ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

The "News" from W's Presser

All of the talk on the radio & TV is the "news" that US forces will be in Iraq well after Bush's presidency is over.

President Bush said during a press conference on Tuesday that he expected U.S. troops to be in Iraq into and perhaps past the end of his second term in January 2009, and that the decision to pull all American forces out of the country would be left up to "future presidents and future governments in Iraq." It was the first time the White House had indicated that U.S. military involvement in Iraq would extend beyond Bush's term.
While most do accurately report that the size of the US forces will be significantly less than it is today, they seem surprised that the US would have a presence in Iraq, even after Chimpy W. McBushitler leaves office.

I'm sorry, but you have to be an idiot to think that the US presence in Iraq, which essentially is comparable to Britain in WWII, will be completely eliminated after November, 2008. This might be news to those in the media bubble of Washington, DC and New York, but anyone who has listened to the words coming out of the President, Vice President, Sec Defense, Sec State, etc, etc, etc, etc would recognize that this isn't "news."

We won World War II. We still have "occupation forces" in Germany and Italy, as well as "forward staging" bases in Britain. Some of our soldiers are none too pleased about the length of the occupation, by the way. I received this email a while ago and commented on it at length.

We had a draw in the Korean war... we still have forces in South Korean

We won the Spanish American War, and we still have forces in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.

Get with the program people... understand what our objective is here. It's not oil, Israel, or the enrichment of Halliburton (HALLIBURTON!!!!!). It's the transformation of the Middle East by welcoming them into the 21st century. (Heck, I'd be elated if we could get them into the 20th century.)

Oh, and regarding the "good news" vs. bad news that's covered incessantly by the MSM. I heard Russert & Co arguing that, "hey... we covered the toppling of the statue, the purple fingers, and operation swarmer... that's good news."

Sorry, but the daily barrage of death reported by the MSM does not get balanced out by one story each calendar year of good news. The good news that is not getting out of Iraq is overwhelming and its absence in the US media is telling. Let's have a few stories about the restoration of the Marsh Arabs. How about a story about the new businesses that are opening up? How about a story about the schools and hospitals that are getting established. And these are just stories about everyday Iraqis... You could do entire programs about the heroic deeds of our military, from the medics and the US TRANSCOM group (the unit which my brother-in-law served) to the soldiers on the front lines, helping to rebuild Iraq.

Until I see those stories, I will still contend that the media's primary mission when it comes to the War on Terror is to undermine our efforts and endanger our lives.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler