Posted on 01/30/2003 7:04:14 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
On October 11, Congress authorized Pres. George W. Bush to prosecute a war against Iraq. Putting his personal prestige on the line, Bush vigorously campaigned for GOP candidates last fall. Knowing that Bush supported "regime change" (i.e., war) in Iraq, and that Congress had already authorized him to make war, in November the electorate gave the GOP control of both houses of Congress in a mid-term show of support not seen since 1954, when Ike was president. And yet, the New York Times now insists that Bush lacks the necessary support to wage a war. In making mischief with war and peace, the Democrat Party "newspaper of record" is seeking pure partisan advantage, and displaying dubious loyalties.
A January 26 Times house editorial with the hyped title, The Race to War, claimed that "the world" showed weak support for the President taking us to war against Iraq. George W. Bush has also failed, according to the Times, to emphasize to the American people the worst-case scenario of an Iraq war. And Bush doesn't have an exit scenario.
You can't make this stuff up.
The Times editorial insisted, "But this war should be waged only with broad international support. To go it alone, or nearly alone, is to court disaster both domestically and internationally." And the Times will do everything in its power to ensure that its prophecy is self-fulfilling.
Someone needs to tell George Bush that his constituency is the world. After the Times calls for the enfranchisement of illegal aliens residing in the U.S., I suppose its next step will be to campaign for Iraqis, Saudis, and North Koreans to be permitted vote from their respective countries in American elections.
Viva le Times! The Newspaper of Record – in Paris and Baghdad.
In what was essentially a crude regurgitation of a more thoughtful piece by Times columnist Bill Keller the previous day, the Times January 26 editorial combined two leitmotifs: One was the revival of the subversion campaign the newspaper began in December 2000, after Al Gore failed to steal the presidential election. In order to cripple Bush's presidency, and ensure that he was a one-termer, the newspaper claimed that the President had "no mandate" to govern. That's just a Philadelphia lawyer's way of seeking to nullify an election. 'Well, he won, but not really.' The other Times leitmotif echoed the European/UN strategy of seeking by any means necessary, to sandbag American foreign policy. 'Well, he got U.N. Resolution 1441, but not really.'
The New York Times has conjured up every irrelevant rationalization imaginable to defeat American foreign policy. One expects that from our French enemies and European rivals, but the Times is allegedly an American newspaper. Thus has the Times degenerated to the point where it is as hostile to America's vital interests as the French. Viva, le Times!
You Gotta Ac-cen-tu-ate the Negative!
In the history books I've read, I must have missed the chapters on how Wilson, FDR, and Truman emphasized to the American people everything that could go wrong in Europe and Asia, respectively, and in which those presidents formulated their "exit scenarios," before ever sending troops to war.
I'm trying to imagine a successful American leader who, in seeking to rally the body politic for a life-and-death struggle, devotes himself to emphasizing the negatives. Nope, no one comes to mind. You don't win wars by – to borrow from Johnny Mercer – accentuating the negative. That job falls in the province of academics and journalists. Leaders need to focus on winning, which involves a certain tunnel vision.
Au contraire, says the Times: The President has deceived the American people. "Mr. Bush has never been open with the American people about the possible cost of this war. He has not even been clear about exactly why we are preparing to fight."
So, it is George Bush, not Saddam Hussein, who is the Great Deceiver. Got it?
For reasons that are painfully obvious, George W. Bush cannot be open about all the reasons we may go to war against Iraq. If we do not go to war with one part of the Moslem world, with the assistance of other parts of the Moslem world, we shall ultimately find ourselves at war with all of the Moslem world. Were Bush to fully articulate such realities, we would then find ourselves truly besieged. New York Times owner Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and executive editor Howell Raines' desire to harm a Republican president – and the American people – apparently knows no limits.
However, Bush did give one of the most important reasons for war in his SOTU:
"A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States."
That our alleged allies have rescinded their support is reason not to question our aims, but theirs. The nations that seek to sandbag America do so variously out of cowardice, a genuine desire to harm the U.S., and a determination that their interests are fundamentally at odds with ours. There are many things that one may call such nations – cowards, enemies, rivals – but "allies" is not one of them. The Times' response has been to take our opponents' side.
Similarly, the people who run the New York Times seek to sandbag America variously out of cowardice, a genuine desire to harm the U.S., and a determination that their interests are fundamentally at odds with ours. There are many things that one may call such people, but "patriots" is not one of them.
"A desperate Iraq might try to attack Israel, disable Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields or even destroy its own oil industry before it fell into American hands. It might fire whatever chemical and biological weapons it has against American troops. These are risks that could be well worth taking, but the American public has not signed on for them. This nation should never begin a fight it is not prepared to carry out to the bitter end, no matter what the cost."
It is the Times, not the American people, that has not signed on for the war, should it happen. The above speculations are an adapted repetition of the Times' histrionic warnings last fall of the quagmire that supposedly awaited American troops in Afghanistan, warnings about which Times staffers have developed collective amnesia.
I have never heard of the criterion whereby someone advocating a political position must begin by undermining it. What a refreshing change it would be, were the New York Times' own writers to adopt that practice!
The Times has no record of demanding of Democrat presidents contemplating war, that they accentuate the negative, and it had no such compunctions during Bill Clinton's presidency, when it uncritically supported foreign adventurism. Now, the newspaper's mantra is 'delay, delay, delay.' Bill Keller insists, "you do not have to be a peacenik to fear the cost of rushing in." Rushing in? It's been almost four months since Congress authorized war. Had Bush truly rushed us into war, the Times would never have had a chance to embark on its campaign of mischief. At this very moment, Times-crony, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.) seeks to force the Bush Administration to endure the ordeal of a SECOND congressional war authorization vote. Such a vote would be a companion piece to the specious foreign demands for a second U.N. resolution, almost three months after 1441 was passed. Such treachery used to be barred by the unwritten rule that the opposition is not to sabotage the President's making of war and peace.
"Serious Consequences"? We Were Just Kidding!
The ever-growing list of Iraqi material breaches never seems to bother the Times, which is on the same page with the U.N. Shooting at American planes in the no-fly zone? Shooting down American spy drones? Empty germ warfare warheads? Thousands of gallons of unaccounted-for toxins? Almost 30,000 missing delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)? Engaging in every possible ruse to make it impossible for U.N. inspectors to disarm the country of WMDs? Not to worry. And the Times could barely contain its glee in December, when North Korea announced that it had joined the Nuclear Club. The newspaper argued that Bush could not attack Iraq for having WMDs, without also attacking North Korea.
As for the Times' insistence that the world is not on our side, aside from the moral and political irrelevance of that statement, the Times' owner and editors seem to have forgotten that the U.S. already played the Times/U.N.'s little game of getting the Security Council involved. Indeed, on November 8, the Security Council unanimously enacted resolution 1441, which "Decide[d] that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations." The fact that the French and Germans are now pulling out is moot; they can't undo 1441, and neither can the Times.
Resolution 1441 ended by saying that Saddam's refusal to disarm would have "serious consequences." Since Saddam responds to nothing short of war, in his case, only war would count as a "serious consequence."
At the time, George W. Bush made it clear that it was he who was testing the Security Council, not the other way around, and that he was willing to do what was necessary, if the U.N. faltered or engaged in obstructionism. Bush was not asking the U.N. for its permission, but for a show of its resolve. And Bush reiterated that challenge in his (State of the Union address).
"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm....
"In all of these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process. It is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world.
"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks, and we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. (Ital) Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.(/Ital)
"Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people."
Coalition Building
Just as our former allies, Germany (1945-2003) and France (the American Revolution, remember?) – cannot turn back the clock to before 1441, the Democrat senators – John Kerry (Ma.), Joe Lieberman (Ct.), Joe Biden (De.), et al., who on October 11 voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114), can't withdraw their votes.
In his State of the Union address, Pres. Bush said, "We will consult. But let there be no mistake. If Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
Presently, the Brits are our only ally willing to send troops to fight side-by-side with our soldiers. But as George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and yes, even Colin Powell are well aware, once we start leading, other nations will – to paraphrase Lee Iacocca – either get out of the way, or follow.
All Power to the Pollsters!
The Times' Bill Keller insists, based on polls showing falling support for war, that the President hasn't presented the case for war to the American people. But the reason the poll numbers are dropping – assuming they are legitimate – is because we waited to go to war. Unlike many other nations, the American people do not enjoy going to war. And so, once they come to support a course of war, if war is delayed, the people's enthusiasm will wane. No argument will affect that condition; indeed, demanding that the chief executive continue to argue the issue will only exacerbate the condition. But then, Keller is probably aware of that.
Bush won the argument for war, when he got the American people's elected representatives to authorize him to prosecute a war. The American people underscored their support of Bush's war plans the next month, with the resounding defeat they delivered to the Democrat Party. Those two polls are the only ones that matter. I guess those are yet two more votes the Times seeks to undo. The funny thing is, Democrat presidents never bothered letting Congress debate making war, before they sent American boys off to fight and kill and die. And that was alright with the Times.
Bill Keller speaks out of both sides of his mouth, beating George Bush over the head with meaningless polls, AND admitting, at the end of his column (when most people have stopped reading), that "Presidents should not make decisions of war and peace based on polls." But then, Keller flops right back: "But the dwindling of support here and resentment abroad represent a failure to persuade, and persuading is worth taking some time."
Granted, though George W. Bush tries to downplay polls and the socialist media, the passage in his State of the Union address devoted to Iraq, and his plan to send Secretary of State Powell to speak to the U.N. next week, were both responses to the Democrat/media mischief campaign.
The odd thing about Bill Keller's column, is that it makes a solid case for war, through suggesting what the Presidents' advisers are likely telling him, before Keller twists his logic into a doughnut to end up supporting the house policy of Times owner Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and managing editor Howell Raines.
There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with journalism's generals debating the pros and cons of war. But editorial writers and columnists and newspaper owners must not confuse themselves with elected legislators or chief executives. The time for floor debates is before congressional votes, not after. And if writers oppose the war, they must make the case before their readers, and not simply make mischief by inventing legalistic-sounding hurdles that they then place in the way of a President who has been more respectful of constitutional requirements than they ever were.
There are real arguments to be made for and against sending American boys into harm's way; a sandbagging operation is no substitute for them, and will only encourage inquiries into the sandbaggers' loyalties.
The best crossword, with the worst wrapper.
The Times will never be accused of over estimating the intellect of the American people. After all none of us in fly over country could possibly know what is involved in a war.
Any snoozepaper that has this kind of toxic waste passed off as 'journalism', cannot even be used for birdcage lining. (would kill the poor bird)
The letter said in part:
"The real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever."
Here's a LINK to the full contents of that letter.
The best crossword, with the worst wrapper.
It's truly a shame.
Good thing we aren't back in the days of World War 2........we'd still be nattering about exit strategies and costs......
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.