Petraeus Betray Us, Feinstein Lyin’: Iraq and the Greater War on Terror

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the Editors at National Review Online comes this closer, which says it all:

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday dismissed General Petraeus as not an “independent evaluator” of the Iraq war. Everything we’ve heard this year indicates that Petraeus is in fact a cautious and factual evaluator of the surge, but in a sense Feinstein is right — Petraeus is vested in the war, sees it as an important national project, and wants to win. Would that Democrats showed a similar bias.”

There happens to be a lot of great points in this editorial that make it very worthwhile reading as well as more commentary from: Byron York, Michael O’Hanlon, Michael Yon, John Boehner, Mark Hemingway, Fred Kagan, Donald Kagan, W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Michael Barone, William Hawkins, Mark Steyn and James S. Robbins.

So, with the new majority in Washington are we truly to believe that Bush is the whole problem?

On another facet of the war on terror Newt Gingrich visited Fox and Friends this morning, where in part he suggested the U.S. concentrate/debate on the big picture in the war on terror and not just focus on Iraq. This is wise advice as so many speak to the Iraq theater just going away if we withdraw/redeploy; an end to this war.

Iran for some time now has been shelling in the Kurdish north of Iraq; an Iranian delegation at a diplomatic conference in Baghdad at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry warned in diplomatese:

“if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks, the Iranian authorities would respond militarily.”

A veiled suggestion to enter Iraq militarily is the first straight forward remark from Iran even though its words reveal its plans daily.

According to the delegation the U.S. has a “double-standard” as:

‘”Supporting military and political actions by terrorist elements in Iraq against neighboring countries is considered dangerous behavior that we cannot tolerate, and a major factor in the chaotic security situation and instability in the region.”’

This double-standard unfortunately does not reach the heights of the exponentially rising “double-standards” of Iran, but the U.S. has to start somewhere, no?

The conference, which was organized by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry and led by Hoshyar Zebari was attended by the U.S. and other “concerned” neighbors in the region.

We’ve all heard of the calls from many on the Left to bring regional players together in a diplomatic forum (this conference; an example of what they do not see) to bring peace and calm to Iraq. At the conference, Hoshyar Zebari proposed:

“creating a “secretariat” to keep track of the Iraq issues being considered at the meetings.

When it became apparent that the United States and Britain backed Mr. Zebari’s proposal, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others quickly took the floor to shoot the proposal down. The conference ended with the issue unresolved.”

This is a shame, but par for the course. Groups like this don’t appear to have any difficulty when it comes to say, a Durban II; then again, Durban II is in line with Democrat talking points and strategy of reframing the debate with misleading, obfuscation and lies.

Non-Sense of the Senate Resolution

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the Left Coast via The New York Left Times OpEd page comes the “piece” “Occupation Hazard,” which discusses the future legality of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The legality in question is “the Authority” – which (is) to say “the occupying powers under unified command” – as Iraq’s effective legal government,” as granted under annual Security Council Resolutions.

According to the “piece” the “current mandate expires at the end of December,” and will require renewal. This past June, “the Iraqi Parliament passed a bill requiring that the next renewal should not be made without its advice and consent.”

Were the mandate not renewed it is conceivable that the U.S. would be required to leave Iraq, however, as the author says the “Bush administration is of course unlikely to give too much heed to any Security Council resolution.”

The author believes there is a possibility that if the Iraqi parliament chose not to allow renewal and the U.S. did not depart that this might “matter greatly to the Iraqis, even to the point of becoming the signal for a general uprising of Shiites against foreign forces.” This could then lead to a general uprising against our forces and those included in the multi-national coalition, Iraq finding another friend say Russia or “the most obvious and presumably most willing new partner for Mr. Maliki would be Shiite-dominated Iran.”

If this last were to become the reality while our military was still in Iraq the author theorizes the following:

“should the United States attack Iran pre-emptively? Some in high places favor this, but a pre-emptive American attack on Iran could quickly lead to an Iranian counterattack closing the Straits of Hormuz at the lower end of the Persian Gulf. The American forces would then be trapped — both their main supply line and their main evacuation route cut off.”

“It may be time to change the slogan on the yellow ribbon from “support the troops” to “defend the nation.” Rather than see the American army of liberation humiliatingly voted out of Iraq or have its avenue of exit cut off by opportunistic enemies, the Senate should join the Iraqi Parliament, through a “sense of the Senate” resolution, and call for the next Security Council mandate to be one that requires the progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed.”

Would the U.S. truly be cut off from its route of exit were it to strike at Iran? Certainly not without a fight and we can bring that, but “humiliatingly voted out of Iraq?” According to the author the remedy would be for our Senate to follow the lead of the Iraqi parliament and its non-binding resolution with the call for a withdrawal timetable.

The question of what to do were the mandate to require the U.S. presence reversed is not nothing and perhaps if it was to become a reality the U.S. should seriously consider heeding it, especially if Iraq leaned on Iran for support. As unattractive as our leaving too early would be the target area could become that much larger for our military and perhaps the U.S. could not worry so much about collateral damage as the war on terror would take quite a turn to the more violent.

This call for the future mandate of the Security Council to require a “progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed,” is just more of the same Leftist driven NY Times agenda that it and the rest of the msm feels obligated to force down the throat of the U.S. and its citizens. It is the newest tactic in sounding non-agenda like, but is nothing different.

Thoughts on Competition and The Journal from The Board

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the editorial board at The NY Times regarding the purchase of “The Journal:”

“When Americans are served by many different, responsible, competing news outlets, they can make more informed judgments.”

“The exodus of American news organizations from Iraq, for example, means more Times exclusives from the war zone, but Americans need and a healthy democracy demands as broad a view of the war as possible.”

This is very much the case as with few exceptions at the NY Times we have to receive its slanted dregs every day. Like this thoughtful article on the front page this morning, “In Fox News, Giuliani Finds a Friendly Stage,” versus say earlier front page articles this week on Hillary Clinton and Chelsea, “Two Liberal Wrongs do NOT Make a Right,” and “NY Times Loves Hillary Unbiasedly.”

In closing, the board hopes, but you know they have already made up their minds:

“The best way for Mr. Murdoch to protect his $5 billion investment is to protect The Journal’s editorial quality and integrity. That will mean continued high-quality competition for The Times and other news organizations. And that will be good news for all Americans.”

Let’s hope this acquisition is not just a further boogeyman to the “old gray lady” that thinks so highly of herself.

For much more detail on the acquisition visit Spree over at Wake up America, who has as usual outdone herself with all that is really fit to print, “Owner of Fox News Now Owns Wall Street Journal.”

Sustainable Stability IS Victory in Iraq

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Will someone please, please, please flush the toilet Paper???

According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

“Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists.”

This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, “Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier.” Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a “quagmire” would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to “plan” or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

What would our “exit plan” be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we’re already there? Hasn’t Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

Of Iraq, the board asks:

“What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?”

(bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that “know” that getting out of Iraq is “THE essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

This is the boards over riding “intelligence” estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for “extremists” would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they “stubbornly and damagingly” hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

Of Petraeus and Crocker’s plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the “assumption” that “a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years.” Forget the fact that it is a “war plan” and not the “change in direction” or “exit plan” the editors envision and “assume” is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):

“Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing.”

One “illusion” here is that the board considers itself part of “everything” or perhaps “everything (that matters anyway).” Another “illusion” is that the “surge” and this newest plan isn’t a re-evaluation of strategy. The last “illusion” is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

It must be nice to know.

“We’re Not Staying; You Don’t Have Much Time!”

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

One of the of-size issues of “discussion” these days is what a “redeploy” order would be like for the U.S. and Iraq. The two “schools” of thought are, in a nutshell; one would free us up to fight the real enemy, with a sprinkling of disdain for the plight of the Iraqis once we leave as it’s their country. The second sees Iraq as a new haven or sanctuary for al Qaeda and other nasties, as well as a rippling effect upon the region deleterious, although pretty obvious in many others to our efforts in the greater war on terror.

Is it just a bunch of “fear mongering” to suggest mayhem and unimagined violent ramifications to a U.S. “redeployment?” If so, how would one describe the other side of the argument, “peace mongering?” Certainly not, as there would be no “peace” for miles and miles; just because the U.S. had left; just a certain “peace” of mind for some because it isn’t our problem.

Yesterday, top military and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker met via video hook-up with “lawmakers” at the Pentagon and Capitol Hill; which according to The NY Times met with “stern rebukes from lawmakers of both parties.”

Crocker told lawmakers “that it was increasingly likely that Iraq’s government would not achieve all of the political benchmarks by September.” A very telling remark from Crocker would be, “the longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discrete, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.”

If we have invested as much as we have in Iraq is it really wise to say ‘let’s pack up,’ now when, regardless of precision benchmark goals are not quite met according to a spreadsheet formula?

If Crocker’s previous comment is “telling” so are the “stern rebukes,” from lawmakers.

Senator Voinovich (R-OH) said: “There’s got to be some real evidence that action’s taking place there, and everything you can do to convey to Mr. Maliki and his executive committee, to the other players in the region, that the American people’s patience is running out.”

Senator Biden (D-DE) said: “We’re not staying. You don’t have much time.” (No reporting as to how long he took to spit this out as the good senator does like to drag things out.)

Senator Warner (R-VA) said: “The facts are pretty much in the public domain; our concerns are about their inability to come together and reconcile things.”

If “the facts are pretty much in the public domain,” I do not agree that the concern should be so much the “inability” of them to “come together and reconcile things;” rather it should be up to the Senate and OUR employees (lawmakers) to understand what those public domain facts are coupled with the realities or likelihoods and what those likelihoods mean to this country and the Middle East region.

Worthy Quotes from Required Reading for the Senate (all from today’s NRO):

For starters, an essay directly appropriate to what was offered at the video-conference yesterday from Charles Krauthammer at NRO regarding an “incapacity” of the Iraqi government to get it together, so to speak:

“The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al Qaeda.”

Victor Davis Hanson today at NRO:

“In fact, “redeployment” is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?”

Mona Charen and the good enough for now terminology, “Democratomyopia:”

“The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us — or at least our fault. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it’s entirely our own doing. It is our presence that causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have!”

Lastly but not least(ly), is Jonah Golberg’s “Order Is in Order:”

“In Iraq, security isn’t merely the most important thing, it’s the only thing. Without security, nothing else is possible. “The good society is marked by a high degree of order, justice and freedom,” Russell Kirk wrote in The Roots of American Order. “Among these, order has primacy: For justice cannot be enforced until a tolerable civil social order is attained, nor can freedom be anything better than violence until order gives us laws.”’

Regardless of political affiliations and partisan irreverence, the thoughts and writings of these and other commentators deserve serious consideration to those that have made up their minds about what is best in Iraq. As usual, in my case they are “preaching to the choir,” and this “church” for me does not live in the negative, rather it more closely relates to a reality I can appreciate especially when the other does not offer any vision.

The “Stymied” NY Times and Democrats

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

The NY Times editorial board is at it again with (italics mine) “Stymied by G.O.P., Democrats Stop Debate on Iraq:”

“After Senate Republicans yet again thwarted a proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq,…”

Oh, wait…sorry, my bad…this colorful use of leading connotation is actually a “news” article. The article does however, have a nice and even-handed treatment of the debate with its “In Their Own Words: Comments from the Senate Floor” multi-media pop-up consisting of “words” from four Democrats and a Republican; so I guess we’re on balance there.

The Editorial board is just a bit more judgmental, even with their lack of contemplation on all the “news that isn’t fit to print.”

“The nation’s anguish over the Iraq war was kept on hold in the Senate yesterday as the Republican minority maintained serial threats of filibuster to buy time for President Bush’s aimless policies.”

Sadly for the nation and the paper an attempt to vote on something months before the agreed to Petreus report in September is now scheduled to take place when it actually was. A time when the realities of the report will still be ignored by the “old fart of a gray lady” and the Democrats. In Septembers time a pull-out probably won’t be appropriate, especially if things are improving, otherwise what is the point of anything we are doing, if not to try and see it succeed.

Cherry picking through the editorial like the Dems recently did with the NIE I offer a few “pie” worthy morsels. Beyond that, I cannot stomach much more of the arrogant ignorance.

“Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war.”

So, the board and Democrats are drinkers? The Democrats and board do not consider anything in sober terms and this editorial is example of the usual condescending vitriol the editors do best.

“The Iraq war stands apart as a watershed issue — a downward spiral that the public increasingly sees as a colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

This, thanks in no small part to the continual misleading hammering and one sided reporting from the MSM and Democrats.

“In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.”

“In postponing real action to September…” or postponing the “theatrical” debate and vote brought up two months earlier than agreed to when all agreed to Petraeus and the “surge” plan. The board, like the Democrat majority obviously takes part in the weekly conference calls with the likes of the MoveOn.orgers….pathetic.

The board speaks of a “ducking” of responsibility on the part of the Republicans as though the support they offer is only in deference to the president, while painting the “majority” as pushing a pullout as the only appropriate thing to do or some kind of selfless calling. Ignoring the “ducking” of responsibility of the majority and itself regarding the real on the ground realities of what the piece Iraq plays in the entire puzzle that is the greater war on terror.

Who is ducking responsibility?

Red Mosque Seige in Pakistan and The Board

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Yesterday, the editorial board of The NY Times had some advice for the Bush Administration regarding General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Of Musharraf the board said:

“he has done far less than he promised — and far less than is needed. It’s not clear which side his intelligence services are rooting for, while Taliban and Qaeda fighters continue to find shelter and support on Pakistan’s side of the Afghan border.”

One cannot disagree that Musharraf’s Pakistan has done less than promised in the fight against terrorism, however via the opinion of the toiletPaper all the nuance that they find commendable in a Kerry, they don’t apply to themselves with regard to a problem that is not at all as simple as they would like.

Question to the board: whose intelligence will Musharrafs be if he is replaced whether Democratically or by other means?

The board believes:

“Washington needs to make clear to the Pakistani people that America is the ally of their country, not their dictator, and that the United States favors the earliest possible return to free elections and civilian rule.”

Well, this is hard to disagree with as well; but their people are definitely a mixed bag as are the many different parts of the government there. “America is the ally of their country,” including one assumes of Mohammed Abdul Aziz and Abdur Rashid Ghazi; the fellas in the lead on the Red Mosque stand-off.

 

 

Did the boards words strike fear in Musharraf and lead to the recent military storming of the mosque? Hmmmmm…..

BBC News considers the consequences of the siege:

“Pakistan’s military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has often been accused of tolerating elements in the military and the intelligence services who are known to maintain ideological and strategic links with the country’s Islamic militants.

That includes those holed up in Islamabad’s Red Mosque (Lal Masjid).

So does the final showdown at the mosque mean that Gen Musharraf is moving decisively against those elements – and if so, what are the consequences?”

The board should consider more than just their simplistic biased views when blowing the hot air of their clarion call; whatever the subject.

The Times Editorial Board in THEIR Labrynth When Considering Musharraf

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Hmmm, The Times editorial board is at it again and all emotionally as well.

Regarding General Pervez Musharraf the board believes the U.S. should cut its loses with the sinking fortunes of the Pakistani leader:

“Washington continues to uncritically support the general’s highhanded rule.”

“We’ve seen this story too many times before. One version starred the shah of Iran, others some of General Musharraf’s predecessors. None ended happily for the United States or the nations involved. Dealing with dictators is sometimes necessary. Clinging to them when their people want them gone is unbecoming of the world’s greatest democracy and unhealthy for America’s long-term interests.”

It is just another cut and run tactic The Board loves, although I’ll agree that it would be nice as the board says, to have Pakistan “return to free elections and civilian rule,” in time; but at what cost? Even Time Magazine sees the light in reference to what Musharraf is up against at home, with:

“Called “my buddy” by George W. Bush, Musharraf, 62, has paid a price for his decision, having been the target of multiple assassination attempts by the militants who infest his country. His ties with the U.S. enrage religious radicals, who are his most dangerous opponents.”

Best by far is from someone that has a clue and doesn’t get into a hissy fit like The Times editorial board whenever something even slightly Bush is the subject.

From Foreign Affairs, “A False Choice in Pakistan,” Daniel Markey, July/August 2007 Vol 86, Number 4

“It is true that Pakistan’s government needs greater popular legitimacy — won through the ballot box — in order to advance both long- and short-term counterterrorism goals. But the critics’ prescriptions for how to advance these goals risk throwing the United States, Pakistan, and the war on terrorism off course without offering a better alternative. If members of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) retain ties to militant groups, including Taliban sympathizers, they do so as a hedge against abandonment by Washington. The past six decades of on-again, off-again bilateral cooperation have undermined Pakistani confidence in long-term U.S. partnership. Washington, accordingly, should resist the appeal of the cathartic but counterproductive approach of confronting Islamabad with more sticks and fewer carrots. Any attempt to crack down on Pakistan will exacerbate distrust, resulting in increased Pakistani support for jihadists; coercive threats will undermine confidence without producing better results.”

Markey suggests “shifting gears:”

“Washington should shift gears in its approach to Pakistan, but it should not reverse course. Given the abysmal state of U.S.-Pakistani relations on the eve of 9/11, the Bush administration’s six-year partnership with Musharraf has paid real dividends. Pakistan’s macroeconomic outlook and its relationship with India have both improved, creating new prospects for long-term stability and prosperity.”

Shifting gears is appropriate advice to any side of our arguments these days. The Times, the Left and others growing weary of Musharraf’s Pakistan prefer shifting gears into R, which, suffice it to say is not Race; anyone knows (I hope) that driving along at a decent clip and jamming the gearshift into Reverse isn’t really a good thing. The same applies to any alliance, whether perfect (are there any out there?) or not. We need to appreciate the positives rather than just negatives and not simplify the arguments, which is something we love to do; great for the game of politics but not the game of life.

The Hearing Loss of The NY Times Editors – Scooter Libby

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From the opinion makers; members of the NY Times Editorial board (italics mine):

“Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.”

The NY Times Editors always “hear” things differently; why is that?

Oftentimes, too often, I find myself visiting the pages of opinion in the Times; they irk me. Perhaps it’s their smarmy, condescending tone. Maybe it’s their utter dismissal of so many pieces of a puzzle that allows them to come to their conclusions that bothers me. One has to realize that the opinion page of any paper is just that, opinion. I don’t know why, but for some inexplicable reason I expect more from what used to be a respected paper.

So much of what people read or view these days is colored with words that conjure up images the writer wants you to envision; whether this is just the writer’s flare or rather their intent to mislead isn’t often in question. When it is judged by many that say the Democrat party is soft or weak on terror and is offering legislation on a withdrawal from Iraq and a paper publishes an article on the Democrats being “aggressive and united on Iraq” we have an issue. It implies that the Democrats are kicking butt in Iraq, when in reality they are “aggressive and united on Iraq,” in their efforts aimed at withdrawal. They are actually tough cookies to the enemy, but the only enemy they appear to really have their sites on is the president and the opposing party. If they applied half their vehemence and aggression on the enemy in Iraq that they do on efforts real and perceived from the Right, we’d probably be on course doing just what so many have been screaming about with regard to us cutting back the number of troops there.

Obviously I see the paper and Democrats as being misguided when it comes to the appropriate target, but I digress as I have since roughly half-way into the second paragraph.

In the editorials run up to revealing its hearing impairment it states:

“Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush’s drive to war with Iraq — whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public.

It seems clear from the record that Vice President Dick Cheney organized a campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Libby, who was Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, was willing to lie to protect his boss.”

The entire “Libby Episode” was painted with he said, she said; during the course of the investigation and trial it couldn’t even be revealed whether or not Plame-Wilson had “secret” standing. The “campaign to smear” Joseph Wilson began with Wilson’s hole ridden opinion piece, where over the course of time, many details were found wanting and/or outright untruths. Plame-Wilson’s was actually outed by Richard Armitage; a fact that special prosecutor Fitzgerald was fully aware of.

Ultimately, the jury found Libby guilty of a couple of counts; so to me it seems more appropriate for the paper, whether in its opinion pages or not to take the commutation of Libby’s sentence with the details in mind. Rather, the opinion reeks of the blinding, myopic vision that has struck so many during the Bush Administration’s time in office.

A court of law found this defendant guilty; the investigation in my mind was a joke and a witchhunt which ignored so much that was revealed about the dishonesty of Joseph Wilson, which the media tended to touch on then ignore. Libby lied when his memory was compared with other’s memories, which also proved wanting. In respect for the law it could be said the president decided upon the commutation with the best (best isn’t much here) of both worlds.

This isn’t good enough to the editors and it’s a shame as it reveals their dishonesty, which continues unabated and increases in intensity with each passing day.

I offer a quote, probably an inappropriate quote based upon its origin, meaning the person who stated it will dissuade those in disagreement from viewing the quote as unworthy due to the speaker. That shouldn’t be the case, as a good quote is worthy regardless of who states it:

“The day when the network commentators and even the gentlemen of the New York Times enjoyed a form of diplomatic immunity from comment and criticism of what they said — that day is gone. . . . When their criticism becomes excessive or unjust, we shall invite them down from their ivory towers to enjoy the rough and tumble of public debate. . . . The time for blind acceptance of their opinions is past. And the time for naïve belief in their neutrality is gone.”

Spiro T. Agnew – 1969

Visit NRO for some opinion that the Times editorial board would likely find worthy of prosecution. I haven’t read them yet as I like to post in as ignorant a state as possible prior to being swayed by the argument of others.

From The Editors at NRO; “Appropriate Presidential Mercy,” and from Byron York, who by far track this whole mess better than anyone, “Why Bush Saved Libby.”

May these links not let me down.

More on the Clinton pardons here and oddly an opinion piece from the pages of The New York Times in defense of those pardons written by the man himself.