I've often been amused by Minnesota's Worst Writer™, but this is the first time I've really been disgusted. How dare she belittle the pain of parents who've lost a child in W's war. I expect her to spew her crap to advance whatever social or political agenda she's pimping this week, but today's effort to prop up W's ill-conceived, incompetently managed, blood-soaked mess really pisses me off. Like so many of of the chckenhawks she's gung-ho with no skin in the game. Of course you don't have to have offspring (or yourself) at risk in Iraq to have something worthwhile to say on the topic. (KK would need a ghost writer for that.) But it does go to credibility. You see KK, we need to decide whether you really believe the shit you're shoveling or if you're just whoring for the wingers. And since we know you have kids (I can only assume AI or the TS Garp method) who are about the right age we can only assume that if the war really is the nobel and necessary effort you pretend it is you have encouraged your kids to don a uniform and go fight for god and country. Boy, now there would be a patriotic column! I'm sure you would muck it up in the telling but hearing all the hoops you have to jump thru, all the work you have to do, all the tears you shed, just to ensure that one of your own gets a coveted combat spot would truly be inspiring. Why do I think that's not a column I'll ever see? But enough of that, on to the actual text of today's offense against jouralism.
Well, in a way I guess that ISN'T fair, is it? After all, how can the president get is pro-war views heard when state senators from the midwest are hogging all the air time? And exactly what was it about her views that was over the top? I bet if there was something outrageous KK could have really made Lourey look bad simply by printing it verbatim. You know, like if she called for the assassination of a head of state or something. As it is, KK doesn't dare make note of those actual views for fear that it would reveal that a majority of Americans agree with them.
Lourey used the major media megaphone to broadcast her over-the-top antiwar views far and wide.
But we already know. W told us. It was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction and to avenge the attacks on the Twin Towers. On that basis, how's the war working out so far, KK?
The media rarely give us the context we need to understand the fighting that produces these casualties -- the purpose and outcome of the missions the lost soldiers were engaged in.
And what if after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we had invaded China?
Without this big picture, any war would appear a meaningless disaster. What if Americans had seen the casualty lists from Omaha Beach or Okinawa -- hills of sand -- without hearing about the objectives for which those bloody battles were fought?
Hearing this is rich, coming from a wing of the party that still thinks FDRs rural electrification program was creeping socialism. Does anybody in their wildest dreams think the American people would have taken this deal: 2000 dead, 14,000 wounded and 1/4 trillion dollars in exchange for some Iraqi infrastructure and some newspapers?
Here's a glimpse of that bigger picture: According to government and policy organization sources, Iraq today has a vibrant free press, with roughly 170 independent newspapers and magazines, up from zero under Saddam Hussein. Thousands of schools have been constructed or refurbished, and more than 200 water treatment projects are underway or have been completed...[T]he American military is building schools and clinics, extending power lines and laying water and sewage pipes.
WTF!? Periodic? As in occasional? Once in a while? Since the start of the war our force of approximately 140,000 has seen one of its members killed every 11 hours and one of them wounded every 40 minutes. Anyone who tries to soft pedal that with the term "periodic" is worse than dishonest, they're a fucking liar.
But even heartening news like this, which does get media attention, is often drowned out in the public mind by reports of periodic American casualties.
It's not the media, it's just that we don't like seeing thousands of american kids die unless it is really really worth it. It is becoming clear to everyone but those shilling for the administration that chose to start this war that the fight in Iraq isn't worth the cost. Not even close.
The result of a media obsession with body counts can be defeatism.
But what she doesn't mention is that both sides had known from the start that North Vietnam was far more willing to take casualties than we were. Those losses were worth it to them but not to us. We didn't get tricked by propaganda into quitting, we realized the cost of victory was too high and the benefit was too low. Ho Chi Minh had told us this years before: "You will kill ten of our men, and we will kill one of yours, and in the end it will be you who will tire of it." Does anyone doubt that quote applies to the conflict in Iraq?
[Here KK gives us the dumbed down lesson of the 1968 Tet Offensive to say we really won that battle because we killed more of them than they did of us.]
KK, that drip drip you hear is actually the sound of a young man's blood, emptying out on the road, mingling with the dust 10,000 miles from a family he'll never see again. Did you miss that KK? Just wait, you can hear it again in 11 hours.
That's the strategy behind the steady drip-drip of roadside explosions and marketplace suicide bombings.
The TS Garp method. OK, that one took me a few minutes and then I remembered. And it has put a picture in my mind that might require mental bleach to get out. Damn you.
By 1:41 PM, at
Yuck! I just wrote it without actually picturing it. Now you've put that picture in MY head. Thanks for nothing, Jerjo.<< Home