New York Times: Duped Again
Memo to the NY Times: Wishin' don't make it so.
posted by LadybugUSA at 1:07 PM
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Contact & Other Information
Contributors
Key Links
Previous Posts
- A Culinary Nightmare . . .
- Never, Ever Again
- Felons Shouldn't Be Voting
- Using the Military
- Being a Leader
- Blanket Punishment?
- Accountability for Schumer
- A Pathetic Performance
- Saddam's Terror State / Where's the MSM?
- A Suspicious Incident
5 Comments:
Carol writes, "Memo to the NY Times: Wishin' don't make it so."
The Times should take this from someone who knows.
On any number of occasions Carol has closed her eyes real tight, curled up her hands into itty-bitty fists, and wished and wished and wished real hard that Iraq would have WMDs. To date she has squat to show for it.
Talking about how wishing don't make it so, remember how Greg took me and others to task for daring to suggest that the sectarian violence in Iraq was civil war? Here's where we stand today...
"Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the country's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has told the BBC.
"He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad.
"The UK and US have repeatedly denied Iraq is facing a civil war, but Mr Allawi suggested there was no other way to describe the sectarian violence." [Cite]
Don't worry Greggers--I'll just cut and paste your inciteful commentary here. I'll just substitute "Allawi" for "Twister" in your meaningless mewling found [here.
Mr. Allawi,
There's a huge difference between a violent provocation followed by a violent reaction and outright Civil War. Your "acknowledgement" of the truth on the ground failed to recognize the immediate reaction of all leaders for all affected parties who unanimously condemned the provocation and called for peace.
Yes, a violent and deadly reaction did occur in response to a violent provocation. This situation seems to be easing as we speak - exactly the opposite of what would be occurring if Civil War was actually under way.
The tone in your statements, both in this thread and others, makes it abundantly clear that you are actually rooting for death and destruction in Iraq in desperate belief that the hoped-for carnage will harm the reputaion of the President of the United States.
That's more than sad, Mr. Allawi, it's pathetic.
You are on the wrong side of history. Humanity longs for and fights for freedom. How many times must the left ignore that and embarass themselves before they finally see?
Freedom cannot be stopped, it can only be interrupted. It must be uncomfortable to be rooting for the continued interruption of freedom to millions of humans.
My humanity hopes for freedom, Mr. Allawi, with all my soul. My humanity stands with the Iraqi people. My humanity supports the defeat of fascists.
What about yours?
I just don't understand why the former Prime Minister of Iraq is standing against the Iraqi people, and why he would want to hurt the reputation of the President of the United States. Doesn't Iyad Allawi recognize that WikiPedia agrees with Greg?
Maybe that's why he's the "former" interum prime minister. Allawi and Mr. Twister do seem interchangable, however.
I mean "interim". Dang.
"I'm honored to stand with the prime minister of a free and sovereign Iraq.
Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister.
I applaud your leadership and your courage.
I'm honored to welcome a friend to the White House." -- President George W. Bush, welcoming Iyad Allawi to the White House.
Sorry, Marshall Art and Pete, you must now bow down because the object of your cult-like affection has already spoken.
Post a Comment
<< Home