Blowing in the Wind

A New York Times editorial, "Blowing in the Wind," chastises President Bush for his Iraq policy. It attempts to be an "I told you so" column.

It fails.

Why does it fail?

Like so many of its editorials and so much of the "hard news" content of The Times, "Blowing in the Wind" isn't grounded in reality.

It lacks reason.

It's hypocritical.

The generals who told President Bush before the war that Donald Rumsfeld’s shock-and-awe fantasy would not work were not enough to persuade him to change his strategy in Iraq. The rise of the insurgency did not do the trick. Nor did month after month of mounting military and civilian casualties on all sides, the emergence of a near civil war, the collapse of reconstruction efforts or the seeming inability of either Iraqi or American forces to secure contested parts of Iraq, including Baghdad, for any significant period.

So what finally, after all this time, caused Mr. Bush to very publicly consult with his generals to consider a change in tactics in Iraq? The president, who says he never reads political polls, is worried that his party could lose some of its iron grip on power in the Congressional elections next month.

Bush has said again and again that he listens to his "generals on the ground."

We're not talking about a band of disgruntled retirees seeking the spotlight with Matt Lauer.

Is it possible that a change in tactics in Iraq needs to be considered because conditions are demanding that?

Is it possible that Bush is responding to this deadly October, the deadliest month in 2006?

To suggest that Bush is playing politics is silly.

Why would he pick two weeks before such a hotly contested election to consider changing course?

That's not a move that would win votes. In fact, that's extremely risky.

He has to know that the retreat and defeat, cut and run Leftists would jump all over him, saying, "We told you so." His supporters on the Right might abandon him for going wobbly.

Clearly, polls are not driving Bush's decisions.

Doing the right thing for the people of the United States is what matters to Bush. The timing is irrelevant.

Radical libs don't understand that. They don't get principles, integrity, and conviction.

It is not necessarily a bad thing when a politician takes stock of his positions in the teeth of an election. Our elected leaders are expected to heed the will of the American people. And this page has been part of a chorus of pleas for Mr. Bush to come up with a more realistic approach to Iraq.

But the way this sudden change of heart has come about, after months in which Mr. Bush has brushed off all criticism of his policies as either misguided, politically motivated or downright disloyal to America, is maddening. For far too long, the White House has looked upon the war as a tactical puzzle for campaign strategists. The early notion of combining Iraq and the war on terror as an argument for re-electing Republicans robbed the nation of any serious chance for a bipartisan discussion of these life-and-death issues. More recently, the administration seems to have been working under the assumption that its only obligations were to hang on, talk tough and pass the problem on to the next president.

There it is again -- that claim that Bush has stifled criticism of his policies by charging anti-Americanism.

That is a myth, and that is maddening.

When has Bush done that? Give me a quote from Bush calling Americans disloyal or unpatriotic for disagreeing with him.

Here's a challenge: Give me a direct quote.

To my knowledge, no such statement on the public record exists.

Whenever libs whine about Bush challenging their patriotism, I view it as an expression of their feelings of guilt.

The Iraqi government, which has had a hard time adopting most aspects of American democracy, seems to have eagerly embraced this administration’s lessons on how to deny politically unpleasant realities. Just the other day, The Times reported that the Pentagon had decided there was nothing wrong with a program in which phony “positive news” was planted in Iraqi newspapers. And news reports said that the Iraqi government had decided to stop reporting civilian casualties to the United Nations so there would be no record of the war’s increasing toll on ordinary Iraqis.

IT IS A JOKE THAT THE TIMES IS BITCHING ABOUT PLANTING PHONY NEWS.

The Times is packed with phony negative news. Every day.

The whole Joe Wilson - Valerie Plame outing scandal was fake.

"Domestic spying" is a complete misrepresentation of the realities of the NSA program.

How thoroughly disingenuous!

The way the Bush team is stage-managing the president’s supposed change of heart about “staying the course” is unfair to the Americans who have taken him at his word that real progress is being made in Iraq — a dwindling but still significant number of people, some of whom have sons and daughters serving in the conflict. It is a disservice to the troops, who were never sent to Iraq in sufficient numbers to protect themselves or the Iraqi people. And it is a disservice to all Americans, who have waited so long for Mr. Bush to act that all that is left are a series of unpleasant choices.

REAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN IRAQ.

The problems, the stubbornness of the insurgency, and the deaths don't alter the accomplishments.

The Times chooses to belittle the positives, or ignore them altogether. That does a grave disservice to the incredible sacrifices of our military personnel and their families.

It's just as important to acknowledge the positives as it is the negatives.

And it is happening in the midst of a particularly ugly, and especially vacuous, election season. There is probably no worse time to begin a serious discussion about Iraq policy than two weeks before a close, bitter election. But now that the discussion has begun, it must continue, as honestly and openly as possible. It is time for the American people to confront all the things that the president never had the guts to tell them about for three and a half years.

Why is this election season "particularly ugly, and especially vacuous"?

Gee, do you think that The New York Times and other liberal media propaganda tentacles like The Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC have something to do with that?

Weeks of talking about "macaca" and FORMER Rep. Mark Foley certainly hasn't helped the public to focus on the big issues, now has it?

Hypocrites.

It kills me that The Times insists that the President didn't have "the guts" to be honest with the American people three and a half years ago.

"GUTS"?

Oh really?

What about John Kerry's "guts" on Iraq?

His "guts" weren't reporting for duty. His "guts" were MIA until polls shifted and the money from the wacko Left directed him to flip-flop and demand a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

His "guts" prompted him to join with the disgraceful, politically opportunistic Russ Feingold and set July 1, 2007 as the deadline to get American troops out of Iraq.

If you recall, Feingold had demanded that troops be withdrawn by December 31, 2006, about two months from now. Yes, everybody out in two months. That was Feingold's plan. What happened? Did something blow in the wind?

Does The Times editorial board really expect anyone to buy that those moves by Kerry and Feingold were based on principle and not pure politics?

Of course, their lib readers will buy it. They swallow it hook, line, and sinker. The Times is their bible.

Then, those lemmings regurgitate what they've read in The Times. They hang on every irresponsible, misguided word from their St. Rosie O'Donnell and repeat her inanity.

Bottom line:

The Times and their lib comrades are constructing a reality that suits their political agenda.

It's a false reality. It's a Neville Chamberlain reality.

President Bush should not be faulted for reacting to changing conditions in Iraq.

Historically, The Times understands appeasement, not war.