By: E&P Staff
Readers wrote in today about the Iraq war and Obama’s minister.
5 Years Later: Pundits Who Were Wrong on Iraq Are Silent
The article by Greg Mitchell is a bit disingenuous and very short-sighted.
Mr. Mitchell seems to suggest that those who supported the war made big mistakes, but are now silent – and he feels free to call them to account.
His statement “you would think the many pundits who agitated for an attack on that country, largely on false pretenses, would have take the opportunity of the arrival of the fifth anniversary of the war (or the 4000 dead milestone) to drop to their knees, at least in print, and beg the American public for forgiveness.”
Since the alleged “pretenses” are covered in great detail in the Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force (HJR 114). There are 23 “Whereas” statements that list problems with Saddam Hussein – and reasons why Saddam Hussein should be removed. Fewer than 4 of those “Whereas” pertain to claims of actually having WMDs. Now that Iraq has been liberated, we could look through the archives and show Saddam’s support of terrorism to a greater extent as further justification. In the interviews prior to his execution, he admitted that he expected to attempt to acquire WMDs. And after the the efforts to liberate Iraq started – the Oil for Food scandal was exposed, where UN officials, French and German officials were found to be “on the take” and over $20 billion was being skimmed off by Saddam to fund his palaces and weapons programs.
I would guess that Mr. Mitchell has no concern for the oppression of the Iraqi people, nor does he care that Saddam funded terrorism and the murder of innocent people, primarily in Israel, but also extended elsewhere. Mr. Mitchell obviously doesn’t worry about the mass graves (something left out of the resolution), nor that Saddam had used WMDs against the Iraqi people and against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (this was directly in the resolution, but was hinted about.)
So I am left to assume that Mr. Mitchell is either uninformed, or an uncaring and insensitve individual who doesn’t care that a murderous tyrant chooses to rule a country as a god, with the absolute power of life and death. He must not care that a single individual can command the financial resources available to someone who controls 20% of the known oil reserves, and can fund terrorism world-wide. He must be willing to trust that nothing bad will come out, even though historically, Saddam’s fingerprints are on many terrorist attacks, including aiding and assisting those implicated in the first attack on the World Trade Center .
This sounds like Mr. Mitchell endorses “divine right of kings” to stay in power.
Maybe we were unable to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but we found evidence of prior development and acquisition, and there is ample evidence of the use of WMDs. But we have also found amoungst media pundits like Mr. Mitchell – weapons of mass diversion. It wasn’t just about WMDs; his claims are false and ignore the bigger picture. By repeating this lie, he acts as he wishes we would give up, abandon Iraq, and retreat in shame, and permit the 25 million people in Iraq to suffer any fate that could fall their way – and then try to place the blame on those trying to bring about the needed peace and stability. In doing so, he gives aid and assistance to Al Qaeda and motivates those who continue the fight on the other side. Thanks for nothing!
Gregg Mitchell in his article, “5 Years Later: Pundits Who Were Wrong on Iraq Are Silent ” got it right in his critique on the ProWar Media Hawks that pushed and prodded to get us into the horrific quagmire in that sad country.
But he really didn’t go far enough on his critique of David Brooks.
Mr. Brooks is an ideological NeoCon fanatic who lives in a delusional world where the free market and an Imperial America can do no wrong.
He is incapable of either acknowledging or speaking the truth when it conflicts with his ideological blinders. The fact that a great newspaper like the NY Times keeps this blinded liar on board as a columnist discredits them immensely.
David Brooks and his band of NeoCon brothers have done irreparable damage to our Republic. He will never admit to this but will go to his grave clutching desparately to his right wing beliefs. Unfortunately this political hack will have sent many of our country’s finest young men and women to an early grave.
Your article is clear, accurate and revealing. Why the general media has also been silent is a puzzle. I highly recommend people watch the BBC production, “The State Within” to better understand this war.
Why aren’t the reporters asking the President: In what way is destroying the Iraqi Nation securing the safety of the American homeland. And, is the main function of our Homeland Security Department to secure ourhomeland, if so why are you so bent on destroying the Iraqi Nation.
Columnist Reaction to Obama Speech Was Not Always Predictable
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, fiery former pastor of Barack Obama’s church and recent advisor to the Obama campaign, turned out to be a giant-killer.
The giant he vanquished was the out-sized myth that Obama is somehow the first “post-racial” presidential candidate and the one who would “unite” Americans. Whether the rest of us would ever wish to be united with haters such as the Reverend Wright and his congregation is a prime question.
Juxtaposing, for instance, Obama’s post-racial uniter pose with the Reverend Wright’s 2007 Christmas Day lashing of white America from his pulpit before a wildly enthusiastic congregation which included Senator Obama himself, we witnessed a vastly troubling dichotomy only the eyeless could profess to miss. Twenty years of such Sunday-sermon venom is what Barack and Michelle Obama freely chose to expose themselves and their young daughters to: America has drawn its conclusions as to what this tells us about the Obamas.
The mainstream news media salvoes which would have savaged any other candidate choosing to follow a pastor of such provocative mien were largely missing in all this, begging the question: will media objectivity itself ever reach post-racial status?
A press willing only to strew flowers in Barack Obama’s path may end up the Reverend Wright’s most deserving victim.