NY Times Has the Answer to All Our Problems and Theirs in Iraq

Foreign Policy Wisdom from today’s New York Times Editorial Board:

“Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President Bush’s veto of the Iraq spending bill. It is now essential that the revised version not back away from demanding that Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, finally deliver on the crucial national reconciliation measures he has spent the last year dodging. And it must make clear that American support for his failures — and Mr. Bush’s — is fast waning.”

To the board:

“Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial” the NY Times editorial board as well as many other fonts of wisdom in the msm choose to educate and pontificate on subjects; in this case Middle Eastern, as though they are the simplest of conundrums. Through their ignorant and “blind denial” style of reporting and analysis we end up with a public that can choose sides more easily in a subject, which whether we like it or not, is a situation that affects us over the next decades or more.

To read the Times analysis, Iraq can be saved in three easy steps:

“Iraq’s security forces must stop siding with the Shiite militias. Iraq’s oil revenue must be apportioned fairly. Anti-Baathist laws now used to deny Sunni Arabs employment and political opportunities must be rewritten to target only those responsible for the crimes of the Saddam Hussein era.”

In the papers defense, I would not dream of denying that the issues it addresses may be necessary, but the picture is much larger than that; much larger than just the actions of Bush’s “endless soap opera.”

To Iraq’s and the U.S.’s leader The Times wants Congress to:

“make clear that American support for his failures — and Mr. Bush’s — is fast waning.”

What seems so clear to the “paper of discord” and the rest is only clear to those with an eye for anything that bashes the current administration and supports the limp-wristed Democrat plan of redeployment and all will come up smelling like roses. Were the paper to take up leadership in this country we all would be able to jump on them when their ideas on foreign policy failed to unite Iraq.

On April 16^th of this year, the Times reported on the fact that two years ago Saudi Arabia saw no reason to play with nuclear power. Today, however this has changed and not only is Saudi Arabia “scrambling” in the words of the Times, but Turkey, Egypt and “in all roughly a dozen states in the region” are looking for assistance from the stalwart and efficient guide to peace, the IAEA in starting up programs.

Obviously this does not include Iraq, however as a future chill looks to warm up well past our own Cold War’s temperatures zenith the area will effect us; blood for oil anyone?

It should be obvious why Saudi Arabia and others in the region are becoming more interested in nuclear power and perhaps it was to the Times on the 16^th of April, they however are in the business of the rewrite each moment and do not have time for such trivialities as history to enlighten the masses; it’s not their job.

Suffice it to say, Iran steams full ahead in “negotiation” over its “peaceful nukes” and today as reported by the AP and posted at NYT: “Iran Asks for Time on Nuclear Compromise.” A seemingly positive headline with an opener that goes:

“A 130-nation nuclear meeting stalled for its sixth straight day Monday after Iran refused to commit itself to a compromise meant to break a deadlock caused by Tehran's opposition to language of the gathering's agenda.”

Question: When the NYT decides upon order for articles, which comes first; the chicken or the egg? I ask as one article from Reuters via the NYT, headline more negative “Nuclear Treaty Talks Adrift Over Iranian Delay” the other roughly an hour later and has a more positive tilt to it’s headline, which is the one above in the previous paragraph that has Iran “asking for compromise.”

But I digress; let’s not trouble ourselves over this or “peaceful nuke” minutiae. After all it is Iraq and the Bush Administrations actions that have caused all the trouble in the M.E. and if the Times and Democrats had their way all this other ancillary stuff would just go away.

Some people take offense at our governments “do as we say, not as we do,” approach to nuclear proliferation; who are we to say that no one else has a right to nuclear technology? There is fairness indicative in the question that at first glance makes it difficult address, but only at first. We have no right, just as a mugging victim has no right to defend him or herself and granted nothing bad has happened but we get every indication by the regimes actions and words that the nukes would not be too terribly peaceful in use.

Iran has nothing to do, of course with Iraq except where:

“The Iranian regime seeks two basic things there: 1) An ignominious defeat for America, leading to a U.S. withdrawal - from the region, if possible; and 2) The establishment of a Shia-dominated, pro-Iran Iraqi government.”

This then leads Saudi Arabia to play its proxy role in the conflict and:

“largely back their fellow Sunnis in Iraq - with the important exception of al Qaeda and the insurgents. Above all else, they want to prevent Iraq from falling under Tehran's sway. One big fear is that sectarian strife could flow over Iraq's borders into Saudi Arabia - stirring up trouble with Saudi Arabia's Shia minority.”

Is this a digression as well? Sorry. There is also, at least I have heard a group called al Qaeda in Iraq. Opponents like Reid, Pelosi and yourself, if you so choose might say al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war. To which I say/ask, fine, great, swell but do we want to keep discussing yesterday so we can continue ignoring today? Talking about yesterday certainly may help the Democrat opposition in the US, but does nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. Today it is neither here nor there unless Senator Clinton can pull off her “efforts to travel back in time.”

I often wonder how folks like Harry would respond to say a “hypothetical” from someone like an al zawahiri, al Qaeda’s number two (I always think potty humor here) that would go something like:

“We ask Allah that [U.S. troops] only get out of [Iraq] after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."

How would something like that play to him? For one the math leads to a generational equation to reach such levels, but it certainly could happen if Harry the “hooligan,” had his way. Er, oops, that’s not a hypothetical. Old news that has allowed Harry to slip by the question of how he feels with a Zawahiri saying “Give ‘Em Hell Harry” Reid’s bill to boogie is:

“evidence of US failure and frustration and said it would ‘"deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces."’

Certainly it’s just a bit of cockiness on the part of the terrorist loser as he also invited:

“Mr Bush to meet him in a cafeteria in the Iraqi parliament where a legislator died in a suicide bomb attack last month.”

I would think only the moronic, such as Zawahiri himself thinking he would get his *ss out of there alive. Funny no?

Have you ever heard some of the stuff Rosie O’Donnell has said on behalf of the Iraqi people while she chastises the Bush Administration? Of course you have. Rosie considered terrorists people too when she suggested “get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers." Do you know who else has family?

“The Iraqi people are like everyone else in the world: They have families. They work. Their kids go to school. They value life as much as anyone else. And they want a safe and secure future for their kids. Right now, that’s something they don’t have.”

Gee, there’s another angle to the NY Times Editorial board’s 3 steps to perfection.

This is all mindless bilge I’m sure and doesn’t get near the issue(s) at hand, but we’re not talking about a simpleton’s world in which a newspaper, a politician, a diplomat or any other number of people can just talk or wish away just because “helpless” Harry says we the American people want out and NOW!

Like it or not the U.S. in Iraq is the linchpin that is actually holding the region together.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -