 |  |
 
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 29, 2005 More Signs of the TimesBy GreyhawkThe NY Time's editorial, 27 April 05: The millions of brave Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in January didn't expect that nearly three months later, their squabbling politicians would still be struggling to form a government. As a result, precious momentum has been lost, and a briefly improving security situation has again started deteriorating. The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas.Let's emphasize that last line: The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas. "Seems" is the weasel-word in this bile, a legalism that lends deniability to the writer who's made an utterly ridiculous statement of cause-and-effect, with no support available. Are we to seriously consider that at some point in the debate over the exact form of a new government, terrorists who were about to give up murderous rampages for a life of quiet and ease suddenly were re-inspired to forego dental school and become pilots of suicide car bombs? That some leader of this group declared - after some arbitrary time limit was exceeded - that a new wave of kidnappings was needed? That some previously agreed-to deadline had been crossed? Of course not. Terrorist Violence never went away in Iraq, as readers here well know. Terri Schiavo starved slowly to death, an old Pope passed away and a new one was selected, then front-pages rediscovered Iraq. And this was to be the new mantra of failure, and all the lesser papers would follow the lead of the Times: The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas. So it was written, so shall it be. Except for one thing. On that very day the elected representatives of the people of Iraq announced the cabinet had been chosen. How painful for the Times, who couldn't even stop editorializing in their page one coverage of the news: BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 27 - Iraq's new prime minister announced Wednesday that he had submitted a full list of cabinet members, opening the way for a multiethnic government to assume power and end a three-month political stalemate that has appeared to be fueling violence.Emphasis added. Note the weasel word "appeared". One thing we can't accuse the New York Times of is wasting time . Having had the rug yanked from under them by a reinvigorated government in Iraq, their argument has now morphed overnight into a slightly new variation on the theme. First paragraph, today's editorial: Three months of jockeying among Iraq's victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties have finally produced a cabinet that won quick ratification from a legislature where those same parties dominate. The January election that began this process was inspiring. The months of petty haggling that followed were not, and while the formation of an elected Iraqi government is a historic moment, its makeup is far from ideal. Crucial choices have been needlessly delayed, and an incomparable opportunity for drawing patriotic Sunni Arabs away from the insurgency was largely squandered.Squandered! Squandered I tell you. This will be the new critical narrative of the defeated - the opportunities of the elections were squandered. Those crucial three months are gone, and cannot be reclaimed. If you wonder why the Times is so eager to declare an elected, sovereign government of a foreign nation a failure, you need only note that the victory of the Iraqi people was an undeniable success for those who support freedom everywhere, and a strong indicator that the war in Iraq was worth the sacrifice. All this is in direct opposition to the editorial policy of the New York Times, and three months is all the opening they needed to reinvigorate their attacks. Insurgents can't respond to events in that narrow time span, can't recruit, re-arm or re-invigorate, but editorial writers can. There's another aspect of the Times narrative that most people will find repulsive. As noted before, the Times has no problem with the inability of the US Senate, a body drawing on over 200 years of history and tradition, to approve presidential appointments in this country. (For the record, my opinion in both the Iraq and American examples is business as usual. Such is the price of democracy.) Their double standard is inexcusable, and in leering down their noses at the struggling people of Iraq the Times comes dangerously close to accusing "those people" of being incapable of self-government, or sustaining democracy. But sneering at Iraq while ignoring obstruction on the US Senate floor reveals the underlying reality that it's the elected government of the United States that the Times can't abide - the people of Iraq are just collateral damage in their attack, future corpses who's photos will one day help sell newspapers - and fuel more cries of failure. Least we forget, here's the NY Times on the Iraqi elections, on the day of the elections: Nearly 22 months after American troops captured Baghdad, lighting a fire of enthusiasm for the freedoms Iraqis had craved so long, it is a measure of how much has gone wrong that Iraqis committed to Western-style democratic ideals can differ so sharply over the best way to secure them. Much of the problem is that the elections are being held under the dominion of the United States.Let's close with a word of praise: The Times is certainly consistent. Posted by Greyhawk / April 29, 2005 6:43 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackThought I'd do a blogosphere round-up here before the weekend: La Shawn is blogging from Atlanta. Ace has the latest on how to buy a mind-reading machine off eBay. Michael has a neat graphic showing the reason why English is the official language Read More 5 Comments |
March 19, 2010Dawn Patrol 03/19/2003 [Greyhawk]
"Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs and various sources around the world." Mudville was founded in March, 2003. Our efforts to bring the thoughts, words, and deeds of milbloggers to a wider world evolved to become The Dawn Patrol in March, 2005. With today's entry we're going to reset the clock - but not re-write the history - and recreate the world as it was - on a day the world changed...
Updating... more to follow.... MILBOGSAndrew Olmsted, 19 Mar 2003, Stateside: It would appear that the liberation of Iraq has begun. Greyhawk, 18 Mar 2003, Germany: A united world could have, just maybe, brought down Saddam without firing a shot. We will never know. 19 Mar: We'll never know what a united world could have achieved... the UN could not agree on anything, the situation degenerated, and here we are. Status quo was not working. The French were too desperate for oil and trade at any cost. Well-intentioned Americans were led into the streets by Communists (and others) with an agenda. The media distorted the split. Many in America and abroad thought they could manipulate the situation to their personal gain. They miscalculated. The fire is lit. Pontifx ex Machina, 18 Mar, undisclosed location: Rolling out the gate, the guard gets a quick "hook-em, horns" sign as we weave through the barricades. Then we're off, cruising through the desert in a battered-up SUV. On the eve of war, only one thing passes through our minds: is there going to be any appropriate music on the radio? Lt Smash, 19 Mar, undisclosed location: Read the President's speech today. The clock is ticking. Chief Wiggles, 22 Mar, Kuwait: The war started Wednesday morning for us right after the president gave a speech to the American people that lasted about 4 minutes. We were all very anxious for this whole thing to be either over or get it on its way. Will, 22 Mar, en route: I am going to Baghdad to personally shoot that paper hanging son of a bitch! Lt Smash 20 Mar, undisclosed location: Sgt Stryker, 20 Mar, Stateside: Iraq to File U.N. Complaint About Attack Primary Main Objective, 30 Mar, undisclosed location I Dare Kofi to Come Get Me.
BruceR, Flit, 19 Mar, Canada: AND SO IT BEGINS. Godspeed, Yanks. Come home safe and soon. Andrew Olmsted, 20 Mar 2003, Stateside: The most important thing to remember over the next few days is this: the first reports are almost always inaccurate. First reports are generally submitted in the heat of battle before any real analysis can take place. Therefore, they're highly subjective, based on limited information, and rarely hit the mark. So as the first reports of 'surgical strikes' on Iraqi forces come in, it's best to take those reports with a grain of salt... Iraqi BlogsSalam Pax, Baghdad: The bombing aould come and go in waves, nothing too heavy and not yet comparable to what was going on in 91. all radio and TV stations are still on and while the air raid began the Iraqi TV was showing patriotic songs and didn't even bother to inform viewers that we are under attack. at the moment they are re-airing yesterday's interview with the minister of interior affairs. THe sounds of the anti-aircarft artillery is still louder than the booms and bangs which means that they are still far from where we live, but the images we saw on Al Arabia news channel showed a building burning near one of my aunts house... Other BlogsCharles Johnson, Little green Footballs: SPEED BUMPS - I just had to go into Westwood (here in Los Angeles) and couldn't make it, because a small group of "peace activists" is blocking traffic and getting into scuffles with police. Unbelievable footage on local TV of these creeps taunting police, trying to grab their batons, sticking cameras into their faces... Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish: How much more morally indefensible is appeasement when we also have complete international authority to do what must be done? I think we will look back in the future and not ask, as so many now are, how it was that diplomacy didn't get unanimity on this matter. We will look back and see the moral obtuseness of Chirac and Putin and Schroder and Carter and feel nothing but contempt for them, and their preference for state terror over the responsibilities of the free world. That's why I felt enormous pride tonight in the stand being taken by Blair and Bush. The president's speech was measured, firm, just. Blair's political risks - in order to do what he believes is plainly right - will confirm him in history as a great prime minister, the conscience of his party, and the leader of his country. I say that before this war begins, because the cause is just whatever vicissitudes of conflict await us... Glenn Reynolds has a ton of links. Other OpinionsMark LeVine, Alternet - 'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare Scenario: ...With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit. However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins." In this third scenario, the war is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige. From my recent conversations with organizers and their latest pronouncements, it is clear that this possibility has yet to be addressed. Waiting much longer could spell disaster for the antiwar movement... The social and political forces unleashed by the end of decades of Hussein's murderous rule will not easily be penned in by a US-sponsored show-democracy; but whether these forces use a reopened public sphere or turn to violence to respond to the likely betrayal depends in good measure on how adroitly the world progressive community can lay fast but deep roots in Iraq. Newpapers
Updating... more to follow.... |
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2009 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  |
- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.
See NY Times: Editorials and The News.
If there were no war in Iraq, then the Times would editorialize the fact the current administration is doing nothing to help those poor suffering citizens.
Thanks for the juxtapostion of the two editorials and their dates. It is sad that what was once a great institution (the NYT) is lost in its own self importance and so easily dismembered by the electronic record. No hunting down microfiche. Knowledge is power and the truth will out. Politics and reporting should be two seperate things.
Seems to me people see mostly what bolsters their own opinions. Of course, it takes a lot to change whether one views events as an optimist or pessimist. A defeatist attitude is a self-fulling prophesy. If you don't want the President and our efforts to be successfull (from a political POV), then every setback is a total defeat for him and a repudiation of everything that's gone on.
And it seems to me that if you actually listen or read what the administration says, it doesn't match how most of the media characterizes it the next day, week, month or year.
For instance, how about what the President announced on the occasion of Saddams capture...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031214-3.html
The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.
And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals -- sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.
...
I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.
We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.
***************
This is certainly not a speech of triumph over terrorism in Iraq. Hardly seems like "silver bullet" talk to me. This to me says that capturing Saddam was an important step in convincing the Iraqis that Saddam would not be returning to power, that this would not be the end of terror in Iraq, and that more work was ahead.
Another instance, what the President said after the Iraqi elections.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050130-2.html
The commitment to a free Iraq now goes forward. This historic election begins the process of drafting and ratifying a new constitution, which will be the basis of a fully democratic Iraqi government. Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy, and we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against them. We will continue training Iraqi security forces so this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security.
There's more distance to travel on the road to democracy. Yet Iraqis are proving they're equal to the challenge. On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Iraq on this great and historic achievement.
**********
Hardly seems like he's trumpeting the Iraqi elections as a "silver bullet." Seems like he's saying that the elections were an important step, and there's more road to travel. And we will be there every step of the way to help the Iraqis.
Each of the items mentioned in trucks posts were important steps, and indeed many of them were specific GOALS that we have to accomplish to successfully COMPLETE THE MISSION.
I really have to wonder by what yardstick the naysayers are measuring progress.
That any of the events mentioned above, didn't manifest an immediate end to all hostilities, and some how the administration is to blame for the die-hard ex-regime players, the criminals, and the external terrorists continuing their suicidal charge against democracy and progress in Iraq.
For anyone interested, there is an excellent article in the current National Review entitled "What Went Right," which talks about the counter-insurgency campaign and how many of the events mentioned above fit into the larger strategy of moving the Iraqis towards self-governance and self-run security.
Regards,
Keith
Keith,
"I really have to wonder by what yardstick the naysayers are measuring progress."
The naysayers have always measured everything(except themselves) by perfection. When faced with factual evidence that they may have been wrong, their ego's prevent them from processing the evidence.
Anyone who has every lived with someone who as OCD knows exactly how the "Perfectionist"(Obsessive-compulsive) mind works.
Anyone has lived with a perfectionist and read the NY Times quickly comes to the realization that a few folks over there need serious psychological help.
I honestly don't think the NY Times is deliberately biased. I think journalists write articles based on an insufficient grasp of the issues. When the conclusion to articles are proven to be wrong with fact or history, they hold onto there original views as they are psychologically incapable of admitting that they came to a false conclusion because of insufficient facts(They were less than perfect).