The 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq unfortunately has provided the occasion for some who ought to know better to propagate bizarre myths about the war. In this regard, the New York Times editorial board is in a class by itself. In an editorial today, “Ten Years After,” the Times casually writes: “In 2003, President George W. Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, used the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, to wage pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein and a nuclear arsenal that did not exist.”
It is perhaps a sign of how far gone into the land of fantasy the Times editorialists actually are that they could write a sentence like this and not have anyone fact check their assertion. Was it really the case that the Iraq War was the result of a plot by President Bush and, of all people, the deputy secretary of defense? Weren’t there some other, rather more important figures in the Cabinet who supported the invasion too–not only the president but also Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice?
More significantly, wasn’t the war authorized by both houses of Congress? Perhaps the Times editorialists have forgotten that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq was approved in October 2002 by a vote of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. This was a war that had bipartisan support, winning the backing of 82 Democrats in the House and 29 in the Senate.
Among those who backed this undertaking were, inter alia, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel, former Secretary of State (and possibly future presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton, and then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Their position–that we had to be willing to use force against Saddam Hussein–was overwhelmingly popular, backed by over 70 percent of those surveyed.
The Times is right that, no matter the vote in Congress or the state of public opinion, President Bush ultimately bore responsibility for the invasion because he was commander-in-chief. But, news flash, Paul Wolfowitz was only the No. 2 official in the Department of Defense. Not only was he not in the chain of command (which runs from the president to the secretary of defense to the combatant commander), he was often ignored by his boss, Donald Rumsfeld. So why on earth, out of all the possible candidates in Washington, would the Times ascribe 50 percent of the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq to Wolfowitz?
The obvious explanation, although the Times editorialists don’t use the word, is that this is an attempt to resuscitate the old canard about how the “neocons lied us into war.” That is the kind of nonsense you expect to hear from the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Shame on the Times editors–they should know better.
they do know better but when you want to publish a blood libel you can't let facts get in the way …
Readers of the New York Times know that "Wolfowitz" is not really a person. It's an adjective which, in the parlance of the Times editorial board, is a synonym for "war-mongering Jew for the sake of Israel". n nAccording to a story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, compensation for Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. rose to $6.9 million in 2012 from $5.9 million the previous year. Last year's total included salary of $1.1 million as well as "non-equity incentive plan compensation" of $3.9 million. That makes Pinch one of the highest paid antisemites in America.
The war emerged, fully armored, from the fevered brains of the neoconnery, of whom Wolfowitz was not the least. It turns out to have been utter folly, as well as a crime. n nAnd most of these folks are still pontificating from their think-tanks. n nAt long last, have they no shame?
GOM, who pays you to be the garbage-spewing anti-Semite you relish being?
He does it for free. It's a privilege, as far as he's concerned.
For GOM it's a labor of love. Wait, better make that a Ministry of Love.
Everything is antisemitism, apparently. You have no argument against fact so to hurl incendiary libel.
"Incendiary libel"? Right, of course. n*sigh* nIf you are unable to tell the difference between measured disagreement and invective, the problem is yours, not mine.
You know, GOO, it's possible to dislike something a Jew does without being anti-Semitic. Of course, admitting that would undermine your whole reason for being, but I'm sorry, it's true.
It certainly is. And I will entertain the possiblity that GOM may dislike this for reasons entirely distinct from his general dislike of Jews and all things Jewish. But that fact makes GOM no less of a Jew hater as his many posts have amply shown.
As it is possible to disagree with something Obama says/does and not be labeled a racist? Uh huh. nGOM and the rest of that cohort can disagree with any Jew and that Jew's policy to his heart's content, that is life. Framing the disagreement in terms such as "the fevered brains of the neoconnery" just makes concrete the perception that GOM's issue is not one individual's policy, but that of a conspiracy of Jews, the euphemism being "neo-connery".
Yeah, but everybody knows it's not REAL anti-Semitism unless they use either the words "K*KE' or "Dirty Jew" as they force you into the gas chamber. Anything less (a shooting or beating here and there, or a few random accusations) is either just legitimate criticism of Israel, or hypersensitivity on the part of you no-good international banking arms dealing deicidal Chosen people.
GOM is Jewish – I think his last name is Levine
If it weren't for your rampamt Jew-hatred, the most offensive part about you would be your arrogant, condescending tone, coupled with an argument-free conclusory talking point style. But why make an argument when it could be picked apart? As an intellectual coward, you are far better hurling well crafted epithets from behind the barrier of your vague but manly sounding rhetoric than actually making an argument. Just like classic anti-semites, you are ultimately chicken shit yellow despite your brave-toned hatred.
No question, Wolfowitz was the only Jew, never mind "neocon." You might add to the list of supporters a half dozen senior generals and the then Director of the CIA.
WOLFowitz, the ravening Jew. n nMakes perfect sense, if you're an Episcopalian of Jewish origin.
Once again, the NYT is crying Wolfowitz.
Gee there's a name we haven't heard for a while. And here I was scratching my head why Chris Matthews spends about a sixth of his show every night still laughing and pointing at Romney's defeat.
So, the Empress is into masochism, I see. n n
Here goes again the antisemitic NYT.