An Unannounced Victory?
This has been circulating around the Internet and I thought it deserved some comment, so my comments follow after it. I want to note that I simply copied it directly from an email, with no editing. I've put the "story" in BOLD. One comment beforehand: Hmm, "Investor's Business Daily"....Now that sounds like a VERY reliable news source (ahem!), right from the "Sit On Their Ass Class." You know the ones I mean...those veritable patriots who gave us the likes of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, bailouts for the superwealthy, and bankruptcy and foreclosure for millions of ordinary Americans.
READY FOR A SHOCK?> > > >> > Ready for a shock? Below is an article from the London Times > about our military. Interesting, it is! Our media coverage is shameful!> > Winning Isn't News> > By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY> Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British > newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in > > Iraq .> > London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against > the wall in the northern city of Mosul.> > > The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most > unlikely and unforeseen events in the l ong history of American warfare. We can > thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and > Democratic leaders inWashington by increasing our forces there instead of > surrendering.> > > We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed > in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on > counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in > Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convince d them America was > their friend and AQI their enemy.> > > Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis > began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and > spread out from there.> > > Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd > Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. > More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.> > > Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with > Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden > residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the > terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the > organization having fled south into the countryside.> > > Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime > Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved 'satisfactory' progress on > 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.'> > > Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first > time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did > so while visiting the United Arab Emirates ,which over the weekend announced > that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive > vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.> > > But where are the headlines and the front-page st ories about > all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the > CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent > Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.'> > > The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both > militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart > from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem > to consider this historic event a big story.> > > Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.> > > Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American > television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is > 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would > rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican initiated > response to 9/11.> > > Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in > order to give him credit.> > God bless our troops, God bless our current President and God > bless the U.S.A.
So why aren't we celebrating? First, we all see things colored by our own sunglasses. I see it as here we are back to the grand "American media conspiracies." If only the damned media would tell us the truth about Iraq, we'd all be as happy as termites in a woodpile. Maybe some have forgotten "Mission Accomplished?" Wars are made up of battles. Winning many battles, or even most of the battles does NOT always end a war, nor does it necessarily guarantee victory. The overall situation in Iraq is not one of victory, in spite of what the article claims, athough without question, the "surge" helped make things better. The question, however, remains: "For how long?" Lots of political and religious factions could pull the country apart.
Defeating Saddam was not all that difficult. True, he WAS a ruthless, blood lusting dictator, but so were Hitler and Stalin, and I don't recall that we invaded Germany or the Soviet Union in the 1930s. In fact, our supposed "allies" in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, aren't exactly pillars of democracy, and we haven't invaded them, either.
Bush took us into Iraq under false pretenses. Notice I didn't say "lies," although we may find out that was the case. No matter all the blather about "The CIA director said," "A slam dunk," "Iraqis will greet us as liberators," and all of the other sayings and such that have been used to justify this war, the final decision came down to ONE man....George W. Bush, and he blew it! It was up to this ONE man to get to the bottom of the stories about "weapons of mass destruction." His decision has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, and it continues to cost lives, including the lives of many thousands of brave American soldiers. It has left many more thousands terribly wounded. All of this based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry, but I can't celebrate that! The CIA Director, now "blamed" for all of the poor information, wasn't "blamed" back then; he was honored by none other than George W. Bush, himself! In the corporate world so beloved by Bush and Company, George W. Bush would run companies into the ground, cost thousands their livelihood, but still make millions of dollars himself. Sound familiar? So much for any semblance of a "meritocracy."
As for bashing "the media," "the media" will survive such. For one thing, there ISN'T such a thing as a monolithic media in this country. The American news media is diverse, just as American society is diverse. Often times when one segment of society hears something they don't like, the inclination is to blame "the media." And this blame game isn't limited to one party or philosophy. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, populists, progressives, Fascists, Communists, etc, all blame "the media" for some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth from us, or I should say, from "non believers." These conspiracies are in our minds; hatched in our own imaginations because someone said something we didn't like. Perhaps too often, we're in denial about realities we'd just as soon NOT know, or face, but reality spares no one, and it shows no preference or mercy for race, religion, politics, economic status, or......
Word History:
Brink- Noun-The word came into use in English during the 1200s, and linguists assume it was borrowed from either Danish, where it meant "shore, embankment, grassy edge," or Middle Low German, where it meant "edge," and some say, "hillside." You can see the similarity in meanings, and interestingly, it was spelled exactly the same way in both Danish and Low German; "brink." This makes me (just my opinion) wonder if it may have been borrowed from both; that is, one reinforced the other. Trade matters between England and the Continent brought new words into English, and "brink" may well have been one of them. Danish and Low German have something of a "common border," if you will, in northern Europe. In fact, this same general area is the ancestral homeland of English; that is, the various Germanic dialects that became English. Anyway, it goes back further to Old Germanic "brenkon," which had the same connotation of "edge, hillside," and itself was probably derived from Indo European "bhreng," which had a notion of "edge," but also something "that projects" (the latter would account for the "hillside and embankment" meanings. Indo European also gave Lithuanian*** "brinkti," which means "to swell;" and that gives that "project" notion again.
***Lithuanian is another Indo European language related to English further down the "family tree." In fact, many linguists say it is the language that has changed the least, and is thus the closest modern language to original Indo European.
READY FOR A SHOCK?> > > >> > Ready for a shock? Below is an article from the London Times > about our military. Interesting, it is! Our media coverage is shameful!> > Winning Isn't News> > By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY> Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British > newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in > > Iraq .> > London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against > the wall in the northern city of Mosul.> > > The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most > unlikely and unforeseen events in the l ong history of American warfare. We can > thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and > Democratic leaders inWashington by increasing our forces there instead of > surrendering.> > > We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed > in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on > counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in > Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convince d them America was > their friend and AQI their enemy.> > > Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis > began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and > spread out from there.> > > Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd > Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. > More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.> > > Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with > Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden > residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the > terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the > organization having fled south into the countryside.> > > Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime > Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved 'satisfactory' progress on > 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.'> > > Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first > time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did > so while visiting the United Arab Emirates ,which over the weekend announced > that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive > vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.> > > But where are the headlines and the front-page st ories about > all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the > CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent > Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.'> > > The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both > militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart > from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem > to consider this historic event a big story.> > > Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.> > > Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American > television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is > 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would > rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican initiated > response to 9/11.> > > Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in > order to give him credit.> > God bless our troops, God bless our current President and God > bless the U.S.A.
So why aren't we celebrating? First, we all see things colored by our own sunglasses. I see it as here we are back to the grand "American media conspiracies." If only the damned media would tell us the truth about Iraq, we'd all be as happy as termites in a woodpile. Maybe some have forgotten "Mission Accomplished?" Wars are made up of battles. Winning many battles, or even most of the battles does NOT always end a war, nor does it necessarily guarantee victory. The overall situation in Iraq is not one of victory, in spite of what the article claims, athough without question, the "surge" helped make things better. The question, however, remains: "For how long?" Lots of political and religious factions could pull the country apart.
Defeating Saddam was not all that difficult. True, he WAS a ruthless, blood lusting dictator, but so were Hitler and Stalin, and I don't recall that we invaded Germany or the Soviet Union in the 1930s. In fact, our supposed "allies" in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, aren't exactly pillars of democracy, and we haven't invaded them, either.
Bush took us into Iraq under false pretenses. Notice I didn't say "lies," although we may find out that was the case. No matter all the blather about "The CIA director said," "A slam dunk," "Iraqis will greet us as liberators," and all of the other sayings and such that have been used to justify this war, the final decision came down to ONE man....George W. Bush, and he blew it! It was up to this ONE man to get to the bottom of the stories about "weapons of mass destruction." His decision has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, and it continues to cost lives, including the lives of many thousands of brave American soldiers. It has left many more thousands terribly wounded. All of this based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry, but I can't celebrate that! The CIA Director, now "blamed" for all of the poor information, wasn't "blamed" back then; he was honored by none other than George W. Bush, himself! In the corporate world so beloved by Bush and Company, George W. Bush would run companies into the ground, cost thousands their livelihood, but still make millions of dollars himself. Sound familiar? So much for any semblance of a "meritocracy."
As for bashing "the media," "the media" will survive such. For one thing, there ISN'T such a thing as a monolithic media in this country. The American news media is diverse, just as American society is diverse. Often times when one segment of society hears something they don't like, the inclination is to blame "the media." And this blame game isn't limited to one party or philosophy. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, populists, progressives, Fascists, Communists, etc, all blame "the media" for some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth from us, or I should say, from "non believers." These conspiracies are in our minds; hatched in our own imaginations because someone said something we didn't like. Perhaps too often, we're in denial about realities we'd just as soon NOT know, or face, but reality spares no one, and it shows no preference or mercy for race, religion, politics, economic status, or......
Word History:
Brink- Noun-The word came into use in English during the 1200s, and linguists assume it was borrowed from either Danish, where it meant "shore, embankment, grassy edge," or Middle Low German, where it meant "edge," and some say, "hillside." You can see the similarity in meanings, and interestingly, it was spelled exactly the same way in both Danish and Low German; "brink." This makes me (just my opinion) wonder if it may have been borrowed from both; that is, one reinforced the other. Trade matters between England and the Continent brought new words into English, and "brink" may well have been one of them. Danish and Low German have something of a "common border," if you will, in northern Europe. In fact, this same general area is the ancestral homeland of English; that is, the various Germanic dialects that became English. Anyway, it goes back further to Old Germanic "brenkon," which had the same connotation of "edge, hillside," and itself was probably derived from Indo European "bhreng," which had a notion of "edge," but also something "that projects" (the latter would account for the "hillside and embankment" meanings. Indo European also gave Lithuanian*** "brinkti," which means "to swell;" and that gives that "project" notion again.
***Lithuanian is another Indo European language related to English further down the "family tree." In fact, many linguists say it is the language that has changed the least, and is thus the closest modern language to original Indo European.
Labels: English, etymology, Germanic languages, Iraq, media, President Bush
posted by Randy at 12:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home