Victory Strikes Again

As someone who snarked at the Victory Caucus and predicted its demise, I must note that the site has re-launched.

With this new design, we hope to come closer to our goal of being a one-stop-shop for anyone interested in learning about what's really going on in the war.

That wasn't exactly the goal of the old VC: This looks a bit like the old Command Post blog, except limited to war news. And it is a better business model than "drubbing anti-war Republicans," but I'm skeptical that it'll find a niche. If it does, I'll be the first to say so.

Still no action at the Victory PAC, though.

Comments

[Marcvs]

They don't list attacks on coalition forces in their "Top News". 'Nuff said.

[de stijl]

Marcvs,

But engineers are helping to rebuild the aging water system. This is exactly the type of good news that the MSM won't report. Attacks on coalition forces are old news. Old and unimportant news.

[joe]

War supporters are becoming more and more like the Society for Creative Anachronism every day.

They can find places like the National Review cruise or this web site, get together, and pretend that the world actually is the way they wish it would be.

[URKOBOLD KNOWS]

SCHOOLS!! THEY'RE PAINTING SCHOOLS.

[bb]

It is always very interesting to see what the hawks come up with to answer their own complaints about mainstream media's coverage of the war. They love to bitch and moan about the coverage. To see what they actually put together when they make the effort? well, it says a lot. Operation Blame-the-Left-For-Our-Defeat continues: "In late 2008 it was all coming together? total victory was at hand? until the Democrats botched it! Seriously! Not our fault! Blame the defeatocrats!"

[NZ Bear]

So folks, which part of this:

MNF-W forces attacked

suggests to you that we don't cover attacks on our forces? (And yes, it was on the top of the front page --- yesterday, it's scrolled down now).

Not to mention the fact that we've got big "Attacks By Province" map and a counter on Coalition fatalities on the right-hand 'metrics' bar.

As the guy who did the redesign, I can tell you clearly that we're not interested in becoming the SCA of politics (nice reference though, although the folks I knew in SCA would certainly take offense) nor are we interested in just presenting the "good news" from Iraq.

The goal is to present as much accurate information --- particularly information that isn't getting widespread MSM attention --- as we can. When that's good, it will be good, and when that's bad, it will be bad.

And to David's original point on the original goals of the site: being a news portal was always one of our major goals; now it is a more primary one. We are still very much interested in affecting political change as well, but the realities of US law and simple practical limitations of resources meant we had to narrow our focus a bit, and so we're going the 501c4 route. This means we won't be funding candidates, but we will still be very much engaged in the general issue-oriented debates.

Anyway, mock as much as you like, but personally I think this is a vital fight, and one that the men and women on the ground in Iraq can win if we support them, so I hope that TVC can do a small part to help.

[MOCKING MINION OF URKOBOLD]

MOCK MOCK MOCK.

MOCK.

MOCK. (oooh! gotcha with the stealth mock)

[Warren]

NZ Bear,

You've missed the key point. Going to war in Iraq was a terrible idea, , we are much worse off than when we started, we can't win, and every day we stay makes matters worse.

[joe]

The hawks have been complaining about the real media not providing an accurate picture of what's happening in Iraq since late 2003. In every single phase of the war since then, the mainstream media's depection has proven to be more accurate than the critics'.

First, there was no insurgency. Then the insurgency wasn't growing. Then the insurgency was about to be defeated. (Repeat that last on three or four times). Then Iraq was a peaceful place for the most part. Then there wasn't a civil war brewing. Then the Iraqi military was ready to take over. Then there wasn't a civil war raging. And then, from March through June, the Surge was working.

Every single time, the alternative reality provided by the hawks was proven wrong. Every. Single. Time.

Maybe it's time to wake up and smell the coffee; the real media aren't providing a biased view of what's happening in Iraq, NZ. You are.

[Brandybuck]

Anyway, mock as much as you like, but personally I think this is a vital fight, and one that the men and women on the ground in Iraq can win if we support them, so I hope that TVC can do a small part to help.

But win what? We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. We toppled Saddam and the Baathists in Iraq. We stayed around until they got elections going. But now what? Why are we still there?

If we're going to stick around until the violence subsides, then we will be there forever. What is it about Iraq that makes people refuse to consider a realistic objective? You can win a war, but you can't win an occupation. We won the war, so let's go home.

[Marcvs]

joe, the media's got your head all screwed up with "facts"! If you'd just listen to the hawks, you would see how we are actually winning we just need more time, funding, soldiers, maybe a draft, the second coming of Jesus, and a couple other things that they'll make up later, in order to actually win the war.

[tarran]

What defeatists like joe fail to realise that if we cut and run - then the enemy will win a great propaganda victory.

Can you imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Germany tomorrow? The next thing you know the Nazis would be declaring victory, and then the next thing you know Poland would be invaded again.

60 years on, we still haven't subdued Germany, and they expect us to succeed in Iraq in 5 measly years.

/*For the clue impaired, the above was tongue in cheek*/

[joe]

Vee vere schtahbbed...

In ze BECK!

[ChrisO]

I'm sad they relaunched. Victory Caucus could have been expropriated as a great band name.

[avocado diaboli]

joe,

Don't you know that quantum maniacs tells us that the observer effects the observed? Just like when you shoot a photon at an electron, you change the electron's momentum, maybe when the MSM decided to report only bad news, they caused more bad stuff to happen. It's a scientific fact.

[joe]

Tinkerbell's dying! Clap harder! Harder!

Well, congratulations, defeatists. Tinkerbell is dead. Of course, you don't mind - you WANTED Tinkerbell to die!

[avocado diaboli]

You liberals, err, progressives, just don't get it. We're not going to win this war thinking with the old cause-and-effect paradigm. David Hume showed that cause and effect is just an illusion hundreds of years ago, and you guys still haven't caught up. We've got to think outside the box. If you have a positive attitude about the war, the war will go positively. If you have a negative attitude about the war the war will go negatively. Positivity is what we need, not questions about "whether the plan will work".

[joe]

Laugh it up, avacado.

When Arab Spring comes, won't you look like an idiot!

[Rex Rhino]

War supporters are becoming more and more like the Society for Creative Anachronism every day.

The only thing I find more laughable than the war supporters willingness to believe they are winning the war, is the willingness of lifelong Democrats to believe they oppose the war.

Sure, the Democrats will bring the troops home! Just as soon as they end poverty, fix healthcare, and balance the budget! Don't hold your breath or anything.

Keep laughing at the war hawks, but at least they have the sense to delude themselves into believing that they are winning the war they support... Democrats are in the mind-boggling position of supporting a war they believe is a failure.

Anyway, joe, why do you support the war?

[joe]

I support the war to exactly the same extent you support Medicare, Rex.

The difference being, my party is actually making an effort to end what I don't like.

[joe]

Congratulations, Rex. You actually managed to turn "Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself" into a Hit and Run comment.

[ChicagoTom]

If you have a positive attitude about the war, the war will go positively. If you have a negative attitude about the war the war will go negatively

Yes I remember this...wasn't this called :
"The Secret" theory of war. I remember Oprah promoting it in one of her war strategy sessions club meetings

[crimethink]

I don't know joe's position on the matter, but from last night's debate it appears that the Dems want to pull the troops out of Iraq and move them 2000 miles SSW to another country that has zilch to do with protecting our national security. If I didn't know better, I'd think that they oppose the Iraq war not because it's got nothing to do with our national security, but rather just because it's unpopular and it makes a handy club for beating Republicans.

Plus, considering that their health care plans are supposed to be financed with the money we save by getting out of Iraq, I'm not sure how simply relocating our stupid invasion machine is going to affect that strategy.

[Rex Rhino]

I support the war to exactly the same extent you support Medicare, Rex.

The Libertarian party didn't vote to support Medicare. If they did, I would most certain no longer vote Libertarian. I would have no hesitation to stop voting for the Libertarian party the second they do something that conflicts with my moral beliefs. I am not blinded by party loyalty.

The Democrats overwelmingly voted for the Iraq war... And continue to make only token attempts to undo their mistake. Yet, you presumably support the Democratic party. Why? Don't you feel betrayed? You are willing to support the Democratic party despite its continuing support for policies are are contrary to your belief system. Obviously, party loyalty is more valuable to you than doing what is right.

Perhaps you think you are discussing the war with Republicans joe. The Libertarian Party was against the war when Hillary was autographing bombs and singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I am afraid you are going to have a hard time accusing the Libertarian party of being hippocritical about the Iraq war.

The difference being, my party is actually making an effort to end what I don't like.

I don't think you can say the Democrats are actually making an effort to end the war. Making some meaningless token gestures about ending the war, maybe. But definitly nothing that remotely qualifies as an "effort".

A real effort would be the Democrats refusing to approve a federal budget without an agreement to withdraw troops. Or perhaps a fillibuster. Or perhaps the Democrats could have one single candidate that didn't agree with the statement: "A certain number of U.S. troops must remain in Iraq for the forseeable future."

Seriously joe, are you seriosly trying to imply that the Democrats are more anti-war than the Libertarian party?

[Iggy from GTMO]

If you think the VC is slanted, you should check out a much larger, much more well funded media entity -- one that would make Goebbels blush at the sheer blatancy of its propaganda: AFN, the Armed Forces Network. I don't know how much all you taxpayers back in the world are shelling out for AFN, but it's got to be billions. You should be angry. In some of the more dangerous parts of the world, it's the only media available to brave Americans who daily risk getting blown apart.

[Rex Rhino]

If I didn't know better, I'd think that they oppose the Iraq war not because it's got nothing to do with our national security, but rather just because it's unpopular and it makes a handy club for beating Republicans.

The Democrats have the power, through their control of the congress, to force Bush into ending the war.

However, the Democrats know that if the war continues, that disatisfaction with the war will hurt the Republicans come next election... they also know that if they end the war now, that the Republicans will blame the instability in the Middle East on the Democrats decision to "cut and run".

So the Democrats are willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds more U.S. soldiers, simply so they can say "look what Bush did" and score a few points in the next election.

[joe]

Rex,

The Democrats overwelmingly voted for the Iraq war... The Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF by 58%-42%.

And continue to make only token attempts to undo their mistake. If there was no Presidential veto, the war would be winding down as we speak, as the Democrats passed, virtually unanimously, a bill mandating its end some four months ago.

Get your facts straight.

[joe]

Also, Rex, since you are so naive about partinship politics:

For a third party aspirant to proclaim that there is no difference between the two major parties, when there obviously is, is just as much a manifestation of partisan blindness as anything you've accused me of.

If you actually wanted to end the war, Rex, you Libertarians would be throwing your weight behind the Democratic efforts to do so, not regurgitating Republican talking points about those efforts being "meaningless."

But you'd rather bang away at your "we need a third party" talking points than see the war end, in the vain hope that your fringe cult can pick up another fraction of a percent.

[Rex Rhino]

But you'd rather bang away at your "we need a third party" talking points than see the war end, in the vain hope that your fringe cult can pick up another fraction of a percent.

Maybe I would consider voting for a Democrat joe, if a single fucking democratic presidental candidate promised to bring all the troops home.

Perhaps if you were to refuse to vote Democrat unless they bring the troops home, the Democrats might have some incentive to do something other than empty political posturing about Iraq. Instead, they know you are going to vote Democrat no-matter what, and so they are going for the pro-war votes in the middle.

[crimethink]

Rex Rhino,

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I doubt there are many pro-war votes outside the GOP at this point.

[Guy Montag]

Yea, it's a good thing that we have TNR to tell us what is important Did you guys hear about their new writer Scott Thomas? His great works were featured in the New York Times. Sounds like the next Eve Fairbanks or Stephen Glass of war reporting.

Did not notice reason covering it, but I have not been around here much lately.