BCT Editorial – 3/26/08

This page was last updated on March 26, 2008.

Never forget; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 26, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The number of American dead in Iraq as the result of President Bush’s hubris has reached 4,000.”

[RWC] Nothing like leading off with a personal attack, is there? Is this and leading off with name-calling in the Times editorial style guide? <g> Interestingly, when you go to post a comment on the Times website, it says “Do not post personal attacks, insults or threats,” yet these tactics are the very foundation of many Times editorials.

Though the editorial is entitled “Never forget,” the Times apparently forgot Congress (including three recent Democrat candidates for president) approved the Iraq War Resolution.

“Compared to casualties in other wars this nation’s has fought, the number of dead isn’t high, especially when it is spread out over five years.”

[RWC] This is approximately 67 deaths per month. For comparison, the average monthly casualty rate for Vietnam in 1968 was nearly 1,400. For the entire Korean War, the rate was nearly 1,000 casualties per month. My intent isn’t to diminish the deaths in Iraq; it’s simply to put the casualties into some kind of historical context.

“However, it’s not the numbers alone that are disheartening. It’s the casual waste of human life in a war our country did not have to fight that should be cause for outrage. Because of Bush’s reckless disregard for the welfare of the men and the women in the U.S. military and their families, 4,000 — and counting — have died in vain.”

[RWC] What despicable comments! Does anyone believe any president sends our armed forces in harm’s way casually and with “reckless disregard?”

“But the harm Bush and his enablers have done extends beyond the dead. Tens of thousands of men and women in the Army and Marines Corps, and the Air Force and Navy, to a lesser extent, have been wounded and maimed, some horribly.”

[RWC] Apparently the Times forgets that it too is/was an “enabler.” To see what I mean, please read my critique of “Bitter legacy.” Does the Times really want us to “Never forget?”

“And for what?

“Never forget the sacrifices of those who served and their families. At a time when so few are willing to serve their country, their sense of honor and duty demands our thanks, respect and appreciation.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. When brave men and women volunteer to put themselves in harm’s way for their country, the Times idea of “thanks, respect and appreciation” is to refer to the choice of these patriots as a “casual waste of human life” and their sacrifices as “in vain?”

“But also never forget the way in which the president and his men wasted and ruined these lives. Those in the military and their families deserved better from those who sent them to war.”

[RWC] I’ll assume you noticed the editorial didn’t provide one piece of evidence to support its allegations about our President.

Does anyone remember if the Times commented when some idiots accused Bill Clinton of firing missiles at Iraq and/or Sudan to deflect attention away from the Monica Lewinsky affair?