Why are liberals pervasively dishonest or misleading about the current unrest in Iraq?

Question

Witness the recent entry: In case you didn't know, it was a rout. Maliki's forces defected to the Mehdi army.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...
How did the poster go from "some soldiers defected" to "it was a rout"?
How can they say the current unrest is proof the surge isn't working when Basra has not been part of the surge area?
How can they say AlMaliki is losing his battle with AlSadr when AlSadr has told his militia not to fight the government?

Yes, I know evil neocons lie and distort things all the time, but I'd like to try to have answers stick to the points at hand. Maybe we can even avoid resorting to name-calling.

Answer 1

"He said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is to be commended for taking the initiative in Basra, and he described the Iraqi security forces as having performed reasonably well, with American support."



Source: Associated Press Release



A somewhat different take on the same news story, eh?



It's simply yet another example of cherry picking the facts and distorting them to deceptively support the agenda of the writer. This is common from both sides of the political spectrum.



It seems to me that the call for a cease fire wouldn't be a very wise tactic if one were truly "routing" the enemy and acquiring defectors at any appreciable rate.

Answer 2

I wouldn't call the truth or reality dishonest. But seeing how most neocons whom support the war so blindly, they have an equally hard time discerning fantasy from real-life.



Point B? The surge has failed miserably on so many fronts. While it had tamped down the violence to some degree, it hasn't encouraged Malaki to press forward with serious unification reforms or anything else for that matter.



Which left him seriously impotent and powerless to stop Al-Sadr's milita--when push came to shove.



And without significant political progress--as predicted--all the military "achievements" in this ongoing occupation won't amount to diddley-squat in the end. (It's a lose-lose situation for everybody; not just the US military.)



Some of the Iraqi police *did* defect (40 or more from the latest numbers), but many of the Iraqi army was hard-pressed to rout the Mahdi militia--even *with* US air support.



And despite Sadr's requests to stand down, fighting is still going on--threatening to undermine what little progress has been achieved in the last year. (Which--by all accounts--isn't much to write home about.)

Answer 3

I seem to be among the minority that would rather have people be honest with the public and themselves rather than pass off all the blindly ideological rants. Regardless of ones feelings for the war, we all should agree that it is in our best interest, the Iraqi peoples best interest and the worlds best interest to have a positive conclusion to this war. That means the "insurgents" "terrorists" and Sadr-ites all need to be wiped out and the people of Iraq should be able to live without fear for the first time in their lives. It is easy to whine about the loss of money and relative few American lives while sitting in luxury here in the US but people should remember that our reality is so magnificent compared to the lives of the vast majority of the worlds population. Why do we deserve such freedom while we deny others the same? Makes no sense to me.

Answer 4

There's too much to cover in one response, but it should suffice to point out that the Sunni counter jihad against al Qaed in Iraq and other foreign fighters started before "the surge", and the US initially opposed it until it seemed to be working.



Also, al Sadr's mahdi militia was regrouping in a period of cease fire (and one we encouraged by supplying millions of dollars), so the two biggest contributing factors to the level of violence against our troops were absent, so to suggest that was "the surge" working seems specious at best.



The one person I can say has been "persistently" dishonest is Vice President Cheney, and then to lesser degrees other members of the current Administration.



I am not trying to score political points. I am being an honest realist about the current and recent situations in Iraq.

Answer 5

Because if they weren't, it might actually be exposed how few people are dying in Iraq as compared to under Saddam's genocidal rule. The emerging democracy and freedom might be exposed. Bush might actually be right. And liberals wouldn't want that, now, would they?



p.s. A side note: A poll a few years ago showed that over 1/3 of the US media would vote to keep Fidel Castro in power. Now is it ignornance or a deep-seated love for tyrannical rulers?

Answer 6

The Iraqi forces were quitting, had Al Sadr not called off the dogs, it would still be a cluster f over there.

Answer 7

Iraq = Mongolian Cluster****



1/2 Trillion Dollars (so far)



4000+ US soldiers dead, tens of thousands of US soldiers injured, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, millions of displaced Iraqi civilians.



There is nothing to lie about.



The facts speak for themselves.

Answer 8

Some people foolishly believe they can use dishonest means to slander a dishonest war's execution. People need to learn that stooping to other people's level does not make you better than them; it makes you as bad as them.

Answer 9

This whole thing has been wrapped in lies and more lies.

It's been piled on so high that I don't think anyone knows what the truth is anymore.

Answer 10

It hurts the Republicans, and bad mouthing the US even

on foreign soil is OK by the Dems

Answer 11

Libs will say anything to try and prove their point of view to be correct. Even lie..... Just look at Hillary and Obama. Prime examples...

Answer 12

It goes against their agenda and away from the complete social control they are wanting the government to have.

Answer 13

Because they don't want things to go well there.

That would mean Bush was right.

Answer 14

Aside from lying being their first impulse in any situation, they are vested in defeat.

Answer 15

Its money taken out of their social programs