Target Centermass

Category: “Our” Media

  • Monday Post-MNF Link Dump

    Man, I could go for some football right now. Instead, I’ve been checking out these stories.

    Media Zinger o’ the Day

    Landing like a solid right cross hidden behind a good left jab [emphasis added].

    Witnessing former Vice President Gore’s speech today in which he basically accused President Bush of criminality for warrant-less eavesdropping on Americans was fascinating in part because it demonstrated just how spicy a Washington speech can be when the person giving it has nothing left to lose.

    Where Have I Heard This Tune Before?

    Filed under Iran-Playing-the-World-Like-a-Fiddle.

    A POTENTIAL breakthrough in the nuclear stand-off with Iran came last night when the Iranian ambassador in Moscow praised a proposal to move Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme to Russia.

    As Britain, the United States, Russia, France and China met in London yesterday to discuss how to handle Iran’s illegal nuclear development, the country was facing the growing certainty that it would be referred to the UN Security Council.

    While China remained resolutely silent on the possibility of sanctions – a move which it has the power to veto – Russia made significant moves towards the western stance on Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, said last night that his position is “very close” to that of the United States and Britain. And it appeared that he could hold the key to a resolution when Iran’s ambassador to Russia, Gholamreza Ansari, welcomed an offer to move the Iranian uranium enrichment programme to Russia.

    Such a move would mean Iran, which is developing a missile which could reach Israel, could not acquire enough material for a bomb.

    “As far as Russia’s proposal is concerned, we consider it constructive and are carefully studying it. This is a good initiative to resolve the situation. We believe that Iran and Russia should find a way out of this jointly,” said Mr Ansari.

    Banned in Iran: CNN

    Allowed in Saddam’s Iraq for a willingness to filter news for the tyrant, banned from Iran for a mistranslation. From a journalistic standpoint, which is more degrading?

    Iran banned CNN from working in the country due to its mistranslation of comments made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a recent news conference.

    The indefinite ban, announced Monday on state-run television, highlighted the continuing tension between Iran and the West over Tehran’s nuclear program.

    In remarks Saturday, Ahmadinejad had defended Iran’s right to continue nuclear research. State media have complained since the news conference that CNN translated his words as “nuclear weapons” instead of “nuclear technology” or “nuclear energy.”

    “Due to mistranslation of the words of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his press conference, activities of the American CNN in Tehran are banned until further notice,” said a Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry statement read on state-run television.

    CNN acknowledged the mistake in its U.S. broadcast.

    Yet Another Reason to Despise the Media

    A long-time military deserter has been identified and taken into custody.

    A US Marine who absconded from his base more than 36 years ago as a protest against the Vietnam war has been arrested and may face a court martial.

    Ernest Johnson Jr, 55, fled his camp in North Carolina in 1969 after becoming disenchanted with the war in Vietnam.

    […]

    Mr Johnson said he began to doubt the wisdom of joining the Marines after news emerged in 1969 of a now-infamous massacre of Vietnamese civilians at the village of My Lai.

    […]

    “I just decided I didn’t want to be a part of killing anybody. That’s about as plain as I can say it,” Mr Johnson said.

    A spokesman for the US Marines said Mr Johnson could face a maximum jail term of three years and a dishonourable discharge if found guilty.

    A decision has not yet been taken on whether to transport him back to Camp Lejeune, in North Carolina.

    However, the US military has previously dropped charges against similar deserters, instead giving them a less-than-honourable discharge.

    Why do I see this as a reason to despise the media? Well, there is this little tidbit at the end of the story.

    Captain Jay Delarosa denied the arrest was part of a campaign to send messages to modern-day Marines.

    “The purpose in apprehending such individuals is… simply an end result of a decision he made long ago.”

    That means that, during a wartime period with retention rates well above military expectations, some idiot in the press asked the question about an ulterior motive for capturing a deserter. If they cannot find a morale problem, they are quite willing to insinuate one. The approach of today’s practitioners of journalism, a craft I grew up loving, absolutely disgusts me

  • Michael Yon: Call for Volunteers

    “Retired Military Persons Needed”

    Michael Yon is back from Iraq, but he wants the stories from the ground to continue.

    Now that I’m back in the United States for a time, trying wring every bit of information of the war out of the news, only to come up dry most days, it’s become clear that in just under a year, the media gap has morphed into a chasm. Before this thing becomes a black hole, it’s time for a few good men and women to put their military experience and expertise to use in an operation that can create an alternative channel that will allow frontline information to break through and be heard.

    This site gets much traffic from all around the world, from people searching for news from Iraq, making it an ideal place to host stories from deployed forces in harm’s way. Not comments, not those endlessly forwarded unattributed “true” stories that always seem airbrushed, but real stories about the ground situation. In my travels I’ve met many budding writers who are now wearing boots and carrying rifles, and I found their stories so compelling that I want the world to see.

    One antidote to the no news but bad news flu would be to let more of these voices be heard. A simple “call for stories,” would probably stuff the inbox with emailed submissions. Having already made my ongoing inability to read email well known on these pages, any information system predicated on my reading emails would clog before it launched. This is where the volunteers come in.

    If qualified and interested, go check out Yon’s call to arms … err, keyboards. Hat tip to the Fat Guy.

  • Alito Supreme Court Confirmation a Done Deal

    How do I know? The New York Times has decided that opposition to his nomination stems from “liberal” groups.

    Liberal Groups to Release Ads Attacking Court Pick

    The battle over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned personal Wednesday with the announcement of new commercials that sharply escalated liberal attacks on him, moving beyond his legal views to attack his character and credibility instead.

    The commercials come less than a week before confirmation hearings begin Monday. Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman handling the nomination, called the commercials “dishonest” and “a desperation tactic.”

    Separately, the American Bar Association on Wednesday rated Judge Alito “well qualified” for the court, its highest rating, as expected. His supporters hailed the rating. Liberal groups said their complaint was his judicial philosophy, not his professional qualifications.

    A commercial by one of the liberal groups, MoveOn.org Political Action, depicts Judge Alito as an actor receiving makeup and coaching.

    Okay, per the NYT, MoveOn.org is now officially a liberal group. It should serve as a relief to all that the Old Gray Lady can still, on occasion, accidentally stumble into an obvious political truth … and even publish it.

    No more casting of MoveOn’s stances as mainstream or populist, right? Well, don’t hold your freakin’ breath.

  • U.S. to Investigate Leak on Spying Program

    As anticipated, the media has wasted nary a moment clamoring for the identities of those responsible for the leak of the Bush administration’s policy of monitoring domestic communications with suspected international terrorists without warrants. No, it seems their concerns about leaks go only so far as to hurt the Bush administration and not to defend national security.

    Luckily, there’ll be an investigation anyway.

    The Justice Department said Friday that it had opened a criminal investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a secret National Security Agency program under which President George W. Bush authorized eavesdropping on people in the United States without a court warrant.

    The investigation apparently began in recent days following a formal referral from the spy agency regarding the leak, officials said on condition of anonymity.

    The program, whose existence was revealed in an article in The New York Times on Dec. 16, has provoked sharp criticism from civil liberties groups, some members of Congress and some former intelligence officials who believe it circumvents the law governing national security eavesdropping.

    Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have vigorously defended the program as a legal, critical defense against terrorism that has helped prevent attacks in the United States. They say the president’s executive order authorizing the program is constitutional as part of his powers as commander in chief and under the resolution passed by Congress days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing the use of force against terrorists.

    Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where the president is on vacation, that Bush did not request the investigation.

    “The leaking of classified information is a serious issue,” Duffy said. “The fact is that Al Qaeda’s playbook is not printed on Page 1, and when America’s is, it has serious ramifications.”

    To be quite honest, we’re fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. It is no understatement to say I find it disgusting that we must struggle so mightily to keep our other hand free, as the media, war critics and political partisans seek to constrain all of our efforts.

    Michelle Malkin has links, updates and thoughts on the matter.

    Look for the Plamegate apologists to argue that the NSA leaks were “good” leaks, justified in the name of safeguarding civil liberties and the national interest, and should therefore be exempt from criminal prosecution.

    By contrast, they argue that disclosures about Valerie Plame were “bad” leaks worthy of pulling out all prosecutorial stops–though no one has been charged with leaking classified info, and even if they did, the adverse effects on national security are infinitesimal compared to the damage done by the NYT/NSA leaks.

    Actually, I expect a relative silence compared to the Plame leak cacophony. I would think rather that the apologists Malkin refers to will work instead to keep the focus on the Bush administration’s policy and ignore the leaking as much as possible.

  • Surveillance: Mainstream Media Amaze Me

    … if only for their inanity.

    I realize we’re currently riding out the latest media- and Democrat-driven tempest — location likely to be in a teacup, but let’s let the story play out as it may — about electronic surveillance without judicial warrants of international communications with suspected terrorists. But honestly, how much are you scraping the story barrel to come up with the following headline?

    U.S. secret surveillance up sharply since Sept. 11

    Well, I should freakin’ hope surveillance, both covert and overt, is sharply way the hell up since Islamist terror was brought to our shores! We slept too long, snug in the comfort of the ’90s while the radical Islamist bastards bared their fangs and drew American blood abroad. It is this headline that leads me to believe that the surveillance issue will either fizzle or possibly backfire in the 2006 Congressional elections for the Dems, as the Captain shows us some centrist Democrats already fear.

  • Bush: Surveillance Program Legal and Essential

    President George Bush is at the heart of a media and political storm since the revelation that he authorized warrantless monitoring of communications between people in the U.S. and people overseas suspected to have ties to Islamist terror. Today, Bush defended the program.

    President Bush offered a vigorous and detailed defense of his previously secret electronic-surveillance program today, calling it a legal and essential tool in the battle against terrorism and saying that whoever disclosed it had committed a “shameful act.”

    Mr. Bush said the surveillance would continue, that it was being conducted under appropriate safeguards and that Congress had been kept informed about it. He rejected any suggestion that the surveillance program was symptomatic of unchecked power in the presidency.

    […]

    Surveillance dominated Mr. Bush’s hourlong news conference at the White House, and Mr. Bush said he fully understood the concerns of some lawmakers that civil liberties might be infringed upon. But those concerns are simply not justified, the president said.

    “Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program,” Mr. Bush said. “And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our personal liberties. This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda.”

    The program, which Mr. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to carry out, is consistent both with Article II of the Constitution, which outlines presidential authority and responsibility, and the laws of the United States, he said, and is reviewed every 45 days or so to prevent abuses.

    Mr. Bush said he had determined early on that he was on sound footing. “Do I have the legal authority to do this?” he asked rhetorically. “And the answer is, absolutely.”

    So, according to Bush, congressional leaders knew of the program. That, of course, is no reason for the Democrats not to on the attack.

    Democrats quickly rejected the president’s rationale. “Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?” Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said at a Capitol news conference.

    Sen. Levin is quite right; I’ve searched my own personal copy of the Constitution and I find no such authority. In fact, I find not mention at all of wires or telephones.

    Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom points his readers to a couple of interesting postings from other bloggers on the matter before he puts in his two cents.

    As I’ve maintained all along, the President went through legal channels and was counseled as to the legality of his authorization of the NSA domestic surveillance, which means his good faith shouldn’t be questioned. And so at best, one can argue that the legality of the program is in dispute—but that the President was forthcoming about it and that he followed the proper procedures for legal review. How that is an “impeachable offense,” as Barbar [sic] Boxer and John Dean maintain, is a question best left to the progressive Democrats to explain.

    But what interests me most is Phares argument (via Yoo, et al) that the authority is dependent upon whether or not we believe the President to be acting under war time conditions. Clearly, Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda declared war on the US. And so the question then becomes, are we actively at war?

    As I noted previously, that the Dems don’t feel like we’re actually at war doesn’t mean we aren’t.

    As this will continue to play out, and it will play out for quite a while as we’ve already seen time and time again the sickening but tenacious behaviour of the media and Democrats when they think they smell Bush administration blood in the water, one can only anticipate the twisting arguments to come on constitutionality, legality, authority and need. I feel that, in the end, two things are certain: first, should they be doing their job (HA!), the media should demand an investigation into the identities of those involved in the leaking of the program (don’t hold your breath); and second, the effectiveness of the program has been greatly impaired or ended. Should the program be stopped, the terrorists can only feel more secure in their communications from within the U.S. Should the program continue, the terrorists have been tipped off that a portion of their communication capabilities is no longer safe.

    Net result no matter the course of the story: the ability of our government to defend the safety of Americans has been damaged, by choice and by our own citizenry.

  • More Iraqi Election Links

    Publius Pundit: Robert Mayer has a very interesting, well-researched analysis of what the election means about the insurgency.

    In the Bullpen: Chad Evans has the pics.

    The Indepundit: Smash rounds up the headlines.

    The Gunn Nutt: The Nutt has a nice collection of pics and stories.

  • Oliphant, Drawing from the Deep End

    According to his bio, Pat Oliphant is apparently the political cartoonist of all political cartoonists.

    As the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world and a winner of the Pulitzer, he produces work that is as visually stunning as it is metaphorically powerful.

    Visually stunning? Metaphorically powerful? The bio can now be updated with “pathetically disgusting” and “harmful to the national discourse.” Nice additions to the Pulitzer there, Pat. With his latest effort, Oliphant joins the disturbing chorus of the far, far left, spouting horrific insults and baseless accusations of the worst kind while only showing a slim grasp of history and a slimmer hold on reality.

    Oliphant, meet Godwin.

    WunderKraut, a blog previously unknown to me (thank you, Google Blog search), looks at the cartoon and calls out Oliphant on his comparison.

    You know, there was a time when even thinking about calling your Commander In Chief Hitler would have brought a well deserved backlash from the American people and the press. Not today.

    Sure Hitler killed over 6 millions Jews, several million other people, started the most destructive war in history and destroyed most of Europe for his own personal megalomania….

    BUT

    Bush is JUST AS EVIL!!!!

    Come off it already. Give me proof. [emphasis in original]

    WunderKraut continues on and it’s worth a visit. Still, I have to point out the twenty he leaves on Oliphant’s dresser when he finishes.

    PS: Can I officially question Pat Oliphant’s patriotism? Hell, maybe even his loyalty?

    To quote some blogger, “Heh.”

  • Iraq: Unwinnable Nam … or Maybe Not

    Howard Dean, failed presidential candidate and the chair of the DNC, has declared that the Americans have been defeated in Iraq.

    Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

    […]

    “I’ve seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, ‘just another year, just stay the course, we’ll have a victory.’ Well, we didn’t have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening.”

    Dean says the Democrat position on the war is ‘coalescing,’ and is likely to include several proposals.

    “I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years,” Dean said. “Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don’t belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don’t have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We’ve got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

    Well, I’d like to respond to four aspects of this. First, as John Hinderaker at Power Line points out, defeatism was once frowned upon in American society, not trumpeted by the head of a major party. Second, I would really like an explanation of how a withdrawn force in a neighboring country is expected to combat the terrorist bastard Zarqawi while he wreaks mayhem in our wake in Iraq. This is nothing but a complete lack of a developed line of thought, thrown out for political expediency that deserves to backfire more that a gutteral Iowa scream. Third, as a former Guardsman and close buddy of a Guardsman currently returning from Iraq, I am disgusted by Dean’s patronizing characterization of the reserve components. I’d like to hear Dean try to sell that tripe to Lt. Col. Jeffrey Breor of the Texas Army National Guard’s 56th Brigade, returning from Iraq with tales of both the unit’s fine performance and progress on the ground. The Guard and Reserve don’t belong in a conflict like Iraq?!! I’ve got a little newsflash for the DNC chair: the Guard and Reserve go through the same training as members of the active service and are held to the same standards; the key difference in proficiency stems from training time after new troops return from their initial training and the accompanying unit cohesiveness. This is overcome to a large degree already, as the reserve units spend a substantial period uptraining before rotating to the sandbox. There is one substantial difference in National Guard training, and that is the one day a year spent on spent on riot control procedures, as the true base of former Governor Dean cannot be trusted to behave civilly in the political sphere. Oh yeah, before I forget, let’s not miss a chance to praise the brave troopers of the Kentucky Army National Guard’s 617th MP Company, who kicked ass while in Iraq.

    My fourth point with Dean’s bold stance of being decidedly meek is that, while in line with the established mythologies of both Viet Nam and Iraq, it stands in stark contrast to the true lessons of history and the reality of the nature of the current Iraqi situation. Frederick W. Kagan addresses this painstakingly in his “Iraq Is Not Vietnam” piece (hat tip to Jeff Goldstein).

    When american ground forces paused briefly during the march to Baghdad in 2003, critics of the war were quick to warn of a quagmire; an oblique reference to the Vietnam War. Virtually as soon as it became clear that the conflict in Iraq had become an insurgency, analogies to Vietnam began to proliferate. This development is not surprising. Critics have equated every significant American military undertaking since 1975 to Vietnam, and the fear of being trapped in a Vietnam-like war has led to the frequent demand that U.S. leaders develop not plans to win wars, but exit strategies, plans to get out of messes.

    There is no question that the Vietnam War scarred the American psyche deeply, nor that it continues to influence American foreign policy and military strategy profoundly. CENTCOM’s strategy for the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq is an attempt to avoid making Vietnam-like mistakes. Proponents of other strategies, like combined action platoons or oil spot approaches, most frequently derive those programs from what they believe are the right lessons of Vietnam. It is becoming increasingly an article of faith that the insurgency in Vietnam is similar enough to the insurgency in Iraq that we can draw useful lessons from the one to apply to the other. This is not the case. The only thing the insurgencies in Iraq and Vietnam have in common is that in both cases American forces have fought revolutionaries. To make comparisons or draw lessons beyond that basic point misunderstands not only the particular historical cases, but also the value of studying history to draw lessons for the present.

    Kagan goes on to look at the historical roots, composition, support and capabilities of the insurgencies we face in both Viet Nam and Iraq. The stark differences give lie to the supposedly authoritative but defeatist talk of Howard Dean. Kagan’s effort is somewhat lengthy, but pretty much worth every word. As an aside, my thoughts on exit strategies can be found here. I challenge anyone to provide a successfully executed war where an exit strategy was the guiding force and was followed to fruition.

    Howard Dean has accepted defeat. The American military has achieved success after success. The Bush administration has remained steadfast in its policy that Iraq is a key piece in the war against radical Islamic terror and that we are succeeding and progressing on the ground, though they’ve done a poor job of propagating the news.

    The American people will have to decide whether to move forward or find defeat after unprecedented success, a defeat that will reinforce unto our enemies the lessons they learned from Saigon ’75, Beirut ’84 and Somalia ’93 — bloody the Americans and they will cowardly run away, tail between the legs. And our children will have to live or die with that decision.

    Yes, it is in the hands of the American people. However, it is only fair that they are given the full story to make that decision. Today, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the all-too-negative media to present the full story that the American people haven’t been given, opened schools and not just exploding cars.

    As the United States wages its first war with widespread 24/7 news coverage, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged the media to ensure it’s telling the whole story about Iraq, not just focusing on events that make dramatic headlines.

    Rumsfeld, speaking at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s campus here Dec. 5, said troops frequently ask him why the American people aren’t getting a more accurate picture of what’s happening in Iraq. They question why violence seems to get the heaviest coverage, while “good news” stories about successes tend to go unreported.

    The secretary noted the media’s indispensable role in keeping people informed and holding the government to account. Many in the media have done “excellent reporting” in Iraq, and some have been killed in the process, he said.

    “But it’s important also for the media to hold itself to account,” Rumsfeld told the group.

    “We’ve arrived at a strange time in this country, where the worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world,” the secretary said. Often this reporting occurs with little or no context or scrutiny, let alone correction or accountability, even after the fact, he said. Speed appears to be more important than accuracy or context to some reporters, he said, and their reports can spread around the globe, regardless of their validity.

    […]

    In May, rioting and several deaths resulted from what Rumsfeld called “a false and damaging” news story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In yet another instance, a recent New York Times editorial implied that the U.S. armed forces were using tactics Rumsfeld called “reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.”

    Similarly, news reports that focus simply on terror attacks and bombings don’t paint an accurate picture or tell the whole story of what’s happening in Iraq, the secretary said.

    “You couldn’t tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 Americans that were casualties over about 40 days … or explain the importance of (Gen. Ulysses S.) Grant’s push to Virginia just by noting the savagery of the battles, and they were savage,” Rumsfeld said.

    Similarly, the secretary said, telling the story of what’s happening in Iraq by focusing only on how many Americans have died leaves much of the story untold. Just as important, he said, is the story of what those troops died for and what they lived for.

    It is the resposibility of the American populace to decide between possible success and Dean’s failure. Rumsfeld is correct — it is only fair, both for my future children and the honor of our military’s courageous efforts and sacrifices, that the supposed American media paint a fair, full and accurate picture to provide Americans the information needed for their monumental decision.

  • Blue on Blue: Dems’ Split Surfaces

    Back in June, I blogged about red on red. That’s American military jargon for enemy fighting, intentional or incidental, among and between our opposing forces. In that post, I mentioned the obvious fact that colors play key roles in other areas, specifically naming gangs and American political demarcations. Well, digging into the latter, lets take a little look at some developing blue on blue.

    First, I want to point out that the Democrats, as the party in opposition, have had two tremendous political advantages to date in their stances on the campaign in Iraq. Those advantages are as follows:

    • A generally all-too-friendly mainstream media, both to the Dems and to our enemies — a media that long allowed has allowed the Dems to oppose President Bush without offering alternatives, that exalts Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan with exposing the extremism of her beliefs or her attention addiction
    • An administration and military that has done a poor job (unfortunate assist to that same mainstream media) in terms of communicating our military successes and progress in rebuilding an Iraq devastated chiefly long before the invasion

    Unfortunately for the Democrat party, they have had some sizable hurdles to clear, hurdles that insist on cropping up again and again:

    • A far-left base comprised of elements that root for defeat, will accept defeat, wish to redefine defeat from how the Islamic world would define defeat, or want to pretend there would be no defeat from early withdrawal based on the fact that fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq does not make the campaign part of the war against Islamist terror
    • A large portion of Americans who are ashamed of the way we have, in our recent history, cut and run, be it from Viet Nam, from Beirut or from Somalia, and recognize that these abandonments did not result in recognitions of supposed mistakes and good will when viewed through the eyes of our enemies, but rather clear signs of weakness — bloody America and America will run
    • A stubborn majority-party president that seems certain of his course of action
    • A military that has succeeded at every turn with casualties below most predictions, dominant when needed (the initial conquest of Iraq was amazing by military history standards but should be overshadowed by the amazing November 2004 urban assault on Fallujah, an offensive that redefined urban-warfare success) while maintaining an unprecedented degree of professionalism (despite the occasional bad apples, a card that has been way overplayed by the mainstream media [see the approximately 43 consecutive frontpage Abu Ghraib headlines in the NYT for example] without any historical context)

    Those are certainly some complexities to overcome for a group that wishes to be viewed as pro-American, pro-military and pro-War on Terror. Those hurdles can only be managed if the advantages that I stated earlier carry the day.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP in the Senate decided to show a little spine and force the Dems to lay down their cards. Then, the administration decided to get just a little vocal about both plan and progress.

    With just this slightest provocation, the Dems were forced on the defensive and the media was forced to cover the great big blue crawdad move, as Dem pols scattered in different directions and their weaknesses were exposed. Here’s some media coverage of the anarchy currently under the Dem banner.

    Democrats divided over Iraq timetable

    Democrats nationwide generally say that the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq but remain divided over how and when.

    Like their party leaders in Washington, members of the Democratic National Committee offered a range of opinions Friday about the recent call from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran and strong military ally, for a complete pullout within six months.

    “I think the presence of American troops are incendiary to all parties in Iraq,” said Robert Bell, who agreed with Murtha’s proposal. “I think eventually there’s going to be a civil war. It’s time for the Iraqis to take care of their own problems.”

    The DNC was holding a three-day meeting in Phoenix.

    […]

    Democrats seemed split over whether the party has been able to capitalize on problems nagging the administration, including the war in Iraq and federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

    […]

    Gaetan DiGangi, a committee member from New Hampshire, said the Democrats shouldn’t take a mean-spirited approach in pointing out Bush’s failings.

    “We are looking to offer something that’s an alternative, and I think we are moving towards that,” DiGangi said.

    Democratic Lawmakers Splinter on Iraq (hat tip to Captain’s Quarters and its coverage of the article)

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s embrace Wednesday of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq highlighted the Democratic Party’s fissures on war policy, putting the House’s top Democrat at odds with her second in command while upsetting a consensus developing in the Senate.

    For months now, Democratic leaders have grown increasingly aggressive in their critiques of President Bush’s policies in Iraq but have been largely content to keep their own war strategies vague or under wraps. That ended Wednesday when Pelosi (D-Calif.) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, leaving only a much smaller rapid-reaction force in the region.

    The move caught some in the party by surprise. It threw a wrench into a carefully calibrated Democratic theme emerging in the Senate that called for 2006 to be a “significant year of progress” in Iraq, with Iraqi security forces making measurable progress toward relieving U.S. troops of combat duties. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last month that “it’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government.”

    What’s more, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi’s. “I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility,” he said.

    Catering to all is a losing strategy

    DEMOCRATS, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they’re being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush’s troubles in Iraq.

    But it turns out they aren’t so clever after all. What they’ve come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it’s possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone.

    That’s a shame. The Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes in Iraq — starting with the fact that it didn’t send enough troops, and didn’t provide adequate supervision for some of the troops it did send. Remember Abu Ghraib? This country could stand an honest and vigorous debate, not about how we got to this point but about where we go from here.

    But this much is certain: If a debate comes, it’ll be no thanks to Democrats. The best they could dream up goes something like this: “We were hustled. Sure, we voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq, but we were misled. Not that we regret toppling Saddam Hussein. We only regret that we weren’t given all the necessary information to make a more informed decision.”

    The “we were hustled” approach offers something for everyone. If you support the war, you can applaud Democrats for backing the president. If you oppose the war, you sympathize with them for being conned by what you’ve probably already decided is a devious bunch.

    But Democrats are forgetting one crucial detail, something they should have learned from recent presidential defeats: Americans hate politicians who duck responsibility for their actions by relying on parsed phrasing and other word games.

    Dems Split on Iraq War Approach

    A day after his latest speech detailing progress in Iraq, Bush stood next to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who wants U.S. troop withdrawals to begin before the end of this year.

    “You don’t need 160,000 people to be doing what we are doing in Iraq today. This is not World War II, this is not Korea, this is not Vietnam,” Kerry said after the White House ceremony commemorating the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

    Kerry is using his Web site and billboards in New Hampshire and Indiana to push his proposal to bring 20,000 troops home before Christmas and “bring home most of our combat troops in 2006.” He seemed to contradict himself, however, when speaking with reporters Thursday at the White House.

    “The truth is, yes, it is going to take a lot longer and many of us believe that, in fact, that goal is not the most realistic one in the short term, that you’re going to have a longer-term struggle in that regard. Now, what we need to do is provide a sufficient level of security and stability so that American forces can begin to come home,” Kerry said.

    That is in essence what the president argued Wednesday and for the last two years. Reinforcing that the White House already had that in mind, spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that some troop withdrawals could come after the Dec. 15 election in Iraq.

    “We fully expect, as the Pentagon has indicated, that we’re going to be able to reduce some of the troop levels that we increased heading into the elections after the elections take place,” McClellan said. “I think some have talked about how next year could be a period of significant transition.”

    While that might seem to be what Kerry wants, the Massachusetts senator said he and his fellow Democrats are largely united in their opposition to Bush strategy.

    “There is much greater agreement between all of the Democrats, then there is a difference between all of us,” Kerry said.

    But Kerry’s assertion doesn’t follow the recent call for troop withdrawal in six months by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa

    White flag Democrats

    And the Democrats wonder why they are considered weak on national security? It’s not because anyone doubts their patriotism. It’s because a lot of people doubt their judgment and toughness.

    As if to prove the skeptics right, Democrats have been stepping forth to renounce their previous support for the liberation of Iraq even as Iraqis prepare to vote in a general election. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, John Murtha — that’s quite a list of heavyweight flip-floppers.

    […]

    There are some honorable exceptions to this defeatism — Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark have remained stalwart supporters of the war effort — but they are clearly in the minority of a party steadily drifting toward Howard Dean-George McGovern territory.

    Just a few years ago, it seemed as if the Democrats had finally kicked the post-Vietnam, peace-at-any-price syndrome. Before the invasion of Iraq, leading Democrats sounded hawkish in demanding action to deal with what Kerry called the “particularly grievous threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. But it seems that they only wanted to do something if the cost would be minuscule. Now that the war has turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, the Democrats want to run up the white flag.

    They are offering two excuses for their loss of will. First, they claim they were “misled into war” by a duplicitous administration. But it wasn’t George W. Bush who said, “I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons [of mass destruction] again.” It was Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998. As this example indicates, the warnings issued by Bush were virtually identical to those of his Democratic predecessor.

    The Democrats’ other excuse is that they never imagined that Bush would bollix up post-invasion planning as badly as he did. It’s true that the president blundered, but it’s not as if things usually go smoothly in the chaos of conflict. In any case, it’s doubtful that the war would have been a cakewalk even if we had been better prepared. The Baathists and their jihadist allies were planning a ruthless terrorist campaign even before U.S. troops entered Iraq. Their calculation was that if they killed enough American soldiers, the American public would demand a pullout.

    So far the terrorists’ plan seems to be working. Even most Republican senators are demanding a withdrawal strategy. But it is the Democrats who are stampeding toward the exits. Apparently the death of about 2,100 soldiers over the course of almost three years is more than they can bear. Good thing these were not the same Democrats who were running the country in 1944, or else they would have pulled out of France after the loss of 5,000 Allied servicemen on D-day.

    Even as a self-proclaimed Reagan revolutionary, I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in every presidential election I was able to until 9/11. Yes, I voted Libertarian in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

    I voted for George Bush in 2004.

    I cannot respect the Libertarian Party’s view of international realities, and I cannot believe for a moment that the bulk of today’s Democrats care more about the future hopes I hold for my possible children and grandchildren and the state of our republic than they do about their own temporary political gain.