Freedoms Watch Helps Push the Pendulum
I have stated many times my frustration at the Bush Administration for refusing to fight back in the public discourse and supports its actions and decisions. My theory is that Bush's lack of articulation and the media's distortion machine were the driving forces in avoiding defense of itself.
It seems that some became tired of the public discourse being so one-sided. They have formed a group called Freedoms Watch. They describe their purpose:
Iraq war veteran John Kriesel lost both legs in a blast near Fallujah on December 2nd, 2006.
"I know what I lost. But I also know that if we pull out now everything I have given in sacrifice will mean nothing"
Laura Youngblood lost 2 family members to al Qaeda terrorists, first her uncle Henry a New York City fireman who lost his life on 9/11, and than her husband Travis died fighting for our freedom in Iraq.
"My husband fought so my children did not have to ten years from now"
Iraq war veteran Andrew Robinson was on his second tour of duty when he was wounded by an IED in June of 2006. Andrew lost the use of his legs.
"I would go back to Iraq if I could. It's that important because if Iraq is not stable it will become a breeding ground for terrorists....to hear Congress talk about surrendering really makes me angry"
Vicki Strong lost her son Marine Sgt. Jesse Strong, in Iraq fighting for our freedom.
"For Congress to switch votes for political reasons while we're making progress in Iraq to me is unthinkable. If we surrender now its giving a message to terrorists that they can do what they want and get away with it."
I think these people express some very critical points. There has been a great investment by the United States and by individuals to form a stabilized free Iraq to reduce the chances we will see terrorist attacks at home. To walk away now is to make the investment and these sacrifices in vain and result in a worst outcome than if we had never gone.
At the same time as the Freedoms Watch informational campaign, the Bush Administration seems confident enough in the impending report on the surge results to begin its own campaign of defending its policies. It came out swinging the other day pointing to the liberal's ridiculous comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. Bush used the comparison against the liberals to show that if we left Iraq prematurely, the certain massacre of innocents that would occur would create a sure repeat of history scenario. From the outrage of the liberals after that speech I assume they don't like the idea of the blood of masses from Vietnam, Cambodia and a future Iraq being placed on their hands. While Walter Cronkite and his ilk may have escaped the public blame for the massacre they created, but they also had a lock on the public discourse at the time. With the internet and talk radio, that is no longer the case. A premature withdrawal from Iraq will result in a massacre of thousands and there is enough freedom of information to make sure the people know who is to blame. The Dems know this. Which is why they don't want to be the ones to actually pull the plug on Iraq. They keep trying to force Bush and the GOP to pull the plug.
I have not read or heard this anywhere else, but Boortz claims the administration is now publishing insurgency casualty numbers. According to this claim, we are killing on average 1500 of these bloodthirsty savages per month in 2007. Simple math will bring the 2007 total to 12,000 Islamic radicals we don't have to worry about any more. These are numbers the average American can digest and understand. The lack of confidence for Iraq is not rooted in the lack of ability in our troops. It is rooted in the lack of information and the lack of sufficient communication due to a lopsided representation in the media.
The pendulum of public discourse is starting to swing back towards a supportive position on staying in Iraq. The efforts of Petraeus and the troops have purchased this opportunity. The Bush Administration finally seems willing to capitalize on it. The efforts of Freedoms Watch will certainly play a major factor in the pendulum's move. If this continues, the Dems who have branded themselves with a position of surrender and defeat will be severely caught with their pants down. It is already humorous fodder to watch them attempt to spin their way out of their self imposed brand. Without the constant umbrella of protection by the media, the Dems would already be exposed as the clowns that they are. The real question is how willing the media will be to go down the drain with them. If they really believe the garbage they support, they will go down with the ship. If they want to survive, at some point they will leave the Dems to crash and burn and look for the first opportunity to rewrite history at a later date.
It seems that some became tired of the public discourse being so one-sided. They have formed a group called Freedoms Watch. They describe their purpose:
- Our mission is to ensure a strong national defense and a powerful fight against terror, especially in Iraq. On the domestic front, our mission is to give hope, lift people up, and achieve prosperity through free enterprise.
- Those who want to quit while victory is possible have dominated the public debate about terror and Iraq since the 2004 election.
- Our group will give a voice to those who believe that victory is America's only choice. For those who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming.
- Our goal, as we await General Petraeus' report, is to make sure our elected leaders do not abandon our nation's mission in Iraq and that they do not cave in to the demands of those who want to cut and run.
Iraq war veteran John Kriesel lost both legs in a blast near Fallujah on December 2nd, 2006.
"I know what I lost. But I also know that if we pull out now everything I have given in sacrifice will mean nothing"
Laura Youngblood lost 2 family members to al Qaeda terrorists, first her uncle Henry a New York City fireman who lost his life on 9/11, and than her husband Travis died fighting for our freedom in Iraq.
"My husband fought so my children did not have to ten years from now"
Iraq war veteran Andrew Robinson was on his second tour of duty when he was wounded by an IED in June of 2006. Andrew lost the use of his legs.
"I would go back to Iraq if I could. It's that important because if Iraq is not stable it will become a breeding ground for terrorists....to hear Congress talk about surrendering really makes me angry"
Vicki Strong lost her son Marine Sgt. Jesse Strong, in Iraq fighting for our freedom.
"For Congress to switch votes for political reasons while we're making progress in Iraq to me is unthinkable. If we surrender now its giving a message to terrorists that they can do what they want and get away with it."
I think these people express some very critical points. There has been a great investment by the United States and by individuals to form a stabilized free Iraq to reduce the chances we will see terrorist attacks at home. To walk away now is to make the investment and these sacrifices in vain and result in a worst outcome than if we had never gone.
At the same time as the Freedoms Watch informational campaign, the Bush Administration seems confident enough in the impending report on the surge results to begin its own campaign of defending its policies. It came out swinging the other day pointing to the liberal's ridiculous comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. Bush used the comparison against the liberals to show that if we left Iraq prematurely, the certain massacre of innocents that would occur would create a sure repeat of history scenario. From the outrage of the liberals after that speech I assume they don't like the idea of the blood of masses from Vietnam, Cambodia and a future Iraq being placed on their hands. While Walter Cronkite and his ilk may have escaped the public blame for the massacre they created, but they also had a lock on the public discourse at the time. With the internet and talk radio, that is no longer the case. A premature withdrawal from Iraq will result in a massacre of thousands and there is enough freedom of information to make sure the people know who is to blame. The Dems know this. Which is why they don't want to be the ones to actually pull the plug on Iraq. They keep trying to force Bush and the GOP to pull the plug.
I have not read or heard this anywhere else, but Boortz claims the administration is now publishing insurgency casualty numbers. According to this claim, we are killing on average 1500 of these bloodthirsty savages per month in 2007. Simple math will bring the 2007 total to 12,000 Islamic radicals we don't have to worry about any more. These are numbers the average American can digest and understand. The lack of confidence for Iraq is not rooted in the lack of ability in our troops. It is rooted in the lack of information and the lack of sufficient communication due to a lopsided representation in the media.
The pendulum of public discourse is starting to swing back towards a supportive position on staying in Iraq. The efforts of Petraeus and the troops have purchased this opportunity. The Bush Administration finally seems willing to capitalize on it. The efforts of Freedoms Watch will certainly play a major factor in the pendulum's move. If this continues, the Dems who have branded themselves with a position of surrender and defeat will be severely caught with their pants down. It is already humorous fodder to watch them attempt to spin their way out of their self imposed brand. Without the constant umbrella of protection by the media, the Dems would already be exposed as the clowns that they are. The real question is how willing the media will be to go down the drain with them. If they really believe the garbage they support, they will go down with the ship. If they want to survive, at some point they will leave the Dems to crash and burn and look for the first opportunity to rewrite history at a later date.
Labels: Freedoms Watch, Iraq, surge
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 11:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home