Posted on 08/05/2007 9:50:17 PM PDT by gpapa
It's not often that an opinion article shakes up Washington and changes the way a major issue is viewed. But that happened last week, when The New York Times printed an opinion article by Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack on the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq.
Yes, progress. O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Pollack even wrote a book urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- but they have sharply criticized military operations there in the ensuing years.
"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," they wrote, "we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."
Their bottom line: "There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
There are hints in the polls that people are noticing this as well.
Given the level, morale and condition of ALL our troops, it’s hard to imagine any comparison to Vietnam. Congress may have to drop that song soon.
“Given the level, morale and condition of ALL our troops, it’s hard to imagine any comparison to Vietnam. Congress may have to drop that song soon.”
Liberals are good at changing their tune...well, atleast their politicians.
“Given the level, morale and condition of ALL our troops, it’s hard to imagine any comparison to Vietnam. “
Back in Vietnam, did the troops have any perception of what an enemy they had in the media?
I distinctly recall my father (USAF Officer) cursing Walter Cronkite in terms that would have made a Sailor blush, and a Marine beam with admiration. So he was aware ... and I grew up with a profound distrust of what we now call the MSM. Can't speak for other folks.
They're both Hillary supporters. Or at least O'Hanlon is. He was upfront about that to Chris Wallace, while Pollack was cagey but didn't exactly deny it.
Now this doesn't mean I doubt their earnestness, or the truthfulness of the facts they report. But their backing Hillary makes me wonder if at least part of their motivation is to smooth the way for Hillary's more "moderate" views on the war (moderate as compared to Kos crazies) amongst Democrat voters.
I really hope that the opinion shift is real, not some seasonal numbers. If it is, it’s actually sad that the opinion shifted mostly because two liberal authors wrote a positive assesment in NYT.
God forbide they use the v word without the quotes.
As things keep improving, don’t be surprised to see Liberals claim it was due to their forcing Bush’s hand to take stronger actions.
They’ll claim it was their intent all along.
bookmark
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The DemRat talking point is that there has been NO CHANGE. That Bush is pursuing a failed policy in a failed war and that the DemRats in Congress will move heaven and earth to try to force him to change aka pull out and admit defeat because he has refused to change. Just wondering how they get from THERE to what you are suggesting.
The problem for the Democrats is that their base (who want retreat and defeat) will select their nominees and the majority of Americans (who want victory) will select the winner of the election.
The scum on the left just don’t know how to deal with the truth.
Two things have become obvious to the MSM lately. One, Hillary is going to be the Rat nominee. Two, she’s going to be the nominee without apologizing for voting for the Iraq war. Therefore, the Iraq war itself (but not its mismanagement) needs to be taken off the table as an issue. It was left there for the benefit of Obama, whose strange lurches from dove to hawk to dove again have shown the Democrats and their media supporters that he’s not ready for prime time.
What a co-inky-dink!
Things are going reasonably well in Iraq right now, and suddenly the slanted anti-Repub press has gone silent on news from that country.
No (mainstream) stories about declining US casualty rates.
No (mainstream) stories about reconciliation between various tribal leaders and the US military.
“Democrats could find themselves trapped between a base that wants retreat and defeat, and a majority that wants victory.”
You reep what you sow. Dems look like the biggest bunch or sell-out cowards. They are now in the position of rooting fro defeat.
“Democrats could find themselves trapped between a base that wants retreat and defeat, and a majority that wants victory.”
You reep what you sow. Dems look like the biggest bunch or sell-out cowards. They are now in the position of rooting for defeat.
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.