Thursday, November 17, 2005

Why do I read it?

I know I'm going to be annoyed, so why do I do it? The New York Times editorial today has another awful piece of "journalism" today and I'm surprised that people still read this crap (of course, I do - so what does that say?)

No matter how the White House chooses to spin it, the United States Senate cast a vote of no confidence this week on the war in Iraq. And about time.

The actual content of the resolution, passed on a vote of 79 to 19, was meaningless.

Hardly. What is exceeding meaningless is the beginning of this column. What the Times ignores is that the Senate handily defeated a measure to put a timetable on troop withdrawals in Iraq (an excellent idea by Senate Democrats, by the way. What better way to help out the terrorists than to tell them when we're leaving?) Also, the Times ignores that Senate Republicans have forgotten they are the majority party in office and decided to pass a bill that was a publicity stunt in response to the equally worthless Democrat measure.

The ultimate Iraqi nightmare, which continually seems to be drawing closer, is a violent fracturing of the country in which the Kurdish north and Arab Shiite southeast break away, leaving the west, dominated by Arab Sunnis, an impoverished no man's land and a breeding ground for international terrorism.

Craziness! While the Times finds no harm or shame in repeating the "Iraq will descend into civil war" talking point they should at least be shamed into providing some sort of evidence for their claim - any at all would do. Of course, you won't find any because there isn't any. All the Times can do is repeat the lie and hope it comes true (which if course is their ultimate hope).

Never fear, however, as the Times finally gets to the point of their article right at the end.

If the president fails [in creating a road map for the Iraqi government to take over the war], the American public has a timetable of its own. Elections for the House and the Senate are less than a year away.

Indeed. Let me ask you this - if the President swore his allegiance to Ted Kennedy, instituted socialized health care, and nominated every judge from the 9th circuit of appeals to the Supreme Court would the Times still have this last line in their editorial? Of course - the Times hates George Bush and everything about the Republican party. They won't rest until the country is run by Democrats again.

That is their one and only point in everything that they write. They even hope for Iraqi civil war if it will get the conservatives out of congress. I wish they would stop the charade.

No comments: