NY Times looking for defeat
Popping off a few rounds toward a hotel is enough to put the NY Times in full retreat. The paper claims insignificant attacks on a hotel in Baghdad as a defeat for the administration.
The paper is quick to surrender in the face of impotent attacks by forces that lack the means to make a potent attack. It is an example of what is wrong with modern liberalism. It is to quick to flinch in the face of cowardly bullies. It would consign Iraq and the administration to defeat because a few rounds are shot toward a hotel.
What kind of cowards are these people? If it is not easy, do they want to run and hide? The Mogudishu strategy will always defeat the liberals at the NY Times. Hopeful the rest of the country is more determined to do what is right despite the acts of impotence of the few.
Since the end of major combat operations, has any "Iraqi resistance" unit mounted any attack with a force larger than a reinforced platoon? No! In Vietnam the first combat operation involving an American unit saw a regiment going up against a communist division. In Vietnam, the US suffered more casualties in the average week than it has since major combat operations ceased several months ago.
It is this lack of perspective that makes liberals and the Times so pathetic. This is a war and the bad guys are going to occassional shoot back. Buck up NY Times. The other side is making impotent attacks because it lacks the capacity to make a potent attack. The only way they win with these impotent attacks is if you scare off the American public. Is that what you want to do? Do you want them to join you in a rout? At long last, have you no shame?
Popping off a few rounds toward a hotel is enough to put the NY Times in full retreat. The paper claims insignificant attacks on a hotel in Baghdad as a defeat for the administration.
The paper is quick to surrender in the face of impotent attacks by forces that lack the means to make a potent attack. It is an example of what is wrong with modern liberalism. It is to quick to flinch in the face of cowardly bullies. It would consign Iraq and the administration to defeat because a few rounds are shot toward a hotel.
What kind of cowards are these people? If it is not easy, do they want to run and hide? The Mogudishu strategy will always defeat the liberals at the NY Times. Hopeful the rest of the country is more determined to do what is right despite the acts of impotence of the few.
Since the end of major combat operations, has any "Iraqi resistance" unit mounted any attack with a force larger than a reinforced platoon? No! In Vietnam the first combat operation involving an American unit saw a regiment going up against a communist division. In Vietnam, the US suffered more casualties in the average week than it has since major combat operations ceased several months ago.
It is this lack of perspective that makes liberals and the Times so pathetic. This is a war and the bad guys are going to occassional shoot back. Buck up NY Times. The other side is making impotent attacks because it lacks the capacity to make a potent attack. The only way they win with these impotent attacks is if you scare off the American public. Is that what you want to do? Do you want them to join you in a rout? At long last, have you no shame?
Comments
Post a Comment