WaPo editorialists peddle fiction
July 23rd, 2008 at 09:59am Pat Cunningham
Lots of folks in the hinterlands who don’t actually read The Washington Post think of the paper as part of the liberal conspiracy to lead America to disgrace and defeat in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.
No, wait! Actually, some of the Post’s hawkish editorials on Iraq have have even less kinship with the truth, as we see HERE.
UPDATE: Steve Benen ably DECONSTRUCTS today’s editorial in the Post.
Entry Filed under: Washington Post, War in Iraq, Barack Obama
6 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
For those of you who might want a more balanced view than Patrick’s link you could peruse http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202550.html
Al Maliki (sp?) has been saying the same thing, and has been consistently wrong, since 2006.
Pity poor Barack. The only way his 16 month troop withdrawal has achieved any kind of relevance is because of the success of the surge which he refuses to acknowledge as it would demonstrate that he was wrong in the most important vote he has cast as a US Senator.
It is entertaining watching his verbal gymnastics.
2. Pat Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Mike: Several things: 1) The WaPo editorial makes a big deal of the seven-month difference between Maliki’s timeline and Obama’s. That’s just splitting hairs. Both plans call for withdrawal in 2010. 2) If Maliki is such an unreliable non-entity, why is the Bush administration entering into agreements with him on “aspirational time horizons,” or whatever they call them? 3) You’re wrong when you say that Obama has not acknowledged progress made in the surge. Just today or yesterday, he told Katie Couric: “I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.” But he also thinks the surge was not worth the effort and expense in terms of waging the war on terror when the resources could have been redirected to Afghanistan. 4) At least Obama knows the actual sequence of events regarding the surge and the Anbar Awakening. McCain doesn’t. McCain thinks the surge made the Awakening possible. But the Awakening predated the surge.
Is there anything else on which I can enlighten you? I’m still working on my categorical refutation of the WSJ’s crap about taxes and rich people. So far, I got you to admit that rich people pay smaller percentages of their incomes in taxes in the wake of W’s wonderful tax cuts. But I’m still not buying your claim that middle-income folks have had the same percentage reduction in taxes on their incomes. (But forgive me for getting off on that tangent on this thread. Let’s pursue it on its own thread as soon as I bring up taxes again.)
3. Pat Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Mike: One other thing: I see that the media guy for Democrat Robert Abboud’s challenge to Don Manzullo is a fellow named Michael Carroll. I assume that’s not you, but perhaps I can start a rumor that it is.
4. Mike Carroll | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Pat-That isn’t me but he is no doubt a fine fellow despite his misguided political affiliation.
Your quotation from Obama (which I have seen) is evidence of what I said above.He just can’t bring himself to say the obvious. He only said that the “troops helped reduce the violence”.
As far as Maliki is concerned, the left has derided him for years as a Bush puppet and now suddenly he has the wisdom of Solomon? BTW-his top two military commanders disagree with his assessment, one calling for 2012 and the other for 2020.
Keep trying to enlighten me Pat. I figure I add about 10 points to your blood pressure count on a daily basis.Oh, as long as you are working on the tax issue you may want to attack Hausers law in your spare time.
5. Menlo Bob | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
The point that WaPo made about the strategic importance of Iraq over Afghanistan is pretty compelling. Perhaps Applesauce can make the case for the opposite being true.
6. Millard Fillmore | July 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Pat, since you brought up the tax issue again, I’ve been meaning to ask you a question:
This report indicates that the top 1% of taxpayers generate 22% of the income in the U.S. — but pay 40% of the taxes.
The top 5% of taxpayers generate 37% of income and pay 60% of the taxes.
Exactly how much, sir, would you have those taxpayer groups pay?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed