Sunday, September 28, 2003

9-25-03 column

Unbelievable. You'd be hard-pressed to find a column with more lies, infantile name-calling, and idiotic conclusions than this one. It's like an Ann Coulter book--just pick a sentence at random and find something provably flat-out wrong. How about the second sentence? "President Bush ignored the advice and pleadings of the mostly liberal punditocracy and his enemies on the left (but I repeat myself)." Of course, that old liberal punditocracy card (or canard). A quick gander to the right of Mr. Thomas' column at Jewish World Review shows a list of at least 30 right-wing members of the punditocracy, many of whom appear frequently on national television, or have their own radio shows, or are syndicated widely in this country's major newspapers (like Mr. Thomas himself).

Cal has a problem with the United Nations, or "the assembled weenies" as he calls them. The problem is this: they don't unconditionally support George W. Bush and his stupid Iraq policies. You know who else doesn't Cal? A majority of the American public. Seen the latest polls? Are Americans "weenies" now, or "compromisers, accommodators [and] panderers" lacking a "skeletal structure"? Don't attack your audience like that!

Bush reminded the weenies "that America had not forgotten Sept. 11 and neither should they". The weenies probably didn't need a reminder but they do know Sept. 11 had nothing to do with Iraq so the reminder was unnecessary. And the reminders of attacks on the U.N. member nations and U.N. personnel might be counterproductive to attaining U.N. assistance since those attacks probably would never have happened in the first place without our invasion.

Mr. Thomas notes that "some continue to question the existence of weapons of mass destruction - which we know existed prior to the war, because Saddam used them". Hey Cal, that was over 20 years ago. Of course Cal knows this because the main purpose of the column appears to be an attempt to shift the purpose of the war to a humanitarian one. We hear about sanctioned rape and torture, and Mr. Thomas rhapsodizes about the immunizations the children of Iraq will soon receive (hope there's still some money left to pay for American kids to get their shots too). Cal repeatedly frames the war in these terms: if you opposed the war, you supported everything Saddam ever did. Look, no one's pro-rape, pro-torture, or pro-measles. But it would have been nice to have been told before the war that American soldiers would be dying so Iraqi kids could get their shots, rather than protect their fellow citizens from terrorism and WMD attacks. The "timid and boneless diplomatic amoebas" had every reason in the world to oppose George W. Bush. Mainly, he lied to them (and us) about Saddam's nonexistent WMD's and ties to terrorists.

I read vainly for any references to dead and wounded soldiers, or to the hundreds of billions of dollars in war and reconstruction costs this is costing the U.S. Nor is there any discussion of daily attacks by terrorists and the Iraqi resistance that our presence has created. Yes, we're all glad Saddam's gone. But was the cost worth it? When will that question be debated by chickenhawks?

If you're tired of the reality of Iraq and the failed policies of the Bush administration, read Cal Thomas' column. You'll feel better about everything. Of course you actually have to believe it.

Friday, September 26, 2003

9-23-03 column

Mr. Thomas must have received his memo from the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer. Mission: attack General Clark ASAP. Thus, Mr. Thomas paints a portrait here of Clark as Hamlet. Indecisive. Why oh why can't the poor general just make up his mind about his postion on the Iraq war when he's had all this time to do so? The man's flipped-flopped in a mere 24 hours! Yes, he may be a general but he's no Ike. This tack isn't limited to Clark of course. We've heard it applied to most of the Democratic candidates over the past few months. Let me paint a simple portrait for Mr. Thomas:

A vote for Bush's Iraq resolution last fall DOES NOT EQUAL a vote for war with Iraq.

Let's backtrack. Congress authorized Mr. Bush to use force if and when he thought it necessary. The real question is was war necessary? Could we have achieved our goals peacefully? Could we have at least have waited longer in order to build a broad-based coalition to achieve our goals? Clark believes the answer is yes. Most Americans now agree. Decisive un-Hamlet-like leadership could have achieved that and saved us from the Iraq debacle. Bush's decisions and botched diplomacy have cost this nation dearly in lives, dollars, and credibility. Clark knows this and isn't going to be shy about pointing it out. Republicans also know this so this latest Cal Thomas column can be said to represent the fear sweat now dotting GOP foreheads.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?