Conservative pundit Sean Hannity – long known for his reflexive support of the Administration and its policies – writes an op-ed criticizing the media for ignoring some extraordinary news from Iraq:
THERE’S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”
Hannity’s right. The story of the surge – like any successful counterinsurgency – is that slow, patient activity that focuses as much on tribal diplomacy and building up the locals’ confidence and proficiency has created immense gains, and led to the current 86 percent drop in US casualties in the past year (allowing that they will likely rise again, especially before the US elections this fall, as Al Quaeda does its best to further influence US politics)
It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)…When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
(Boy, does he ever – and he must recognize it, since his staff is already trying to reconstruct history)
Hannity also notes that the current success means that Gen. Petraeus is talking seriously about accelerating the disengagement of US regular forces.
Read the whole thing. While Hannity perhaps surprises nobody with the conclusions, the primary message – that the media is continuing its pattern of ignoring the growing chorus of good news from Iraq – is very important.
CORRECTION: I can’t believe I bobbled this. Sean Hannity didn’t write this piece; it was the left-leaning Washington Post editorial board.
If even they get it, do you suppose Nancy Pelosi might?
If they report on Iraq like they report on the economy, the good news will be all over MSM starting the Thursday after the November elections.
Hey Mitch, you should infilrate the “Media Reform” conference coming up in Mpls.
Uh, cause the economy is so good you mean, Chuckwagon? Woulda thought the extreme unpopularity would have convinced you wingnuts to join the reality-based community.
you should infilrate the “Media Reform” conference coming up in Mpls
Oh, man – i wish I could. Too busy at work. I’m hoping some of my colleagues will.
That GWB won’t be elected again with this economy, right angryclown! 🙂
No indeed, Trojan Man. I think almost all Republicans will have a hard time in November. More tax cuts and deficit spending will fix things, eh wingnuts?
You didn’t hear anyone complain when GOP fiscal responsibility led directly to stopping Bin Laden’s and Iran’s build up of WMDs in the anti-Sadrist Maliki Shi’ite faction of the Sunni Triangle. When you’re talking about the people responsible for 9/11, you spend what you have to spend, Clown, and borrow what you have to borrow. Remember when Defeatokrats used to bear any burden for as many New Generations as it took?
Mark my words, the Iranian backed Malikites will defeat the Iranian backed Sadrists before November, ensuring Maverick’s victory for 100 years!
And then we’re back to good old responsible Gramm-onomics.
/jc
You will hear good economic news starting in mid-November.
Which is important as the Pelosi-Obama administration has a Hoover-Roosevelt type economic plan in the works. High taxes, repressive business regulation, protectionist legislation. Massive spending programs.
“I can’t believe I bobbled this”
I can. It would be hard to find any daylight between the positions of Hannity and the WaPo editorial page on the Iraq War. Fred Hiatt, the editor, has been a full throated supporter of the war.
If you are this wrong about American politics, I can only imagine how wrong you are about Iraqi politics.
I can only imagine how wrong you are about Iraqi politics.
Imagination – and Tic/DFL talking points – have been pretty much your sole source on both.
Hey, sending troops in groups of two through 12 out among the population hasn’t been a “recipe for disaster” as you (in mouthing DFL/Tic talking points) said it would be, has it?
“Hey, sending troops in groups of two through 12 out among the population hasn’t been a “recipe for disaster” as you (in mouthing DFL/Tic talking points) said it would be, has it?”
a. Neither you nor I have that kind of detailed information about U.S. troop deployments.
b. I said it would be a disaster without reliable local allies. I will admit our total surrender to the Sunni insurgents caught me by surprise. I am sure as long as we continue to arm and fund the Sunni insurgents, they will leave us alone, but such solutions rarely last.
c. None of this changes the fact that you tried to pass off the Wa Po editorial page as an anti-war outlet. It is not. Once again you don’t care about facts, you just want your fantasies reinforced.
RickDFL wrote:
It would be hard to find any daylight between the positions of Hannity and the WaPo editorial page on the Iraq War.
From the Washington Post editorial endorsing John Kerry for president (Oct.24, 2004), on Bush’s handling of he Iraq War:
In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.
We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States’ image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president’s high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.
These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush’s cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.
Seems to me that there is quite a bit of daylight between the WaPo’s editorial board & Sean Hannity.
Terry wrote:
“Seems to me that there is quite a bit of daylight between the WaPo’s editorial board & Sean Hannity.”
Not on the war. Leaving Geneva/Torture as a separate issue, does this say anything about Iraq, Hannity would dispute?
“We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately”
Hannity would blame the CIA more, but agree.
“and for alienating allies unnecessarily.”
I will give you this, but it is not really about Iraq.
“Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction.” Hannity would agree mistakes were made. That is the new party line.
I am sure WaPo and Hannity disagree about Bush and the reasons for his mistakes, but they no not disagree about the Iraq War.
RickDFL-
Use of past tense in ‘supported the war’ and ‘believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced’.
“We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately”
Hannity would blame the CIA more, but agree.
You read Hannity’s mind, now? I don’t watch or listen to Hannity and a quick google search isn’t helpful in revealing the extent to which he faults Bush for exaggerating pre-war intelligence, so we’ll call this an unfounded assertion.
“Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction.” Hannity would agree mistakes were made. That is the new party line.
This doesn’t help your argument at all — and I’ll remind you that your argument was that it would be hard to find daylight between the position of the WaPo editorial board and Hannity regarding the Iraq War. If this last statement is true, it is also true that there is little difference between Hannity and the NY Times on the Iraq War, and that, of course, is absurd.
Mitch readies himself for the whiffle ball coming his way, swings, lets the bat slip out of his hands and into his kitchen window, curses, slips on banana peel, declares VICTORY!
The WaPost has always been pro-war. To depict this as some kind of turnaround by an anti-war editorial board is juvenile, stupid and dishonest.
“Juvenile, stupid, and dishonest” to insist that the Washingpost Editorial board has always found reason for optimism in Iraq.
If pro-war is the same thing as pro-victory, than anti-war is the same thing as pro-defeat.
The WaPost has always been pro-war.
Pro a certain kind of war. Not pro-Administration’s-approach-to-the-war. They are more reasonable than tne NYTimes, but only incrementally.
To depict this as some kind of turnaround by an anti-war editorial board is juvenile, stupid and dishonest.
I give you a six for puerile name-calling and a 1.5 for command of facts.
Thanks for playing.
Mitch writes:
“Not pro-Administration’s-approach-to-the-war.”
But even the Administration and Hannity circa 2008 no longer support the Administration and Hannity approach-to-the-war circa 2003-2006. Come on, keep up with the party line.
Pathetic none of you humps can come up with an example of the WaPo opposing the Iraq war.
And even more pathetic that you think your pointillism stands up as a point.
Yeah, I give no weight to the opinions of RickDFL until he provides supporting magical opinions from mages published in peer reviewed magical journals. *snicker*
none of you humps
Oh, and congrats on getting basic cable. Aint’ Law and Order great? You learn all sorts of New York terms you can toss into conversation for no discernible reason!