(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

The Counter-Offensive
09/19/2003

Well, here comes the conservative counter offensive in response to media, liberal, and Democrat efforts to discredit the President and the war in Iraq. Our platform isn't as broad, to be sure, but we have the advantage of being right.

Cheif Wiggles reports from Iraq:

I recall as a boy on a scout camping trip coming upon a herd of sheep. Thinking it would be fun, we started pushing them in one direction and then another, just by running around screaming from side to side. At one point, without knowing it, we spooked them directly into a wooded fence. One sheep after another attempted to run through the fence, hitting their head on the wooden slats, until the entire herd had banged their head into the fence.

At times reading the news I feel like one of those sheep, being forced or influenced to see the path ahead the way the media might desire me to. I for one refuse to take part in this media frenzy, based on nothing but negative perceptions, at times contrived facts, purposely selected to sway or influence my mind or view of our path. I do not need a steady diet of sensationalism, now gorged by the media's constant flow of such. Enough already.

He relates some anecdotes from his experience in the recovering nation that are well worth reading even apart from his condemnation of the media.

U.S. Congressman from Arizona J. D. Hayworth addresses the ever-changing rationales of Bush Haters who seek to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they want George W. Bush to fail, which coincidently won't happen unless America also fails":

... there was never a single reason cited by the president to act against Saddam, but several, including human rights, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, regime change, and democratization. Still, the New York Times continues to distort the truth, and in the process contradicts itself.

On September 15, the paper wrote that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were "the main rationale cited for war earlier this year." But earlier this year, just before the war started, the very same New York Times wrote that, "Many liberals have criticized the president's ever-changing rationales for war.…" What both have in common, of course, is that they are negative about the president.

Meanwhile, James Robbins compiles some evidence of the nigh incontrovertible "cooperative relationship — that is, a strategic alliance —" between Iraq and al Qaeda, cementing the war's relationship to the larger War on Terror:

As I have noted before, Saddam Hussein had means, motive, and opportunity to be involved with global terrorism, and al Qaeda in particular. Much remains to be revealed, and one hopes the administration is compiling a dossier to make the case in detail and beyond doubt. The president has stated that there is no question these ties existed, and it is frustrating that something unquestionable keeps being questioned so persistently.

I've wondered out loud before, and I'm sure I'll do it again: will anything ever be enough for people who are determined to see the war in Iraq as immoral and unjustified?

Posted by Justin Katz @ 02:42 PM EST