Captain's Quarters -

"Der Spiegel has its eyes open now. Perhaps the rest of the world will follow."
No, most of the world MSM still has tunnel vision regarding any US actions. Iraq is lost according to their close-minded thinking.

Failure of media to do its job in Iraq.

Those are the key words here CE...

The old media is an absolute failure beyond comprehension. It's no wonder why the old media is no longer trusted, and is in the process of getting replaced by new forms of media. The media has always had a very important job to do; failure to understand and comprehend the business of reporting factual news to the worlds population is a mistake these fools will never recover from.

"TRUST" is something earned; not something one can demand. We all know people who say "hey, this is Joe speaking here and not some idiot, you had better listen to what I say and follow my advise"... I learned many years ago, when I hear those words, I had better not trust one word of what I'm hearing. Trust is something that is very hard earned; something that takes time; something that can take months (years) to earn, but can be lost in a very quick moment.

I have NO faith in the old media; I have NO trust in the old media. Isn't it odd, that in the last week we have seen most of the major newspapers write articles reversing their prior reporting on the situation in Iraq; just ahead of the report that is coming in September...

"[F]ailure of the media to do its job in Iraq"? I hope, CE, that you're not assuming the media believe their job to be accurate factual reporting (John Burns and a handful of others excepted). [F]ailure of the media to accomplish their mission in Iraq strikes a truer chord with me.

... proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe.

Yeah, American soldiers are funny that way: give 'em time and a modicum of support and you'll be amazed at what they can do.

Hats off to Der Spiegel for continuing to look into the situation in Iraq and admitting that things aren't quite a total, unmitigated catastrophe there.

Oh come on Keemo - there are plenty of enlightened progressives who read this site every day who are more than willing to assure you that bias in the media is a myth - that media sources like NPR, NYTimes and the major networks are "objective."

And what is all this revisionist history going on now - with this USA is a "protector" nonsense. Don't you know that, just as in the "climate change" issue ("global warming" is too restrictive a term; these recent really cold winters are making some of those red state rubes harder to con; er, I mean convince (wink)), "the debate is over." So just shut up.

See the "truthy" narrative is set in stone, and it is really annoying when rethuglican fascists try to change it. The Imperialist States of America 'invaded' a 'sovereign' nation which posed 'no threat' to us; based on Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Rove/Big Oil LIES; our imperialist storm troopers (who are either homocidal moronic baby killers or are brainwashed victimized 'children' depending on the day of the week and who your audience is - but "we support the troops" and don't you forget it Mister), have slaughtered 350,000, no wait as long as we're making s--t up out of thin air, make that 750,000 innocent Iraqi school children. In cold blood. When they weren't busy waterboarding their Daddys and making them wear ladies panties on their heads. So yes we ARE "occupiers," and it is no wonder the entire Muslim world hates us. We deserve to be hated. We're evil. (We also support that illegitimate and illegal Zionist state, whose very existence is an offense to Allah; shame shame shame on us for our offensive transgressions). And thanks to this rock solid truthful narrative, any 911 that happens under Hillary's watch, long after Bush is out of office, can and WILL be directly tied to the Muslim world's well deserved hatred of us, for invading a sovereign.....etc. Repeat the above enough times and you too can become a gold plated member of the Democratic Party.

You don't think they feel this way? Spend some time reading DailyKos or DU. I have. They do.

Apparently Der Spiegel discovered, that you can only go that far on lies and fiction. Quite good, considering all the lessons supposedly learned from the Nazi past. Now it took them only like what, five years?

What is that expression, "success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan." At least the possibility of success in Iraq is under consideration and a whole lot of people don't want to be in the wrong if it comes. That being said, I don't find positive stories as proving success is guaranteed just as I don't find the gloomy ones as proof that Iraq is an irreversible failure. In the end, nobody knows nuttin' about what the future holds for Iraq (and for us), we only know that our choices are to continue on to try and make it right or give up in despair and crawl back home. And the media pretty much feeds into whatever the prevailing mood is when it comes to those two choices.

While it's nice to see Der Spiegel showing some fairness here, in the U.S. most of the big media outlets still have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reporting the news, since to do so falls into the dread "Bush may have been right" category. And my guess is, -- given the media-savy of both al Qaida in Iraq and the various rogue militia factions -- we can expect to see a new series of targeted attacks in September, designed around the progress report to Congress by Gen. Petraeus and the desire by the much of the Democratic Party to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible and declare the entire Iraq operation a miserable failure.

It will be al Qaida's own terror attack version of the Tet Offensive, and that's when you're going to see blanket coverage by the big media outlets of the conditions over there, hoping they can do today what Walter Cronkite did 39 years ago. Even if it resulted in a major increase in terrorist deaths, the theme would be that the U.S. is not able to keep the lid of Iraqi violence for a sustained period, so we should just cut our losses and pull out now. And all those news crews that aren't going out right now to report the successes of the surge, ostensibly because its just too dangerous out there, will be ordered out into the field by their bosses back at home to chronicle the attacks in lurid detail.

I question the timing of this story.

This is obviously written by political partisans. LOL

The military, specifically Don Rumsfeld is to blame. From the start the notion that an embedded journalist would not at any time become a expendable tool to the Pentagon, when things turned South in the War, is the problem. The deal the MSM made with the Pentagon sealed the fate of impartiality and puts us where we are today. It's been the Military's message and it's their job to present it. By cutting off the freedom of journalists, the MSM have responded by not making their case to the American people that we need more information than what the Pentagon says we do.Seems selfish and self serving but that is todays MSM.The agreement should have
never happened.

I wonder if this story and its spin will help to sell more Der Spiegel's. Maybe bits and pieces of the world's MSM are finally starting to wake up to the fact that no one wants to read their bullshit(or watch their slanted movies) any more and it's costing them money.

We know BBC is having a jaundiced eye cast upon it for its performance and whether it should continue to receive taxpayer support. NY Times stock prices are falling so quickly that it's difficult to track them. Audiences are rejecting movies with a Michael Moore-spinn to them, and the movie industry is also in decline. In France LeMonde and other newspapers have to be heavily propped up by government funding because the Frogs refuse to pay for their lies any more.

Germans are supposed to be stolid and logical. The bottom line on being logical is if what you've been doing isn't working, then change it. Printing anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq stories probably isn't selling any better in Germany than it does here in America, so maybe they can fix that by changing it.

The interesting thing will be whether they can bring themselves to say something nice about Bush at the same time they're praising the war effort in Iraq. My guess is not and Bush Derangement Syndrome will rage on, while the world coo's and purrs over the changes happening in Iraq.

We've been "occupying" Germany for 62 years now .... no wonder our "traditional allies" in Germany and at Der Spiegel still hate us for:

* Removing their beloved Fuehrer and the Nazi regime which built the autobahn and created the Volkswagen.

* Stopping the "cleansing" of all those pesky Jooos.

* Preventing their W. German brothers from adopting the superior Communist financial and political system.

* Failing to lend billions of Marshall Plan dollars to rebuild their infrastructure, schools, and economy.

LOL

I wonder if this story and its spin will help to sell more Der Spiegel's. Maybe bits and pieces of the world's MSM are finally starting to wake up to the fact that no one wants to read their bullshit(or watch their slanted movies) any more and it's costing them money.

We know BBC is having a jaundiced eye cast upon it for its performance and whether it should continue to receive taxpayer support. NY Times stock prices are falling so quickly that it's difficult to track them. Audiences are rejecting movies with a Michael Moore-spinn to them, and the movie industry is also in decline. In France LeMonde and other newspapers have to be heavily propped up by government funding because the Frogs refuse to pay for their lies any more.

Germans are supposed to be stolid and logical. The bottom line on being logical is if what you've been doing isn't working, then change it. Printing anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq stories probably isn't selling any better in Germany than it does here in America, so maybe they can fix that by changing it.

The interesting thing will be whether they can bring themselves to say something nice about Bush at the same time they're praising the war effort in Iraq. My guess is not and Bush Derangement Syndrome will rage on, while the world coo's and purrs over the changes happening in Iraq.

If we really cared for the German's (or the French for that matter) over Iraq we could just buy them off like Saddam did for years.

Ask them who is making more money from "Big Oil" these days...their beloved ex-PM or Dick Chaney? Ask them who owns more stock in Haliburton--Soros or Cheney or Bush?

The mind boggles.

We now hail "progress in Iraq" and ignore the reason for this "progress" which is the fact that the US military is busy doing deals with the devil... arming and outfitting the very same brutal Sunni militias, tribal groups and Baathists who once formed the bulwark of Saddam's power base.

This could have been done 4 years ago and saved all kinds of turmoil and bloodshed, but the Bushies demurred because, of course, when they withdraw from Iraq this new alliance means the Sunnis will be powerful enough (and does anybody doubt they'll be brutal enough) to defeat the Shia in the inevitable civil war and then, afterward, subjugate them again for decades to come.

So, to extrapolate in logical fashion (as the captain is fond of doing :-)... empowering the Sunni is "progress". Thus if we could somehow proceed backward all the way to Saddam's iron-hand rule... well, that would be complete success, right?

So... damn... we had success before we even started. We've been blowing it ever since!

The US military is not the problem in Iraq, nor is it the solution. The problem and the solution has always been, are, and until some resolution on tribal / religious /economic differences is reached, is political.

If the war-hawks would stop and listen, rather than interpreting any 'negative' comment about Iraq as an assault on US troops, you might figure this out. Those who want US troops out, support those troops, just as much as those who want them there. The difference is that those who want them out don't see the more problematic parts of Iraq getting pacified any time soon and see no reason whatsoever to have US troops be fodder in sectarian strife which, had this great administration wanted, could have been avoided or lessened at the beginning.

This could have been done 4 years ago and saved all kinds of turmoil and bloodshed, but the Bushies demurred because, of course, when they withdraw from Iraq this new alliance means the Sunnis will be powerful enough (and does anybody doubt they'll be brutal enough) to defeat the Shia in the inevitable civil war and then, afterward, subjugate them again for decades to come. --- filistro

Oh please.

The fact that you seriously appear to believe that the now increasingly DESPERATE Sunni community will EVER again be in a position to 'subjugate' Iraq pretty much invalidates every other thing you might care to postulate. Well that and the tediously jejune 'Bushies' comment thrown in for no good reason except to make yourself 'feel' daring.

The reason the Sunnis are 'helping' now is that they are(as they have been since 2003) a DEFEATED faction and NOW they are finally coming to (rational) terms with it. What they hope for is now a decent survival not any form of future POWER OVER OTHERS, and they see the US troops as their only avenue towards that goal.

The result of of a precipitate US withdrawal will not be a new Sunni dictatorship; it will be a 'cleansing' of all important Sunni enclaves.

Everyone(on the scene, especially) but you appears to see this VERY clearly. Why am I not surprised that you are the exception to the rules.

Again.

"The difference is that those who want them out don't see the more problematic parts of Iraq getting pacified any time soon..." Yes, but unfortunately for you and your ilk, is the rather inconvenient fact that more and more "problematic parts" ARE moving closer to being pacified or have become pacified (ever try reading people like Mike Yon, instead of your AP/Reuters/NYTimes DNC talking points echo chambers?) - and THAT is what is REALLY problematic to you defeatists - for whom the outcome had darn well better match their preconceived pronouncements of failure, trumpeted from day one. Any success or progress in a number of the provinces is really awful news, for you, isn't it. Better deny it then, and stick to the "narrative."

Yeah. "We support our troops." Right. You just want to cut their mission out from under them, RIGHT NOW, thereby TRULY rendering their sacrifices over the past four years to be meaningless. Pathetic.

What a load of BS. Iran and Syria are not the primary source of cash support or foreign fighters in Iraq. The US intelligence and the US Army say Saudi Arabia and Jordan are the main avenues and sources for both.

Hi Doug,

I note that four (4) of the sentences in your post contain ad hominem attacks on me, rather than comments on the issue being discussed.

By the rules of debating, this means I win the exchange.

Hey, thanks for playing, though. Better luck next time :-)

How's that?

I must not be seeing the same dougf comment as you.

Cannoli,

1.)How tediously jejune of you. 2.)Just posted this observation to make yourself feel daring, I presume? 3.)Everyone but you can VERY clearly see the snark in doug's post. 4.)Why am I surprised that you are the exception?

DISCLAIMER: the foregoing posted for illustrative purposes only. In fact cannoli is one of my favorite things on earth. Especially with spinach and mozza.

Hold the phone... I'm thinking about mannicotti!

I take it all back.

filistro

Your comment is nonsense. dougf trounced you by pointing out why you are wrong. Your comment was so provocatively stupid he couldn't resist a little ad hominem.
1. Sunni tribes are fighting al Qaeda because they have seen first hand what life is like under al Qaeda. Your suggestion that this was possible 4 years ago demonstrates a lack of understanding of why the Sunni tribes turned on al Qaeda. You need a daily dose of Roggio to cure you of your MSM induced cluelessness.
2. Even if they wanted to Sunni tribes will not be able to overwhelm the Shiites when we leave. By the time President Giuliani draws down American forces the IA and IP will have been built up to the extent that no sectarian militias will survive challenging the established order.

By the time President Giuliani draws down American forces the IA and IP will have been built up to the extent that no sectarian militias will survive challenging the established order.

So I assume you are anticipating a Carolyn presidency in, say.... 2040?

(Well, hers would by all accounts be a Democratic administration... ;-)

You would asssume that. Wrong again. But take heart . Very few people bat 1000.

I realize I may have a different definition of 'personal attack', which is what i understand ad hominem to mean, than others. Personally, I don't see snarky comments aimed at a particular statement or belief as an attack on that person. If that really is the case then you'll want to ignore half the comments here.

My own definition of a personal attack: "Jane, you ignorant slut."

I'm a tiny bit surprised to see your complaint about snarky comments when your original comment included that little Bushies barb. Maybe snark invites snark?

I said my piece. CQ-ers don't need a cannoli referee.

What's happening in Iraq is part of an unavoidable learning curve--both ours and the Iraqis'.

We believed them when they said Arabs were ready for liberty and democracy. We've since learned that they weren't. They're getting there, but first they had to go through a period of insanity fueled by tribalism and sectarianism.

We didn't realize how truly backward they were.

The Iraqis, on the other hand, thought that we could come to their country and fix everything instantly. During the major-combat phase of the war, our troops reported seeing Iraqis doing their shopping in the middle of battles. When they were questioned why, the Iraqis said that the Americans had magic bullets that would hit only Saddam's forces.

Even today most Iraqis fall prey to the Arab penchant for believing myths, tall tales, campfire tales, and rumors. It's been reported that many Iraqis who work daily with the Coalition realize that they can no longer live in the middle east. They want to move to where people base their opinions on facts.

Freeing Iraq and bringing it democracy has been a learning experience. You can bet that the U.S. will never try it again, but maybe we won't have to. Maybe democracy will spread on its own, if it germinates in Iraq.

One thing that almost nobody does, however, is hold the Iraqis responsible--as thinking adults--for the many poor choices they made.

Our greatest mistake was to credit them with much more rationality than they actually had at the time.

Well, I swan. Moonbats making up debating rules. Will wonders never cease.

How can someone who uses both "ad hominum" and "jejune" in the same post be so dumb? My guess is that it's a sophomore philosophy major at Berkeley parroting what it heard its parents chirping at the dinner table, and its over-paid, underworked, tree-hugging professors saying in class. I wonder why none of these geniuses ever use the word "hegemony" any more.

Since NahnCee has forged fearlessly into the fevered fray of semantics, I am seizing the opportunity to ask a vocabulary question without going off-topic.

I've been trying for several days to find out what preposition correctly follows the verb "dissent."

Does one dissent to, from, with, at, on... or what? Any help gratefully appreciated.

BTW... in my opinion, "Well, I swan!" is one of the truly great expressions. It brings to mind a scandalized Victorian lady on her fainting couch, fanning herself vigorously.

I really love it.

Our greatest mistake was to credit them with much more rationality than they actually had at the time

Well said Tom W . Are you talking about Iraqis or Democrats in November 06?

Oh, and speaking of vocabulary...

I can understand the recent sensitivity to "neocon"... but jeez... now "Bushies" has become verboten as well? It's "snark" to use the term even in a neutral exposition? It seems liek only testerady that an internal DOJ memo talked about the necessity for those attorneys to be "loyal Bushies."

It''s just so hard to keep up with all the new rules when the wheels start falling off.

"seems like only yesterday"

Since there must be an active object that you're objecting to, then you would "dissent from", as in "I withhold assent from this or that". If one wanted to be a full-time jerk, then one would become a "dissenter", which would be the noun.

If you were just more agreeable you wouldn't have to worry about the problem at all. Then you could call yourself a "patriot" and what you're doing would be "patriotic".

Thanks NC.

I was thinking along the same lines. The antonym of "dissent" (verb) is "agree." You can agree with, to, on... but not from or at.

I think you can probably dissent to, from, with... but I don't know for sure. None of them sounds quite right, somehow.

I AM certain, however, that you do realize dissent can often be extremely partiotic.

I also suspect you of being quite agreeable in person... but that may be a dissenting view.