The New York Times has been caught in another outright lie in its editorial pages, this time falsely insinuating that the humanitarian aspect of the Iraq war only came up after the fact, a claim that is contradicted by another one of their own editorials in 2003.
I agree with William Kristol that the humanitarian aspect of the Iraq War should have been pushed harder by the President before the outbreak of war, but to argue that it didn’t exist is not only wrong, it’s utterly disingenous.
Then again, what else should we expect from the American version of Pravda?
The majority of people who supported war supported it on the premise of avenging 9-11…..to stick it to those brown-skinned Arabs who hate us so much and keep them from doing it again. Just listen to Darryl Worley’s masterpiece country single “Have You Forgotten?” which spent six weeks at #1 due to public support of said sentiment. Had the administration co-opted that message with the phony liberation talk it has so vibrantly latched itself onto following the fruitless search for WMD, it would have given pause to the “America first” reactionaries who were bulldozing Dixie Chicks CDs and have little interest in liberating Iraqi peasants.
Then again, those that profit from war would have supported any proposed war against any country at any time for whatever reason. Every time a mortar shell destroys a U.S. tank (and of course the soldiers inside of it) or a helicopter crashes, that’s more money in the pockets of Alabamans. With that in mind, Bush could propose waging war against Canada tomorrow and a third of Americans (mostly from the South) would give it the thumbs-up.
Either way, you got your war and Bush got re-elected through tireless fear-mongering. Shouldn’t you be happy about the outcome regardless of what the New York Times editorial page says?
And shouldn’t you be happy about the outcome of liberated oppressed people regardless of how you think it was “sold” to the American people and regardless of whether people in Alabama like kicking ass? Or, Mark, is your hatred for Bush blinding you to any positive result because your French friends lost their tyrant driven gravy train?
From Day One of the war, I argued with people online, making the argument that we needed Iraq to become a democracy, that doing so was in our best interests.
From Day One, this argument was dismissed as a lie by mind-readers like Mark, above, who “know” everyone’s true motives.
I just got tired of repeating myself.
They had their minds closed, and they still do. How progressive.
winston, the only way I could accept your retroactive “liberation for peasants at any price” premise is if it applied to nations other than Iraq. If your foreign policy objective genuinely valued democracy for all, why are the Saudis, Chinese, Liberians, Guineans and North Koreans still under the bootheel of dictatorships? In most cases, “spreading democracy” to these fine folks isn’t on the table for discussion let alone a priority. Are Iraqi peasants the only ones on the globe worthy of liberation or is your premise merely another example of GOP’s situational ethics?
Bostonian, I’m aware there were individuals like yourself (and Tom Friedman for that matter) who argued the liberation and democracy for Iraq angle as justification for war. That argument wasn’t being proffered from too many in the administration until after March 15, 2003, however. If it had been, do you honestly believe public opinion for war would have been on Bush’s side? Do you believe the people calling into country radio stations to request Darryl Worley’s “Have You Forgotten?” would have been as gung-ho if they were being told the war was about saving Arabs rather than killing them? Let’s just say I have my doubts.
“If your foreign policy objective genuinely valued democracy for all, why are the Saudis, Chinese, Liberians, Guineans and North Koreans still under the bootheel of dictatorships?”
Because the Petulant Left will squeal just shrilly when they are freed as when the Iraqis were.
Didn’t much like the Cedar Revolution, did you?
To say that only people in the south supproted the war in Iraq is just asinine. Democrats and liberals in general have yet to realize that their ideas and political philosophies begin to lose support as soon as they cross the Hudson or the Charles.