Posted on 12/06/2005 5:51:14 AM PST by conservativecorner
Yesterday, the leader of the major American opposition party called the war in Iraq "unwinnable", compared the supposed scandal over intelligence -- the same intel that Congress had seen since the Clinton administration -- with Watergate, and issued a demand that Bush immediately withdraw half of the forces in Iraq -- and yet the major newspapers could not be bothered to write their own articles about the story or include it in their print versions today. Neither the NY Times nor the Washington Post gave any kind of comprehensive report to Howard Dean's shrieking for retreat and surrender, nor to his ridiculous notion of how to fight against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as told to WOAI radio in San Antonio:
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. ... "I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.
First, from these comments Dean makes clear that he has no idea of the difference between a strategic redeployment and running away. The former refers to a rearrangement of tactical positioning, including tactical retreat in some cases, in order to regain the initiative for a bigger push later on. "Redeployment" by disengagement with no intent to return to the battlefield has another term in military parlance: full retreat. Dean also exposes his utter lack of comprehension of the situation in Southwest Asia when he suggests that we can easily find a "friendly nation" to host 80,000 American troops while our country lacks the political will to allow them to fight. Exactly who will want to board Americans when the terrorists come after us in our new bivouac? And would Dean and the Democrats allow them to fight then, or will they claim that we're still the root cause of the terrorist activity and give up the Middle East altogether?
Dr. Dean, which country would sign up for that duty? The only nations large enough to host 80,000 American troops would be Turkey (which won't do it), Kuwait (which is on the wrong side of Iraq to easily address the issues in the west and center of Iraq), and Saudi Arabia (which is where we supposedly offended the Islamofascists initially).
Most laughably, the leader of the Democrats and the man responsible for coordinating their electoral efforts then claims that by pulling American troops out of Iraq and outside of the range of Zarqawi, we'll be better prepared to fight the insurgents -- even though we will no longer have assets on the ground gathering intelligence and conducting the kinds of patrols necessary to find and engage the enemy on our terms. Instead, Zarqawi will simply start taking over towns like Falluja and Ramadi all over again and operating in the open to spread his lunatic Islamofascism across central Iraq.
The embarassment of Dean's military analysis would make clear that the Democrats have no business conducting foreign affairs and national security for the US in this age of Islamofascist terrorism. That's why the newspapers buried Dean's comments on their web sites. They had plenty of time to write their own copy, or at least to include the AP story in their print edition. However, the NYT and the Washington Post obviously hope that Dean's comments get quickly forgotten. (The Los Angeles Times doesn't bother to mention it at all, despite the longer lead time for their newspaper.)
Perhaps this comes as no surprise -- it doesn't surprise me -- but the national media has long since decided it needs to downplay Dean if the Democrats are to survive 2006. The Democrats still haven't gotten the same message.
They totally ignored Kerry calling our troops terrorists also. No surprise. They are the enemy and Bush needs to take them head on.
This past year, the MSM, which has been sliding further and further to the left, gave up all pretense of being balanced. Most MSM organs today are nothing more than propaganda mouthpieces for the ultra-left Democrap party. These are dangerous times--enemies without and enemies within.
This has some similarity to the Arab press. They report one thing in English and another in Arabic. You can bet that the folks who appreciate Dean's point of view are hearing about it, while those who would not have no clue.
The silver lining in this is the 2006 election cycle.
The MSM may have pushed this into the memory hole, but I have heard lots of discussion in meatworld, as well as online.
Hey, if you want Dean's words to be read, email them to everyone on your email list. Who needs the NYT anymore?
ManCow was infuriated about this on Fox & Friends this morning, said he called various talk show hosts (Hannity & Colmes, etc) about it. I'm sure El Rushbo will talk about it today.
10 Minutes and a copy of Photoshop CS?
Yep! we have it on tape. It will make for great campaign commercials.
My letter to my senator this morning about Howard Dean:
Dear Mr. Bayh,
You are on the intelligence committee and aware of this nations intelligences failures concerning the war in Iraq. Your party leader, Howard Dean has apparently gone off his meds again. Several of my colleagues and I believe that Mr. Dean is well aware that his comments in San Antonio on the WOIA radio are complete fabrications. The imagined facts he feeds to the press are more important to Al Jazeera than they are to the citizens of this country.
He stated that 80% of Iraqis want the US out of their country. This is completely made up and exactly opposite the poles and the opinion of every single soldier I have spoken with or heard interviewed.
He says he has seen this before in Vietnam. The only thing this war has in common with Vietnam is the lefts anti-military, anti-victory, anti-war propaganda. By the way, it is the left that wants this to be like Vietnam and is working toward that end for political power.
He says, "The idea that we are going to win this war in Iraq is just plain wrong." What leader, coach, teacher or general tells his charges that they can't win and all effort is futile? Somehow, Democrats do not see why this might demoralize our troops.
Finally, he says that that our President withheld intelligence to fool all the Democrats into voting to go to war. Sir, you are on the intelligence committee and know better. I suspect Howard knows better too but needs to get a sound byte in the press. I call this a lie. The lie is intended to do political damage to our president. How is this good for our nation?
His only motive is to denigrate our military effort and thwart success in an egregious pursuit of power for the Democratic Party. I have completely lost all faith in the Democratic Party. I do not believe that the Democratic Party has any interest in the war on terror or any serious use of our military in the interest of national security.
As my representative, I would like you to show some backbone and at least insist that your colleagues engage in honest debate. Stand up and refute these comments. Show some support for our military men and women.
Sincerely,
I didn't see any of the Kerry, 'Disgrace the Nation' comments on FOXNews last night. Maybe I missed it...
Dean Kerry and the likes of.... are aiding the enemy.
What a terrible disgrace they are! I am ashamed they call themselves Americans.
He would have given us tons of material in the election, had he been the nominee. I think it's better this way, since he's the mouthpiece for the party. Unfortunately, I think he'll be shown the door once they experience another letdown in Nov. '06. It would be nice to have him around for the '08 election cycle to assure the GOP of victory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.