Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT Ed: White House Fantasies on Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-03 08:01 AM
Original message
NYT Ed: White House Fantasies on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/opinion/14THU1.html

Someday, in the months ahead, there may be an Iraq where a smoothly run American occupation authority has dealt devastating setbacks to terrorism, brought security to most of the country, improved infrastructure and basic services, and elicited encouraging signs of democracy, economic renewal and cultural rebirth. Unfortunately, right now that Iraq exists only in the pages of the implausibly upbeat 100-day progress report recently issued by the White House.

In Iraq today, American soldiers die, electricity shortages lead to rioting, and the threat of terrorism against civilians must be taken increasingly seriously. The biggest problems have been airbrushed out of the White House report, making it read more like a Bush campaign flier than a realistic accounting to the American people. There have, of course, been positive accomplishments, but making a success of Iraq will require much time, many billions of dollars and real sacrifices. Pretending otherwise risks future public disillusionment.

In the face of news reports detailing continued insecurity, failing basic services and painstakingly slow political progress, the White House cites significant signs of better security, improved basic services and emerging democracy. Not mentioned in the Panglossian report, covering the 100 days after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, were the 56 American soldiers killed in attacks during that period.

Days after the report's release, Basra was swept by rioting over electricity and fuel shortages. While the report boasts of broad international support, Washington still scrambles to line up countries willing to contribute peacekeeping troops without expanded United Nations authority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-03 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. of course the NYT losers wanted this war

they were its biggest promoters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-03 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm glad this is being printed, but why the fuck
do they buy into this 56 American soldeirs killed in attacks bullshit? It's alot more than that and they know it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonAndSun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-03 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. NYT editorial boards are whores,
when they start putting the deaths of our soldiers on the front page every day, and start questioning bush* for all his lies, every day, then maybe they will have some credibility with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-03 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. NYT and other newspapers
fully whored themselves for the war. Now what about all the casualties. Who's responsible? Bush or the media whores or BOTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC