BCT Editorial – 9/4/06

This page was last updated on September 5, 2006.

The big lie; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 4, 2006.

I’m not sure if the Times gets its talking points from the Democrat Party or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board. This is the second editorial in two days that covered the same material as a previous PG editorial.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“There they go again, conflating terrorism with the invasion and occupation of Iraq to cover up their costly blunders.

“You’d think Bush administration officials would come up with more creative ways to lie to the American people by now. After all, they’re so experienced at it.

“The latest big-lie teller is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who compared critics of the administration’s botched effort in Iraq to those who appeased the Nazis before World War II.”

[RWC] The author of this editorial has guts accusing anyone of lying. Read Sec. Rumsfeld’s speech to the American Legion convention last week and you’ll find Sec. Rumsfeld did not do what the editorial claims. His comments were in reference to the overall war against Islamofascism, not to Iraq specifically. There’s a reason the editorial didn’t provide a quote to support its allegation.

“Aides later said he was not accusing the administration’s critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.”

[RWC] Read Sec. Rumsfeld’s speech and make up your own mind.

“Hey, that’s OK. These smear tactics, direct and indirect, are standard operating procedure for this regime and its dwindling coterie of apologists. Tar now; clarify later.”

[RWC] The language of this editorial is appalling.

One of yesterday’s editorials said, “In diplomacy, as in face-to-face relationships, it’s often not what you say but how you say it that causes problems. Subtlety matters, as does concern for the sensibilities of others.” Of course, the editorial was referring to how we describe our enemy.

I believe it’s telling that the Times worries more about “the sensibilities” of enemies of the U.S. than it does the sensibilities of fellow Americans. If I asked the editorial board who is the true enemy, President Bush or Islamofascists, I’d be afraid of the answer.

“Let’s get one thing straight. Few Americans have any qualms or doubts about the need to counter terrorism. They recognize that Sept. 11, 2001, did change their world.

“However, what they no longer are buying into is this administration’s political exploitation of that awful day, especially its big lie linking of terrorism to dictator Saddam Hussein as justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (And the reason terrorists are in Iraq in such numbers is because this administration created the environment that allows them to flourish there.)”

[RWC] Oh no, the “Iraq was terrorist free until we invaded” BS again! I guess the Times believes if they make this claim enough it will become true.

Iraq was safe haven for terrorists for decades. To recount:

· Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

· Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion. Because of wounds, he hid there after he fled from Afghanistan in 2002.

· The convicted chief conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef, reached the United States with an Iraqi passport. Yousef was also the mastermind behind the failed 1994 Bojinka Plot intended to blow up multiple planes over the Pacific Ocean en route to the U.S.

· The bomb maker for the 1993 WTC bombing – Abdul Rahman Yasin (an American citizen) – ended up in Iraq after the bombing.

· The mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, during which the terrorists killed a wheelchair-bound American (Leon Klinghoffer), lived in Baghdad since 1994 and was captured there in April 2003 by U.S. Special Forces.

· During the 2003 Iraq invasion, our troops found at least two terrorist training camps, including one with an airplane fuselage to practice hijackings.

· Even the Clinton administration documented cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Outlets like to talk about “political exploitation” of 9/11. I wish one of them would explain to me how engaging in a war helps a president.

Perhaps what we’re reading is merely the projection of how the Times would behave.

“Fortunately, more Americans are starting to see through the administration’s Iraq/terrorist fabrications. A recent New York Times/CBS poll showed that 51 percent of those surveyed found no link between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, an increase of 10 percent since June.

“The lies are coming home to roost.”

[RWC] Are “the lies coming home to roost,” or is it the unending anti-Bush campaign conducted by Bush bashers and aided by the mainstream media? After all, it’s easy to believe something when that’s all you hear.