BCT Editorial – 9/14/06

This page was last updated on September 16, 2006.

The way it was; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 14, 2006.

This is the second editorial of the same name on the same subject in six weeks.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Bush had the unity he is calling for five years ago

“Oh, what might have been.

“On the evening of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, President Bush addressed the nation. Through the dissembling, the ducking of responsibility and the delusion, it was obvious that Bush has not learned from his mistakes, nor does he intend to.”

[RWC] “Dissembling, the ducking of responsibility and the delusion.” In an editorial a mere three days ago, the author asserted, “now is the time to put aside our political ideologies and address the problems truthfully.” I mused, “What are the odds the Times will take its own advice?” I guess we know the answer.

“What might have been if Bush had kept the nation united in the days, weeks and months following 9/11 instead of exploiting Americans’ fears for blatant political ends, as was all too evident in the 2002 House and Senate elections.”

[RWC] As noted in my previous critique, the idea the nation was united is a myth. Democrats have been attempting to undermine President Bush since Election Day in 2000. What we saw from Democrats immediately after 9/11 was forced by their belief they could not afford to be seen sniping at President Bush during this period.

Regarding the 2002 elections, you’ll see Democrats spoke more forcefully about Iraq than did the Bush administration. Democrats were desperate to convince voters they could be trusted with national security.

“What might have been if Bush and his administration had built on the goodwill and sympathy the attacks generated around the world instead of squandering that support. After 9/11, a French newspaper ran a headline that said something like, ‘We’re all Americans now.’ Five years later, 77 percent of Europeans disapprove of the way Bush has handled international affairs, and it’s like that around the world.”

[RWC] “Sympathy?” Who @#$%^& cares? Every time I hear/see this I want to scream!

Lest we forget, Europeans disapproved of the way President Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union and conducted a bunch of anti-American protest marches.

“What might have been if Bush had focused on countering terrorism instead of getting the nation bogged down in a war it didn’t need to fight. Five years on, we now know that this administration was going to attack Iraq no matter what. Contrary to what Bush said on Monday night, this was a war this president chose to fight.”

[RWC] We choose to fight every war we engage in. From the Revolutionary War to the Iraq war, we could have chosen not to fight.

FYI, President Bush’s comment was not about Iraq.

In context, here’s what President Bush said. “Our nation is being tested in a way that we have not been since the start of the Cold War. We saw what a handful of our enemies can do with box-cutters and plane tickets. We hear their threats to launch even more terrible attacks on our people. And we know that if they were able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they would use them against us. We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes. America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I. But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious. If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons. We are in a war that will set the course for this new century -- and determine the destiny of millions across the world.”

President Bush didn’t mention Iraq until the second paragraph after the above statement.

“What might have been if Bush and others in his administration had heeded the warnings of Pentagon and State Department planners that the United States would need a significantly larger military force to occupy and secure Iraq than it would to defeat Saddam Hussein’s army. As a result of the administration’s refusal to comprehend the anarchy it was about to unleash on the Iraqi people, that nation is a haven and training ground for terrorism. Our troops are paying the price for this administration’s hubris with their lives, their limbs and their blood.”

[RWC] The editorial would like us to believe “Pentagon and State Department planners” were unanimous in their assessment. They were not. Remember, these were the same guys who told us tens of thousands of soldiers would return in body bags during the invasion. Finally, what proof does the Times have that more boots on the ground would have made a difference?

Come on, guys. When will you guys quit trying to convince us Iraq was a paradise with carefree kids flying kites in flower-covered meadows? While it’s been noted over and over there’s no evidence to link Iraq and 9/11, Iraq had been a “haven and training ground for terrorism” for years. See my critique of “The big lie” from only 10 days ago.

“What might have been if Bush understood that fighting terrorism is a battle for people’s hearts and minds, not territory, and that law enforcement techniques and intelligence gathering, not military might, were more efficient tools to use against it.”

[RWC] What a load of BS!

First, except for a couple of cruise missiles, this is the sole approach the Clinton administration took for the eight years prior to 9/11. The fact is we need new “law enforcement techniques and intelligence gathering, [AND] military might.”

Second, the Times and its fellow travelers have been doing just about all they can do to bash Bush administration efforts at “law enforcement techniques and intelligence gathering.” On December 16, 2005, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told a rally of Democrat members of Congress, “Think of what happened 20 minutes ago in the United States Senate. We killed the Patriot Act.” The comment was met with cheers and clapping. How many editorials have we seen bashing the NSA terrorist surveillance program, the terrorist finance tracking program, et cetera? We’ve seen more than 10 editorials during the last nine months that bashed and/or misrepresented various “law enforcement techniques and intelligence gathering” programs.

“What might have been if Bush had seen the mission to root al-Qaida out of Afghanistan followed through to the end and stayed focused on terrorism where it existed. As Bush spoke to the nation, the Taliban, the radical Islamist movement that gave shelter to al-Qaida, is resurging in Afghanistan.”

[RWC] Amazing! Does the Times really believe the only place Islamofascists existed was Afghanistan?

“What might have been if Bush, his administration and his media lapdogs owned up to their mistakes and learned from them. Instead, they alienated those who pointed out their failures or called for alternative tactics by characterizing them as traitors, appeasers and dupes.”

[RWC] President Bush’s “media lapdogs?” You’ll note the editorial didn’t name names. I guess the editorial author believes we’ve never seen presidential press conferences, watched news/opinion on ABC, CBS, CNN, MCNBC, & NBC, or read news/opinion in mainstream media news magazines and newspapers (including the Times). While there are some outlets that don’t openly oppose President Bush, they are a small minority.

The Times worries about being called out as “traitors, appeasers and dupes,” but it and its fellow travelers have no problem referring to President Bush as a liar, loser, deluded, crooked, a deserter, et cetera.

“Toward the end of Monday’s speech, Bush said, ‘Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. And we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us.’

“Americans will soon see whether he means what he says. After Sept. 11, 2001, the American people were united - and Bush trashed it to advance his political and ideological agendas.

“Oh, what might have been.”

[RWC] Don’t you love it? If we aren’t “unified,” it’s President Bush’s fault. Earth to the Times. It takes two. Go here and here for examples of what I mean.