BCT Editorial – 3/2/07

This page was last updated on March 3, 2007.

Finally; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 2, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“What took so long?

“The Bush administration is reaching out to Syria and Iran in an attempt to stabilize the situation in Iraq. The overture marks a major departure for the White House, which in the past has refused to talk with countries - not just Syria and Iran - that it didn’t like.”

[RWC] I don’t know if this editorial is a lie or simply the result of ignorance.

First, the country doing the “reaching out” is Iraq, not the U.S. Iraq is arranging a security conference to which it invited Iran, Syria, the U.S. and the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council. According to Radio Free Europe (RFE), “White House spokesman Tony Snow said there will not be any bilateral talks between the United States and Iran or the United States and Syria in the meetings in Baghdad in March and in April.”

Second, according to RFE, “Snow said there were many contacts with the Iranians with regard to Afghanistan throughout 2002 and 2003. He said there was also an offer by the United States to work diplomatically with the Iranians on border issues concerning Iraq.” According to Fox News, “the administration has long said it would take part in such a conference at Iraqi invitation. White House Spokesman Tony Snow, for example, said back on December 6 that if the Iraqis convened such a meeting and, ‘want our help and our participation, we would be happy to do so.’ Indeed, the U.S. has already taken part in regional discussions that included Iran and Syria as part of what is called the International Compact on Iraq.”

Was the editorial lying or simply displaying ignorance? You decide.

“Because of that intransigence, it took far longer than it should have for the administration to do what it should have done years ago - acknowledged that Syria and Iran can have a positive as well as a negative impact on what happens in Iraq.

“But you can’t get people to work with you when you won’t talk to them, when you trash them at every opportunity.”

[RWC] Hmm, but it’s OK to trash your allies “at every opportunity?” Lest we forget, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the Times choice for president in 2004, referred to our allies as a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted.” According to my admittedly incomplete archives, the Times didn’t object.

Here’s another “hmm.” Did you notice the editorial apparently didn’t have a problem with the U.S.-trashing done by Iran and Syria? This is yet another example of “blame America first.” Of course, it’s possible politics governs when the Times blames America first, though that would be no better.

“Don’t get us wrong. You don’t have to like rogue states such as Syria and Iraq. You don’t have to agree with their agendas and dogmas.

“However, you often must work with them when you have mutual interests.

“Syria has an interest in a stable Iraq. Iran has an interest in a stabile [sic] Iraq. The United States has an interest in a stable Iraq. It’s unfortunate that it took the Bush administration almost four years to grasp that.”

[RWC] That the Times believes either Iran or Syria have “an interest in a stable Iraq” would be laughable were the situation not serious.

Let’s look at Syria. Using the Times “logic,” Syria also has an interest in a stable Lebanon, yet it supports the terrorist group Hamas that does its best to destabilize Lebanon. Remember the war with Israel last summer? Let’s also not forget even the UN believes Syria is behind the assassinations of Lebanese government officials who don’t dance to Syria’s tune. If a stable Iraq is important to Syria, why does it allow terrorists free transit across its border with Iraq?

Regarding Iran, if it’s interested in a stable Iraq, why is a government arm (Quds Force) supplying weapons to terrorists working in Iraq? Why have members of the Iranian government been caught in Iraq helping the terrorists?

If either Iran or Syria believed a stable Iraq was in their best interest, the above actions would not have taken place.