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 star 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 journalist.

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 idea.

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 born?

Posted 10/26/2006 by Pe
ter Duveen