Nonsense of the highest order (WaPo Op-Ed)

[tomfodw]

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post writes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47892-2004Aug30.html):

"America's dilemma in Iraq now, so obvious that people rarely state it, is that a war meant to contain terrorism has had the effect of creating more of it. Most of the new terrorism is in Iraq itself, which was to be a platform in combating terrorism but has instead become a magnet for it."


With all due respect to Mr. Ignatius, this is utter bullshit (and he knows it). It is not "obvious" at all to 99% of Americans that the war in Iraq has created more terrorism than it has eliminated. President Bush certainly does not admit this (maybe not even to himself) and the media has done everything it can to conceal this distasteful fact from the sensitive American public (it would only distress them and distract them from their assigned tasks of monitoring their neighbors' suspicious behavior - such as supporting John Kerry - and cheerleading for the president's re-election).

The rest of the column is actually not bad, although his final line is ridiculously naive. Ignatius concludes, "The truth is that we don't know the Bush administration's plans. We see the twin towers looming in the background, as a powerful symbol of unity and resolve. But to what end? This week Bush should level with the nation about what's ahead. That's an obligation, surely, for a wartime president."

This is reminiscent of Samuel Johnson's definition of second marriages: The triumph of hope over experience. Everything we've learned about Bush should have taught each and every one of us by now that he has no intention of ever leveling with us about what's ahead. He has no idea what's ahead. He's never had a clue about what's ahead, and the press has let him get away with it. What makes Ignatius or anyone else think Bush will - or even can - change that now?

[Eloriel]

1. Well, write to him. n/t