Failure in Iraq as Political Chemotherapy

I've struggled to understand why so many otherwise sane Democrats are so eager for America to lose in Iraq, despite the obvious dangers that would increase for all Americans if we did.

I think I figured it out. It's like chemotherapy.

In chemotherapy, you purposefully take into your body something poisonous. You do this because the poison, while harmful to your body's normal cells, are much more harmful to cancer cells. You get sick, but the cancer dies. The sickness is the price you pay for (you hope) winning a battle to the death against cancer.

For Democrats, losing in Iraq is certainly bad for America, but it's much more bad for Republicans than Democrats. So they are purposefully seeking to harm America in order to win their domestic political struggle against Republicans.

Here's a test of whether this makes sense: are there any Democrats who hate George Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden? Are there any who would prize a victory over Republicans more than they would an American victory over Al Qaeda? If so, then the chemotherapy strategy may be a valid model for what they are doing.

What side is the Mainstream Media On?

In World War II, American journalists were allowed to cover the war. They could even ride along in American bombers to watch those brave crews in action.

But there were no passenger berths in a B-17, so a journalist who wanted to fly along had to first qualify as a door gunner and fly as a fighting member of the crew, wearing an American uniform, shooting at German fighters.

I think those journalists knew which side they were on. I think they knew which side they wanted to win.

Here's a test. Which side is THIS modern journalist on? This modern journalist is covering a struggle between A and B. He selectively reports:

• The recruiting successes of A, and the recruiting failures of B
• The military successes of A, and the military setbacks of B
• The reasons why A is justified in fighting, and the reasons why B is morally wrong to be fighting
• Glosses over the civilian casualties inflicted by A, even when deliberate, and focuses on the civilian casualties inflicted by B, even when accidental
• Attributes the actions of A to prior actions by B

I think you would be justified in saying that this modern journalist was on side A.

What I Saw in Iraq, by Joe Lieberman

What I Saw in Iraq
Iran remains a problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.
BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

Article by the leading strong-defense, pro-American, anti-terrorist Democrat (okay, former Dem) on his first hand experiences in Iraq.

Vote now: Which Tom do you prefer?

Vote once on which Tom you prefer, using the only truly fair voting site on the Internet. You'll have to register. Results will only be reported when voting has closed.

Tom clean-shaven

Tom clean-shaven
Originally uploaded by tbcox23

And lo, here I am mere minutes later. Which do you prefer? Feel free to vote on this over at CrowdRules.

Tom with the beard

Tom with the beard
Originally uploaded by tbcox23

This is me with the beard (okay, the goatee).

Flickr

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Inside Castro's Prisons | TIME

Inside Castro's Prisons | TIME - looks like Castro has a higher percentage of his population in prison than the wicked Americans do. Will the Left notice?

Give Us DDT - WSJ.com

Give Us DDT - WSJ.com "Give us DDT" is another overdue indictment of overzealous Green-ism.

Management bibles are not gospel - Yahoo! News

Management bibles are not gospel - Yahoo! News - voices skepticism about such business books as "Good to Great" and "In Search of Excellence." Good, cautious advice for the wise manager.