Frank Rich,The New York waste of Times War

Support Public Hearings on Able Danger - Sign the Online Able Danger Petition

Help support Congressman Curt Weldon's letter calling for public hearings on Able Danger.  Sign it here then spread theword. hat tip QT Monster Blog Home

              Frank Rich'sWar New York Sun editorial

Bush and Vice President Cheney with lying to get America involved in the war in Iraq, as the New York Times columnist Frank Rich did yesterday, have a special obligation to get the truth correct themselves. It's one thing for Mr. Rich to disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq and to blame Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for the decision. It's another for Mr. Rich to accuse our elected leaders of misleading the country while the columnist himself goes about misleading readers of The New York Times.

The Truth

Mr. Rich writes that the White House's record on the road to Iraq recalls the saying, "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" Here is what Mr. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, the one whose 16 words about Uranium in Africa caused such a storm. "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages - leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained - by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

That the president spoke the truth has been sadly confirmed in free Iraq. The Associated Press's Nadia Abou El-Magd interviewed Firas Adnan, whose tongue had been cut off with a box cutter by a Saddam loyalist. Mr. Adnan, "his slurred words barely comprehensible," said of Saddam, "He is a despot, the biggest despot, Iraq will be much better without him." Susan Sachs of Mr. Rich's own New York Times reported from the mass graves of Hilla: "On April 11, 1991, a few weeks into the Shiite rebellion, Iraqi helicopters dropped leaflets over Karbala ordering everyone to leave or be attacked with chemical weapons. Mr. Mohani piled his relatives into a pickup truck and a car and fled. About four miles south of the city, the escape route was blocked. There, he said, he saw Mr. Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, executing people randomly at a checkpoint. 'He was telling people to get out of their cars and then he would shoot them, shoot them until his arm was too tired to do it anymore.'"

Does Mr. Rich think his own colleague and the Associated Press are also part of what he derides as "propaganda" and "the disinformation assembly line"? And when it comes time for a new generation to ask their elders what they did during the war to end the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, what are the editors of the Times going to have to say for themselves?

Read it all

And go over to American Future for The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005

Baghdad forfeits the protection of the U.N. cease-fire resolution every time it violates the cease-fire terms. [January 21, 1993 editorial]

This page remains persuaded of the vital need to disarm Iraq. But it is a process that should go through the United Nations. [March 17, 2003 editorial]

A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times – the self-described "newspaper of  record" – is among the world's most influential opinion leaders. As  shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper's stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003. While its editors never lost their fear of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their prescription for countering the threat posed by the weapons was altered beyond recognition. Hat ip x__dhimmi

More here..............Saddam, Al qaida and 9/11

NATO vs. Islamist Terror NATO is imperative to defend us against the threat of Islamist terror. By JOSE MARIA AZNAR

Comments

[Woody]

Thanks for posting this. Good stuff.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages - leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained - by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Quite true, as far as I know.

Minor problem - < ahref="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html">
Abuse worse than under Saddam, says Iraqi leader:

"Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.

'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'

In a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said."

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

That link again...

[wrapper]

I'm not inclined to make too much of the revelations of abuse from the new Iraqi govt. They are a sovereign nation now, sorta, and it is their decisions that count. Fighting insurgents is a nasty business and can get out of hand pretty quick.

I'm concerned that making too much of these revelations will hinder or even prevent our withdrawal so I hope the media mostly suppresses whatever information it collects.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

I'm not inclined to make too much of the revelations of abuse from the new Iraqi govt.

How interesting. You were willing to murder thousands of Iraqis using Saddam's abuse as an excuse.

[Merovign]

Disputed.

This is one of those things that is likely a muddle of real abuses with invented abuses and abuses attributed to the wrong parties. It's also a political ploy (I am NOT claiming Allawi has base motives here - strategic truth can also be a political ploy) by someone who has been jockeying for the best position in the coming elections. Things can be believed and partially or not true.

Time will tell.

That being said, the posting of the news item here is definitely a ploy, a "change the subject" maneuver combined with a dash of "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

It's the most successful childish debate tactic of all time - change the subject, endlessly, preferably without addressing the subject first.

You've seen small children do it all the time. Usually, the child is asked a question about something they've done wrong. The first words out of their mouth are "But what about," continuing with a reference to some other time, or place, or person, or anything that distracts from the question.

The question at hand is of Frank Rich, the NYT, and the reasons for the Iraq War. But if the troll can change the subject to Allawi's fresh and largely uninvestigated allegations of abuse, then the troll can muddy the waters and sow discord and, most of all, change the subject.

[C Max]

Hey Phoenician:

Weren't you the one to whom I offered proof just days ago catching the Guardian in an absolute lie about something?

In any event, the current President, Talibani, says that Mr. Allawi's assertions are nothing but hyperbole in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4476098.stm

It's also worth noting that Allawi himself was accused of personally executing six people during HIS stint as interim prime minister, by none other than our old pal al Sadr, the Shiite cleric.

The lefty blogs have been all over this Allawi story like maggots. Why is it you guys seem to take absolute GLEE in any news that suggests things might not be going according to plan in Iraq?

Our main goal in Iraq was to protect ourselves by removing Saddam and his two sons waiting in the wings. Attempting to introduce democracy there is all we can do. We can only lead the horse to water.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

That being said, the posting of the news item here is definitely a ploy, a "change the subject" maneuver combined with a dash of "the perfect is the enemy of the good." [...] The question at hand is of Frank Rich, the NYT, and the reasons for the Iraq War.

Oh, so now "liberating the Iraqis" was not one of the many many reasons given for the War?

Our main goal in Iraq was to protect ourselves by removing Saddam and his two sons waiting in the wings.

Protect yourselves from what, exactly? Oday putting on water wings and swimming to America with a knife clenched in his teeth?

[C Max]

Phoenician:

Once again. . . ignore the point, make different accusations, change the subject, accuse your opponent of doing what your side is doing. Ayn Rand had these "debating" tactics nailed.

Let's take a look at what you're suggesting we do here. You want us to conclude that the entire Iraq war was a complete failure based solely on the unsubstantiated statements of Mr. Allawi, who says torture is taking place at the hands of Shiites and Kurds, which he claims is "worse than Saddam."

Yet you're one of the group who wanted proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam had WMD pointed right at us when we moved to depose him, and who to this day refuse to even entertain the thought that there might have been a connection there.

And, by the way, for about 85% of the population, getting rid of Saddam WAS liberating them, no matter what you have to say. And that's a fact which will never change. Whether they create a worse fate for themselves is up to them.

Some people seem to want us to lose the struggle against religious fascism so badly that they can taste it.

[joejoejoe]

wrapper: "...so I hope the media mostly suppresses whatever information it collects."

Because as we all know the job of the media is to collect new information....and suppress it.

[wrapper]

The media works in mysterious ways Joe3. Sometimes they decline to report sometimes they do. Good thing there are blogs.

[arabs are cuter]

yes of course iyad alawi is a self-aggrandizing, disreputable thug. why the hell do you think we stuck him in as interim president. unfortunately the guy didn't have all the weapons that saddam had in his arsenal, namely the brutal suppression of political dissidents, and he wasn't allied with the iranian shia islamists who are determined to rule iraq. too bad, too--i think allawi was a shoe-in for "best new saddam 2005" and if we'd just cut all the crap about democracy--which is extremely bad for our lucrative oil business anyway--we could've had another good, ruthless ally for donald rumsfeld to go smile and shake hands with a few years down the line.

but that's not the point.

the point is that the new york times is evil. they hate america. they hate the troops, and they hate freedom, and democracy, and puppies. in fact, proof of their incorrigable puppy hatred abounds on every page. they'll write story after story about stray dogs running wild in bucharest and new york city pounds filled to capacity with rabid, mangy mutts but do they tell the other side of the story? do they talk about all the cute adorable puppes that just want to lick our faces and snuggle up on to our laps? do they mention that the SPCA gassed its own dogs in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002? do they show the looks on newly liberated puppies' faces or the thousands of new dog houses that have been constructed? no, they cannot. because an unmitigated anti-pooch streak pervades the newsrooms and hallways of w. 43rd street, and the times' obviously pro-feline agenda interferes with accurate, balanced reporting of the facts. the times would have you believe that every dog is a mutt, that every bite is inflicted on an innocent civilian, when clearly canines are at war, forced to defend their livelihood against cruel, subhuman dog catchers like the BTK killer (where was the times editorial on that?) and cruella deville.

i say it's high time for us to demand that coverage of this conflict reflect the values and desires of a majority of dog-loving americans, that the grey lady desist in disparaging the tactics necessary for triumph, like burying raw-hide chews and the torture of feline combatants. for our country, nay, western civilization hangs in the balance. and the puppies may be the canaries in the coal mines, but you, my friends, will be next.

[Merovign]

Phoenician:

1) It's one thing to disagree with the reasons others have given repeatedly in discussion with you, but to feign ignorance is dishonest.

2) It's one thing to disagree with the reasons others have given repeatedly in discussion with you, but to feign ignorance is dishonest.

I realize that those are both the same reason, but your response above was so bone-shatteringly crass I felt that it was worth saying twice.

[nikko]

grey lady down...