BCT Editorial – 10/12/04

This page was last updated on October 18, 2004.

Sleep well; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 12, 2004.

This editorial is little more than a rant. The Times wants to ignore progress because it is not perfection. The Times doesn’t want to distinguish between safer and safe.

This editorial clearly puts the Times in the Howard Dean wing of the left.

There are so many items in the list below I’ll address only those I’ve addressed in previous critiques.

10/18/04 - The editorial talks about our “military being ground up in a needless war that cannot be won because of hubristic mistakes made by the Bush administration in dealing with post-war Iraq” and about our “military bogged down in Iraq.” If that were true, I would expect our servicemen and servicewomen would oppose President Bush. It turns out the opposite is true. According to a poll of its readers, the Military Times found active-duty personnel who responded to the poll favored President Bush 72% to 17% for Kerry. The figures for the Guard and Reserve respondents were 73% and 18%, respectively.¹ Perhaps the Times editorial board can explain this.

“‘America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.’

“Thus spoke George W. Bush.”

[RWC] So did John Kerry on December 16, 2003, at Drake University in Iowa when he said, “Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.” Oops.

“America is safer today as North Korea, whose leader apparently inhabits a parallel universe, continues to ramp up its nuclear production and remains a threat to launch an attack against South Korea. Meanwhile, U.S. forces there are being transferred to Iraq.

[RWC] The editorial failed to mention plans for a troop drawdown in South Korea were in effect before Iraq. We’re also going to draw down troops in Germany. In any case, why should the United States shoulder the responsibility for defending South Korea? Why don’t France, Germany, Russia, and Spain step up to the plate?

“America is safer today as Iran, whose leadership is resolutely anti-American and radically Islamic, continues to pursue nuclear weapons and a missile system to deliver them. It is a major supporter of Islamic terror organizations.”

[RWC] Isn’t this what intelligence told us about Iraq? How do we know this isn’t another Bush lie? <g>

“America is safer today as the Taliban continues to make inroads in parts of Afghanistan, mainly because the Bush administration put crushing the Taliban and destroying the al Qaida cells it was protecting on the back burner as the White House pursued a war of choice against Saddam Hussein.”

[RWC] Yeah, the Taliban and al-Qaida are making such a comeback in Afghanistan it could do nothing to stop the Afghanistan election on October 9, 2004. That’s right, a democratic election in Afghanistan less than three years after we brought down the Taliban! But no, the Times can’t recognize the successes.

For the record, Gen. Tommy Franks (ret) – former commander of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq – says President Bush gave him everything he wanted in Afghanistan.

“War of choice?” All wars are wars of choice.

“America is safer today as al Qaida and other radical Islamist organizations have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism.”

[RWC] Iraq was a terrorist breeding ground for decades. If you believe otherwise, you are ignoring history and every report issued about Iraq up to and including the September 2004 Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD (a.k.a. the Duelfer Report). Perhaps the Times should get its Iraq reporting from someone other than Michael Moore.

If Iraq is attracting terrorists, I believe this is a good thing. I think it’s better to take on terrorists in the Middle East with our highly effective military than to have the terrorists kill defenseless civilians on American soil. As far as I’m concerned, I’d be glad to see every terrorist in the world converge on Iraq and meet his fate.

“America is safer today as Osama bin Laden remains free to preach his hatred and to serve as a recruiting tool in the jihad against nonbelievers.”

[RWC] Assuming bin Laden is still alive, he’s preaching to pretty small congregations these days. He hasn’t been seen or heard from even on tape for over a year.

“America is safer today with its first-class military being ground up in a needless war that cannot be won because of hubristic mistakes made by the Bush administration in dealing with post-war Iraq.”

[RWC] Where’s the proof? I could claim the Times editorial writers coordinate their message with the Democrat and Socialist parties, but it would mean nothing without evidence other than the editorials themselves. Come to think of it, perhaps the editorials are the only proof I need. <g>

“The United States is safer today because with its military bogged down in Iraq, it has lost the flexibility that would be needed to respond to any new major threat against national security that might pop up without straining personnel and materiel beyond the breaking point.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. We shouldn’t use our military to deal with a national security interest because another threat may pop up? Using this logic, we’d never use our military.

“America is safer today as more than 90 percent of the cargo from container ships that enter the United States goes uninspected at the port of entry.

“America is safer today as its public water and transportation systems remain vulnerable to biological and chemical attacks.

“America is safer today as nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, which both candidates mentioned in the first presidential debate, could end up in the hands of terrorists.”

[RWC] Isn’t that what was said about Iraq?

“America is safer today as the rising cost of a barrel of oil puts more and more U.S. dollars into the pockets of Saudi Arabia, the overt and covert sponsor of the Wahabi sect of Islam, which is among the most radical and from which bin Laden sprang.”

[RWC] Now that terrorists are attacking Saudi Arabia, perhaps Saudi Arabia will get “religion” with respect to extremism. Perhaps not. I don’t know.

“America is safer today as the invasion of Iraq has alienated its partners in the war against terrorism and contributed to often virulent anti-Americanism around the world.”

[RWC] Talk about desperation. The “alienation” BS is exactly what socialists said about President Reagan during the 1980s when he was driving the final nails into the USSR’s coffin. As we are learning from documents captured in Iraq, some of the “partners” the Times holds in such esteem were on the take from Saddam Hussein via the Oil for Food program and were selling Iraq weapons in violation of sanctions. With partners like those, who needs enemies?

We didn’t lose any friends; we found out who our friends were and are.

“America is safer today as the costs of nation building in Iraq, Bush’s tax cuts and massive federal borrowing have put our nation’s fiscal freedom in the hands of foreigners.”

[RWC] Let’s hear some details. The United States has been free of debt for only two years, 1834 and 1835.

“America is safer today because Bush says it is.”

[RWC] America is safer today because we’re taking military action in addition to better intelligence and law enforcement activities. There will always be work to do, both at home and abroad, but we can’t let the lack of perfection blind us to significant progress.

“Sleep well, America.”

[RWC] Did you notice the list didn’t include Libya giving up its WMD and WMD programs as a direct result of Bush administration initiatives? I’m sure it was an honest mistake – not.

1. Whose Military Vote?; Peter D. Feaver; The Washington Post; October 12, 2004.