April 19, 2006

Reasoned Public Debate Is Pro-Terrorist!

Well, whaddaya know? After yesterday's foot-shooting idiocy, the WaPo goes one step further. Today the Washington Post, a top national newspaper, actually supports a call to shut down "reasoned public debate" on the War in Iraq.

And they wonder why newspaper sales are not all they could be??? Puh-lease!

It now looks like we are in for a showdown between the US military and the US media. Who would ever have guessed I could end up on the military's side? The thing is, the military are the people who are dying, while the media cheer on the violence. There is a civil war raging on both fronts, of course, but at this stage the military seem to be a nose ahead on the reality-based front.

Check this bizarre spectacle: two pro-Bush WaPo shrills come out screaming bloody defiance (with carefully placed legal caveats, of course):
The two of us have experienced many of the circumstances confronting Rumsfeld. Our experience and connections at the Defense Department tell us that these generals probably had numerous opportunities to advise and object while on active duty. For them to now imply otherwise is disingenuous and quite possibly harmful for our prospects in Iraq. And it misrepresents the healthy give-and-take that we are confident is widespread between the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the capable military hierarchy.
Yeah, right, sure. Just look how other top US military personnel who spoke out against Bush have been treated. Anyone know how to spell Shinseki???

Then it's time to play the old GWB patriotic suck-hole line again:
The retired officers who have criticized Rumsfeld have served their country with distinction... But each of them speaks from his own copse of trees and may not have a view of the larger forest. In criticizing those with the broader [???] view, they should be mindful of the risks and responsibilities inherent in their acts. The average U.S. citizen has high respect for the U.S. military. That respect is a valuable national security asset. Criticism, when carried too far, risks eroding it.

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.
Isn't that just precious? "The enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate", therefore reasoned public debate must be suppressed and scorned, if not totally outlawed. Brilliant!

But of course, "we do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq" - we just want to make sure it is all one way!

The WaPo writer's names are Melvin R. Laird and Robert E. Pursley - put them in your blacklist, folks.
We still have many friends and associates in the military and the Defense Department...

Melvin R. Laird was a Republican representative from Wisconsin before serving as secretary of defense from 1969 to 1973. Robert E. Pursley, a retired lieutenant general in the Air Force, was military assistant to three secretaries of defense.
Then email the WaPo and tell the editors never to give column space to these damned idiots again.
The current Post Ombudsman is Deborah Howell . You can reach her by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com or by phone at 202-334-7582.
UPDATE: Weldon Berger at BTC News reveals exactly who Melvin R. Laird is and why he is supporting Rummy:
Laird presided over what are in hindsight, and were in real time as well, the worst years of the Vietnam war. It was Laird who ordered the secret bombings of Cambodia and Laos, and who later told Dan Rather in a CBS news appearance that Nixon hadn’t lied when he claimed to have respected those countries’ neutrality because Nixon had only meant that ground troops hadn’t crossed their borders. He also said that the administration’s failure to inform Congress of the bombing was “an oversight.” ...

It’s no wonder Laird is sympathetic toward Rumsfeld. The parallels between the two men and their situations are striking. Working for the crookedest, most power hungry US president of the last century, Laird orchestrated an unending stream of happy talk that was bluntly contradicted by the reality of the war. He regarded criticism of the war as unpatriotic, and he invariably dismissed reports of US atrocities as fabricated or, when the evidence was incontrovertible, as isolated from the general conduct of the war.
This illustrates yet again how the US public failed to really come to terms with what happened in Vietnam, and how they let the Nixon White House crooks (including Rumsfeld and Cheney) off the hook. If people in the USA had been brave enough and strong enough to confront the whole truth back then, we wouldn't be in this mess today. Now are we going to do the same thing again with Bush and Iraq??? Or will there be real accountability? I'm talking War Crimes trials.


Blog Archive