BCT Editorial – 6/16/06

This page was last updated on June 16, 2006.

Jogging around; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 16, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“SPEAKING VOLUMES: Before anyone is too impressed with President George Bush’s five-hour, unannounced trip to Iraq, the key word is ‘unannounced.’ Three years after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq is still so unstable that the president’s visit could not be announced beforehand. Please keep this in mind the next time someone complains that the media are not reporting the good news coming out of Iraq. The nature of Bush’s trip speaks volumes about the situation there.”

[RWC] Leave it to the Times to find the dark lining in a silver cloud. Remember, the Times is fully invested in U.S. failure in Iraq. Anything good that happens in Iraq disproves Times positions. For example, can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the Times when they learned the “ground up” U.S. military had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and subsequently launched hundreds of raids resulting in more than 100 dead terrorists and hundreds more captured?

Regarding the “good news” comment, you probably noticed the editorial didn’t say why President Bush visited. Why? It would be good news to report the reason was to meet the head of the democratically elected Iraq government. It’s harder to refer to Iraq as a “debacle” as in the editorial below when you report good news.

“LESSON LEARNED: Bush’s debacle in Iraq inevitably draws comparisons with the U.S. quagmire in Vietnam. But one thing has changed dramatically: Americans today are taking their anger out on the policy makers, not the troops who are carrying out policy. As a recent Associated Press-IPSOS survey found, Americans are by and large supportive of the men and women who are fighting in Iraq. This is a welcome change from the Vietnam era, when anyone in the military was stigmatized by far too many anti-war protesters. Contrary to what Bush’s allies are saying, it is possible to support the troops but not the war. Americans are doing so on a daily basis.”

[RWC] The war “in Iraq inevitably draws comparisons with the U.S. quagmire in Vietnam?” I might have taken time to refute this except people like Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) were referring to Iraq as “George Bush’s Vietnam” less than 12 months after Iraq fell. According to my research, the Times itself was using Vietnam language in editorial only 18 months after Iraq fell.

Regarding treatment of our troops, nothing has changed. The vast majority of people who opposed the Vietnam War didn’t hold our soldier’s personally responsible. I believe (hope?) that has not changed. What haven’t changed are the actions of the most vocal critics. The same kind of people who were calling our soldier’s in Vietnam “baby killers” are doing so today, only a little more subtly.

Finally, no, you can’t truly “support the troops” while despising everything they do. No matter how often the Times claims otherwise, it doesn’t make the statement true.