One needs to read between the lines of todays's WP lead editorial on Iraq, in order to see the outline of the 5 ton pink elephant in the room. It is not hard to see; afterall the neon lights outlining the ears and the peacock strutting up and down the trunk do stand out. Nevertheless, Israel is never explicitly mentioned, as if it were not important to this discussion.
The editors and publishers of the WP have supported the war in Iraq from day one. They rolled out a red carpet for Bush to walk down all the way to Baghdad. The WP editorial page became a house organ for the Bush / Rove propaganda machine pushing the war. Today they still do.
Why? Why does this traditionally liberal and pro Democrat news organization suddenly love George Bush and help push his aganda? Because they see the war in Iraq as the war to make the middle east safe for Israel in general (which is a noble goal) and for Zionist settler expansion into the West Bank in particular(which is not a noble goal) -- that is why.
This is a dangerous and wrong headed view of how to help Israel and how to make America secure. Zionist ambitions that go beyond the original U.N mandate are well on the way to getting a million Americans killed. The WP seems oblivious of the fact that the war in Iraq is a disaster for Israel and America alike.
I want the world to know that the WP is responsible for a wrongheaded policy in Iraq and the editors and publishers are now reluctant to admit the error of their ways. The original error is understandable. The continued error is virtually criminal.
Here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50538-2004Sep25.htmlThe Iraq Debate
Sunday, September 26, 2004; Page B06
Snip****
The most substantive part of this debate, it seems to us, concerns the Bush administration's performance in Iraq over the past 18 months. Mr. Allawi spoke powerfully of what Iraqis have gained from the removal of Saddam Hussein, and we don't accept Mr. Kerry's assertion that America is "less secure and weaker in the war on terrorism" than it was when that murderous regime was still in power. In fact, we recall applauding when Mr. Kerry denounced Howard Dean for making the same claim. Still, Mr. Kerry's indictment of the Bush administration's execution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is powerful and mostly irrefutable. As the senator put it in his speech at New York University, "this policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, by an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself."
Snip****
Beyond the immediate situation lies the candidates' more philosophical differences over how Iraq fits into the war on terrorism and what that war is about. Here Mr. Kerry has separated himself from Mr. Bush by embracing several positions we find troubling -- and that depart from previous stands. In describing the Iraq invasion as an unnecessary "diversion," Mr. Kerry has narrowed his definition of the war to the fight against al Qaeda and its related networks, while playing down the related problems of state sponsorship. Yet before the war, he said that Saddam Hussein had to be faced because of the danger that he would collaborate with terrorists or supply them with deadly weapons -- a position we continue to agree with.
Mr. Kerry recognizes that Iraq now has become "a haven for terrorists" and that consequently "we cannot afford to throw up our hands
see Iraq become a permanent source of terror." But his stated goals for Iraq are focused on the withdrawal of American troops, not the defeat of this threat. We believe Mr. Bush is right to insist on a broader struggle against terrorism, one that explicitly includes the political transformation of the Middle East. And he is better at setting goals for Iraq. U.S. troops, he says, will finish the mission "so that Iraq is stable and self-governing." Retreat, he correctly points out, would mean disaster for the United States as well as for Iraq.
Mr. Kerry has given a clearer choice to those Americans who oppose the Iraq intervention, and he has prodded Mr. Bush into a more forceful commitment to seeing it through. That polarization will suit many on both sides. But for those of us in the center -- who supported the invasion, as we did, but have been dismayed by the Bush administration's performance; or who doubted the wisdom of the war, but now believe it essential that the United States not be driven out of Iraq by insurgents and terrorists -- the choice has become more difficult. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
