Posted on 10/27/2005 6:18:41 PM PDT by freedomdefender
In war, the first order of business is to know whose side you are on, and who is on yours. In the case of the war to defeat the terrorists and establish a democratic government in Iraq, the answer is not always easy to come by. Take the American press. Take the Los Angeles Times. On Wednesday, October 26, 2005, the main headline spread across two columns of Times was U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Hits 2,000. The sub-headline began Antiwar protesters plan demonstrations Two photos centered at the top of the front page showed President Bush declaring that Iraq has made incredible political progress from tyranny to liberation to national elections and an anti-war activist lighting 2,000 candles for the dead. Underneath the two photos a three-column story headlined A Deadly Surge began, A year and a half ago, at the first anniversary of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the death rate for American troops accelerated. Since then, none of the political milestones or military strategies proclaimed by U.S. officials have succeeded in slowing the death toll.
The article on the death toll continues into a full two-page spread inside the paper, which further details the body count, including a half-page chart of the dying and a map of the United States showing where each of the dead soldiers lived. In other words, lets bring the war home. Facing the charts and continuing the front page story the headline for reads Fallouja Marks Divide. The divide as the Times editors see it is not the battle of Fallouja which destroyed the main and only terrorist stronghold in Iraq and paved the way for democratic elections, but the fact that the death toll of American soldiers has only accumulated since Fallouja. As if this numbing repetition of a single fact which in itself has no significance (why not the 1999th death or the 2001st?) wasnt enough, the Times has devoted another full page to continuing the Deadly Surge story (new headline: US At Grim Milestone In Iraq War: 2000 Dead) and a human interest column (A Life Back In Flower When It Was Lost) on one of the casualties. In all, the Times devoted 23 newspaper columns to a death toll which has no significance in itself and which is smaller in two years than the number of Americans who died in 10 minutes on 9/11.
Buried by the Times editors in a three-column story on page 6 (continued on p. 7) is the following item: Iraq Charter Ratified by Big Margin in Final Tally. Whats this? On the same day as an American volunteer was killed in Iraq, the final tallies of the vote on the new Iraqi constitution were reported. Heres the news the Los Angeles Times worked so diligently to bury and subvert: Nearly seventy percent of the Iraqi people voted to endorse the most democratic constitution in the entire Muslim world -- and in the entire 1800 year history of Islam itself!
The margin of victory for the new Iraqi constitution was 4-1. Moreover, the majority of Sunnis who had boycotted the previous election, voted this time. This is huge news in itself. The Sunnis had oppressed the Shiites and Kurds for the previous forty years under the Saddam tyranny. They were a population sea in which the Sunni terrorists swam. But now they were voting in an election sponsored by the occupiers the enemy, us. In other words, the news is that the majority of the population of a country whom every nay-sayer on the left has proclaimed to be incapable of supporting a democracy and resenting our occupation have now joined the political community that we have created in Iraq. Yes, the Sunnis rejected the constitution. By in voting they agreed to debate and haggle over its details over the details of their new democracy -- in elections to come.
In other words, this was a victory for freedom in Iraq, a defeat for the terrorist opponents of America and democracy in Iraq, and a great boost for the security of Americans in the United States. Yet in reporting the events of October 26th, the editors of the Los Angeles Times (and to be fair -- the New York Times and the rest of the American mainstream media) did their best to obscure these momentous facts and to spin them in the opposite direction.
In two years, with less loss of life than we suffered on 9/11, America has liberated 25 million Iraqis, ended the most heinous tyranny of the 21st Century, inflicted terrible defeats on our terrorist enemies, and created the first democracy in the history of Islam.
The words of the President of Americas commander-in-chief mocked by the Times are 100% correct: Iraq has made incredible political progress from tyranny to liberation to national elections. Thanks to George Bush and our men and women in arms. Yet the Los Angeles Times edition of October 26, 2005 is designed to make a mockery of his leadership and his words and to turn to Americans against the war for Iraqi freedom. What a shame. What a disgrace. What a tragedy for our nation.
2. North Korea
3. Iraq
4.
5. Syria
Iran is looking to get some now.
Nice Fox Terrier. What's its name?
You got that right!!!
Yes he did. And I just added his quote along with George Bush's to me website.
Bump!
Thanks for the ping xzins.Here's a bump.
The WMD, although a legitimate argument for going to war with Iraq, wasn't the only or even primary reason if I recall correctly.
The President's primary reason as stated at the time was that we would not just go after the perpetrators of 9/11, but we would go after terrorists everywhere, and those who harbored or supported them.Iraq was an obvious target.
IIRC,WMD was the lead argument by Powell at the U.N. because it was thought the best way to get a resolution.
In hindsight it was a waste of time because it bought Saddam time to unload alot of bad stuff.
I thought it was in violation of the UN resolution to let the inspectors in?
Turkey was first. I search these AP articles but they never tell me how many bad guys have been killed or captured or even if this is number is going down or not. Like we were fighting a fog or something and not evil men dedicated to spreading that evil.
The inspection part with Blix was a joke, but at the time I guess the administration found it important to touch all the bases.
The UN was shown to be irrelevent in the end, as President Bush predicted.
Kissamee, FL --- LOL!
UN is absolutely irrelevant. But I think I remember Bush and Blair playing footsies with the Blix nonesense to comply with the 'politics' of the UN. Blix had some report he presented that left out information about an unmanned airplane or something.
It was a horse an pony show so it didn't look like we broke the rules.
Well, maybe we should first start with "whose side is the Bush Administration on?!"
Check out This article, and THIS link...
Quote;
"We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam. We've seen it in many ways."
Remarks at the Annual State Department Iftaar Dinner
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
October 25, 2005
Iraqi WMD's is a more complex issue than it should be, considering it is now kind of moot.
I believe the issue of WMD's is at the very best an intelligence failure, and at the very worst they were hidden in Iran/Syria. I don't believe Bush lied about them, because that makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he lie and then lead us to war if he knew there weren't really any over there? He would know he would be caught on that.
I do think that while WMD's MAY have been a legitimate selling point, the ideas of creating democracy in the Middle East and liberating the Iraqis were far better reasons, and should have had more importance in the reasons for war. Although, I also believe that the MSM overhyped the WMD's after they realized that there may not have been any there to begin with. They realized how bad that would make Bush look, but I remember Saddam possessing WMD's being A reason for war, not THE reason.
What baffles me is the fact that we have found WMDs but nobody seems to know about or talk about it.
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium,sarin gas artillery shells, cyclosarin gas etc.; obviously just the tip of the iceberg.Remember all those jetfighters buried in the desert?
Maybe it's just my definition of WMD. I always thought it meant a weapon that did alot of damage or killed alot of people.
*
There was no cable television or internet...who is to say if Americans might not have lost their will if the multiple defeats and loss of life were broadcast every hour in every home instead of weekly in newsreels at theaters. It's a different time...the airwaves and political offices are populated by people whose grasp of war starts and stops with their twisted interpretation of Viet Nam.
I agree that WMDs were "a" reason for the war and not "the" reason.
Actually, according to the congressional authorization of Sep 18, 2001, the President could go after anyone who aided, abetted, participated, etc. the 9/11 terrorists or any of their associates.
Salmon Pak was Zarqawi's al qaeda retreat in Iraq for developing ricin, a poison, for mass delivery. There's plenty of proof that an Iraq/terrorist/al qaeda connnection did exist.
The problem of WMDs was Saddam giving them to terrorists in small quantities.
It wouldn't hurt to liberate Red China Either.
Thanks for the ping!
I guess if you really hate Bush, then the definition of a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is a weapon that is several fully made nuclear bombs that have already been detonated.
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.