“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”

Jonathan Swift
"The Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital." - Bill Maher
"The city is crowded my friends are away and I'm on my own
It's too hot to handle so I gotta get up and go

It's a cruel ... cruel summer"

Friday, February 16, 2007

Meet the New War, Same as the Old War

As we approach the 4th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq I think it's worth looking back at the pimping the Globe-Republican did for their Leader and His Glorious War. Following are editorials going back about two months prior to the invasion. Notice the themes that develop: "war is our last and only option", "shut up and sing", "Saddam = bin Laden", and keep in mind how wrong, how dead wrong, they were about everything. I've only included excerpts from the editorials (the bolds are mine), you should read them in their entirety.

Editorial: Iraqi weapons scientists can't go home again (01/23/03)

One of the components of the list is a perfect example of the futility of dealing with the Iraqi regime.

After refusing previously to allow private interviews between U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi weapons scientists, Saddam finally relented.
It is becoming apparent concessions and agreements with Iraq are as empty as the chemical warheads U.N. weapons inspectors recently uncovered.

Ultimately, Saddam will have to meet a legitimate international standard, and as yet there appears to be none in sight.

Editorial: State of the Union time to state case (01/28/03)

President Bush will stand before the country tonight to deliver his State of the Union speech. He will do so with the drums of war beating ever so steadily in the background.
Although the president has performed magnificently in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he needs now to start explaining in detail to Americans why they should send their treasured sons and daughters into battle.
And this page will be at the head of the line in declaring its support for the president and the troops he orders into battle.

Editorial: Where there is no smoke, there still can be fire (01/29/03)

While Blix provided no "smoking gun," the term that has come to signify verifiable evidence of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Blix did say that Saddam's regime "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance" of the international agreement that it prove and maintain a policy of disarmament.
What Saddam is accomplishing by continuing to delay, deceive, lie and interfere with international policy is to make it easier to proceed with a final option no one wants - war - even without a "smoking gun."

Editorial: Bush reinforces American resolve (01/30/03)

The president and his administration have made it perfectly clear almost to the point of monotony - either Saddam disarms willingly or by force.

Bush impressively reiterated this stance and laid out an extensive list of atrocities committed under Saddam's regime.

There has to some sort of legitimate consequence, supported by the international community, for Saddam's refusal to comply with international regulations.

Contrary to the beliefs of many, war is and should remain a last resort, an opinion echoed by the president and reinforced during his speech.
While the president vowed to use the "full force and might of the U.S. military" to disarm Saddam, this is only an option, not a final decision.

Military force seems to be the only response that gets Saddam's attention.

Editorial: Saddam's response is mother of all propaganda (02/08/03)

The international community saw firsthand the violations of Saddam Hussein and his regime Wednesday as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a damning and forceful presentation to the U.N. Security Council documenting the vastness of Iraq's defiance.
Powell offered satellite photos showing materials and equipment being conveniently moved from inspection sites before the arrival of U.N. weapons inspectors and audiotape of Iraqi military officials discussing plans to thwart the discovery of prohibited weapons.

Powell included dates, times and locations.

Iraq feebly countered by describing Powell's presentation as consisting of "stunts" and "special effects."

Other than rhetoric, Iraq provided no definitive response to refute what was a conclusive and concise assessment of Saddam's disregard for international policy.

Monday Briefing - Where there's smoke . . . (02/10/03)

Opponents of a possible war with Iraq cite the need for a "smoking gun" before military action is taken to disarm or remove Saddam Hussein.
The best refutation to date of this off-the-mark "smoking gun" policy is offered by Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In last week's Los Angeles Times, Boot shot holes in the "smoking gun" standard rather simply, stating, "the problem is that a gun doesn't smoke until after it's been fired."

This bit of logic eludes the "smoking gun" pundits.

Editorial: Bin Laden's Saddam card a stacked deck for evil (2/19/03)

Once again, as if the world needed reminding, Osama bin Laden has demonstrated why the United States must continue its fight against him - and terrorists like him.
This is the same bin Laden who has vilified Saddam for running what bin Laden and his followers say is a "secular state" that is unfaithful to the tenets of Islam.

This struggle is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, as bin Laden and his new best friend, Saddam, would have the world believe.
All he has done is draw himself closer to Saddam and made it more imperative than ever to eradicate them both.

Editorial: Star light, star bright, won't you be quiet tonight (02/21/03)

A potential war with Iraq has members of Tinseltown's elite banding together to form a coalition of the willing whose media bombardment is almost as annoying and irritating, and about as substantial, as Saddam Hussein propaganda.
Hollywood actors have the right, as does any American, to voice their opinions. It is the audacity and arrogance of many of these celebrities that make us wish they had more scripts to read.

The opinions of Martin Sheen (who may be taking his television role as president a bit too seriously), Kim Basinger and Mike Farrell give no more credence to the war opposition than any of the thousands who participated in the recent anti-war rallies.

Editorial: Doves on hunt for war hawks (02/25/03)

Hopefully, it will not take bombs falling on Baghdad to force Saddam to meet his international obligations.

Time will tell.

However, those who assert the U.S. is rushing headlong into a war without exhausting every available alternative are either misguided or doing so for political advantage.

Editorial: War differs from assassination (03/01/03)

Saddam would be a casualty of war, a war months in preparation.

Editorial: Doing nothing is deadlier than war (03/12/03)

It is time for Saddam's shenanigans to cease, and for the threat he represents to the United States and democratic countries around the world to be removed.
A war in Iraq, which could prove more costly in terms of lives and money in the aftermath than in the actual removal of Saddam, is a gamble.

But considering the cost of doing nothing, the alternative is unthinkable.
U.N. weapons inspectors contend their mission can be completed within a few more months. But what then?
Should this monotony go on endlessly as long as Saddam remains in power and therefore remains a threat?
It is not a war America wants, but a war it must fight to protect not only American lives, but security and freedom.

Editorial: War presents many risks (03/18/03)

This is a war no one, including those in the Bush administration, wants.
Saddam Hussein is a threat to America and its allies.
The financial cost of war, while secondary to the loss of human life, will have to borne by a nation already saddled with a struggling economy.

Will the Iraqi people regard war as liberation?

Will the occupation of Iraq prove more deadly than the war itself?

How will the United Nations be regarded in the future, and will its role diminish?

These are all risks.

But there is the risk also of permitting a bloodthirsty dictator with the capacity to commit atrocities against others and his own people to continue to thwart the rest of the international community.

War is a risk we must take.

Editorial: War must bring sides together (03/19/03)

This is an important message. It is a message of solidarity. No matter how strongly one feels against war, the time for protesting has passed, if only temporarily.

Our men and women have a difficult and deadly job to do. They need to be focused on the mission at hand without the distractions - and potential drain on their morale - of anti-war protesters.

The debate can resume once our warriors finish the job they are being ordered to undertake.

Editorial: Saddam main target of war (03/20/03)

Saddam is a significant threat to America and its allies.
It has been proved Saddam has access to weapons of mass destruction and no doubt would employ them, especially to exact revenge.
A war in Iraq must be swift, thorough and extensive, and that includes making sure we know without a doubt the fate of Saddam Hussein.

Editorial: Start of war starts unity (03/21/03)

Now is not the time for anti-war rallies. Now is not the time to criticize a decision that already has been made. Now is the time for a nation to unite despite deep political differences when American lives are on the line.

While the editorial board of the Globe-Republican can at least be given credit for pushing the war without calling for the public executions of war opponents, their measured language doesn't disguise, or excuse, the solid support Bush had right from the beginning. Despite some token questioning of the conflict, King Decider's Loyal Subjects dutifully followed his lead through the whole charade.

Now, here we are. The blood of tens of thousands of American service-men and -women spilled in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, hundreds of billions of dollars are lost down the money pit, Iraq has descended into near anarchy and big bad Saddam, hanged at dawn in a way that even some righties found disturbing. It seems inconceivable that with two floundering wars already in progress the Administration would be hinting at a third, but this is George W. Bush's America and George W. Bush's America, much like everything else he's undertaken will probably lay in ruin when he dusts himself off and strolls away without a care in the world. Bush and the rest of his neo-con supporters are itching for a showdown with Iran. As the Rude Pundit put it, ""Quds force" is the new "U.N. Resolution 1441."" This isn't 2002, though. People are increasingly distrustful of Bush and some members of the media seem to have grown their spines back. The press is supposed to be an ever questioning, ever skeptical observer of government, not a cheerleader for it. Whether or not the Globe-Republican remembers that next time around remains to be seen, but I wouldn't hold my breath.