Glenn vs. Glenn

here

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds defends Joe Klein and "responds" to my post by (a) accusing me of rooting for the U.S. to lose and (b) re-printing an e-mail he received from Michael Yon who claims that, in Anbar, "the guns are mostly quiet now" and the Infantry Task Force with which he is embedded "hardly have fired their weapons." Yon claims that things are so peachy in Anbar that the meetings of the Task Force are "more administrative than combat oriented."

Associated Press reports today (h/d David Sirota):
Two US soldiers were killed while conducting combat operations in Iraq's volatile Anbar Province, the military announced Thursday.
The soldiers, assigned to Multi National Force-West, were killed Wednesday, the military said. The military declined to release the names of those killed pending notification of their relatives.
The deaths raised the number of members of the US military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003 to at least 3,433, according to an Associated Press count.



And then there is this. And this. But the real fault lies with anyone who points any of this out, because they want the U.S. to lose. What is most amazing is that the same people (like Reynolds) who have been lying to the country for four straight years about all of the Glorious Progress being made in Iraq continue to expect that when they speak, anyone other than the shrinking band of hard-core war supporters will listen.
Many, many times over the last four years -- in numerous places in Iraq -- violence has ebbed temporarily. Yet Iraq, contrary to the ongoing claims from the Bush administration and its followers, has inexorably descended into total chaos and violence. Pointing to three-day lapses in violence in a single place as proof that things are improving is so transparently irrational that, particularly at this point, it merits as much response as the desperate claim that anyone who opposes the war "wants the U.S. to lose."

Do I want the US to lose? No, certainly not, and I never have. However, I have thought, since before the first bombs fell on Baghdad, that the key to non-losing was not to invade. I have been skeptical about this since before the invasion and, frankly, I dont see any reason to stop now.

GG makes a great point about anonymous sources too. What is the purpose of anonimity if the material is boilerplate administration text? Is the credibility of the president so low that he has to release information anonymously for it to get any play? And if so, why would it deserve to be called news?