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, let’s 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?) wasn’t 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.” What’s 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. Here’s 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 Shi’ites 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 America’s 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.
bttt
"1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium,sarin gas artillery shells, cyclosarin gas etc.; obviously just the tip of the iceberg."
I actually didn't know that. I knew we had found some mobile chemical labs and 36 mortar shells full of blister gas (an EXTEMEMLY deadly chemical weapon) buried in the sands of Northern Iraq.
"The problem of WMDs was Saddam giving them to terrorists in small quantities."
Very true, and that was the classic argument. The liberals counter that there were no weapons at all for Saddam to give, which appears to be true but may not be.
The Iraq/al-Quaida link was very real. Even though bin Laden and his cronies are religious zealots and Saddam was a secular Ba'athist, they are both Sunnis and that has become the defining line in the war: angry religious Sunnis are trying to spark an ethnic war between regular Sunnis and Shi'ites. This...cannot...happen.
And not only did congress give that authorization, but the U.N. itself signed Resolution 1441, which said that there would be "consequences" if Saddam did not comply. He remained defiant. It was the U.N. itself who wouldn't enforce its own resolution. We and the rest of the coalition were the U.N. members who actually followed through with 1441.
Do you have power point?
Ever see this slide show?
http://goexcelglobal.com/NJ_DefenseForce/iraqitour.pps
"They hate him for his very existence."
That's true, and the DEFINITIVE PROOF lies in the fact that Bush has many policies that have angered his right-wing base voters. He has increased Federal spending to record levels. He has failed to secure the border (which may change before the second term is up). You'd think he'd be hailed as a hero to liberals for spending so much on government programs designed to help the poor. But they hate him no matter what his policies are.
I have it on order and apparently it's very well documented.
The things I mentioned are just off the top of my head from a pre-release review I recieved.
Take the Los Angeles Times.
No thank you. There's enough stupidity in my life, I see no reason to go out of my way to get more.
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 Ten Costliest Battles of the Civil War
Based on total casualties (killed, wounded, missing, and captured)
http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm
#1
Battle of Gettysburg
Date: July 1-3, 1863
Location: Pennsylvania
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: George G. Meade
Confederate Forces Engaged: 75,000
Union Forces Engaged: 82,289
Winner: Union
Casualties: 51,112 (23,049 Union and 28,063 Confederate)
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. -- David Horowitz
I would believe that Saddam had them transported, while Bush was trying to educate the UN idiots. The US had to get the trackings from "ours eyes in space."
Did you see that PowerPoint slide in post 45? Amazing. Those are some big rockets!
I'll look into that book. Seems are media has not told us very much.
A guy I know (he's pretty much non- political joe-six pack type) were talking about Iraq.
I asked him "Do you know why we invaded Iraq?"
"Sure, I looked at a map."
Yeah, thanks to the opposition, we did wait WAAAAY too long. Saddam had ample time to destroy and/or deport as much as he could.
I'm looking forward to checking it out.Thanks!
Oh.
Well, it basically showed a crude chemical lab filled with materials to make EXTEMELY deadly weapons and bombs, and how-to books. And at the end, it says that houses just like that were all OVER Iraq.
No doubt.
Got to be going, FReep at you later!
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.