BCT Editorial – 3/19/08

This page was last updated on March 21, 2008.

Bitter legacy; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 19, 2008.

This editorial subtitle is “The truth about Bush’s failure in Iraq is that there is no good way out for the U.S.”

I submitted the following comment on the Times website, but the Times chose not to post it. I wonder why.

“The Times editorial history on this topic will make your head spin.

“Four years ago an editorial said, ‘No matter who takes the oath of office on Jan. 20 [2005], the United States must stay the course in Iraq.’ Later the Times proclaimed, ‘The Bush administration is laying the groundwork to declare victory and get out of Iraq.’ and said ‘It cannot be allowed to declare victory and bug out.’ Less than eight months later, the Times switched from falsely accusing President Bush of planning to cut and run to calling for us to cut and run.

“Let’s skip to January 2007. Though editorials claimed to ‘support’ the surge, they also expressed the opinion the surge wouldn’t work. This led me to write, ‘This is a cowardly and despicable position. Its purpose is to set up the Times to be ‘right’ regardless of the outcome.’

“Once evidence showed the surge was working, the Times said ‘The so-called Petraeus report changes nothing,’ claimed Gen. Petraeus was playing ‘a numbers game,’ and subsequently gave at least partial credit for the surge’s success so far to one of our enemies, Muqtada al-Sadr.

“Wow!”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Five years, almost 4,000 deaths, tens of thousands wounded and maimed — and no end in sight. Such is the mess that President Bush created when he, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, neo-cons and other chicken hawks pushed our country into a war that did not need to be fought.”

[RWC] You have to love Monday morning quarterbacks. You also can tell a rant is on shaky ground when the author feels it’s necessary to lead off with name-calling.

By the way, did you notice how the editorial failed to mention Congress? As a reminder, the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress – including the Democrat-controlled Senate – gave President Bush the authority. The editorial also failed to remind us current Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton voted for the Resolution along with 58% of Senate Democrats.

“There’s no point in going into the lies, half-truths, pie-eyed optimism and failed promises the administration and its allies used to gin up war with Iraq. There’s no reason to rehash how they refused to plan adequately for the occupation of Iraq or anticipate the impact that the invasion would have on Iraqi society. This administration’s failings have been too well documented to waste any more time on them.”

[RWC] Ask yourself this. Why didn’t the editorial go “into the lies, half-truths, pie-eyed optimism and failed promises the administration and its allies used to gin up war with Iraq?” If the author could have, he would have.

FYI, I checked Times editorials going back to 2004 and in only one was a specific “lie” mentioned. The “lie?” That terrorists existed in Iraq before we invaded. Of course, the lie is to claim Iraq was the only terrorist-free country on the planet.

“Of course, the administration and its defenders refuse to own up to many of their mistakes, and they certainly are never going to admit that they were wrong in toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein instead of staying focused on rooting out al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq destabilized a fractured society and undermined what little stability there was. The administration’s total bungling of the situation has led to hundreds of innocent Iraqis being killed, wounded and maimed.”

[RWC] “[H]undreds of innocent Iraqis being killed, wounded and maimed?” What about the mass graves of “innocent Iraqis” killed by Saddam Hussein?

“The U.S. military also is paying a terrible price for their hubris. A first-class military has been and is being misused and abused by this administration. Its personnel and materiel are being ground down in what amounts to a war of attrition that cannot be won.”

[RWC] Oops, the author didn’t consult the Times style guide. Based on previous editorials, the second sentence should have read, “A first-class military has been and is being ground up [or ground down] by this administration.”

“To make the punishment being inflicted on the military even more devastating, only a very small percentage of the American people are making the ultimate sacrifice. As a result, the war and its consequences are not remotely related to most Americans’ daily lives. For far too many Americans, it is someone else’s son or daughter who has been killed, wounded and maimed. It is someone else’s husband or wife whose family life has been disrupted by repeated combat tours. It is some other father or mother whose life has been shattered by the death of a child.”

[RWC] Translation: Damn it, when we got rid of the draft we figured too few would volunteer to defend our country. We were wrong and we want to reinstate the draft, but we don’t have the guts to say so openly.

“Five years on, the United States is weaker economically, militarily and diplomatically than it was prior to the invasion. It has fewer friends and more enemies, fewer resources and more debt, fewer options and more problems, fewer allies and more creditors.”

[RWC] The Times and its fellow travelers would like us to believe our current economic issues are related to Iraq. They are not. Our current economic problems are the result of people borrowing and lending money when they shouldn’t have and the continued excessive spending on extraconstitutional government programs.

Regarding the comments about friends and allies, that’s more BS. Our real allies and friends before Iraq are still our allies and friends. All the others were pretenders.

“The bleakness has no end because the United States has no options. It can neither stay in Iraq nor withdraw from Iraq.”

[RWC] Uh, aren’t those options?

“If it stays, Iraq will continue to be a budgetary and military drain on the nation.

“The presence of U.S. military personnel in large numbers also will be a recruiting tool for Muslim extremists.”

[RWC] Using that logic, there’s no war we can fight because large numbers of U.S. armed forces will be a recruiting tool for our enemies.

“But if the United States does withdraw, Iraq will collapse into a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and Arabs and Kurds — with Iranian Shiites and Sunni extremists from outside Iraq as potential participants.”

[RWC] If you recall, Times editorials beginning two years ago (“Retool and refit”) said there was already a civil war in Iraq. I guess this paragraph is an admission the Times was lying, or merely wrong.

“Five years on, there is no end in sight. This is what Bush hath wrought. It will be his bitter legacy.”

[RWC] The Times has switched positions so many times it has no credibility on this topic. In “Long haul,” the Times grudgingly said, “No matter who takes the oath of office on Jan. 20 [2005], the United States must stay the course in Iraq.” By “Cut and run,” the Times proclaimed, “The Bush administration is laying the groundwork to declare victory and get out of Iraq.” Two days later, “Stay the course” said, “We must not punish the Iraqi people for the Bush administration’s mistakes. It is responsible for the chaos in Iraq today. It cannot be allowed to declare victory and bug out.” Keep in mind that all the while the Times was feigning concern about cutting and running, there was never any indication this would occur. The Times was making it all up. By “Soldier’s soldier” just three months later, the Times was beginning to change its mind. By “Retool and refit,” the flip-flop was complete with “The United States has no choice but to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and live with the consequences.” That’s right, in less than eight months the Times went from falsely accusing President Bush of planning to cut and run to calling for us to cut and run.

Let’s fast forward to January 2007 and “Bush’s troop surge” when the Times said “Congress and the American people should support President Bush’s effort to pacify Baghdad by increasing troop strength there.” Though subsequent editorials (here’s one example) continued to “support” the surge, they also expressed the opinion the surge wouldn’t work. This led me to write, “this is a cowardly and despicable position. Its purpose is to set up the Times to be ‘right’ regardless of the outcome. Should we succeed, you can bet an editorial will crow about support for the surge. Should we fail, an editorial will say ‘we told you to surrender,’ though probably not in those words. Despite this, you can bet the Times will claim it ‘supports the troops.’”

Once evidence began to appear showing the surge was working, the Times claimed Gen. David Petraeus was playing “a numbers game” and subsequently gave credit for the surge’s success so far to Muqtada al-Sadr.