A Prime Example of "Wilfull Distortion"

...to our Nation's Detriment.

I came across this article at RealClearPolitics today. To say I'm a bit miffed over it would be an understatement. Here then is my critique, not entirely point for point, but enough to have made my own point, that Liberalism can't win a war, nor can it teach anything of value to a starving nation.


All Over but the Pullback
Nixon Did It in Vietnam. Bush Will Do It in Iraq

--By Jonathan Rauch, The Washington Post
   Sunday, December 4, 2005

"Nixon recognized that, without U.S. military support, the government of South Vietnam would fall to the communist insurgency,..."

Insurgency!? It wasn't an insurgency! It was an organized military offensive by communists, and supported by communists in Russia and China. It was not an insurgency! Talk about revisionist history!

"American officials searching for a "breaking point" in Vietnam had found one, but what had broken was not the insurgency. It was U.S. public opinion: Americans no longer believed the war was worth it."

Again, it was not an "Insurgency"! If there was any insurgency it was within the American Media, spoon-feeding a naive American public with opinioned distortion and images of gore and brutality.

"...the evolving structure of public opinion about Iraq is making the current war effort there unsustainable."

You create public opinion! You deliberately paint a picture of car-bombs and homicide-attacks, completely ignoring all the progress and improvements being made on a daily basis. Your insurgency, against your own Nation, can't possibly be a case of misjudgment. It's obviously a deliberate effort to hurt America, and President Bush.

"The public has been souring on the Iraq effort for months,..."

Really! Could that be due to the rosy picture big media types like yourself have painted in shades of gore and loss?

"...not even the most stubborn of presidents could hold out for long against a decisive shift in the public's attitude toward the war. The structure of public opinion suggests that such a shift has taken place."

Shifts for which the American public has you, and thousands like you, to thank.

"...the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked a revealing series of questions about Iraq. Pew's respondents were more optimistic about eventual success in Iraq than were Gallup's, with 56 percent saying that efforts to establish a stable democracy will succeed."

Could it be Pew's questions were not slanted or leading? Could it be that Pew knows how to conduct a poll that honestly reflects public opinion? There is absolutely no way we can lose in Iraq unless the Media stirs up the American public in frothing outrage like they did for Vietnam. If America loses this war it'll be the Media that serves it up.

"If the public thinks success is still likely, why is support for the policy so weak? Because, apparently, the public no longer views success -- defined as building a stable democracy in Iraq -- as worth the effort."

Apparently you're blind to your own responsibility in this. No one's asking you to lie about what's happening in Iraq; brave men and women are dying there, as are Iraqis-- equally brave. You want to castigate FOX News for their claim of "Fair and Balanced" but you steadfastly refuse to balance your own coverage! There are plenty of positive stories to be found in Iraq. Why then can't you report them? Ratings? Viewership? The old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads"? You're Hypocrites!

"The United States went to war to get rid of Saddam Hussein and remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Well, Saddam is gone, and Iraq is WMD-free. So why are U.S. forces still fighting?"

You've got to be kidding! Why are we still in Iraq? What are you doing writing for the Washington Post? Are you completely without any ability to reason? Or are you simply blinded by your own Liberal bias?

"In the Pew survey, respondents were just as likely to say that the American effort in Iraq is hurting the war on terrorism as they were to say that it's helping."

'hurting the war on terrorism' is a media concocted argument. How does what we're doing in Iraq hurt the War on Terrorism when that is exactly what we're fighting in Iraq... Terrorism(ists); not an insurgency, not a civil war... Terrorists!

"...two-thirds said they believe that the ability of terrorists to launch a major attack on the United States has not diminished since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Has anyone said, straight out, that what we're doing in the War on Terror, will diminish the Terrorists ability to launch a major attack on the U.S.? No! How does any nation keep a determined enemy from attacking and killing as many people as possible? They don't! They prepare as best they may, go on the offensive, and stike the enemy anywhere they can be found. President Bush said from the outset that this War on Terror would be long and difficult. Long. Difficult. Why can't the Media grasp this? The terrorists are spread across the globe! They must be fought wherever they can be found!

"Bush also says the Iraq effort will help democratize and stabilize the whole Middle East. The public is not buying that, either."

The Public isn't buying it because the Media isn't selling it! The Media refuses to see the progress already occuring in the broader Middle East-- In Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia. The public isn't hearing anything from Media about the shifts in attitude, and politics in the broader Middle East.

"The administration's fundamental problem is not that the public is discouraged by U.S. casualties, or that news from Iraq has been bad, or that the president needs to give better speeches. The problem is that many Americans see no stakes in Iraq sufficient to justify the military effort and diplomatic cost."

'discouraged by U.S. casualties' because media goes virtually orgasmic over death tolls and their so-called milestones. 'news from Iraq has been bad,' Hello! You write the news! There are a lot of good things happening over there, but you steadfastly refuse to report it!

"The public will not support a military operation that it has come to regard as social work on behalf of Iraqis, rather than security work on behalf of Americans."

'social work on behalf of Iraqis'-- Another Liberal Media construct crammed down the throat of the American Psyche over these last two years.

"...a combination of returning U.S. forces and lower oil prices come November, Rasmussen says, would be "Democrats' nightmare." "

And this is why Liberal Media so loves the gore they wade in. Power. It all boils down to Power. Democrats and Liberals want Power. They crave it, lust for it, have wet-dreams about it. They don't want to win in Iraq, protect the American Public, or serve the American Public's interests. They care only for their own.

"Right now, [President Bush has] nothing to say on Iraq that makes sense to the public."

What you really mean is it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to Democratic and Liberal ideology. And since you don't understand it, you can't make the Public understand it.

---
Jonathan Rauch is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and a columnist for the National Journal. I'm not impressed.