Skip to content

After Obama’s Iraq War Speech, New York Times Disgraces Itself Again

September 2, 2010

You have to at least give President Obama some credit; while stopping short of admitting error and giving credit for the success of the surge to George W. Bush, at least he mustered the class to essentially cede that Bush wasn’t intentionally treasonous.  Hell, he even managed not to bash him!

While the president displayed a modicum of propriety and class, the Treason Times simply can’t let go of rabid Bush hatred and several ancient memes that all but the most hardened of leftists long ago abandoned.

The speech also made us reflect on how little Mr. Bush accomplished by needlessly invading Iraq in March 2003 — and then ludicrously declaring victory two months later.

Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction proved to be Bush administration propaganda. The war has not created a new era of democracy in the Middle East — or in Iraq for that matter. There are stirrings of democratic politics in Iraq that give us hope. But there is no government six months after national elections.

In many ways, the war made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program, to direct and finance extremist groups and to meddle in Iraq.

Mr. Obama graciously said it was time to put disagreements over Iraq behind us, but it is important not to forget how much damage Mr. Bush caused by misleading Americans about exotic weapons, about American troops being greeted with open arms, about creating a model democracy in Baghdad.

The Gray Lady is an embarrassment.  Anybody who has even the most meager understanding of military terms and culture understands that the “Mission Accomplished” banner moment underscored the end to the conventional war against the Iraqi Army, the Republican Guard, and the successful effort to depose Hussein and his corrupt government.  The “Mission” spoken of on the banner was, indeed, accomplished.  What commenced thereafter was the beginning of a completely different mission: counterinsurgency operations. 

The fact of the matter is–contrary to the constant bloviating from hard-core leftists and leftist rags like the Times–that the vast majority of Iraqis welcomed the troops with “open arms” at the end of the 2003 invasion.  Unless the Times is positing their belief that the whole of the Iraqi populace was engaged in insurgent operations, I don’t think the mere presence of an insurgency means we weren’t welcomed with “open arms”.  Any troop who has been on the ground there will tell you that the majority of Iraqi citizens that are encountered on a day-to-day basis appreciates our presence there; certainly they are glad to be rid of Hussein.  Ah, but if only we’d left Iraq alone, Saddam probably wouldn’t have gotten around to raping every little girl in front of their fathers.  Who know?–he might have let plenty of dissidents keep their tongues.  Quite a philanthropist, that Hussein character. 

Time and time and time again the “Bush lied us into war” meme has been torn to tatters.  But credit the editorial staff of the Times for their pluck and “can-do” attitudes.  Years after it was discovered that faulty intelligence–much of it from the British government and much of it Clinton era–and not “Bush lying” helped spur the Iraq invasion, the Times is sticking by their story.  They are like petulant children engaged in the most protracted and damaging temper tantrum of all-time.  This is the same rag that publishes the semi-literate rantings of clowns like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, who must have slept through the Times treasonous eight-year long campaign of lies against George W. Bush; these people consistently claim that the era of Hopenchange is one of unprecedented partisan obstructionism and extremism.

Particularly piquant is the repeated suggestion that the war in Iraq has made America “less safe”.  Is the Times suggesting that somehow fighting extremists half a world away is less preferable than fighting them here?  Are they suggesting that the war in Iraq prompted otherwise peace-loving people living in caves in Waziristan to surrender their pacifist lifestyles to fight the evil American aggressors in Iraq?  It would be truly helpful if any leftist, anywhere, could explain the absurdity of the entire “the Iraq War has made America less safe” canard.  Iran would have pursued its nuclear ambitions with or without Saddam Hussein there to essentially not do anything; after all, Iran and Iraq hadn’t gotten froggy with each other in many years.  Are leftist trying to pretend Hussein would have gone to war with Iran himself to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons?  This is pure fantasy parading as analysis.

But what really chafes is the implication that America, or American troops, or even George W. Bush, are responsible for “100,000 Iraqis dead”, as though the vast majority of them weren’t killed by, or as a result of, insurgents.  Apparently, American troops just showed up and started randomly shooting folks. 

But hey, look on the bright side!  Now the Times can focus on trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: