Sometimes it's hard to blame the unhinged libs who lurk on SI
for their zealous belief in an alternate reality when the MSM
continues to intentionally lie, distort & mislead the same
discredited crap over & over.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Burn it.
Thread posted by Sir George
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
The Seattle-Post "Intelligencer" editorial board shows their lack of intelligence, or rather their extreme, flaming, overflowing bias. From the people who waited in breathless anticipation for the unlucky thousandth US casualty, praying it would breathe life in the John Kerry campaign, from the people who spit on our troops and each and every opportunity, comes this steaming pile of dreck.
<<<
Iraq War: Drafting the dead
President Bush was among the 260,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery when he said it. But it was clear Monday that the president was referring to the more than 1,650 Americans killed to date in Iraq when he said, "We must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the terrorists."
>>>
A larger quote from Bush's Memorial Day speech is this (not included in the Seattle-Post article):
<<<
Army Sergeant Michael Evans of Marrero, Louisiana, felt the same way. He was killed on January 28th while on patrol in Western Baghdad. In his own farewell letter to his family, the 22-year-old reminded those he left behind to stay strong. He said: "My death will mean nothing if you stop now. I know it will be hard, but I gave my life so you could live. Not just live, but live free." (Applause.)
For some of our young heroes, courage and service was a family tradition. Lance Corporal Darrell Schumann of Hampton, Virginia, was a machine gunner for the Marines, but his parents were Air Force. He liked to say, "Air Force by birth, Marine by choice, and American by the grace of God." (Applause.) Corporal Schumann was among the first to enter the battle against insurgents in Fallujah, and he was proud of what he -- what we are achieving. He later died in a helicopter crash. In his last letter from Iraq, he wrote, "I do wish America could see how awesome a job we're doing."
These are the men and women who wear our uniform. These are the men and women who defend our freedom. And these are the men and women who are buried here. As we look across these acres, we begin to tally the cost of our freedom, and we count it a privilege to be citizens of the country served by so many brave men and women. (Applause.) And we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world. (Applause.)
A day will come when there will be no one left who knew the men and women buried here. Yet Americans will still come to visit, to pay tribute to the many who gave their lives for freedom, who liberated the oppressed, and who left the world a safer and better place. Today we pray that they have found peace with their Creator, and we resolve that their sacrifice will always be remembered by a grateful nation.
May God continue to bless America. (Applause.)
>>>
Yes, the Seattle-Post Intelligencer isn't content to just quote a single sentence from a long speech; they didn't even include the whole sentence. The beginning and ending somehow got lopped right off. Remember that next time some arrogant newspaper journalist derides television news for its reliance on sound-bites.
<<<
Bush insists on clinging to the thoroughly discredited notion that there was any connection between the old Iraqi regime -- no matter how lawless and brutal -- and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
>>>
Incorrect. It's moronic leftists in the press who insist on claiming there was a claimed connection. If we had drooling "editors" like this in WW-II, they'd be denouncing FDR's completely imaginary statements that D-Day was payback for the Germans' bombing of Pearl Harbor. They don't write the news; they just dream it up in between bong hits.
<<<
U.S. military action against an Afghan regime that harbored al-Qaida was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. The invasion of Iraq was not.
>>>
Note to editors who rode the little short bus to school: Not all of US policy has to be classifiable as "direct response". If it were, then we wouldn't need anything called "policy", we'd just tell our troops to bumble around waiting for someone to shoot at them.
<<<
As of Memorial Day 2003, Bush had declared major combat operations at an end, predicted that weapons of mass destruction would be found and that U.S. forces were in the process of stabilizing Iraq. One hundred sixty U.S. troops had died.
>>>
Another note to "editors": Everyone predicted weapons of mass destruction would be found, even the French, Germans, Russians, and the UN. You know, the same people who'd spent years assuming Saddam maintained an active WMD program, the same ones who warned that he would use them against US troops, and the same ones whose intelligence led Clinton to pound Baghdad with cruise missiles.
<<<
The U.S. death toll has grown more than tenfold. No weapons of mass destruction were found. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since Iraq's new government was formed April 28.
>>>
Yet how would pulling out and abandoning Iraq to jihadist thugs, thugs who delight in killing innocent Iraqis and cutting people's heads off on video, going to be a "good thing"?
<<<
Bush said of the insurgents at a news conference yesterday, "I believe the Iraqi government is plenty capable of dealing with them."
>>>
And as the recent massive sweeps through Baghdad have shown, the government can in fact deal with them, but we're not willing to pull-out and bet on the outcome.
<<<
Of course, this is the same president that assured the world that military intervention in Iraq was a last resort and that the United States would make every effort to avoid war through diplomacy.
>>>
Well, what were the odds of diplomacy working? How about if we applied some pressure, such as bombing Baghdad? Tried it. Zip. How about if we invaded Southern Iraq with ground troops? Tried it. Nothing. How about if we bombed Saddam's palaces? Nada. How about if we chased him out of Baghdad? Still nothing. How about if we occupied his whole country? Zilch. How about if we killed his two sons and posted their blood-soaked photos? Nope. Saddam still refused to budge. How about if we rooted him from his hidden septic tank, stuck probes in his mouth, and locked him in prison? Nope. There was still no progress on the diplomatic front. So, what were the odds of diplomacy working? Clearly zero. It seems the administration was exactly right in its assessment, especially considering that the French were never going to budge on their veto threat, with the French government swimming in Saddam's kickback money and all.
<<<
Giving lie to that as well is the so-called Downing Street War Memo, which shows that as early as July 2002, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
>>>
"Giving the lie", eh? It seems the Seattle press can't even understand what they print. Our demands on Saddam were very clear, yet we weren't so blissfully stupid to fail to prepare for the highly, highly likely scenario that the genocidal maniac would refuse to comply with any but the most irrelevant ones. What kind of moron fails to put things in motion for a war that looks highly likely, aside from the French, who sit and patiently wait for Panzers before doodling up some type of response?
Here's the Downing Street Memo.
<<<
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action.
>>>
Okay, let's just skip to the juicy part that has the left all a twitter.
<<<
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
>>>
That's right. In searching the entire planet for evidence to support their vacuous moonbat worldview, all they can come up with is a second hand blurb. Well excuse us for not doing our darndest to present every scrap of evidence that would help undermine our implementation of Bill Clinton's policy of regime change.
<<<
Perhaps all presidents' remarks in military graveyards are by nature self-serving. But few have been so callow as the president's using the deaths of U.S. troops in his unjustified war as justification for its continuance.
>>>
I seem to recall a speech that went something like this.
<<<
It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
>>>
Callow indeed. NO WAR FOR COTTON! YANKEE MONEY MEN, HANDS OFF THEM SLAVES!
What do you get when you cross a Copperhead with a terrorist apologist, a Ba'ath party loyalist with a latte sipping surrender monkey, a seditious infantile whiner with a vapid anti-war protester, a person who thinks abandoning 20 million people to Hanoi's totalitarian communism should be matched by abandoning 20 million more people to the clutches of human decapitation squads? You get an editor at the Seattle Post Intelligencer. Lying shills. Ignorant buffoons. Worthless Washington state surrender-weasels.
And the leftists in Seattle just lap it up, as shown by the article's attached poll.
<<<
Is it time to begin the careful but quick withdrawal of American forces from Iraq?
92% - Yes, the death toll for Americans and Iraqis alike continues to grow, with no obvious plan to defeat the insurgency. We've broken it and we can't fix it.
8% - No, we must stay the course or else the terrorists will have won.
>>>
nicedoggie.net
seattlepi.nwsource.com |
