We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

New York Times Forced to Relinquish Its Title
by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
02 October 2003Time Magazine

In truth, the war is not being run poorly at all.


There has been a great deal of rivalry among many of America’s most talked-about publications as to which can most blatantly demean Republicans and still maintain a place on respectable newsstands.  The New York Times has claimed victory for the past few years, but that may soon change.  After years of careful manipulation of fact, Time magazine may walk away with the blue ribbon.

Apparently making the same mistake that plagues most left-wing “journalists,” Time’s October 6 edition sports the title, “Mission Not Accomplished:  How Bush Misjudged the Task of Fixing Iraq.”  Objective, to be sure.

In the table of contents for this issue -- surely to be hailed among liberals as perfection -- the article is summarized:  “Bureaucratic infighting, poor intelligence, and wishful thinking all led to the Bush Administration’s miscalculations on Iraq.  Now it’s going to cost the U.S. plenty.”  Effortlessly promoting their agenda further, Time first calls their article “Getting Iraq Wrong,” and later, “So, What Went Wrong?”

Ever since President George W. Bush eliminated from the planet the threat of Saddam Hussein, Michael Elliot, the author of the piece writes, “Iraq has been nothing but trouble.  Time reports on the errors and bad guesses, before and after the war, that got the Bush Administration into this spot.” 

Notice all of the carefully constructed criticisms Time has managed to include in their cover story: 

“Of all the miscalculations on Iraq, few have been as surprising as the inability to find real evidence of Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction…”

“The fruitless hunt for WMD has not cost American lives.  The failure to understand that the war was not over -- and in some ways, had barely begun -- when Bush stood on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, has.” (Emphasis added.)


Time also includes an itemized list of money the Bush Administration would like to spend on the rebuilding of Iraq.  In bold, fairly large print, they list the dollar number, followed by -- in smaller lettering -- the purpose of the money, and finally, they list why “foes of the Administration” don’t want to allot the money.  Astonishingly, they don’t list the Administration’s point of view.  Readers have full access to most of the reasons liberals are against rebuilding Iraq (they leave out the fact that they hate Bush), but are deprived of the pro-Administration argument.  Still later in this “special report,” Time offers an article entitled, “Progress Inch by Inch.”

Though Time certainly outdoes most other mainstream publications in its unfounded allegations, they’re not alone.

The Los Angeles Times editorialized that the Administration “is not at risk of damaging its credibility in Iraq; it's in danger of destroying it.”  They charged that “…the administration has been indifferent to the difficulties the regular military deployments have caused…” and, further, that “…the administration either is in total disarray or it actively seeks to mislead the public.”  The situation in Iraq, they claim, “continues to deteriorate.”

In truth, the war is not being run poorly at all.  Coalition forces have been tremendously successful not only in dismantling Saddam Hussein’s regime, but in the rebuilding. What’s more, we’ve done it in record time.

It took three years after World War II to establish the independent central bank of Germany.  It was established in Iraq in a mere two months.  It took fourteen months in Germany to reestablish police forces.  In Iraq, it has taken two months.  In Germany, it took three years to create a new currency.  In Iraq, it has taken two and a half months.  A cabinet in Germany took fourteen months, but a cabinet exists in Iraq after only four months.

Another point:  At this point in time, the United States maintains 116,000 troops in Europe; 37,000 in South Korea; and over 40,000 in Japan.  The wars in these places have been over for decades, but Americans are still there.  Our boys in Iraq haven’t been there six months yet, and liberals are demanding that we rethink our exit strategy.  (Which, they said before the war, we never had anyway.)

There must be, then, a reasonable explanation for the disparity between liberals’ version of the war, and the war itself.  Someone must be lying.  My bet’s on liberals.

Democrats are staying in weekends these days, desperately manufacturing headlines about America’s disastrous handling of post-war Iraq, and coining terms like “Usama bin Forgotten.”  Apparently they’ve managed to spread their lies fairly well, inasmuch as President Bush’s approval ratings have slipped, but, by and large, America is behind him, as we always were.  The simple fact is that there is no turmoil in Iraq.  Our forces have been spectacularly successful, and the people of Iraq are thrilled.


Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

Email Isaiah Sterrett

Send this Article to a Friend