BCT Editorial – 12/10/06

This page was last updated on December 11, 2006.

Vision thing; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 10, 2006.

The first editorial about the Iraq Surrender Group addressed the bipartisan nature of the group. That an editorial about the group’s recommendations comes in second place to one about group collegiality should tell us a lot about the Times.

Just as I stated in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial critique, read the editorial below and it becomes obvious the author hopes we never read the ISG report.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Iraq Study Group gives Bush a chance to look at conflict in another way

“The Iraq Study Group has given President Bush the opportunity to change course in Iraq.”

[RWC] I hate to break it to the Times, but President Bush has always had “the opportunity to change course in Iraq.”

“The 10-member group released its report Wednesday, and it was depressing to read. Nearly four years after the United States and its allies invaded Iraq, the administration’s misguided policies have led to almost total failure. The report said what many others have been saying - the situation is getting worse, not better, with little chance of being reversed.”

[RWC] “[A]lmost total failure?” Perhaps if you exclude eliminating Saddam Hussein, building a democracy from scratch, holding multiple elections, rebuilding the infrastructure, et cetera. Has the war been a total success? Of course not. There’s still a lot of work to do. At the same time, it’s completely irresponsible to claim “almost total failure.”

“But the report wasn’t about affixing blame. The study group’s mission was to come up with ways the United States can withdraw from Iraq without destroying that country or creating even more chaos in the Middle East.

“That’s why special attention must be paid to the two recommendations the panel says are most important - opening new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in the region and changing the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq.

“Study group members wrote that they ‘believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another.’

“By diplomatic and political efforts, the panel means talking to Syria and Iran, something the Bush White House has been particularly loath to do. By changing the U.S. military’s mission, the panel means turning over primary responsibility of combat missions to the Iraq army by the first quarter of 2008.”

[RWC] I addressed the combat unit drawdown in the aforementioned PG editorial critique.

Regarding “talking to Syria and Iran,” the editorial failed to note we did speak with Syria, but to no avail. It’s also to the advantage of both Iran and Syria for problems in Iraq to continue. After all, U.S. forces in Iraq recently recovered weapons from terrorists in Iraq that were fresh from Iranian weapons factories. If Iran believed a democratic and peaceful Iraq were in its best interest, it would not supply weapons to those people causing the instability.

“Given the state of affairs within Iraq and in the region, those are mammoth undertakings. But there is no easy way for the United States to extricate itself from Iraq. Its options start at bad and get worse from there. The panel acknowledged that its recommendations might not work.”

[RWC] I guess if you acknowledge upfront your recommendations might not work, that’s OK. Can you imagine what an editorial would say if President Bush said anything similar?

“If the situation wasn’t daunting enough, study group members included the Arab-Israeli issue as a necessary part of the solution. They wrote the ‘United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability.’”

[RWC] Tying Iraq to the Israel/Palestine mess is BS.

“Considering the Bush administration has abandoned the U.S. effort to broker a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians, that’s asking a lot of the president.”

[RWC] The editorial conveniently failed to note the current terrorist group (Hamas) running the so-called Palestinian government refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. When your adversary refuses to recognize your right to exist, what is there to negotiate? Further, there’s strife within the Palestinian government. As a result, no one can claim to represent the Palestinians.

In any case, the Bush administration has not “abandoned the U.S. effort to broker a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” As recently as the last couple of weeks, Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice has been working with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to get internal Palestinian strife addressed.

“The Iraq Study Group has established a framework by which Bush can declare victory and get out. To do so, however, he must acknowledge, if only to himself, that his polarizing politics and ideological agenda were major factors in creating the Iraq debacle.”

[RWC] “[D]eclare victory and get out?” Does the Times believe real victory/success is the same as declaring victory? Does the Times believe Americans and the rest of the world don’t know the difference?

Perhaps the Times someday will tell us how cutting and running benefits the U.S. Does the Times actually believe surrendering won’t come back to haunt us? Lest we forget, this is what happened with The Korean War and today we have a North Korea with nuclear weapons.

Note the editorial didn’t describe President Bush’s “polarizing politics” or “ideological agenda.” I wonder why. Did you ever notice that when people call President Bush names, somehow the Times doesn’t consider that “polarizing?”

By the way, is it too much to ask for the Times to refer to President Bush instead of simply “Bush?” The Times has a habit of not using titles (Mr., Mrs., et cetera), but it’s particularly bad form when referring to the elected leader of our country.

“Does he have it within him to see the error of his ways and work with others, even those he disagrees with, to salvage the situation, or will he keep wearing the political and ideological blinders that limit his vision?

[RWC] By “work with others,” the editorial really means President Bush must accept lock, stock, and barrel the positions supported by the Times. That it takes both sides to work with each other usually escapes Times editorials. For example, what did Democrats do to help, other than vote to go into Iraq? All we’ve heard from Democrats for the past three years is “Bush lied” and “get out now.” During the 2004 campaign, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told us he had a better plan for Iraq. It’s been over two years and we still haven’t heard Mr. Kerry’s plan. Did he lie about having a better plan, or is Mr. Kerry playing politics by not sharing his plan with President Bush? Neither answer speaks well of Democrats.

Ideological blinders and limited vision? Wow! The editorial could be describing the Times. What is a more limited vision than throwing in the towel with no regard for the future?

Remember how editorials constantly whine about the federal debt and its burden on our children? I’ve always said that was BS, and the Times cut-and-run position for Iraq is further proof. If you really cared about your children, would you run from Iraq knowing what will happen?

“Americans are about to find out what kind of leader Bush is.”

[RWC] Ah, if President Bush does what the ISG says, does that mean the Times will call him a good leader?

About 16 months ago, two editorials (“Cut and run” and “Stay the course”) in three days tried to convince us “The Bush administration is laying the groundwork to declare victory and get out of Iraq” but “It [Bush administration] cannot be allowed to declare victory and bug out.”

By March 2006, when the Times finally figured out President Bush wasn’t going to cut and run, the Times declared the “only exit strategy is fast approaching the declare-victory-and-get-out stage.” Editorials since then have repeated that position.

These guys are incredible, and hope we have short memories.

Finally, did you note that nowhere did the editorial refer to a necessity for victory or success? As much as I hate to admit it, despite their foul-ups with things like Socialist Security and the Great Society welfare programs, perhaps the World War II gang was the “greatest generation.” At least they recognized we need to win wars, not lose them, and certainly not to lobby for loss as does the Times and much of the media. Then again, they were also responsible for the Korean War, which represented a loss we’re paying for today in the form of nuclear weapons in North Korea.