Quote:
Originally Posted by yesman065
Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?
|
That is the point. You selectively posted an isolated event. Demonstrated but again is that "Mission Accomplished" was being lost at every level. And yet our glorious president repeatedly said we were winning. Even this minor good news only confirms how often our leader was a liar.
Citing success in tactical objective while ignoring the entire picture is also called propaganda.
Meanwhile also know who O'Hanlon and Pollack are. Pollack was 'person non-grata' by George Jr because he wrote about needing a force that exceeded 150,000 and then over 100,000 for five or ten years minimum. The political agenda said America does not do nation building.
O'Hanlon got same treatment because he wrote in his 2002 book that Saddam paniced; his regime destabilized when Clinton executed Desert Fox in 1998. Saddam was so destablilzed as to be a threat to no one. Clinton had almost completely solved the problem created by Cheney, Wolfovich, Rumsfeld, et al. O'Hanlon also stated that containment was working. Facts are wrong when they contradict a political agenda? That too is part of the story that was ignored.
Who does not support the troops? Those who believed a lying president. Those who denied we were losing "Mission Accomplished" at every level. Finally troops have one limited success. Those who have contempt for the troops repeatedly ignore or deny that bigger picture. Contempt even promoted pre-emption while disparaging containment.
Well at least someone finally did something for the troops. The mental midget was so publically disparaged that troops finally got a competant general and got relieve from political agendas. We did that in PA by voting against the wacko extremist Senator Santorum.
What is postive? The mental midget is slowly coming around to what the Iraq Study Group, et al (including this poster) have long been saying. Unfortunately he is doing it so slow as to protect his legacy at the expense of American troops. Notice many who claim to support the troops really have contempt for those troops. That political agenda is contempt for the American soldier.
Meanwhile, notice what is happening as a result of "Mission Accomplished"? When are we going after bin Laden? Does one worry about saying things only positive - or confront reality in full perspective and without emotion? Those who instead deal with reality are only those who support the troops.
Never rejoice due to postive news. That only creates an attitude based in silly emotion. Take news as news. Add that news to the big picture. A picture that also asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?"
Those who only rejoice in good news are doing propaganda; intentionally ignoring THE most important fact. We make no effort to go after bin Laden. We have one little accomplishment. Some tactical victories that all acknowledge will turn into losses if the strategic objective for "Mission Accomplished" remains ignored.
What does that good news say? Our leaders have been lying to us - an indisputible fact. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Ten or more years in Iraq - so that the war will not be lost during George Jr's watch. George Jr does zero to demand a strategic success - which is also in that 'good' news - when one looks at the big picture.