Tuesday, November 22

Um, Aren't You The Same Paper That Employs Bob Woodward To Give Us A Peek Inside Washington Machinery?

Washington Post-Flogger editorial:
If there is to be any chance of that war being won, the United States will have to commit its own forces to the fight for years, though perhaps not at current levels. The alternative is to risk a defeat that would be devastating to U.S. security. That's a hard truth to face: It can't be done amid a partisan free-for-all.
Perhaps I should point out that the prime example of "partisan free-for-all" here involved slagging John Murtha for "smearing Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush as 'guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war.'" Leaving aside the fact that it was Cheney, not Bush, who collected deferments like other people collect Hummel figurines (to be fair, it may be that they don't know about this at the Post), and that Rep. Murtha is being criticized for a one-punch knock-out of the mofo who jumped him in an alley, it's really quite simple. Just as you can end the nasty partisan debate over the WMDs (not to mention your credulous war-time coverage of same) by showing us some, just tell us how many more decades we need to be in Iraq until everyone in the Middle East is linking arms and singing Kumbaya. I'm sure we'll all sign on for the duration. And be pleasant about it.

1 comment:

D. Sidhe said...

I'd kinda like to know how *many* people we need to have in Iraq for how many decades. And also, call me cynical, if there are plans to invade and occupy any other countries in the area.
Because, given that an awful lot of smart people saw this as the largely-inescapable outcome of "regime change", it might be reasonable to wonder if the original plan was to occupy the whole damned place and carve it up to our specifications.
But again, I'm cynical. And paranoid. And I suspect that PNAC was just a jumping-off point, to be honest.

Good to see you back, Doghouse. Let us know if we can help.