Posted on 05/15/2004 8:52:59 AM PDT by mrustow
On May 9, the Toronto Star newspaper published an editorial entitled, “Donald Rumsfeld should resign now.” The demand was of course based on the media-manufactured “atrocities” of Abu Ghraib.
That’s odd, I thought. I couldn’t recall ever seeing an American newspaper demand that an official of a foreign country resign.
“Bush has apologized for the abuse, which he called ‘abhorrent.’ He says the soldiers responsible will be punished. But his words are not enough. They will not erase the anger raging throughout the Arab world, as well as across the United States, for the indignities inflicted upon the prisoners. Nor will they help Bush to retain, let alone attract, other coalition partners in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.”
Oh, so the Arabs loved us – and then came Abu Ghraib.
“During his term as president, Harry S. Truman had a sign on his desk that read: ‘The Buck Stops Here.’ Sadly, Bush seems to have forgotten the sign. Senior defence officials must take responsibility for these atrocities. More than just a few privates and sergeants should be punished.”
The logical implication of the above paragraph is not that Rumsfeld should quit, but that Bush should resign. And what “atrocities”? Atrocities were perpetrated on four American civilians in Falluja; what transpired in Abu Ghraib since the Americans took control of it was on the order of abuse and degradation, not atrocities. Under Saddam, the prison was an atrocity factory, but then the Star was curiously silent on the matter.
“Indeed, responsibility lies at the top, with the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld. He should resign — and if he doesn't, Bush should fire him. As for Bush himself, American voters will decide his fate in the November elections when he tries to win a second term….
Can’t you just see the Star’s editorial board licking their chops with glee, thinking, “We’ve got him! We’ve lassoed that cowboy!”?
“As much as anyone, Rumsfeld is responsible for the Iraqi mess. His hard ‘go-it-alone’ stance on the war scared off allies who could have formed a truly multinational force under the guidance of the United Nations. Also, he has shown poor judgment in not informing Bush early about the extent of the abuse. With each passing day, more photos become public and the scandal deepens. Rumsfeld warned Friday there are ‘a lot more photos and videos that exist’ that will only worsen the crisis.”
Anti-American boilerplate. Rumsfeld didn’t scare off anyone. The anonymous “European allies” the editorial cites are France and Germany, which were eventually exposed as our enemies, and who only used the appearance of being our allies – especially in the case of France – to drag out the process interminably, and make a fool out of Secretary of State Colin Powell. As French foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin later admitted, France never intended to support us, no matter what. And the same went for our former ally, Germany.
The UN cited by the Star is the same anti-American organization, whose leaders in Baghdad refused American security, which could have prevented their deaths and the deaths of their subordinates on October 27. The same UN that turned tail and ran, right after that date. The same UN, whose leaders never wanted us to go into Iraq in the first place, because they (along with our “European allies”) didn’t want anyone to discover that they had been filling their pockets with billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam, via the UN oil-for-fraud program, while Iraqi children starved or died for want of medicine.
“The International Red Cross also said Friday that it warned U.S. authorities last year of a broad ‘pattern and a system’ of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers, including killings.”
That would be the same IRC which in its anti-American and anti-Christian bigotry, banned the singing of “God Bless America” at post-911 Red Cross events, which puts its ambulances in the service of terrorists in Israel, and which in its anti-Semitism, refuses to admit the Israeli Magen David Adom ambulance service, which has an unblemished record in aiding the wounded, regardless of religion or creed, into its organization. It would be the same IRC, which has long sought to seize control of disposition of the terrorists America has caught since the War in Afghanistan began in October, 2001. And it would be the same IRC which was worthless, when Saddam was in power.
“Bush must deal quickly to end this scandal. Failure to do so could result in the demise of his own presidency, and endanger American lives abroad.
“He should start by dumping Rumsfeld, for it is clear he needs to find new people to head the defence department, leaders who will be able to assure Americans, and Iraqis, that such horrific abuses won't happen again.”
Nonsense. These guys hate Bush, and want him to do whatever will cripple his presidency, his prosecution of the war, and his re-election prospects. Therefore, you can be sure that their recommendations are not intended to save his presidency.
The same day I sent the following letter to the Star, at this address. Americans need to start ensuring that our foreign critics – and not just the Villepins – get a dose of their own medicine, every time they seek to interfere in the workings of our government. Freedom of speech -- which few of our critics’ countries protect -- is a two-way street. And as Harry Truman famously said, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Let’s just see if our foreign critics can take it, as well as they dish it out.
To the Editor:
In a May 9 editorial, you demanded that American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resign, and failing that, that Pres. Bush fire him. That struck me as odd. We Americans don’t order Canadian public officials to resign, and if we did, you would attack us for improperly interfering in your internal affairs. Your argument for firing Rumsfeld could not have been more dishonest: You claim that such an act would quell Arab anger, restore support among European countries, and help Pres. Bush get re-elected. But you know full well that the nations in question wished the worst on America before Abu Ghraib, as did you, and like you, will not be appeased. The real reason The Star, the Arabs, and many Europeans want Rumsfeld’s head, is because he’s so good at his job, because you want America to lose the war on terror, and because you correctly believe that eliminating Rumsfeld and his team is the best way to cause America’s defeat in Iraq, and thus Pres. Bush’s defeat in the coming election.
You have inspired me to interfere in Canadian affairs, and call on my countrymen to join with me, beginning with the demand that Toronto Star Managing Editor Mary Deanne Shears resign, or failing that, be fired for professional misconduct.
Signed,
Nicholas Stix
Mary Deanne Shears should resign now! And if she won’t resign, Star management should fire her.
N.B. Please consider signing the petition in support of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that The Federalist has initiated. Please consider as well, twisting the arms of, or blackmailing everyone you know into signing it. At press time, the petition had over 119,000 signatures, but the Kerry campaign claims that a petition that it started, calling for the Secretary’s ouster, has over 250,000 signatures. Let’s try and get at least 300,000 signatures in support of Rumsfeld. (A million would be even better!)
lettertoed@thestar.ca
No, he sure ain't. Terrorists and newspaper editors see in courtesy only weakness.
A sure sign we're on the right track is when a Canadian says we're not.
Unfortunately, you're right. These days, "our friends to the north" are no friends at all.
Zing!
Heads up!
Incoming!
Zing!
Heads up!
Incoming!
Al-Sadr should resign from the Shiite Clergy!
Zing!
Heads up!
ROTFL!
FRegards,
BUMP FOR RESIGNATION!
Nikki rocks. I'm glad to see he has another great forum for his essays.
Yes, the entire Administration should step down for the idiotic acts of a few enlisted men and women.
Bush haters will settle for nothing less.
Hey libs! Your motives are so blatently obvious. The usual spew is moving from the typical irritating crap we are used to, right on down to the absolute desperate attempts to take down an administration that has protected you to the best of their ability.
Isn't that what you want? To be protected? You will have no better protector than GWB.
You want the administration to step down. Then what?
Then what? Or is the step-down enough to satiate you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.