Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Surprise! Leftist Media Elite Was All Wrong on Afghanistan (Why Surprised?<--Me)
NewsMax ^ | Wedneday, December 26, 2001 | With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 12/27/2001 11:06:45 AM PST by SusanUSA

The quick and decisive victory in the Afghanistan war left some of the most celebrated liberals among the media elite scurrying for cover after having been egregiously wrong in declaring that the war was going badly in its earliest phases.

Take PBS's Dan Schorr for example. Just six days after the U.S. increased its air attacks on the Taliban defenses the old liberal advocate pontificated that "This is a war in trouble," during the PBS "Weekend Edition" show on October 27.

That was then. Now he's trying to explain his goof. Schorr told the Wall Street Journal's Matthew Rose "I had to eat a little crow. I have never been in Afghanistan and know nothing about Pashtuns and the rest of it."

That wasn't enough to stop him from commenting on a war in a country about which he now admits he knows barely anything.

Then there was the New York Time's leftist star R.W. Apple. According to Ross on October 31 he wrote "Signs of progress are sparse."

After the U.S. and its Afghani allies tore through Taliban defenses and took Kabul, he began singing a different tune.

Wrote Ross: After Kabul fell in mid-November, Mr. Apple noted the shift in mood. "What a difference a week makes," he wrote on Nov. 16 under the heading "Letter From Washington."

Apple now tells Ross his late-October column was "unduly pessimistic, but it was a reflection of the state of mind at the time. This is journalism, not history."

Excuse me, R.W., but it's anything but journalism. It's out and out liberal propaganda aimed at a president you do not believe has any right to be occupying the White House or capable of running a war.

Not to be outdone by a fellow N.Y. Times celebrity journalist, on Oct. 28 the often rather confused Celtic minx Maureen Dowd declared "Now, like the British and Russians before him, [President Bush] is facing the most brutish, corrupt, wily and patient warriors in the world, nicknamed dukhi, or ghosts, by flayed Russian soldiers who saw them melt away."

Marc Santora, a Dowd spokesman argued that there was a "moment of hesitation" in Washington that Dowd's column was generously designed to overcome.

Then there was the LA Times editorialist Jacob Heilbrunn who a few days later declared the first round of the war a failure: "The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one."

Then, on November 4 keeping up the drumfire he wrote, "There does not appear to be a political force capable of replacing the Taliban."

A mere five days after Heilbrunn's monstrous gaffe the Taliban's northern stronghold of Mazar-i-Sharif was overwhelmed by Northern Alliance troops aided by U.S. bombing sorties. A few days later Kabul fell.

"Three weeks after that, the Taliban's southern stronghold of Kandahar was taken," Ross notes, adding that, "In Bonn, Germany, various anti-Taliban forces from Afghanistan were negotiating a deal to set up an interim government."

Heilbrunn can't bring himself to admit how far off the mark he was. Ross writes that "he still isn't convinced that there is a viable political regime in place, especially if it doesn't have strong Western support. But he acknowledges that his earlier view was 'too saturnine. It may not be completely wrong, but I thought the Northern Alliance was a fairly fictitious force that would inevitably begin to feud,'" he told Ross. "I am cautiously optimistic, but that could be proven wrong, too."

Ross write that the quick victory destroyed a lot of myths favored by the media elite:

Myth #1: History repeats itself.

Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again. The history of the defeats Britain and later, the Soviets suffered in trying to overcome the Afghanis prove the U.S. is heading in the same direction. As in Vietnam, the U.S. will find itself mired in a quagmire battling tough guerrilla forces on unfamiliar terrain.

Myth #2: The Alleged Popularity of the Taliban regime.

The award for the most egregious example of this canard must surely go to freelance columnist Nicholas von Hoffman who wrote a 1,500-word critique of the U.S. effort entitled, "Why Are We in Afghanistan?" in the weekly New York Observer on Nov. 19.

"We are mapless, we are lost, and we are distracted by gusts of wishful thinking," to believe Afghans would switch sides so easily he wrote. "Moreover, as hellish as the Taliban are, it appears that the ordinary people of Afghanistan prefer them to the brigands and bandits with whom we've been trying to make common cause."

Notes Ross: "The week the column appeared, gleeful Kabul residents shaved their beards and displayed posters of Indian movie stars to show their delight in being rid of the Taliban."

Von Hoffman told Ross he still thinks declaring war was a bad idea -- because "there is by definition no way to say you've won" -- but he also pleads ignorance.

"Nobody knew anything about Afghanistan, myself included," von Hoffman says. "It turns out there really wasn't an army there. Turns out we probably still are clueless." He conceded that "in the prediction business, ... you almost never get it right."

Then what qualified you to write about a nation "Nobody knew anything about" including yourself," Nick?

Myth #3: High-altitude bombing couldn't win the war.

Critics warned that there weren't enough targets to justify bombing, and that bombing could turn major cities into death-traps for special forces operating within them.

Few commentators could match NBC News military analyst and former Army intelligence analyst William Arkin who went on CNBC on Oct. 10 and told Geraldo Rivera: "I think sooner or later we're going to have to bite the bullet and get in there in a big way or we're going to have to admit some kind of a defeat."

And just 19 days later he was back with Rivera warning that a mere 70 bombing missions a day in a place the size of Texas weren't having the desired effects on the ground. He then told Chris Matthews of CNBC's "Hardball" on Oct. 23 that the war could last "into the winter, and beyond."

His alibi for being so far off the mark: "I'm doing reporting here and people seemed to be nervous and disgruntled about the way the war was going and that's something that needs to be aired," he told Ross.

Myth #4: The Afghans are lousy allies.

The allegedly ragtag Northern Alliance controls just 10 percent of the country "through a loose and fractious affiliation of tribal leaders." They would never be able to unite and battle the Taliban.

On Nov. 12 Newsweek portrayed a demoralized Northern Alliance unit wearing running shoes, eating rice, beans and scraps of mutton, and with no easy ways to communicate. Wrote Jon Meacham, the magazine's' managing editor, the story "reflected the reality on the ground at the time and raised questions a lot of people were wondering about in Washington and Afghanistan."

Added the leftist New Republic, "Of all the proxies the United States has enlisted over the past half-century, the Northern Alliance may be the least prepared to attain America's battlefield objectives." The magazine said that ground troops were needed to take Kabul.

Peter Beinart, the New Republic's editor, now concedes that the magazine underestimated the Northern Alliance's capabilities.

Even after Kabul fell, "experts" appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" on Nov. 23 saw little hope for the forming of a unified government. "I think we have to be very careful, Larry, not to get our hopes up," warned Bob Schieffer, host of CBS News's "Face the Nation."

He now tells Ross "I think I meant we had to be patient ... We will know when we have won, but we are not there yet."

Myth #5: The Muslim world will explode.

Muslims the world over will be infuriated, the masses will rise up, and get rid of leaders such as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and create turmoil in the Persian Gulf states. President Bush's comments about capturing Mr. bin Laden "dead or alive" can only deepen the anger.

Columnist Katha Pollitt, in the Nov. 19 issue of the ultra-leftist Nation magazine wrote gloomily: "Thousands of new Taliban fans and recruits for anti-American suicide missions? A protracted war with a determined, hardy foe that draws in Central Asia, enrages the Muslim masses and destabilizes Pakistan or Indonesia or another country to be named later?"

She now tells Ross that it's a good idea to be cautious, especially when war and foreign policy are involved, and that "a lot of innocent people" have been killed so far. "Nobody knows the future, but I don't think we've seen the end of the story. People are talking about war on Iraq."

Finally, in an Oct. 15 commentary on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered," the all-knowing and all-wise Dan Schorr, said, "Whatever success the Anglo-American alliance is having pounding the Taliban into dust, it's having little success winning the hearts and minds of Islamic peoples... Most alarming of all, anti-American feeling is rising in Pakistan, where the Taliban came from, threatening the stability of the Musharraf regime," he opined.

It would appear that their real target, G.W. Bush, showed by his conduct of the war just how biased and wrong his leftist critics in the media were in warning America that he was leading the nation into a humiliating and long-lasting Vietnam-like quagmire.


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; ignorantmedia; liberalmedia; npr
Schorr told the Wall Street Journal's Matthew Rose "I had to eat a little crow. I have never been in Afghanistan and know nothing about Pashtuns and the rest of it."

That wasn't enough to stop him ...

Of course not! They will never learn and they will never stop!

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge. " ~ Daniel J. Boorstin

1 posted on 12/27/2001 11:06:45 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: susangirl
"All things considered" my a$$. "All Democrat bs considered" is what they really mean.
2 posted on 12/27/2001 11:16:01 AM PST by smithson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
It has nothing to do with the facts of the situation. The war wasn't the issue. These people are America-haters. No matter what the US does, to these people it is wrong. They just bad mouth everything America does, and everything a Republican President does in the belief that once in a while, they will be right. These neo-marxists were stunned when the media's attempt to steal the election failed. They were content to bad mouth Bush and then, came the Holocaust. Bin Laden's success has pained these neo-marxist media types more than anyone will ever know. Doesn't matter what the issue, America is NEVER right as far as these guys are concerned.

And, how they must secretly hate Willie. He had the opportunity to destroy or damage America and didn't do as much as he could because he couldn't keep it in his pants. Image were we'd be if Willie had been as constant in his hate-America mode as any of these guys.

3 posted on 12/27/2001 11:17:07 AM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Imagine these LEFTIST-NAYSAYERS actually admitting that they don't know anything about what they are expressing such strong opinions about!!Will this ever happen again?We live in HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 posted on 12/27/2001 11:18:07 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
One must take the opinions of these "journalists" for what they're worth. (Nothing.)

These fools are blind to the intelligence and brilliant leadership of George W. Bush.

Aw hell--they're just plain blind--and stupid--locked in their Liberal paradigm--blind to all else--unable to see anything other than their groupthink dilusions.

Who cares what they think!

5 posted on 12/27/2001 11:18:54 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
The quick and decisive victory in the Afghanistan war left some of the most celebrated liberals among the media elite scurrying for cover after having been egregiously wrong in declaring that the war was going badly in its earliest phases.

Unfortunately we aren't at war with Afghanistan, we in a "War on Terrorism". I think it is a little premature to declare ourselves victorious. To steal a quote -- "This isn't the beginning of the end, this is the end of the beginning"

6 posted on 12/27/2001 11:19:19 AM PST by 74dodgedart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bandleader
I doubt they'd be admitting it even NOW if there was any tiny shred of a chance to avoid it. Against such a blatantly, well-organized and successful operation they are left with only one choice...backtrack and try to cover themselves! Fortunately their attempt is lame, as usual.
7 posted on 12/27/2001 11:23:55 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
This is why they are considered liberal blowhards. It amazes me that these people are so negative. How do they accomplish anything?
8 posted on 12/27/2001 11:25:22 AM PST by NC Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
One of the best parts about what has happened in A. is to see the carping press "eat crow". But most of them are unphased. You are right...they will never stop. The only hope is for their ratings to dive so badly that they lose their jobs. One can only hope.

By the way, nice home page. I particularly like the pics of France. Makes you want to go there.

9 posted on 12/27/2001 11:25:54 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 74dodgedart
Unfortunately we aren't at war with Afghanistan...

No, now that the Taliban has been defeated, we aren't.

I think it is a little premature to declare ourselves victorious.

We haven't defeated the Taliban? Where are they?

I agree with you on the "War on Terror", though. It is FAR from over.

10 posted on 12/27/2001 11:28:27 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
I'll never forget Daniel Schorr's sense of foreboding the weekend before the Gulf War. His tone was "I fear we are about to make a very big mistake." LOL

Same old same old. What a Clymer.

11 posted on 12/27/2001 11:28:29 AM PST by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
"unphased" = unfazed. I must be thinking about electricity or something...lol.
12 posted on 12/27/2001 11:31:02 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
Who cares what they think!

Sheeple that vote?

13 posted on 12/27/2001 11:31:23 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
bump
14 posted on 12/27/2001 11:35:38 AM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
I guess that these libs never got over Bill Clinton "missing his chance" at fighting a war.
15 posted on 12/27/2001 11:36:11 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
I think they were just looking for their "Glory Dayz" back in the 60's. Anti-war protests, free love, LDS trips, you know all the great stuff the leftist love.
16 posted on 12/27/2001 11:37:36 AM PST by SolitaryMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
I simply hate the fact that so many leftist and cowardly America haters have the microphones and cameras in their faces.
Expecially grating is the fact that many are paid with American taxpayer funds...or paid salaries in inverse relationship to their contribution to enlightment or factual REPORTING of the news...

Most of those PBS and major network bastards like Jennings, Rather, etc.... have been wrong and wrong headed in most important instances.... They were also not just a little guilty of defending the undefendable "rapist in denial"...
Semper Fi

17 posted on 12/27/2001 11:40:32 AM PST by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
By far, the most amusing laments, coming from nearly-all experts were:

- Omigod, the RAMADAN is coming and we MUST stop all military activites then.

- And... Omigod, the WINTER is coming and, somehow, people flying airplanes were going to be more incovenienced by the cold and snow than those on the ground.

- And, of course, those elaborate, computer-generated 3-D 'cave simulations' which were assumed to be real, just becuase someone made them up, on a computer - the way to bust a simulated bunker was, of course, using a bunch of simulated bombs and missiles.

18 posted on 12/27/2001 11:54:12 AM PST by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Islamics and leftists, never believe what they say.
19 posted on 12/27/2001 11:54:43 AM PST by hsszionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Then there was the LA Times editorialist Jacob Heilbrunn who a few days later declared the first round of the war a failure: "The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one.". . .

It would appear that their real target, G.W. Bush, showed by his conduct of the war just how biased and wrong his leftist critics in the media were in warning America that he was leading the nation into a humiliating and long-lasting Vietnam-like quagmire. . .


There's that word that litter the press in the early War in Afghanistan. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Look for more in the continuing saga, As the Stomach Churns! Stay tuned, in the LIEberal biased press, ya ain't seen nuttin' yet!
Nice post Susangirl. Thanks!
20 posted on 12/27/2001 12:18:26 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
The media could not understand why it did not go like Vietnam.

The media has never understood the reasons for our defeat in Vietnam. JFK and LBJ bought into the belief that war was too important to be left to skilled generals. Both LBJ and Nixon thought super bright WHIZ kids or Germans accents named Henry should run our military strategy. Robert MacNamara was the chief WHIZ kid for LBJ. He had run Ford Motor company and knew how to make cars at a profit. He hadn't a clue about how to win wars. Henry Kissenger and Eva Braun have one thing in commmon. They both could understand Hitler wiht out the services of a translator. They were also equally good military strategists.

Time after time in Nam the military view was dismissed and the latest intellectual fad war theory was followed. It was a disastor.

Bush Sr, an experienced combat veteran, did it right in the gulf a decade ago. He defined the goals and told two military pros named Colin Powell and Norm Swartzkoff to get it done. The military will always pick the plan with the highest chance of success at the lowest cost in American lives. That is very natural. The military wants to win and they don't want to die. In case you haven't noticed armies that lose tend to die a lot.

Dubya to no big surprise decided to follow in the footsteps of his Dad rather than LBJ and Nixon. And as it did for his Dad, the strategy of picking good commanders and delegating the autority to fight as they see fit worked. It is the one thing that Lincoln, Roosevelt and the Bush family have in commmon. The Bushes and Roosevelt have a better track record at picking commanders than did Abe Lincoln.

Wining a war is rather simple. It takes ground troops to win a war. The media does understand that fact. What they fail to understand is that if the air attack is good enough the ground attack doesn't have to be all that good. And if there is no air defense, the best ground troops are not worth much of anything. It is the lesson that Hitler taught the world when his airforce backing Franko defeated a better ground force in Spain prior to world war II. They failed to understand that even a corporal named Hitler knew he could not defeat England with out air superiority. Churchill, Eisenhower, and MacArthur have all expounded on the need for air superiority. It did not dawn on teh media that the Taliban had ZERO AIR power after the first day.

The other fact is the media believs that Russian troops and more importantly Russian tactics are a winning formula. They are not. Sadam used Russian tactics and they weren't even close to being match to ours. Again they fail to understand that total air makes total ground easy.

The media is convinced that the Taliban defenders were motivated well trained troops. But they fail to understand that even a supurb ground force can't beat a pretty poor gound force with a superb air force behind it.

Let me put it this way, when Allah goes up against B-52's bet on the B-52s. And as to the media, they are what they always are Clueless. Just remember this true statement about the press. The guys who run the presses could write the news. But the guys that write the news cannot run the presses.

21 posted on 12/27/2001 12:20:34 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

litter s/b littered!
sheesh!. . .
22 posted on 12/27/2001 12:20:54 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Oh yeah. I forgot about them.
23 posted on 12/27/2001 1:12:42 PM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
"Sheeple that vote"! Yes, the Mind-Numbed Robots.
24 posted on 12/27/2001 1:14:38 PM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Good comments as usual CT. Also IMHO, if I may, the leftist media wants to see America lose these conflicts, at least under a Republican president. They were setting up the sheeple to feel the same way. They bet on a long struggle in Afghanistan and were quite wrong, thankfully. May W and his fellow adults continue to confound them....
25 posted on 12/27/2001 1:17:26 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Of course I can hear them all saying now along with some weak kneed posters here on FR and the mental cases over on DU that the Afghan War is a failure cause of that new Osama Bin Laden video. To the likes of them if President Bush doesn't have his head on pike, then the war's a lost cause. The nattering nabobs of negativism live on.
26 posted on 12/27/2001 1:21:51 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
" . . . This is journalism, not history."

Journalists love to style journalism as "the first draft of history." It is not that, not at all. Say rather, journalism is the first draft of the Democratic Party platform.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate.

27 posted on 12/27/2001 1:33:03 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Many of those who portray themselves as liberals in the media are really Marxists. The only hope the marxists have to rescue their broken and disproved theories is to issue a stuning defeat to capitalism - which means defeating the USA and by whatever means necessary - even if this means empowering and giving support to retrograde and fascistic terrorists. The lust for power of the intelligensia never sleeps.
28 posted on 12/27/2001 1:46:35 PM PST by Diogenez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Thank you for that great post, Common Tator. It's full of what I love, historical perspective. Much appreciated!

Bush Sr, an experienced combat veteran, did it right in the gulf a decade ago.

I wonder, if he and his advisors had it to do again, would they finish off Saddam? In retrospect, I think we should have at least backed the rebel groups opposed to his regime, as we did with the Northern and Eastern Alliances.

Dubya to no big surprise decided to follow in the footsteps of his Dad rather than LBJ and Nixon. And as it did for his Dad, the strategy of picking good commanders and delegating the autority to fight as they see fit worked.

Right! One mark of a wise leader is his willingness to step back and allow others to do that at which they are best. I shudder to think of a "micro-managing" Gore as President during this time.

29 posted on 12/27/2001 1:55:59 PM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
By the way, nice home page. I particularly like the pics of France. Makes you want to go there.

Thank you. Just stay out of the tunnel. *L*

30 posted on 12/27/2001 1:59:05 PM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
You're welcome, MnM. I was going to post two others, but after running a search, YOU had beaten me to it. *G*
31 posted on 12/27/2001 2:03:01 PM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Re#26 Yep. Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticize. As to the tape, methinks it is OBL's last hurrah and he is dead. As to DU, they thrive on any perceived or manufactured failure by W. They have not been thriving much. ;^)
32 posted on 12/27/2001 2:14:15 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Danke, er I mean merci. I'll watch out for the tunnel. Your pics are calling to me. I was going to go to the Mediterranean this fall until 9/11. Now I really feel cheated. Sniff.
33 posted on 12/27/2001 4:20:47 PM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Why Surprised?<--Me)

What does this mean?

34 posted on 12/29/2001 12:08:46 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
No, now that the Taliban has been defeated, we aren't.

Then how come we are still sending toops over there ? How come we are still dropping bombs ?

We haven't defeated the Taliban? Where are they?

In Pakistan. I think the more important question is : where is bin Laden, he's the one responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

I'm not criticizing the US response to the 9/11 attack, I just think it is dangerous and premature to declare victory. Both Rumsfeld and GW have cautioned that there is still a long way to go in this thing.

35 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:44 AM PST by 74dodgedart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Why Surprised?<--Me)

What does this mean?

It's my addition to the title they wrote. It means I was not surprised they were wrong. I doubt they were either.

36 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:44 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Bump
37 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:55 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 74dodgedart
Then how come we are still sending toops over there ? How come we are still dropping bombs ?

One definition of defeat is "to overcome". As a government, the Taliban has been overcome. We are not yet victorious in the "War on Terror" but in this battle we have defeated the Taliban's goal to remain in power.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think we are at, or even near, the end. I acknowledge that this article is discussing how mistaken (purposely?) the Leftist media were on only one of many objectives in this "war". There are many.

I hope one of those objectives will be that we hang tough with our demands that any Taliban fighters be found, confined, and tried. That is (I think) why the bombs and troops are still being actively used. It looks as though our "allies" are attempting to say "Thanks but we'll take it from here." I think allowing that would be a mistake.

38 posted on 12/29/2001 12:11:56 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Schorr told the Wall Street Journal's Matthew Rose "I had to eat a little crow. I have never been in Afghanistan and know nothing about Pashtuns and the rest of it."

What a crummy excuse. It explains only why his prediction was wrong. It does not explain why he made a prediction in the first place when he admittedly knew "nothing about Pashtuns and the rest of it".

Here's a suggestion, Dan. The next time you're reporting on something and you lack information, try telling people that. There's nothing wrong with saying "it will be difficult to make any predictions because we know so little about the Pashtuns." You could even get in a little dig at your competition by saying "and those people who claim they do are fooling themselves." People actually appreciate honesty, and you won't have to eat any crow. But then responsible reporting like that wouldn't fit your agenda, would it?

39 posted on 12/29/2001 12:12:06 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Bush Sr. got approval of the House and Senate to free Kuwait by a margin of just a couple of votes. They only grandted him permission to throw Sadam out of Kuwait. That is what he did.

The Democrats promote and the Repulicans forget that there were serious threats to impeach President Bush if he exceeded his congressional permission to ONLY remove Sadam from Kuwait.

You may recall that Bush went to the United Nations to get approval for the attack on Kuwait before he went to congress. He was certain as was I that he could not have even gotten the Congress to approve removing Sadam from Kuwait, if he had not gotten the United Nations approval first. You forget it was easier to get the leftist UN to approve the attack on Sadam than it was our own House and Senate.

Don't you remember everyone fron Mitchell, to Daschle, to Kennedy screaming give sanctions a try first. They paraded every military democrat on every TV program telling us how it woiuld be another Viet Nam?

Every Democrat and nearly all of the Media was demanding that we only do sanctions against Sadam for a year or two. They said if the sactions don't work then maybe they would give Bush the right do something else about Sadam.

Don't you remember Ross Perot on Larry King saying that Bush Sr. had only prepared for 10,000 American casualties? Perot said if we attacked Sadam we were likely going to have 50,000 badly wounded troops and Bush was committing a criminal act by only prepairing for 10,000. Perot kept saying that lots of our men would die for lack of medical treatment at the hands of the nearly undefeatable Sadam. Perot an Senator Dodd kept telling us Sadam had the worlds 4th largest army. Trained in desert warfare. You may recall that we actually only had 138 casualties nothing near the 10,000 planned for. Afterwords a Democrat controlled Senate Committe accused Bush of wasting huge sums of money on medical supplies. They said he was spending taxpawer money with his "cronies in the medical supply field". The supplies were never used. What would they have said if he had prepared for 50,000 people to be hurt?

Lots of us were going to die to protect the interests of "BIG OIL" was what the Democrats were screaming. How many times did we hear that it was all about BIG OIL. Americans should not die for BIG OIL. they said... over and over and over. It was not about Sadam.. it was about BIG OIL they said.

American approval for removing Sadam from Kuwait never reached 50 percent before we attacked. If Bush had done what you reccomend he would have been impeached and convicted.

I find it amazing how easy it is to Democrats to trash Bush Sr. for not doing enough to Sadam, when they didn't want to do anything except let Sadam keep Kuwait and prepare to take the Saudi Oil Fields. If we had followd the Democrats plan on Sadam, today he would have more wealth than the United States, he would control most of the worlds oil. He would have more nukes than the Soviet Union had at its peak, and gasoline would be 50 dollars a gallon. Our unemployemnt rate would be 45 percent.

Bush did not take out Sadam because the democratic congress forbid him from doing so. But even Bush Sr. knows better than to say anything. The Press would print in foot high letters that Bush Sr. is trying to shift blame for his failure onto the Democrats.

All he can hope for in our media world is that a handful of people will remember the truth. The handful is indeed very small.

40 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:28 AM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
You may recall
Don't you remember ...

Unfortunately, that was before my "great awakening". So thanks again for even more perspective.

I find it amazing how easy it is to Democrats to trash Bush Sr. for not doing enough to Sadam, when they didn't want to do anything except let Sadam keep Kuwait and prepare to take the Saudi Oil Fields. If we had followd the Democrats plan on Sadam, today he would have more wealth than the United States, he would control most of the worlds oil. He would have more nukes than the Soviet Union had at its peak, and gasoline would be 50 dollars a gallon. Our unemployemnt rate would be 45 percent.

I'll be sure to put this nfo to good use.

41 posted on 12/29/2001 12:14:08 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: susangirl
Clueless leftist ranting by the HATE AMERICA\BLAME AMERICA FIRST media elite! And they call it "responsible", "unbiased", reporting of "facts"! HA! These a$$holes know nothing about the military because NONE of the scumbags has ever been in it! Just like 90% or so of the politicians in this country!
42 posted on 12/29/2001 12:14:10 AM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson