WSJ Iraq Editorial Offers Readers The Most Clueless Graf Ever

This astounding paragraph from an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal was read into the record of this afternoon's House committee hearings with General David Petraeus:

As General David Petraeus briefs Congress this week on Iraq, it's clear his surge has achieved remarkable results. The most crucial is that the U.S. can no longer be defeated militarily in Iraq, which could not be said a year ago. The question now is whether Washington will squander these gains by withdrawing so quickly that we could still lose politically.

Until I read this, I would have said that "the question now" is whether or not the Congress will continue to rubber stamp the administration's attempt to break our military and drain our coffers on a strategy that offers no endgame and whose primary achievement has been to fully appease a resettled, reconstituted, and unmolested al Qaeda. But now that I've read this article, and have come face to face with an editorial board that actually believes that there was ever a point in the past at which the U.S. military could be defeated by Iraq - a country that clearly lacked the military capacity needed to bring water to a boil - I have a new "question now": Has the Wall Street Journal's editorial board always been this daft, or is this an exciting, new sort of stupidity that Rupert Murdoch has instituted?

Comments

[billwood]

The most crucial is that the U.S. can no longer be defeated militarily in Iraq, which could not be said a year ago. The question now is whether Washington will squander these gains by withdrawing so quickly that we could still lose politically.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the import of this statement, but it sure sounds to me like the WSJ is saying that the American forces have won and we can begin withdrawing (preumably once Bush is out of office). While the WSJ would appear to be adopting the Democrats' strategy which favors a flexible but orderly withdrawal, they do parse it very differently. When the Democrats want an orderly troop withdrawal, it's called cut and run. When the Republicans want an orderly troop withdrawal, its a celebration and confirmation of American victory.

[outnow]

Iraq defeat the U.S.? How does the one win an occupation? The answer is to stay forever. What the WSJ is saying is that the U.S. now will stay for ever with enduring military bases, thanks to the surge. Iraq is where the oil is at. The the U.S. could dictate its terms to Iran and Syria. The Wall Street crowd want oil and are willing to pay for it in blood, just not their own.

[bigdaddyvike]

Well, certainly the Faux Street Journal is living up to it's new Commandant. What a crock of shit.

[davesideas]

Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal; and in one fell swoop he has turned a more or less respected daily newspaper into the print version of Fox News.

[Dyogenes]

"... the U.S. can no longer be defeated militarily in Iraq, which could not be said a year ago. The question now is whether Washington will squander these gains by withdrawing so quickly ..."

What a FRAME! And, Yes, The WSJ Editorial Board has tilted right for a Long time, pimping the military-industrial complex long before Rupert took over. Check out their rhetoric pre-Shock and Awe. I canceled my 20 plus years subscription because the Editorials were so hell-bent on ousting Saddam, re-inventing the Middle East as a Judeo-Christian Gas Station, and broad-brushing All Arabs and ALL Muslims with the blood of 19 hijackers. Not surprising that they are again leading the chorus to enlarge the Iraq fiasco and 'whip butt" in Iran. Can Syria and Gaza be far behind? Cluster Bombs for everyone--Go America!

[julescator]

Instead of WRITING such garbage, pehaps the WSJ should READ this! We will NEVER win in Iraq oh and BTW Al Queda is NOT there anymore. They are planning the next attack on America from PAKISTAN. When will we kick these idiots out of POWER and bring the troops home. No amount of flag waving and professing I LOVE AMERICA will change the fact that we screwed this up BIG TIME!

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/RosenTestimony080402p.pdf

[outnow]

Nir Rosen speaks the language and has been there in Iraq without an "American babysitter." This is not what the WSJ wants its readers to read about the glorious mission in Iraq. The gates of hell opened up and swallowed the presidency of George W. Bush. A lesson in hubris and nemistic justice. Too bad we and the Iraqis have to pay the price. Mr. Rosen spoke to many people on the street, in government buildings, and in back alleys.

[Irons]

The WSJ is run by trust-fund kids who inherited an empire and now own stock in war profiteering corps world-wide.

[davesideas]

it's run by Rupert Murdoch

[imusintheevening]

You nailed it, certainly the WSJ is not run by the ones with sons and daughters getting blown up!

[ChiGuy]

Rupert strikes again!

Fortunately, the people that read the WSJ are considerably better educated and more intelligent than Murdoch and the paper's editorial staff give them credit for.

[MizJ]

Another example of how controlled the media has become. You have to go overseas or to the blogs to get a measure of what is really happening. This just proves that the MSM is in the hands of their corporate handlers that they are able to spin this travesty into something positive. It is not.

[V4Vigilance]

WSJ = We Suck at Journalism

OBAMA 08

[JimR]

Haven't read the editorial, but does it mention that as part of the surge, we basically put 80,000 Sunnis on the U.S. payroll?

[Grannysue]

Media hacks, why do you think good old Rupert bought the paper?

[CarlyCorday]

How do you think they'll keep us in Iraq even long after 2010? How are they going to DO it...that is the only question. Not IF. Just how.

There is way too much wealth to be forfeited by LEAVING. You don't abandon a gold mine. The confidence exibited by all the neo-cons smirking straight into the cameras about how we are not leaving Iraq, with the never-ending backup of Michael Ware, is just too, too nightmarish to ignore.

How will they do it?

[schatsie]

I have to agree with you, war is just such a temptation for the military industrial complex... It is now time to make it subject to GAO, there is just way too much money going down the rat hole.. Who in their right mind would give a blank check to those crooks by making out of the US activities not subject to fraud laws.... after all we all have to document all deductions for our taxes so why are we not applying these standards to the DOD....
Also we have been sold the same bill of goods for the last 6 years, so why would we believe the same words just because the faces have changed... get out now!!!!

[JacobSinger]

"...I have a new "question now": Has the Wall Street Journal's editorial board always been this daft, or is this an exciting, new sort of stupidity that Rupert Murdoch has instituted?"

Oh, I think they've surely always been a bit daft, but now that Murdoch is the man behind the curtain, WJS editorials are certain to get progressively farther away from reality, by means of promoting NeoConservative propaganda.

[larry278]

No the WSJ's editorial board has always been a voice for America's forces of reaction. Not even Mr Murdoch could make the WSJ's editorial board a more reactionary group of boosters for the views of the most radically reactionary factions of old time conservative forces. If push comes to shove the WSJ's editorial board will stick to the old time reactionary view & damn the neo-cons as crypto-liberals. Mr Murdoch may share the views of the WSJ's editorial board. The WSJ's articles on finance, business & general interest topics are now veering[sp?] to the right since the WSJ became a News Corp sheet. I'm waiting to see when his Rupertship add photos of topless young women to the WSJ as his UK tabloid, the SUN, does on its 'Page 3".

[Thinkerton]

WOW. It's amazing to me that a mainstream news organization could be so intellectually dishonest. The whole piece is pretty stunning, actually.