Friday, January 19, 2007


Channeling the Grey Lady

Jules Crittenden may be happy in his nice new digs, but he’s still mad as heck at the New York Times. The Times’ latest editorial on Iraq drove him into a furious trance, in which Jules convincingly channels the inner thought life of the Times’ editors.

Would that we could actually see them commit to print, what we all know they really think:

But among other things, the public needs to know why, for more than five years, the New York Times has consistently sided with America’s enemies.

This is because, even though we at the New York Times editorial board live in and around New York, scene of the most horrific and unprovoked attack on innocent American civilians ever, we still don’t see what the big deal is.

We consider this “War on Terror” … or more precisely, as the president says, “War on Turr” … to be a police matter that should be handled more or less as one deals with a common criminal.

Jules adroitly draws a parallel between the typical limousine liberal approach to crime fighting, and their comparable prescription for terror, an approach obviously preferred by the NY Times. He then follows up with the primary motivators for sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the Times, the essential qualities of the President They Loath So Much:

The Bush administration has shown itself to run counter to the interests that all the Americans we know hold dear, primarily those who live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, in Westchester and some of the closer reaches of Connecticut.

Mr. Bush resembles a chimpanzee, and does not speak well. He believes in Jesus, and has surrounded himself with others who have a quaint and archaic fixation on religion. He has been unrepentant in his belief that “evil” exists in the world, and that sometimes it is not enough to just use one’s “words.”  He has also refused to cede his presidency to the United States Congress, despite a clear and unmistakable message from several electoral districts of the United States whose voters signaled they wanted to be represented by someone else in Congress.  

It’s bad enough I almost got myself rear-ended this morning, but then Jules almost makes me spit out my coffee. I think that’s as close to the Inner Editor for the Times as anyone’s ever likely to conjure.

Earlier, NPR helpfully ran a segment with clueless Senator Hagel, spouting off on how wrong are the latest plans for Iraq. I start ranting at NPR, Democrats, PEW Research polls, and clueless and gutless GOP (not all but too many), and cross one too many lanes without seeing the car I cut off.

Why is it that Democrats – and their Media mouthpieces – spend countless broadcast hours reporting on whatever poll shows the American people against this or that, or for this or that, but only when public sentiment is rock solid in their preferred direction?

How come no airplay on how the majority of Americans want non-criminals to be able to own guns for self protection, how most Americans support the death penality, how most Americans want lower taxes and smaller government, and how large majorities of Americans are against Gay marriage, believe in God, and consider themselves Christians? But of course, I digress.

Thanks be to God for Senators like Arizona’s Kyl. To give NPR credit for balance, Sen. Kyl offered sharp and concise rebuttal to Hagel’s defeatism, suggesting that the President gathered lots of advice, and considered a multitude of options in formulating the latest military and political approach to “winning the war” in Iraq. He rightly points out that the President’s critics offer no meaningful alternative other than, “pull out.”

And on a challenge from the NPR correspondent, that the President didn’t consider the Iraqi Study Group’s plan for “phase redeployments,” Sen. Kyl remarked words to the effect that, “that’s right, he doesn’t want to retreat yet from Iraq, because he thinks we can win.

Two observations. One of the hawkish commentators in the last day or so reminded the war’s supporters and our military, “you already won the war in Iraq militarily,” and that the aim now was to achieve a long term victory for the US geopolitically. I think this is exactly right, and underscores how false and dishonest is the majority of the public debate on Iraq. Iraq is not a catastrophe, and we are not “losing in Iraq,” for we have already won by any reasonable, historic, and not hysterical, standard.

We removed Saddam in lightning fashion, and gave the Iraqis three successful elections, for a provisional Government, on an Iraqi-crafted Constitution, and for a democratically elected Parliamentary Government. We thoroughly destroyed the Baathist infrastructure, created a good baseline for recovery and rebuilding throughout the large majority of provinces, and inflicted severe attrition upon an Al Qaeda terrorist organization largely caught flat footed and unprepared.

Where we have failed militarily is whenever we stayed the hand of violence against our known enemies in deference to political and diplomatic pretences that are altogether false and counter to long tem US interests.

The second observation? Sen. Kyl said it best, something to the effect of “there were many options for the President to consider, and what he’s proposed has a good chance of succeeding. Look, if one really thinks that we’ve lost already, that we’ve failed in Iraq, the plan I’d favor is to get the troops out today, all of them.”

I have to give Sen. Ted Kennedy credit in that regard. At least he’s being honest, and acting on the conviction all these “Phase Withdrawal” phonies won’t admit publicly. He’s convinced we’ve lost already, and will do everything in his power to bring that end to pass. Like his most of his fellow Democrats, only they refuse to pony up the political price to say so.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]