By MARC MCDONALD
In its lead editorial Friday, The Wall Street Journal took a swipe at Barack Obama for calling for a withdrawal of American troops from the fiasco in Iraq. That much was predictable from this right-wing rag. But what's bizarre was the Journal's reason for opposing the withdrawal of our troops: the "success" of the surge.
Huh?
Since it was bought by Rupert Murdoch, the Journal has increasingly begun to sound like an unhinged right-wing blog---fanatical in its support of George W. Bush and its foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Democrats. And like the lunatic fringe blogs MichelleMalkin.com and Little Green Footballs, the Journal is increasingly disconnected from reality.
On Friday, the Journal predictably took aim at Scott McClellan, along with the rest of the Great GOP Noise Machine. In the middle of an editorial bashing McClellan, the Journal paused to take a shot at Obama:
"Mr. Obama has staked out a position for immediate troop withdrawal that looks increasingly untenable amid the success of the "surge" and improving security in Baghdad and Basra."
Let me see if I understand this correctly: the surge is a "success" and, as a result, this means our troops can't be brought home? Then, exactly, when can Americans look forward to our troops coming home and the end of this bloody fiasco of a war?
The Journal follows the same sort of infantile "heads I win, tails you lose" logic that the NeoCons use so often these days. If horrible violence continues in Iraq, the Right-Wing demands that our troops stay there. But if violence declines, this also means our troops must stay in Iraq.
In any case, it's highly debatable whether the surge has worked at all. And as Middle East experts like Nir Rosen have repeatedly reminded us, the recent decline in violence has nothing to do with the increase in troops announced by Bush in January.
Posts
Mme. Twizzler Looks For Her ‘Special Purpose’
34 minutes ago
9 comments:
the announcement for troop increase was Jan 2007! and as for the WSJ --- it sucked even before Murdoch -- it just sucks even more.
sad thing a lot of america is buying this surge is working crap and has fallen lock stock and goose step about staying
I admit: I used to read the WSJ, before Murdoch bought it. Outside of its extremist, right-wing Op-Ed page, it was actually a fairly decent paper, particularly with its in-depth articles, world-wide coverage and interesting Page One features.
I recently bought a copy of the WSJ for the first time in a year and I was shocked at the change.
It now reads like a right-wing blog. The extremist right-wing slant has spread from the Op-Ed page to infect the entire paper.
These days, I read the "Financial Times" instead. Although hardly a liberal paper, it's actually a good, quality read with a surprisingly broad range of opinions.
The purpose of the surge was not to end the war. It was an effort to correct tactical mistakes with the ultimate goal of winning the war. The surge has clearly worked, and the cakewalk that Sadr City turned out to be is further testament to this fact. Unfortunately, some political zealots in our own country have become so invested that they cannot accept the positive turn of events. What has happened to patriotism? It may be a shock to you, but we are the good guys. Why don't you try living in an islamic country for a while and see how long your head stays attached to your neck. The enemy hates all non-muslims, you ninny. The Koran commands them to kill all infidels. This is mainstream islam. It is not a few radicals who are a little over the edge. So if you cannot stomach the ugliness of war, please, just shut up and look the other way.
By the way, Muhammad was not a prophet of Allah. He was a false prophet. Muhammad is gay.
Do you realize that my saying that would bring on a death sentence in Iran or Syria? I would be stoned like it was 2000 years ago. In fact, if I was not able to post this anonymously, I would probably be killed right here by the good islamic brotherhood in the good old USA. Is that your idea of a better way to live? What is wrong with you??? Open your eyes. We have a real enemy, and they want to kill you. All of your belly-up pacificism will not protect you. So just get out of the way so we can take on this threat to American freedom.
In response to the previous poster:
Thank you for you Rush Limbaugh/OxyMoron version of what's going on in Iraq.
Just one question, though: what the f*ck are we doing fighting in Iraq in the first place?
This war was supposed to be about WMD. Remember?
I know you Bush Kool-Aid drinkers have quietly tip-toed away from that inconvenient fact. But the rest of America hasn't.
You really shouldn't be surprised that the vast majority of the American people have turned against this war---and against Bush.
We were lied to by your hero Bush. And the American people really don't like being lied to, (especially in a war in which our sons and daughters have died by the thousands).
And incidentally, "patriotism" doesn't mean blindly following the nation's leadership, no matter what.
Hmmm, I get the feeling that if this was Hillary Clinton's war, right-wing radio would be bashing her, day after day, screaming, "We were lied into this war. There were no WMD!" and "Why is Osama Bin Laden still roaming free?"
I also find it amusing how the Right is always claiming that we on the Left are "invested" in defeat.
If anyone is "invested," it's Bush. Deep down, he knows he screwed up and that the Iraq War was a titanic mistake. Deep down, he knows this war has destroyed his legacy (and severely damaged the GOP). Deep down, he knows he will always be hated by the vast majority of Americans and booed whereever he goes (unlike the adoring crowds that mob Al Gore anywhere he goes, worldwide).
But instead of doing the right thing: (pulling our troops out of the bloody quagmire and then resigning), he continues to piss away America's blood and treasure on what is now widely recognized as the great strategic blunder in American history.
The answer never changes for them. Sometimes, the facts never do, either, regardless of reality.
MM, as you say, the WSJ was a pretty good paper when it came to their news section. A slight conservative tinge, maye, but pretty reliable, with good financial reporting and occasionally a really top-notch feature. It's editorial page has long been a cesspool. They have books full of their BS Whitewater pieces. They have never met a tax cut they didn't like. They're rabidly partisan. I remember Moyers had one woman on once (blanking on her name just now). and she could barely contain her disdain.
(And Anonymous really must read Murdoch papers with a big glass of Kool-Aid.)
Hi Marc! What are the chances we can find whatever hole these amoebas are crawling out of and plug it up with something?
Here's a little news flash, Anon. We stopped being "the good guys" when we attacked a country that was not bothering us, and didn't even have the potential to do us harm.
Hi Cranky Daze, thanks for stopping by.
The problem with these remaining Iraq War supporters is that they get all their news and views spoon-fed to them by Rush and the rest of HateWing radio.
One belief they stubbornly continue to hold (although they'd probably deny it) is that the Iraq War IS the War on Terror.
It's not surprising why they'd believe this. After all, Bush has been doing his best to conflate the two now for over 5 years.
When it became obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq, the NeoCons simply changed the script. Instead of screaming about WMD over and over (as they did when they rushed the nation into war), they simply started conflating the Iraq War with the War on Terror.
And their cult-like, deluded base, of course, bought it (and then got annoyed that the rest of America didn't follow along).
1) "Conflate" was a nicely used verb (or infinitive in this case.)
2) Islam will not allow any disparaging remarks about their prophet. Poke fun at Muhammad, and you die. Period. Here is proof:
Over a freaking cartoon. Goddamn Muhammad!!! (Thank Budda I can post anonymously!!!)
Post a Comment