"A race is developing to determine whether Iraq can evolve into a stable country before US President George W Bush's term ends in January 2009.
If the president pulls it off, he can leave the legacy he has been seeking in the Middle East - Iraq as the democratic example which justified the war and the cost.
If he does not, his presidency will be in large part judged by a failure in Iraq."
True, Iraq was stable before the overthrow of Saddam. Saddam was able to murder hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of his own people, torture them and fund and sponsor terrorists with impunity. So, what was it evolving into under Saddam?
Judged by whom? Reynolds, the BBC or the Democrats? I mean aren't "we" forgetting about Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, al Qaeda, the US economy and major legislation Bush pushed through?
Reynolds goes on to note faltering support for the war in Iraq.
"The president has been making speeches to rally faltering support among the US public and to try to reassure people that not only is he is holding to the course, which few doubt, but that the course is a clear one."
Could that faltering support be due to the left wing media's, here and in the US, biased coverage of the war? There is almost no reporting of the good news in Iraq. That job has been left almost entirely up to bloggers, most notably Chrenkoff's Good News Iraq series.
Or could it be because the BBC lies in its Iraq reporting? Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent said:
"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.
"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.
"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. ...
The opposite of the truth is a lie.
The media did the same thing in Vietnam and turned certain victory into defeat.
Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
And
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."
Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest, it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."
The world's media, including the BBC and reporters like Reynolds, are once again aiding and abetting our enemies in a time of war. Some call that treason. How many more died needlessly in Vietnam because of the media? How many more may die needlessly in Iraq because of the media?
Reynolds concludes:
Those the British have joined together have often split asunder or warred among themselves - India/Pakistan, Nigeria and Cyprus to mention but three.
So far at least Iraq has not joined that list.
No thanks to the BBC and Paul Reynolds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment