I think you're right. I'm hoping that as things progress, we'll see more reasonable thinking taking higher and higher priority... *crosses fingers*

It's a good thing they have the diversion of the Israel/Palestine ruckus to keep them occupied, otherwise they might actually have to figure out how to sort out the disfunctional Arab world.

And Dubya's foreign policy is a miserable failure?
I suspect the "ten little idiots" running for President on the Democratic ticket (I include idiotarian Wesley Clark) are shaking in their underwear too.

My first hat tip evah! Hoo-hah!

But seriously, we all knew that the Imams and various royalty were starting to sweat the moment we spoke out on our plans for So Damn Insane's forced retirement. And when the majority of Iraq's ground forces came limping to us with a white flag held high, they started wringing their turbans. It's not all that hard to picture Iraq's neighbors watching in silent horror, wondering which one of them will be next.

Crack in the space-time continum or just reporters finally using their heads?

But Paul Krugman said our triumph has descended to dust and ashes!

/idiot

I saw no less than 15 leters to the editor today calling for Bush's impeachment because this war was unnecessary.

What's interesting is that articles like this are MORE LIKELY to come form Arab corrwspondents (although there are not many of them yet either). The supposedly enlightened Western press has a vested interest in our failure in Iraq and the reason is pathetically simple. It all comes down the to old canard: Man bites dog is news; dog bites man is not news. In this case Superpower fails in Iraq is news; Superpower succeeds in Iraq is not news.

End of story.

It's not just the Arabs we have to worry about, nor just the modern Democrat Copperheads

it's the "humanitarian" groups that are now leaving Iraq because they, too, don't want the US and UK to succeed in Iraq.

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

#8 Darleen: Speaking of Democratic Copperheads, "I never had a nickel until I left the White House."

#6 Bleeding Heart Conservative -- It's hard to find someone more consistently wrong than Krugman. I think it's more than a little disturbing that so many people expect a fully functioning Iraq this soon after the war. It takes very little mental capacity to see how long it took for Germany and Japan after WWII to get up and running, yet they just can't or won't acknowledge that. Part partisanship, part MTV generation desire for instant gratification, and part laziness, I guess.

"If we don't change," said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a prominent Egyptian analyst and civil rights campaigner, "somehow it will be imposed on us. It's inevitable and if they (Arab leaders) are smart, they should manage it, lead it themselves."

Well, there's the rub, isn't it...

OT:

I read this piece of Palestinian narrative in the Washington Post over a cup of coffee this morning. It effectively ruined the cup for me.

If anyone has any doubts, it's a perfect of example of AP/NPR/Reuters/BBC style reporting. If those happen to be someone's main or only source of news, this piece, by Palestinian engineer Muhhaned Tull, would sound reasonable.

He writes:

A few months ago, the Palestinian people had some slim reason to believe things might change, when Mahmoud Abbas became prime minister and Israeli and Palestinian leaders declared a truce while, supposedly, America's "road map" for peace was put into effect. Hope dared to flourish. It lasted for 50 days.

Then the Israeli leaders resumed their crazy assassination policies and went after five Palestinian factional leaders. The killings were soon followed by a suicide bombing in Jerusalem.

Yep - the Israelis broke the calm.

Abbas managed to arrange a truce between the Palestinian factions and the Israelis. But the Israelis wanted more than that. They wanted Abbas to overcome Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others by force. They wanted him go after them, to arrest and kill their leaders, to wipe them out, in order to guarantee Israel's security. There was no way Abbas could do this. First, Hamas and the other radical groups enjoy significant support among the Palestinian population. Attacking them with our own police could mean a Palestinian civil war. But even more significantly, where else in the world has there ever been an occupied nation that was forced to safeguard the security of its occupier? The very idea is ludicrous.

Right. Truce between Palestinian factions and Israelis? The Israelis wanted Abbas to dismantle the terrorist organizations? He couldn't because of popular support?

Tons more examples like this in the article - especially re: Arafat and the basis of his support. No courterpoint in today's paper.

But Paul Krugman said

A lie. See the Krugman truth squad.
[Link: www.nationalreview.com...]

But you keep hearing that we're in a quagmire.

Comparisons to Vietnam are odious, ludicrous, untenable. We were stuck there in a conflict without advance, a standstill, and when we left Vietnam the enemy swept in and established a brutal communist nightmare.

We are in charge in Iraq. The old regime is gone, never to return. How can that be a quagmire by any conceivable definition? Yes, foreign terrorists (called insurgents by reporters) are shooting at our soldiers. To my way of thinking, that does not mean we aren't in charge, any more than a cop shooting in Seattle means the municipal government isn't in charge.

I honestly think these voices decrying the state of Iraq had a standard of utopian perfection: considering how long they were brutalized and underserved by the Ba'ath, I think things are going amazingly well.

For our fallen troops, God rest your souls. May God bless your families. I vow to fight the political liars that seek to dishonor your memories by saying that you died for nothing.

"The Bright Side" by Amir Taheri, Sept. 10, 2003

The impact of Iraq’s liberation is already felt throughout the region.

The most interesting thing about this is, indeed, that it was produced by a wire service, or any major media outlet. It is quite inconsistent with the wildly distorted (not just biased) party line (US bad, occupation a disaster, Iraq in chaos, both sides failing in Road Map situation, US still bad, etc.).

It's become so bad one can't get more than three paragraphs in a NYT, WP, or wire service story on foreign affairs without doing a double-take at a whopping non-sequitir, a non-fact reported as fact, or a heavy-handed and unpersuasive editorial comment.

A poster above notes that if the major media are one's only source of info, the typical and weak Palestinian piece in the WP today seems OK. Well, that's the problem -- for most people without the time, interest, or other background, the major media and their increasingly distorted prism ARE the major source of info and analysis.

Last year a friend intro'd me to a young woman about to start grad study in international relations -- the woman, already a bit wary of the mainstream press, asked what I would recommend to read instead, to get a more accurate and thoughtful picture of world events. I had no suggestions. One hopes against the odds that this situation will not materially affect our ability to prosecute the current war to a successful conclusion.

asked what I would recommend to read instead, to get a more accurate and thoughtful picture of world events

LGF for starters...

WSJ, Instapundit, and blogs from people on the ground, like in Iraq's case, Chief Wiggles, LT Smash, etc.

If it weren't for the web I wouldn't know WHAT was going on in the world.

I am so angry at the media bullcrap about chaos in Iraq. As compared to what?

All of the fascist Arab dictatorships should be quaking in their boots at what the outcome in Iraq bodes for them. That's why S.A., Iran and Syria are allowing the jihadis to cross into Iraq through their borders. They can't afford to let the Iraqi experiment succeed, because they'll all fall like a pack of dominoes. And when that happens, the poor Palestinians will be completely isolated. No one to pay the monthly bills for explosives. Boo hoo.

#16 Bleeding Heart

Ditto. I skim the mainstream press (the truly amateurish Chicago Tribune) or once in a while the New York Times. But I get my real information from Instapundit, LGF, Oxblog, Europundits, NRO, and the sources they link to. This evening I just linked to Hans ze Beeman's blog from LGF and found it quite interesting. My list of "Good Blogs" is getting kind of long.

#9 Lively

What the f**k did Billy Jeff do with his annual $400,000 that he didn't have anything left?

I mean, it's not like he spent it on food, transporation, healthcare or shelter (damn, he even got his Hollywood homies to buy him a home)

Well, the toga party animal slipped out of the White House just as the bill came due for the economy in 2000.

Geez, and he seems to revel in his spendthrift ways!

#18 thanks

Charles' post would be a great article to email out to all the newspapers, radio talk shows...

#16 BleedingHeartConservative

Good list. I sprinkle in a few Arab sites to get the, well, terrorist's thinking, from Arab News, which Charles quotes for Saudi seething and whining; VOAnews for the straight US govt line; Dar al Hayat for somewhat seething from Lebanon; and Aljazeera for the maxumum seething.

Some writers from Dar al Hayat, from Beirut, are surprisingly supportive of the whole Iraqi/freedom for the Middle East strategy.

gee...i can't believe the reconstruction of the south after the civil war took longer than six months--i want my mtv--bwah-bwah

Please note the only way (the Iraq Council) could get even this small amount of recognition was to denounce Israel (one of the few middle east coutries that supported the regime change in Iraq) and declaring support for the Palestinians (a group who support Saddam Hussein's ruthless dictatorship over his people).

Bleeding Heart Conservative and others:

Right you are. My real point about not being able to recommend good news sources to the grad student was that I was sort of startled to actually think about the question, and have no real answer. The real answer is (as usual) to think critically and logically.

Concur on many of the sources you and others named -- I too would despair without the Web.

But I still worry about the educated masses, who get 98% of their international news (regardless of newspaper or TV outlet) from a few interchangeable and unreliable "news services" (NYT, WP, AP, Reuters).

Shock and Awe appears to have worked wonders with tyrants.

Anyone for second helpings?
 

#18, and 21 Thanks for the list of blogs. I have people talk to me and express all the hang-dog of NBC etc on the Iraq situation. So I tell them what I read here and about what the soldiers write back about what is really right with the war. So I am going to put these blogs on cards and hand them out . That way the good news gets out and the hang-dog Katie couric messages get countered. Its one person at a time,and they tell two people and so on and so on...

Saddam was a muderous piece of goods who threatened the non muslim world. He needed to be taken out for that reason. But he was only a smelly old rug covering millions of cockroaches.

It is the Coalitions approach that they can see much good coming from the rebuilding of Iraq. But within 5 minutes of the coalition departing this hotbed of religious nutism the nutters will be at each others throats, and at ours.

Bucks post #23 says it all. Like someone pissing in the punchbowl at a party is Buck. And Buck hits the nail on the head. With the world at their feet these nutters can't help themselves - hate JEWS - say it out loud - no problem, even the gungho types will let it pass because they believe, like the LLL, that if only we give them democracy and build them up they will love us and imitate us. Same game played by the muslims adjacent to Israel. Same game played by them all.

This nation building will backfire on us. These nutters will use the next few years of (enforced) good government to grow strong. This is not in the interest of JEWS, christians, atheists(me), women, men who want to be girls, freethinkers. I could go on but you get my drift.

It is beyond stupid to think that rulers bare no relationship to the ruled. The problem was not Saddam, murderous nutter that he was. The problem was, and is, the Death Cult and the sooner we focus on that the better.

We are going down the Oslo Road to self destruction by helping any member of a Death Cult or any muslim country. They will not buy it. They will suck our assistance like parasites and when it is in their interest they will strike against us. Why are Iraqi muslims different from the muslims adjacent to Israel? Same moon god, same madness and same death to all of us infidels.

We should have levelled the place and left it a smoking ruin as the first lesson to them all. We will have to do it later and we will be faced with an enemy bent on our destruction and made more efficient by us.

On the media, daily visits to the following sites will provide some balance:

opinionjournal.com/best
[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

timeswatch.com
[Link: www.timeswatch.com...]

mediaresearch.org
[Link: www.mediaresearch.org...]

honestreporting.com
[Link: www.honestreporting.com...]
 

It’s pretty surprising to find such a clear-thinking article on the Associated Press wire...

I nearly fell out of my chair when an AP higher-up on Fox news Saturday was interviewed and sounded NOTHING like the articles they typically put out - the ones that we routinely deride.

Destruction at Iraqi oil facilities, oil tankers targeted, American soldiers killed - use your imagination. The Saudis will contribute to facilitation of any and all impediments to success in forming anything approaching a democratic government in Iraq. It's perceived as a mortal threat to the system the Saudis have going. They like their spot just as it is.