Posted on 10/12/2006 4:59:08 AM PDT by Tolik
Edited on 10/12/2006 8:10:50 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Three recent books about the "fiasco" in Iraq - "Cobra II" by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward and just plain "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks - have attracted a lot of attention, and sales. All three well-written exposes repeat the now well-known argument that our government's incompetence and arrogance have nearly ensured America's failure in birthing democracy in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
"It's worth noting, though, that many of the authors' critical portraits rely on private conversations and anonymous sources. The most damning informants in these books are never identified and so can't be questioned."
So what else is new? Liberal "journalists" have always relied on techniques like that to protect themselves from being exposed as liars.
I hope all these hundred of thousands of muslim experienced veterans form the core of new, young politicians saving this government and the nation.
Here's what I want to know. The democrats are saying that it was Government Incompetence that kept us from "succeeding in Iraq".
But didn't they oppose the war because they thought it couldn't succeed? Didn't James Webb say before the war that the idea of an invasion itself was a disaster, that there was no way we could win?
If there was no way for this to turn out good, how could it now be the "way we are fighting the war" that has prevented it from succeeding?
Where is the proposal for how it would have succeeded?
I think it's funny that people I argued with before the war about how it would turn out bad are now arguing that if we had just done something different AFTER the war everything would have turned out great.
Woodward is a greasy guy.
#####
Someone, I forget the name, is writing a biography of Woodward. Apparently he started his "investigative" career by spying on his parents.
LOL! You are just too logical! Leftists don't do logic.
I am going to use your observation when I meet anti-Iraq invasion folks.
Agree. Examples are just too many. One Sadr junior caused us and continue to cause so much trouble. Why did not they eliminate him when had a chance?
Our enemies sometimes are refreshingly honest. Osama spoke about weak horse - strong horse many times. We will get more support there if they believe that we are the strong horse.
"For me this says it all -- hit piece. The Bush Administration was wise to cut Woodward out. Woodward is a greasy guy."
Just how greasy is he? He has a background in US Naval eavesdropping. So, who has he worked for since he got out of the Navy? Himself, probably- and the WaPo- not so honorable if he's eavesdropping on our government, especially if, as it seems, his main concern is his own bank account.
I've long wondered exacly why his "sources" are anonymous. Could it be Woodward's best friend is Grundig, and he uses a Big Ear of some sort?
03/22/2006
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1601335/posts
Excerpt [end of radio interview Hugh Hewitt and Christopher Hitchens]
HH: ...Well then, in 30 seconds, if the Democratic Party returns to power in this country, you get thirty seconds now, what happens?
CH: I'll just tell you something a very senior person at a well-known network. I know this sounds a bit odd, but I just can't tell you who he is or which network. I don't have the right to do it. But you'll have to believe me, okay?
HH: Okay.
CH: He called me the other day. This is not a guy who's in any way a conservative, and said you know, we've known each other for a bit. He said you know, I'm beginning to think you must be right, because it really worries me what we're doing, when we are giving the other side the impression that all they need to do is hang on until the end of this administration. Do people know what they're doing when they're doing this? One doesn't have to make any allegation of disloyalty, but just...if it worries him, as it really does, I think it should worry other people, too, and it certainly worries me.
HH: It certainly should. Christopher Hitchens, as always, a pleasure.
audio here http://www.radioblogger.com/images/03-22hitchens.mp3
While it's not a history of the Iraq War, I do have a lot of analysis of it, and Afghanistan, in "America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror."
bttt
Bar room gossip belongs in tabloids and should be accorded the same respect as Michael Moore's trash.
I felt that way, but now that it seems he is losing control over his militia, maybe the Iraqi people will realise he isn't the best thing for them, and that will be much better than us having killed him and made all of his followers hate us.
Sometimes you have to let things work themselves out so people can figure out for themselves what is best for them. We might not like the results, but we can't force people to do what we want, at least not forever.
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.