As the facts on the ground in Iraq change, the words of MSM’s pundits follow suit:
For more on what’s happening on the ground, see this article in The Times of London.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
|
|
1 Jim Et Al
November 21, 2007 @ 6:34 pm CETSee this one as well…
2 Chris
November 21, 2007 @ 6:36 pm CETHahahaha! Thomas Friedman has always supported the war, and Ignatius has also been a war cheerleader.
3 Tom
November 21, 2007 @ 6:59 pm CETDoes anyone else hear what I hear when I listen to debates about progress, or the lack thereof, in Iraq?
Right: Things in Iraq are getting better, and it’s because of our actions. See? We were right! Invading Iraq was a great idea!
Left: Things really aren’t getting better in Iraq, and if they are it’s not because of US. We were wrong in invading Iraq, and because of that nothing good can come out of it!
Like we’re having the debates from spring 2003 over and over again…
4 Michael van der Galiën
November 21, 2007 @ 7:06 pm CETTom: I expected better from you. What are we actually saying? The surge is working. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Having said that, if the surge works, well, I’d gladly debate you on the virtue of attacking Iraq.
Chris: next time, treat the poster with respect. And with next time I truly do mean next time. you’re banned automatically when you don’t.
5 Tom
November 21, 2007 @ 7:10 pm CETYou should know better than to have high expectations of me!
Anyway, the point I was trying to make, by exaggerating the views of Right and Left, was that discussions about the conditions in Iraq always seem to be a just another repetition of the debates about the decision to invade Iraq.
6 Tom
November 21, 2007 @ 7:13 pm CETYou should know by now not to have high expectations of me!
Anyway, the point I was trying to make, by exaggerating the views of Right and Left, was that arguments about progress in Iraq always seem to be arguments about the wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place, even if the people arguing won’t admit it.
7 Michael van der Galiën
November 21, 2007 @ 7:16 pm CETThat’s because it not. At least not for me, nor Jason, nor the two Marcs, etc. In other words, you’re arguing against something no one said.
8 Chris
November 21, 2007 @ 7:17 pm CETMichael,
Given that this post had little or no substance, I was left to assume that Marc thought that both of these writers have had a change of heart. I was demonstrating that this change of heart was illusory.
If I’m wrong about that assumption then I apologize for making it.
In any case I think you’re being a bit thin-skinned.
9 Michael van der Galiën
November 21, 2007 @ 7:20 pm CETNo I’m not. You’ve been disruptive enough. Play by our rules, or don’t play at all. when you do, you’re welcome, when you’re not, well, hospitality ends somewhere.
10 Tom
November 21, 2007 @ 7:43 pm CETI know no one has actually said it, and it is certainly possible that no one here even meant to imply it. It’s also possible I’m hearing something that’s not really there.
But I can’t help but feel, whenever there is some debate about Iraq, a distinct sense of deja vu…
11 Michael van der Galiën
November 21, 2007 @ 8:07 pm CETIn other words: not a very useful remark.
12 Tom
November 21, 2007 @ 9:37 pm CETNo, just an admission that I’m far from perfect and thus can’t guarantee the accuracy of my observations.
13 rudi666
November 21, 2007 @ 9:38 pm CET“Suck on this” Friedman supported and cheerleaded the war from the start. Here’s an example with him talking with Charlie Rose. “Suck on this” is more delusional than “bring it on”.
Watch and enjoy:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/23567/2/Friedman-Rose-Iraq.wmv/
When Bacevich join the “We win” chorus please email me at@IDontGAF_dot_com.