Far be it from me to accuse the mainstream media of rooting for failure in the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections, but their reporting sometimes makes you wonder.
On Monday, MSNBC's "First Read" sought to draw a contrast between President Bush's so-called "liberty speech" (his ipcoming inagural address) and the "more and more details coming out about how safe the balloting in Iraq is expected to be."
Let me get this straight: The fact that we have enemy forces trying to sabotage the transition to democarcy and liberty means that the president's goal to secure that liberty is somehow misguided??
Are we to assume that liberty for other peoples is so unimportant to the Old Media that unless it can happen automatically, it ought not to happen at all? Are we so ignorant of history that they believe democracy can be won effortlessly and without resisitance from those with a vested interest in thwarting it?
It's as if these committed cynics are enjoying some euphoric "I told you so moment," reveling in the ongoing news that the transition to democracy is painful and costly. This hardly qualifies as news.
Ever since Saddam's hildover miscreants joined forces with international terrorists to prevent Iraqi's transition to a democracy, we've known that the election process would be extremely dangerous.
But you'd never know it from reading First read, which considers it "surreal" that the Bush administration is going to tout the Iraqi elections as legitimate even though "the names of many candidates and the locations of many polling places" won't be announced in advance for security reasons.
What is our alternative, gentlemen? Would you prefer that our commander in chief cower at the the increased terrorist violence leading up to the elections? Should he lose his resolve and abandon all that our troops and Iraqi troops have fought and died for?
The Los Angeles Times chimes in that the "U.S. and Iraqi officials have begun to focus on the daunting problems they will face the morning after election day--ones every bit as formidable as those they have faced since the invasion," as if that's some newsworthy revelation.
The naysayers have always mouthed the mindless complaint that President Bush had no plan to "win the peace." Well, what's their plan: to withdraw at the first sign of any difficulty? In oeder to win the peace, you have to be willing to stay with the democratization process until some stability has been achieved. To win peace, you must defeat the enemies of peace.
www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050118.shtml
I submit the media and elites would love to see democracy not happen in Iraq simply because George Bush is the one that took on this fight......If it were Clinton in this position they would be cheering every move!!
On Monday, MSNBC's "First Read" sought to draw a contrast between President Bush's so-called "liberty speech" (his ipcoming inagural address) and the "more and more details coming out about how safe the balloting in Iraq is expected to be."
Let me get this straight: The fact that we have enemy forces trying to sabotage the transition to democarcy and liberty means that the president's goal to secure that liberty is somehow misguided??
Are we to assume that liberty for other peoples is so unimportant to the Old Media that unless it can happen automatically, it ought not to happen at all? Are we so ignorant of history that they believe democracy can be won effortlessly and without resisitance from those with a vested interest in thwarting it?
It's as if these committed cynics are enjoying some euphoric "I told you so moment," reveling in the ongoing news that the transition to democracy is painful and costly. This hardly qualifies as news.
Ever since Saddam's hildover miscreants joined forces with international terrorists to prevent Iraqi's transition to a democracy, we've known that the election process would be extremely dangerous.
But you'd never know it from reading First read, which considers it "surreal" that the Bush administration is going to tout the Iraqi elections as legitimate even though "the names of many candidates and the locations of many polling places" won't be announced in advance for security reasons.
What is our alternative, gentlemen? Would you prefer that our commander in chief cower at the the increased terrorist violence leading up to the elections? Should he lose his resolve and abandon all that our troops and Iraqi troops have fought and died for?
The Los Angeles Times chimes in that the "U.S. and Iraqi officials have begun to focus on the daunting problems they will face the morning after election day--ones every bit as formidable as those they have faced since the invasion," as if that's some newsworthy revelation.
The naysayers have always mouthed the mindless complaint that President Bush had no plan to "win the peace." Well, what's their plan: to withdraw at the first sign of any difficulty? In oeder to win the peace, you have to be willing to stay with the democratization process until some stability has been achieved. To win peace, you must defeat the enemies of peace.
www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050118.shtml
I submit the media and elites would love to see democracy not happen in Iraq simply because George Bush is the one that took on this fight......If it were Clinton in this position they would be cheering every move!!
