Posted on 04/09/2003 2:07:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
BREAKING NEWS is a troublesome thing for a columnist. As of this writing, coalition forces report blasting to smithereens a commercial compound where Hussein and his wretched offspring, Qusai and Odai, were said to be meeting, but its unclear whether the miscreants have been sent to meet their maker.
By the time this piece is posted, the justification for the warHusseins weapons of mass destructionmay already be verified, and its victory already obtained. Then again, maybe not.
Being an optimist, Ill assume the positive. Because even if WMDs have not been found and Iraqi leadership has not been decapitated (either literally or figuratively), both happy events are all but inevitable. Should the eventual course of history prove me wrong, Ill gladly admit as much.
Any chance the wars left-wing critics are willing to do the same?
Its doubtful. If the past is any indication, no one on the left is likely to own up to being so horrendously wrong about Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thats why its up those of us who have supported the war all along to point it out for them. After all, in the wars early days, they were more than eager to point the finger at us.
So, let the recriminations begin!
Last week in this space, we examined the questionasked repeatedly and breathlessly throughout the establishment mediaof why coalition forces hadnt been able to find any of Saddams WMDs. Among the Eurocrats, the appeasers, the peaceniks, and the medias nattering nabobs, the failure (as the Washington Post described it) of allied troops to find a smoking gun after two weeks in Iraq called into question the very validity of the war. Maybe Saddam was really a peaceful, honest guy after all. (Maybe it was just water balloons that he spent four months trying to hide from UN weapons inspectors.)
Can we now all agree now that Bush was rightand the Eurocrats were wrongabout Hussein? Can we admit that the (probably) deceased despot was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441? Can we accept that he was duping UN weapons inspectors?
And in light of the above points, shouldnt the French, Russians, Germans, and their American admirers concede the utter absurdity of their perpetual refrain, give inspections a chance?
Everyone who ever uttered that vapid phraseor any of its offshoots, like inspections are working or the UN teams just need more timeought to step forward with apologies forthwith.
Were waiting.
Well probably be waiting for a long, long time.
It was already painfully clear, well before the first allied troop set foot in Iraq, that inspections could never disarm a dictator who had no interest in disarming. Remember the Blix reports, which documented countless examples of Iraqi noncompliance? Remember the Powell presentation, which demonstrated Baghdads clear attempt to deceive international inspectors? Remember the Iraqi scientists who would never submit to an open and honest interview?
All that has changed between then and now is that the evidence against Hussein has gone from overwhelming to incontrovertiblea standard still unlikely to persuade those ideologically immune to persuasion.
Leftists have a long history of being proved wrong but not owning up to it. They were wrong about the Cold War, when they warned that a tough stance against the Soviet Union would invite a nuclear holocaust. Instead, it toppled the Evil Empire. In the War on Terror, they were wrong about Afghanistan, warning of an awful quagmire. Instead, it was a quick military triumph.
And they were spectacularly wrong about Operation Iraqi Freedom, fretting only a week ago that the U.S. had botched the war from the get-go. There werent enough troops in Iraq! We underestimated Iraqi resistance! Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Rummy in the lefts snide parlance) had concocted an arrogant game plan that was deeply flawed!
Required reading for recriminations purposes ought to be media critic Howard Kurtz March 31 Washington Post column, in which he dutifully and contemporaneously documented various predictions of gloom and doom from the establishment media. One prime example, comes from a March 30 Los Angeles Times story:
As President Bush and his aides dig in for a longer war than first hoped for, they face a sobering prospect: Longer and tougher combat will create a ripple effect of problems stretching from the battlefield to the rest of the worldincluding the home front.
The choicest quote of all, though, comes from official spokeswoman of the smug northeastern elite, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who was experiencing acid flashbacks to Vietnam:
We saw American commanders expressing doubts about a war plan that the Pentagon insisted was going splendidly while being vague about the body count Retired generals were even more critical of the Rumsfeld doctrine of underwhelming force. The defense chief is so enamored of technology and air power that he overrode the risk of pitting 130,000-strong American ground forcesthe vast majority of the front-line troops have never fired at a live enemy beforeagainst 350,000 Iraqi fighters, who have kept their aim sharp on their own people.
The examples are many. With American soldiers risking their lives overseas, left-wing pundits nestled all safe in their beds, while visions of quagmires danced through their heads. Their analysis of the war was like an inkblot test, more a reflection of what they wanted to see than what was actually there.
Tellingly, they saw American casualties and festering hatred for the US throughout Iraq and the world.
Yes, apologies are in order.
We're waiting . . . .
url-linked images of shame |
Continuing thanks for your wonderful art/commentary/legacy writing that the presstitutes would not deign to do.....
Don't hold your breath.
Yes, apologies are in order ... we shouldn't hold our breath! :)
The left-wing wacko's are irrelevant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.