I'd trust something written in the Times over something on instapundit every single day of the week, Jayson Blair notwithstanding.
not sure i can devise a serch that would turn up "apparent gloating by glynch over set-backs in iraq and its effect on GWB's prospects for reelection", but i'm happy to follow your instructions...
Basso, if you would ever look up from humping Bush's leg, you'd see that for many, many people issues of war and peace, issues of conscience go way beyond opposition to one man. For you it's all about Bush, not for me. This is what enables you to move so smoothly from braying about WMDs in Iraq to braying about democracy in the Middle East in perfect tandem with Bush.
the state of peace in iraq prior to the invasion was pretty ephemeral. saddam killed perhaps 1.5M of his own people. would you call that a state of peace? if not, why weren't you protesting against saddam? why aren't you now protesting for lebanses democracy, rather than trying to downplay any influence bush may have had?
Using Bush's actions that cost soldiers their lives against Bush is far different than being happy that soldiers died. Nobody on this board has done anything even close to that. As far as anti-war crowd pushing for reform in the middle east before this, we were. Welcome to the parade. We were the ones and still are the ones pointing out Saudi Arabia's authoritarian regime, and that is the place where mose of the hi-jackers were from. We were the ones asking why more wasn't being done in that regard instead of Iraq. It wasn't the anti-war crowd that ignored that regime, and played buddy buddy with them. I also haven't seen any anti-war crowd upset by the Lebanese movement either. Why is Bush condoning Syria's use of torture, and sending folks over there because they use torture on one hand, and then talking tough telling them to leave Lebanon on the other? Bush had a relationship with the Syrians based on the fact they used torture, and that was ok. But once he saw that he could play his candy coated version of democracy on the march scenario he started talking out of the other side of his mouth. I ask you, if the Syrians are so bad, why haven't the conservatives been up in arms about the torture based relationship the U.S and Syria are involved with?
perhaps because we're less concerned w/ the possible torture (note, bush has said they require and prisoners turned over not to e tortured) of terrorists than we are with saving the lives of american soldiers.
Basso, I didn't discover Saddam during the first Gulf War, when he suddenly became the new boogeyman. I was opposed to the Saddam regime and the U.S. embrace of that regime as an ally back in the 80's. Were you? I have helped to organize and participated in numerous efforts to support democracy. Have you? I believe in the prinicple of democratic self determination for all societies, whether or not they choose leaders or economic systems that I personally support. Do you?
Yes, the NY Times is so well known for that, that it is actually news when an they have a blatant inaccuracy. The same can't be said when it comes to Instapundit, NY Post, etc. If the NY Times was wildly inaccurate it wouldn't be news when a reporter was a fraud, or made gross errors. Every paper and news source is less than 100%, but with the best of them the errors are minor, and major ones are infrequent.
But not concerned enough about their lives to not send them into Iraq. As has been shown Iraq posed zero threat because of WMD's, no cooperation with Al-Qaeda, and an army about half the size it was in Gulf war 1. So that wasn't a threat to us either. In short the Soldiers lives were in danger, and our nation wasn't in danger, and those soldiers were sent to die, by Bush. But you claim that Bush was more concerned with their lives than torture, and that the folks who didn't want the soldiers to go where they might die in the first place now rejoice when they die? It doesn't add up.
