Thursday, November 17, 2005

More on a tale...

Another story today from the BBC, by Oliver Conway, is ostensibly about how critics and supporters of the war in Iraq have been "trading blows". Note how the only "supporters" quoted or mentioned are administration officials themselves, while, in addition to making big play again out of John Murtha's comments, Conway even uncovers a Republican, Chuck Hagel, who is said to have "questioned" the administration's approach. Thus does Conway portray the administration as increasingly isolated, even from its own party.

Conway also says that "...patriotism, and accusations that opponents of the war are letting down the troops have been the subject of fierce political debate in Washington," and goes on to imply that VP Cheney is making such accusations. Conway is, at least, partly correct. As VP, Cheney presides over the Senate, and in that Senate was heard these words just the other day.

The danger is that by spending so much attention on the past here, we contribute to a drop in public support among the American people for the war, and that is consequential. Terrorists know they cannot defeat us in Iraq, but they also know they can defeat us in America by breaking the will and steadfast support of the American people for this cause.

There is a wonderful phrase from the Bible that I have quoted before, “If the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who will follow into battle?” In our time, I am afraid that the trumpet has been replaced by public opinion polls, and if the public opinion polls are uncertain, if support for the war seems to be dropping, who will follow into battle and when will our brave and brilliant men and women in uniform in Iraq begin to wonder whether they have the support of the American people? When will that begin to affect their morale?

The thing is, it wasn't Cheney who said them. It was Democratic supporter of the effort in Iraq, Joe Lieberman. Funny that Conway found time to mention Chuck Hagel, but Lieberman and his views remain hidden from the BBC's audience.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am becoming increasingly concerned that the terrorist view (that by keeping the 'insurgency' alive, they can wait out the Army until the political winds in America shift against the war) is correct. That the brave and the strong in America will be defeated by the craven and the cowardly. I hope this doesn't happen. But the Bush administration's recent pressure on Israel certainly sends out the wrong signals.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BBC tell us about "unknowns" Hagel & Murtha, but can't find the space to cover these inspirational words from another very well known senator (& oft opponent of the president), John McCain

Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.


http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31358.htm

3:18 PM  
Anonymous major tom said...

Hi, Major Tom speaking. I have the extraordinary feeling that something big is happening in the Western World...We all know what I mean. I found the link to your blog via No Pasaran and I wanted to introduce my blog whose purpose is to promote free spech and ideas to fight the world islamisation.
Thanks lot for your blog. Keep on fighting. God may save us and the civilised World!

1:58 PM  
Anonymous BC10 said...

The BBC up to their usual tricks again.


Why is this news? As I write at 8.45am this 'story' is on the front page. Meanwhile other more important stories are shunted off the front page. This infuriates me. The BBC is more concerned with making Bush look stupid than reporting the news.

Does anyone know the name of the person who replaced Pete Clifton as BBC News online editor? I used to email him and get a response but now his email seems to have been changed since his promotion. I wish to complain about this.

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

whats even stranger is the Blessed beebs refusal to mention the vote in the house last week, (The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal.)

Or is it that odd?

3:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home