Still Drinking the Kool-aid

Just when I think the mainstream media is finally getting the picture, they go and produce something like the editorial in today's Washington Post. Apparently the op-ed page doesn't have access to any staff fact-checkers.

A SERIOUS congressional debate about Iraq is essential at a time when public support for the mission is falling and the danger of failure seems great. Aggressive challenges to the Bush administration's military and political strategy -- even calls for an immediate withdrawal of troops, such as that made by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) on Thursday -- must be part of that democratic discussion. Yet what we've mainly seen during the past two weeks is a shameful exercise in demagoguery and name-calling.
[Emphasis added]

WRONG! Congressman Murtha did not call for an immediate withdrawal of troops. He called for withdrawal as soon as practicable, and then only to nearby garrisons from which they could re-enter Iraq if necessary. He suggested an "over the horizon" approach to help maintain some stability in the country.

Mr. Bush indulges in his own surreal rhetoric, insistently describing Iraq as a Manichaean battle between foreign terrorists and Iraqi democrats, rather than the multi-sided power struggle that it is. In so doing, he hamstrings his own diplomats and generals, who are trying to forge a political accord among the various Iraqi communities and isolate the foreign and Sunni extremists through a conventional counterinsurgency campaign. Many Democrats have no better alternative strategy, which may be why their leaders spend most of their time making charges about what was said, or not, about weapons of mass destruction in 2002. [Emphasis added]

WRONG, again! Besides Congressman Murtha's plan, General Wesley Clark has spoken about and published his ideas for cleaning up the mess that resulted from this invasion. He emphasised diplomacy and Middle Eastern assistance as an integral part of any troop withdrawal. Many Democrats in Congress have called for the Administration to produce a time line which would show just what the White House deems acceptable progress, a request that has been greeted with howls of derision and then silence.

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. [Emphasis added]

WRONG, strike three! Apparently the editorial writer hasn't been reading the news section. The connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked. Before we invaded Iraq, that country did not actually pose a security threat to the US. It is highly unlikely that Iraq poses a security threat to us now. In fact, pulling out of Iraq may actually improve our security, because our mere presence there has given rise to a new reason for radicals in the Middle East to hate us.

I think the editorialist would be better off listening to some of the actual reporters on the issue, rather than to just Bob Woodward.

Morons.