Posted on 08/11/2006 5:21:04 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
August 11, 2006 - 07:59
Those burly hawks of the Boston Globe are at it again. With a Landis-like testosterone rush, the Globe's editorial this morning, Tarring the majority, rips George H.W. Bush for failing to have taken out Saddam at the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Or as the Globe so sneeringly put it:
"The weakling-in-chief who failed to oust Saddam Hussein in 1991 was not a Democrat but the first President George Bush."
Yes, we all remember those rousing Globe editorials urging the first war against Iraq. And who can forget the glorious martial strains of its editorial opus "On to Baghdad!" at war's end? Or not.
The Globe's bout of Sudden-Onset Machismo Syndrome reflects its high dudgeon at VP Cheney's suggestion, reacting to Joe Lieberman's defeat, that "from the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people."
The Globe was likewise outraged by Tony Snow's comment that
``One of the approaches [of Lamont supporters ] is to ignore the difficulties and walk away," Snow said. ``Now, when the United States walked away in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that American s were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to Sept. 11 ."
The Globe somehow casts Lieberman's decision to run as an independent as an affront to democracy:
"Lieberman . . . is refusing to accept the verdict of the majority." "Statements that demean the choice of 52 percent of the Democratic electorate -- along with Lieberman's insistence on a do-over -- only serve to discourage voters, reducing turnout in elections and further polarizing results." And how's this for invidious comparison?: "Democracy is messy. But it's still the best system yet devised. If it is good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for Connecticut." Lieberman can be accused of a lack of party loyalty; perhaps even of confusing personal ambition with the national interest. But contrary to the Globe's fulminations, Lieberman's decision to run as an independent reflects no affront to democracy. If Lieberman wins in November - or loses for that matter - it will reflect the democratic will of the people in Connecticut, turning out in numbers that will dwarf the 15% of the total electorate that went to the polls this past Tuesday.
The boys of the Globe should breathe deeply into a paper bag: democracy is not about to fall in Connecticut. And for mercy sake's guys, lay off those 'special' sports drinks. They say it's bad for your complexion.
Boston Globe/NewsBusters ping to Today show list.
Engine started or your money cheerfully refunded.
Has the Boston Globe commented on the fact that Massachusetts keeps returning a drunk and a traitor to the U.S. Senate?
The Globe needs to do a little research.
Taking out Saddam was NOT the goal of Desert Storm, it was to protect & aid Kwait.
Also, we were half way to Baghdad before we listened to the UN and turned around. Apparently, we can't win for lose'n when it comeS to the slimey left.
They think we should obey the useless UN mandates and when we do, they end up throwing back in our faces.
HOW I LOATHE THE LEFT
Prior to the Iraqi invasion, the Dems (ie. Daschle and company) were critical of Bush 41 for not taking out Saddam in 91 in defiance of the UN mandate that precluded him from doing so.
Then when W. wanted to take out Saddam a couple of months later, they flip-flopped, and suddenly, they were claiming that W had not made the case, and that W should not invade without UN authorization.
Looks like the liberal media is nearing a complete meltdown. Not even the slightest effort at this point to appear objective in their coverage of the Bush Presidency.
The Globe will never admit that the UN was to blame for our not taking out Saddam in Desert Storm, and you'll never hear them condemn Colin Powell for his being against it back then as well. They conveniently forget all that stuff.
For the left, history begins when they wake up in the morning.
Betcha the Globe didn't have a problem when Jumpin' Jim Jeffords went "independent".
I don't know what the Boston Globe said at the time, but in 1990-91 a lot of Democrats were strongly against any military action even to get Saddam out of Kuwait--as I recall, it was a very close vote in the Senate to support the use of military force. Gore made up his mind which way to vote on the basis of which side would give him more minutes on prime-time television.
I'd bet the Glob neglected to mention that the most glorious Colin Powell was the one, iirc, raising
the most stink on the issue of taking out Saddam. (He was against it)
Probably the only thing the Glob would hold against Powell is that he is, afaik, not gay.
The Boston Globe: Ignorance and Hypocrisy writ LARGE.
These liberal shills ought to focus instead upon the clinton administration 'justice' dept. campaign to cover up the terrorists involvement in slaughtering Americans (1996). Fitzgerald, Gorelick, etc. are the real linguini spines doing the bidding of their degenerate in chief who wanted to avoid harming his legacy! He and his henchfools did everything they could to sacrifice more Americans in order to keep the lid on this war the terrorist started but the degenerate in chief refused to fight for victory. Sickening liberal bastards ... they will get millions murdered in their empowerment schemes.
Typing INIT DP: at the command prompt of the Globe's ATEX system used to erase every disk drive on the network.
But THAT would be wrong.
Yeah, well, if you close your eyes and wish really hard, you can imagine that it happened. You can go anywhere with your imagination!
It was interesting though... After Bush 41 invaded, the Dems kept silent until it became clear that Bush 41 was not going to defy the UN mandate that he not seek to overthrow Saddam, and then they criticized Bush 41 for not making a left turn and heading to Baghdad.
Of course, if he'd done that, then they'd have been all over his case for defying the UN.
And while you're looking up past issues of the Glob (circa 1990), you can look up the articles where they praised Cardinal Law, over and over again, for pursuing an "enlightened" course of psychiatric treatment for the priests who were suspected of molesting young boys.
These same loons are the ones screaming the US should never act unless there is a direct threat to us. How was Saddam a direct threat in 1991 but not in 2003?? Unreal. Not to mention, if they are looking for bipartisanship, the vote in Congress in favor of liberating Kuwait in 1990 was very narrow. Authorization to remove Saddam in 2002 was much more overwhelming, with most Democrats voting in favor. So if anything, the second President Bush had much more support for military action than his father did.
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.