History Will Judge Harshly Those For Withdrawal From Iraq

[ChicosBailBonds]

History Will Judge Harshly Those For Withdrawal From Iraq


More Republicans have defected to the withdraw-from-Iraq Democrats. They have read the polls that show falling support among the American people for the war in Iraq, and have concluded that continuing to support the war will cost them their Senate or House seat.

Is it possible that some of these Republicans have simply consulted their consciences and decided to abandon positions they have held since the beginning of the war? It is possible. But consider this: If the American people continued to support the war, does one reader of this column believe that one Republican defector would have in fact defected?

The sad truth is that moral courage is rare -- whether among private citizens or among political leaders. Even opponents of the war have to admit that, given the polls, it takes no courage for a politician to call for American withdrawal from Iraq. Whether or not you agree with those who want American forces to stay in Iraq, that is a far more courageous position in today's America -- just as, right or wrong, it admittedly took more courage for a politician to oppose the war when America deposed Saddam Hussein's regime.

So with the mainstream media and the Democrats -- often interchangeable entities -- relentlessly pushing for withdrawal from an increasingly unpopular war led by an unpopular president, it takes a lot of courage to argue against what would be the most costly defeat for America in its history. And how often in history did the right thing not take courage? And how often was the right position the most popular position?

Despite all this, however, in this matter victory will go to the courageous. If America stays in Iraq, America will win and then the courageous will surely be victorious. But the courageous will gain a victory even if they lose their fight for America staying in Iraq. For then the supporters of the American presence in Iraq will be quickly proven right as Iraq descends into ethnic cleansing, creates millions of refugees who destabilize nearby countries, emboldens Iran to directly enter Iraqi life, spawns a potential genocide, and produces the largest base for Islamic terror in the world. These are not the predictions of pro-war advocates. Every one of these consequences of an American withdrawal was acknowledged as likely in a recent New York Times editorial arguing for American withdrawal from Iraq.

What will Americans who called for American withdrawal -- especially among those who supported the war until now -- tell future historians? That 3,600 American lives in four and a half years was too high a price to pay to fight the cruelest individuals and ideology on earth at that time? (By contrast, in World War II, America lost more than 300,000 lives in three and a half years, fighting the cruelest ideology of that era.) That they thought that an Islamist victory in Iraq would make America more secure? And what will Republican senators and representatives tell their descendants? That they read the polls and saw that most Americans supported withdrawal, so they changed their minds and abandoned the cause of freedom in Iraq and fled an unpopular Republican war president?

History may not harshly judge those who opposed entering Iraq at the outset. But that is not what matters now. All that matters now -- and what history will judge -- is an American's position on whether to stay and fight in Iraq or whether to leave Iraq.

Just about every generation has some horrific evil that it must fight. For the Democratic Party today that evil is carbon dioxide emissions. For the rest of us, it is an ideology that teaches that its deity is sanctified by the blood of innocents, just as the Aztec deities were.

History will see that clearly. And judge accordingly.

Dennis Praeger

[Murffieus]

The Republicans aren't "joining the Dems" on troop withdrawals----the few who are expressing the need for another plan are up for reelection and therefore padding their rear ends.

But I agree with the historical comment-----the Iraq war has become very pivitable in that a US withdrawel would be seen as a major victory for Al Quida----their numbers and bank account would soar. Major civil war would insue with the Saudis helping the Sunnis and Iran helping the Shia-----and who know where that would lead.

The Dems have forgotten what their fathers told them-----and that is "ALWAYS THINK of the CONSEQUENCES"!

[tower912]

Just like GWB's forgot what his dad taught him, DoN'T GO TO BAGHDAD!  WE'LL JUST GET BOGGED DOWN IN A QUAGMIRE!   Seriously, Iraq IS the defining issue of our times.  How long are we willing to stay, how much are willing to spend, how many are we willing to sacrifice are the questions we all must answer.

[Chili]

Moral courage??? What a bleeping joke. Way to hijack a word to make an point by drawing emotional ties to morality. Bleh.

[Pakuni]

History Will Judge Harshly Those For Withdrawal From Iraq

 Every one of these consequences of an American withdrawal was acknowledged as likely in a recent New York Times editorial arguing for American withdrawal from Iraq.

Dennis Praeger

I love it when the right wing bashes certain media outlets as untrustworthy at nearly every turn, and then cite it as an authority when it happens to support their position (see above, Chico's quoting the Washington Post above, etc.)
Apparently the Times and Post are no better than liberally tainted fish wrap ... except when it agrees with you. 

[Murffieus]

Pakuni----I fully admit that talk radio is conservative----why can't you admit the obvious----and that is 90% of the national media (network & print) is of liberal/left wing persuasion?

[Pakuni]

Pakuni----I fully admit that talk radio is conservative----why can't you admit the obvious----and that is 90% of the national media (network & print) is of liberal/left wing persuasion?

1. Because  90 percent of the national media is not liberal. Are there large elements of the media that are liberal? Absolutely. Likewise, there are large elements of the media that are conservative, including the majority of the corporate interests that own the media.

For example, did you know that Richard Parsons, the CEO of Time Warner (which owns Time magazine and CNN) has donated $161,000 to national and state Republican PACs since 2000 (i.e. RNC, Republican Senate Committee, etc.) as well as $6,000 to George W. Bush?

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Richard_Parsons.php

Or how about the fact that Sam Zell, the man purchasing the Tribune Company, has donated almost $25,000 since 2005 to GOP candidates, including George Bush and Tom DeLay.

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Sam_Zell.php

Or that Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE (which owns NBC) has given $4,000 to George Bush and $10,000 to the Republican Senate Committee since 2003.

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Jeffrey_Immelt.php

And obviously it would take too long to add up all the contributions Rupert Murdoch has made to GOP candidates, suffice say he's given almost $50K to national Republican committees since 2003.

Odd that Chico's/Free Republic hasn't clued us in to those donations. Instead, they want to make a big deal about television critic for the Chicago Tribune giving $1,500 to John Kerry or some news anchor in Tulsa giving money to a local Democrat.

2. Why do you believe that a newspaper like the LA Times - which circulates almost exclusively in one region - counts as "national media," yet talk radio, which is syndicated nationally, does not count as "national media"?

[Murffieus]

Pakuni----i'm not talking about the owners----I mean GE owns NBC----and Disney I believe owns ABC (generally they don't interfere with editorial discussion or delivery of the news)----what I'm talking about are the editorial boards and the people that assemble and deliver the news on network television----these are the bias left.

Media moguls contribute to both parties so they can influence legislation no matter who wins.

I saw a poll yesterday (I believe on the Kudlow show) of the percent of people that thought voice/picture news sources were "balanced'-----National Public Radio & TV and Fox News Channel ran neck and neck as the most balanced-----NBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS were ranked well below by varying degrees.

LA Times, Washington Post, and the NYTimes are the most influential papers in the USA-----they may be published locally, but they are widely diseminated well beyond their "local" and their writers are very prominent on the weekend talk shows. You can also fit the Associated Press where just about every newspaper and internet news site gets its stories as very liberal!

I've been monitoring this for years----was even worse (more to the left) during the Vietnam years----but since GWB has been in office it's approaching what it was in the Vietnam level!

[Pakuni]

Pakuni----i'm not talking about the owners----I mean GE owns NBC----and Disney I believe owns ABC (generally they don't interfere with editorial discussion or delivery of the news)----what I'm talking about are the editorial boards and the people that assemble and deliver the news on network television----these are the bias left.

Who hires the people who serve on editorial boards and deliver the news?
They don't just materialize in the newsroom.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just like GWB's forgot what his dad taught him, DoN'T GO TO BAGHDAD!  WE'LL JUST GET BOGGED DOWN IN A QUAGMIRE!   Seriously, Iraq IS the defining issue of our times.  How long are we willing to stay, how much are willing to spend, how many are we willing to sacrifice are the questions we all must answer.

I'll ask the question for the 50th time since, again, no one will answer it.


What do you think happens if we leave?   Terrorism stops?  Terrorism slows?  The Iraqi people are safer?  The Middle East more stable?  Iran does nothing?  Al Queda rides off into the sunset?

The question that keeps being overlooked is WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE.

And for Harry Reid to say the majority of the American people want the troops out per the polls is only partially correct, the same polls also say no decisions should be made until after September when the Surge Report is due in (Rasmussen polls yesterday).

What happens if we leave....THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT NO ONE HERE OR ANYWHERE IS ANSWERING!! WHY?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni----I fully admit that talk radio is conservative----why can't you admit the obvious----and that is 90% of the national media (network & print) is of liberal/left wing persuasion?

1. Because  90 percent of the national media is not liberal. Are there large elements of the media that are liberal? Absolutely. Likewise, there are large elements of the media that are conservative, including the majority of the corporate interests that own the media.

For example, did you know that Richard Parsons, the CEO of Time Warner (which owns Time magazine and CNN) has donated $161,000 to national and state Republican PACs since 2000 (i.e. RNC, Republican Senate Committee, etc.) as well as $6,000 to George W. Bush?

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Richard_Parsons.php

Or how about the fact that Sam Zell, the man purchasing the Tribune Company, has donated almost $25,000 since 2005 to GOP candidates, including George Bush and Tom DeLay.

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Sam_Zell.php

Or that Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE (which owns NBC) has given $4,000 to George Bush and $10,000 to the Republican Senate Committee since 2003.

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Jeffrey_Immelt.php

And obviously it would take too long to add up all the contributions Rupert Murdoch has made to GOP candidates, suffice say he's given almost $50K to national Republican committees since 2003.

Odd that Chico's/Free Republic hasn't clued us in to those donations. Instead, they want to make a big deal about television critic for the Chicago Tribune giving $1,500 to John Kerry or some news anchor in Tulsa giving money to a local Democrat.

2. Why do you believe that a newspaper like the LA Times - which circulates almost exclusively in one region - counts as "national media," yet talk radio, which is syndicated nationally, does not count as "national media"?

Did you know that Peter Chernin, President and CEO of NewsCorp is a Democrat and given thousands to Democrats.  Sumner Redstone the same.  Les Moonves of CBS the same.   This notion that these media organizations are controlled by Republicans is quite funny.  Michael Eisner...the same.  Ted Turner when he was in control.

Last time I checked, they don't control the news either...the editorial side does or are you saying those principled super human beings aren't able to do that Pakuni?

The people that EFFECT the news are mostly liberal.  And many of the CEOs and Presidents of these media companies are Democrats much to the contrary of the old wives tale that some group of Republicans own the media.  Laughable...just look at who the officers are.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here's what the people think

Latest Rasmussen Poll


By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

When it comes to delivering news without bias, 37% believe NPR accomplishes that goal. Thirty-six percent (36%) say the same for Fox and 32% believe it’s true of CNN. As noted earlier, just 25% believe the major broadcast networks deliver news in an unbiased manner. Results for other media outlets will be released over the next week.

Media fairness has emerged as a debate on Capitol Hill following the recent debate on immigration when public opinion overwhelmed the will of the Senate. Some lawmakers have called for a re-introduction of the “Fairness Doctrine” requiring stations to air competing points of view. Rasmussen Reports will release data on public attitudes towards that concept over the weekend.

Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN. Forty-five percent (45%) of conservatives see Fox as unbiased and the rest are evenly divided. Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias while 21% say the opposite.

Younger adults are less likely than their elders to see a liberal bias across all of the media outlets.

On a partisan basis, Democrats see the major television networks and Fox as biased in favor of conservatives. Solid pluralities of Democrats believe CNN and NPR deliver news without bias. Those Democrats who see bias at CNN and NPR are fairly evenly divided, but are a bit more likely to detect conservative bias.

Republicans see a strong liberal bias on all the outlets except Fox. Forty-nine percent (49%) of the GOP faithful see Fox as fair and balanced.

Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.

During Election 2004, 38% of voters thought CBS News anchorman Dan Rather was actively trying to help John Kerry win the election. Other data showed that voters tended to select news sources based upon their political preferences.

Rasmussen Reports is pleased that our online audience includes roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

[Pakuni]

Here's what the people think

Who cares what the people think.
Most of them are idiots. So sayeth Chico's. Repeatedly.
And if most of them are idiots, then their views on media bias therefore likely are idiotic.

[Pakuni]

Last time I checked, they don't control the news either...the editorial side does or are you saying those principled super human beings aren't able to do that Pakuni?

The people that EFFECT the news are mostly liberal.  And many of the CEOs and Presidents of these media companies are Democrats much to the contrary of the old wives tale that some group of Republicans own the media.  Laughable...just look at who the officers are.

Pray tell, Chico's, who is that hires the people that run the editorial staffs?
Do they hire themselves? Do they give themselves raises and promotions?

Or maybe, just maybe, the CEO of Time Warner has some say over who runs CNN and Time?
Could it be possible that Sam Zell might have a little input over who serves as the Tribune newspapers' publishers?
Funny, not so long ago you were claiming that WSJ workers walked off the job because they feared Murdoch's political influence over the news. Now you're telling us that these media moguls have no political influence over the news.
Which is it?

What's laughable here is your inability to present a consistent argument.
On the one hand your willing to claim CNN's polls are liberally biased because the owner of the company that owns the company that conducts the polls is a Clinton supporter.
Yet when it's a conservative in a position of authority at a media outlet? Well, they have nothing to do with anything. Apparently they sit in their corner office all day long smoking cigars while their employees intentionally skew the news in a manner against their own political interests.
Makes sense.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni-----GE doesn't hire the people on the NBC editorial or news distribution board----neither does Disney hire them for ABC----NBC and ABC are separate companies.

That's one of the big issues in the Murdoch (News Corp) proposal to buy Dow Jones----the controlling Bancroft family made Murdoch sign off (with penalties) if he were to tamper with the integrity of the Wall Street Journal and Barron editorial and news presentation staffs.

BTW----Dow Jones is one of the few conservative major print media concerns in America.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Look, I applaud you for being the one man on the island in this country that thinks the media isn't liberal...it's lonely but I do applaud you for it.  I don't know how many polls, studies, surveys of writers, producers, etc, how many quotes from people in the business, how many books by former/current news people it takes...but you will hang on to it until the bitter end.

The rest of us got it a long time ago.  They aren't superhuman, it's impossible to keep their beliefs 100% away from what they report, how they report, when they report.

And tell me where I said CNN's polls are liberally biased or that people are stupid and shouldn't be heard...talk about going hard to the hole with the strawman.  What I said was the conflict of interest of having a pollster (his firm) in which the CEO is giving MILLIONS to a candidate doesn't look to good...does it?  Especially in light of an already liberal leaning CNN.  Put hey, if you want to put words in my mouth, by all means go ahead. 

I've also said on countless times that both sides pull this crap, but when most media outlets are liberal then obviously there are more targets.

[Pakuni]

Look, I applaud you for being the one man on the island in this country that thinks the media isn't liberal...it's lonely but I do applaud you for it.  I don't know how many polls, studies, surveys of writers, producers, etc, how many quotes from people in the business, how many books by former/current news people it takes...but you will hang on to it until the bitter end.

The rest of us got it a long time ago.  They aren't superhuman, it's impossible to keep their beliefs 100% away from what they report, how they report, when they report.

And tell me where I said CNN's polls are liberally biased or that people are stupid and shouldn't be heard...talk about going hard to the hole with the strawman.  What I said was the conflict of interest of having a pollster (his firm) in which the CEO is giving MILLIONS to a candidate doesn't look to good...does it?  Especially in light of an already liberal leaning CNN.  Put hey, if you want to put words in my mouth, by all means go ahead. 

I've also said on countless times that both sides pull this crap, but when most media outlets are liberal then obviously there are more targets.

Sigh ... this is where you continue to misstate and misinterpret what I've said time and time again. Whether you're doing it intentionally or cannot grasp a rather simple point, I do not know.

I'll say it again: contrary to your repeated assertions, the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN are not "the media." They are elements of the media. Just like Rush Limbaugh. Just like the Wall Street Journal. Just like the National Review. Just like Fox News. Just like Free Republic. Just like thousands of other outlets.
There are elements of the media that are liberal.
There are elements of the media that are conservative.
There are elements of the media that play it down the middle.
The media is a vast entity full of every viewpoint imaginable and, just as important, nearly every one of those viewpoints is easily accessible to anyone with the ability to type the word "Google."

And your superhuman routine is getting old. What you call superhuman, most people call professionalism. Most people aren't as obsessed with politics as you. Most people can separate their personal opinions from their professional obligations. Perhaps you cannot. Perhaps behind the scenes you conspire to place more conservative programming on DirecTV. Maybe you're not superhuman enough to do your job professionally. I don't know. But I do know most people can do their jobs as professionals.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni----pick up just about any big city paper in the USA and you'll see articles and editorials with LA Times, WP, NYT, Associated Press bylines (these papers & AP are far more influential in America than their initial circulation would indicate)-----these are all very liberal publications----meanwhile conservative bylined news commentary/articles are none existant and conservative editorials few and far between in big city papers.