THE IRAQ WAR (TNYT Oct. 24)
The New York Times is now
trying to lay out its editorial position on the Iraq invasion and
occupation more clearly. Early on, The
Times was among the Iraq War's cheerleaders, with one of their
propagandists, Judith Miller, leading the charge. Later, as it became
evident that this propagandist was about to blow her cover as a covert
operative due to the Valerlie Plame (the outed intelligence operative)
investigation, The Times
disowned her. You see, The Times,
if it should continue to be called a newspaper, is not supposed to act
as an umbrella for covert operations. So when The Times's own cover was about to
be blown, it put the blame on their star reporter, who no longer works
for them. They ran an incredibly long piece about Miller's shenanigans
that sounded more like it had been written by an attorney than a
Now back to the editorial, entitled "Trying to Contain the Iraq
Disaster." For some reason, they think G.W. Bush should fire Rumsfeld,
as if that would solve the problem. They don't get it. Bush works for
Rumsfeld, not visa versa. The voices crying out to fire Rumsfeld remind
me so much of those who wanted to close Guantanamo. It's a fake move
that does nothing. Neither move addresses causes. We can immediately
diagnose the stripes of those who back ineffective causes to make it
look like they are concerned about the issues.
Next. The Times says that the
administration should "demand reconcilliation talks" of the Iraqis. Uh,
the United States is the criminal agency here. It has no right to
demand anything of any Iraqi. It has no right to even be on Iraqi soil.
Axe that idea. That's like a burglar who has been caught in the act,
demanding that the family members in the household get along. Who is it
that proposes such preposterous ideas?
Stabilize Baghdad - meaning increase the number of US troops there. No,
it was the US presence that created the instability and genocide
(600,000 dead) in Iraq in the first place. This is a bad idea. Also, as
above, the US has no business being there. It is an univited presence,
even if it thinks it is doing good, although it is fairly apparent that
it is not.
Convene the neighbors - Uh wait, a good idea, how is that possible?
Yes, The Times accidentally
inserts a really good idea. Congratulations!!! Bush and Co., we know
you really don't care, but read this anyway: "America's closest allies
in the region are furious about America's gross mismanagement of the
war. But even Iran and Syria, which are eager to see America bloodied,
have a great deal to lose if all-out civil war erupts in Iraq, driving
refugees toward their borders. That self-interest could be the start of
a discussion about how Iraq's neighbors might help pressure their
clients inside Iraq to step back from the brink." Yes, let's engage a
few nations smarter than our own to help drag us out of this mess. Good
Here's one of the funniest lines of the editorial, were the situation
not so tragic as to neutralize any impulse to joviality.
"The president should also make it clear, once and for all, that the
United States will not keep (supressing giggles here) permanent bases
in Iraq." Duh, uh, hey, that's why the US is in Iraq, Mr. New York
Times, uh, don't ya get it?
It continues: "The people in Iraq and across the Middle East need a
strong sign that the troops are not there to further any American
imperial agenda." Ha hahahaha, that's a good one! Not there to further
any American imperial agenda...not? What a knee-slapper! When were YOU
Posted 10/26/2006 by Pe