| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Joe Klein feels the hate
Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein is feeling the hate from the left these days. He’s against the Iraq war, against the idea of a troop surge, and can’t stand the administration. Well then, what’s the problem? you may ask. Here it is: he wants us to win in Iraq. He’s also very critical of war plan critics in the press, like the NYT’s Paul Krugman. Klein wrote yesterday:
I’m afraid I’m going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called “surge” are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.
The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane–whom Krugman doesn’t mention–and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan.
[...]
Liberals won’t ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.
Check the comments to that post. It would seem that Klein committed numerous “nonos” with the anti-war far left: 1) he attacked liberal icon Paul Krugman, 2) he slammed liberals for not being more informed on the issue, and 3) he wants us to win the war in Iraq.
In a follow-up post last night, Klein responded to his critics:
The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party’s naivete on national security–and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal–just aren’t very helpful electorally. The fact that I’ve been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article in Slate just makes it all the more aggravating. But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.
And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:
Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.
Does the thought even cross your mind? As for me, it’s easy–I’ve been rooting for U.S. success ever since the invasion because, after the overpowering arrogance and stupidity that led to this disaster, we owe some peace and stability to the Iraqis and the region.
Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq would not just be a victory for America, but also for President Bush’s policies in the war on terror, and that doesn’t sit well with the Bush-haters in the Democratic party who have portrayed him as a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief.
Back in December of 2005, I quoted a post of Steve Verdon’s at Outside the Beltway, which I thought summed up what the anti-war Democrats’ attitude on Iraq perfectly. Verdon wrote:
Frankly, the Democrats tactic of saying we can’t win in Iraq strikes me as precisely the wrong approach to the problem. If the Democrats “win” on this one the result is that we lose. We lose in Iraq and we quite possibly degrad[e] our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in other parts of the world. Maybe that is what the Democratic party leadership wants, but it doesn’t look like a very good strategy for making the U.S. safer…which ironically is one of the Democrats complaints about invading Iraq in the first place.
He was right then, and even more right today. If America loses in Iraq, the Democratic party ‘wins.’ Klein is clearly a liberal, but he nevertheless pushes and hopes for American success in Iraq. It’s not about party to him, it’s about winning. Unfortunately, all too many other Democrats don’t hold his position and equate being an advocate of winning in Iraq (in spite of being against the war) to being a Bush shill.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party who are now, unfortunately, the new majority in Washington, DC. The only way they ‘win’ on the issue is if we lose in Iraq. Think about it.
Related: Speaking of anti-war Bush-haters, check out this imbeach, I mean, “Impeach Bush” rally held a few days ago at San Francisco’s Ocean Beach. Note how the word “Bonfire” is outlined in red in the first pic 
(Hat tip: See-Dubya, guest blogging at Michelle Malkin’s)
Flashback:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
132 Responses to “Joe Klein feels the hate”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Angryflower wrote, “to address their concerns in a manner that would validate them.”
But leftists in this thread have said the war in Iraq is “unwinnable”. Their only conclusion moving forward is that we accept defeat and remove troops causing a humanitarian crisis.
How would you address their concern? We do not “feel” as they do and in fact think that they are aiding and comforting the enemy with their rhetoric.
“This coming from a group whose “surrender weasel/hate America first” mantra is openly supported by Al Qaeda’s leadership. ”
An your trust that al Qaeda is being honest and telling the truth about who and what they support is based upon what? Your personal conviction that they are all-around good guys who would never intentionally try to mislead us?
- So then trrll, the sum total of your defense against the statements, in pure fact, of the very words you use in almost every post, comes down to “Oh…. well if the enemy is supporting our counter cultural positions, then you can be sure there’s a conspiracy in there somewhere”.
- So let Me get this straight. When people, and its the majority no matter how hard you try to abuse the truth of things, say you’re wrong, then its simply because they’re misguided. Whereas when the enemy makes embarrassing public declarations, openly stating they like your “hate Buah” polotics, then it must be some nefarious scheme, writ large, just to manipulate public opinion against you.
- Tell you what. If instead of all the polemic yammering, you just came right out and said you’re afraid to fight for your family, country, and beliefs, I think you’d find people would still recognize your obvious cowardness, but at least you’d stop lying to yourself and everyone else, and that, if you had a shred of character as a group, would be important to you. Obviously, a group who runs from personal responsibility like their hair is on fire, every time they hear that word, lack any of said character. The “end justifies the means”, so lying on a regular basis, is a piece of cake.
- Bang
- Always remember Komrads…We support our troops, and most especially their mission. Unless of course if they actually fight a war against anyone. Thats different.
(brought to you by Laika, the space doggie, beaming truthiness to moonbat communes since 1957)
- Bang
- And Angryflower, I don’t think the Numb-brained Left would know irony if it bit them on the butt.
- Bang
“So then trrll, the sum total of your defense against the statements, in pure fact, of the very words you use in almost every post, comes down to “Oh…. well if the enemy is supporting our counter cultural positions, then you can be sure there’s a conspiracy in there somewhere”
Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?
Damn them Defeat-o-crats! Look at those anti-Americans give comfort to the enemy by not backing the President at today’s Condi Rice hearings:
“I’ve gone along with the president on this, and I’ve bought into his dream. At this stage of the game, I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
“If we don’t see more specifics and a time frame” for progress in Iraq, “then Congress is probably going to step into the void and set a time frame.”
The president has “set in motion” a “very, very dangerous” series of events. “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”
Oh wait…iot was Republicans who said all that.
Those lying, war mongering Republicans:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 1998….
Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”
Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 2002….
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 1998….
People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 2002…
No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.
Oh, wait that was John Kerry in 2003…
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Oh, wait that was Hillary Clinton in 2003….
Ho, hum………
Interesting how gung ho all these democrats were when the war was going well and we were rolling through Iraq with little to no resistence and the people were cheering our troops.
Oh how times change.
“WE are going to need 25,000 body bags!!!” I don’t know who said it, but they were so very wrong.
– Lorica (just clownin’ around) Pssst I think it was a Rambo movie, or someone quoting a Rambo movie. 
WE are going to need 25,000 body bags!!!”
I think it was Ray Nagin from New Orleans…….
WE are going to need 25,000 body bags!!!
Ho-hum. Standard liberal panic-wongering. They said that before the first Gulf War too, over 15 years ago.
trrll, speaking from beneath the tin-foil hat, wonders: Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?
I’m applying Occam’s Razor here. The Islamofascists have a track record of telling us exactly what they intend to do, and then attempting to carry it out.
Therefore, when they broadcast what amount to Democrat campaign ads, I do think that’s their goal, and not some elaborate reverse-psychology scheme you dream up while taking a break from your customary fantasy about Bushitler rounding up all libs and sending them off to concentration camps.
For some reason, the fact that AQ has been remarkably open about its goals and plans eludes the sparkling intellects on the left, who always assume that AQ says the opposite of what they mean.