went on vacation without accomplishing anything. If we are going to truly bring democracy to Iraq we are going to have to let the Iraqis decide what they want for themselves.

Answer 2

Yes, we all saw this two days ago when a bunch of other Rush Limbaugh dittoheads posted it, not knowing the difference beween an op ed essay written by people who DO NOT work for the New York Times and an actual New York Times editorial. Some responses :
Just What Is ‘Victory’ in Iraq?

Published: August 2, 2007
To the Editor:

Op-Ed Contributor: A War We Just Might Win (July 30, 2007) Re “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack (Op-Ed, July 30):

I was surprised to learn of the incipient success of our occupation of Iraq, and disappointed at not seeing the phrase “we see light at the end of the tunnel.”

Does it occur to Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack that interviewing active-duty soldiers about their mission and morale means hearing only what they have been ordered to say? Or that the Bush administration treats every problem as simply a matter of public relations?

Do the Iraqis they interviewed no longer resent the airstrikes that are killing friends and relatives?

How many of the two million Iraqis who left their homes and businesses in Iraq to seek refuge in Jordan, Syria and other countries have returned to the land they left? That number could be a true benchmark of the “sustainable stability” Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack now say is possible.

Lou Friscoe
Columbus, Ohio, July 30, 2007

•

To the Editor:

According to Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, conditions in Iraq are less bad than they have been at other times since we instigated Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Further, according to these writers, who claim to “have harshly criticized the Bush administration” in the past, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

Great. But exactly where would that be?

“A sustainable stability” that we and the Iraqis can “live with” could just as accurately be described as a momentary lull in the downward spiral that began with our invasion.

Until specific goals are defined, no one can determine whether or not they have been achieved.

Carole Christie
St. Louis, July 30, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Whether or not Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack are correct that the military situation in Iraq is improving, the dire political situation remains a fundamental obstacle to a stable Iraq.

Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack relegate Iraqi politics to the second-to-last paragraph, noting that “we still face huge hurdles on the political front.” But unless a winning Iraqi political coalition comes together, the United States is spinning its wheels.

The American people have heard these same optimistic pronouncements since the debate leading up to the war, but actual events in Iraq have told a different story.

It is long past time to start drawing down United States forces and refocusing American efforts on enhancing American national security.

Jeremy Pressman
Storrs, Conn., July 30, 2007

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.

As someone who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, who regrets that mistake every single day, I have a question for Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack: How can we know that the soldiers and marines they talked to really do constitute a representative sampling of military personnel in Iraq?

Once an administration is shown as untrustworthy, then all its pronouncements are suspect.

Isn’t it probable that the news media and think tank visitors can see only soldiers who are prescreened by the administration, who are willing to speak its line?

Why believe anything the members of the Bush administration say? Why trust anything you see or hear in Iraq, when they can control the situation?

David McAuley
McLean, Va., July 30, 2007

Answer 3

I have seen this but the main stream media has forgotten to inform its public that these people actually supported the war. They did not oppose the war like the impression they tried to give. By the way the only place they are citing progress is in the Anbar province which coincidentally is not encompassed by the surge they are praising. The fact that no reporters go out as far as Anbar without being embedded you can hardly claim this as being objective and the only reporters who do travel around without the army have a very different account of the situation (Michael Ware). Again you are being betrayed by a totally biased media.

Answer 4

I'll read it just because your name is Hogs and I'm a Razorback fan :)

Back in a few.


Edit: I find it funny that everything he claims the Democrats do.. he himself is guilty of in his first two paragraphs.

But this is baseless. A good report from Iraq will split the Democratic ticket between those that would give Patreaus more time (we actually respect Patreaus and Powell) and those that say Bush has messed things up long enough.. lets get the troops home. We aren't afraid to think and hear.. we just don't think and hear like many on the right do.

Answer 5

You know, don't you, that these so called critics supported the initial invasion of Iraq as well as the latest surge?

BTW, is your opinion on the war in Iraq based on you actually visiting it? You seem to think that the opinions of those against the war shouldn't be taken seriously if they have never been there. If that's the case then I'm sure you also think that the opinions of supporters of the war are also meaningless if they haven't been to Iraq.

Answer 6

i don't see what you're implying here i guess maybe your saying that we'er actually doing somehing positive over there. that to me is very funny Ive got 3 words for you MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX if youve never heard of it google it. but if anyone changes their mind on iraq its because they see how much money can be made off the war and the assets they can gain not because they see a change in the iraqi lifestyle as if it is much better now. do you watch the news do you know how many people are dying do you know how many iraqis have fled that country and are now struggling to make in foreign countries. guess not
Stop being so damn ignorant and realize you belong to an imperilistic nation that is determined to force its presence on every single country around the world

Answer 7

That's great. I hope they are right. But, regardless of military successes, if the govt of Iraq does not get their sh*t together, it is all for nothing. Regardless if Iraq turns out okay, we still paid too high of a price for someone else's war.

Answer 8

Now that was a whole lot about nothing! Did this guy ever get out of the green zone?

Answer 9

First off, do you have the courage to use spellcheck? I read the column. It's just more spin from the cons, I mean the American Spectator? Come on, you can't expect me to take anything from that rag sheet seriously.

Answer 10

Wow. I was scared but gathered up my nerve! And imagine that, an editor has a theory! Glad you brought that to our attention. You've changed us all!