First they say that the Shias are the greatest threat to Iraq's future. And the Kurd's have their own agenda, too, so watch out for them! So who should be in the government? Why those poor misunderstood, disenfranchised Sunni Baathists!
There have been particularly disturbing calls in recent weeks from leaders of the main Shiite political bloc for a far-reaching purge of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from all government, military and intelligence posts. That would be an injustice for the many Iraqis who joined the party just to keep their jobs, and would further estrange an already deeply alienated Sunni community.
Are the writers of this editorial crack heads or crystal meth users? Can they possibly be upset that the former victims of Saddam's Baathists thugs (who represent 80% of the people) will dominate the government? Is it really possible for them to say that breaking the monopoly of power that the minority Sunnis wielded with brutal efficiency is an injustice??!! My God, I think the Shias alone could work up the 60% to break a Sunni filibuster for Pete's sake. Honestly, it is just revolting to see who the Times writers reserve their sympathy for. It is shameful.
And what to make of this?
The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.
Freedom was seized on after the fact? Give me strength to fight three-year old battles once again. Prior to the war, I recall the anti-war side railing against the multiple reasons given to overthrow Saddam's regime. They complained that the pro-war side couldn't settle on a single reason. And now the anti-war side denies there was more than one reason! And they've picked the one reason and asserted it was wrong.
Let's set aside the very name of the invasion, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Could be a coincidence, right? But peruse Instapundit's compilation of arguments made prior to the war for fighting for freedom in Iraq. Not so hollow, eh?
As for WMD being fictitious, all I have to say is bull. I expected to find chemical weapons in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq produced them and used them in the 1980s so it didn't take a wild leap to assume Saddam still had them. Nukes? I expected some level of program but given the fact we missed the program in the 1990s I was unwilling to trust it was at a low level. Bio weapons? I didn't expect weaponized bio crap but given that such a program would take very little of a footprint I was unwilling to take a chance.
We still cannot close the book on Iraq's WMD:
The media spin on WMD remains in full force. The truth is that without a full reckoning and complete access to the entire Southwest Asia area, no WMD search could possibly be complete. Nor does the evidence in the report support a conclusion that the WMD did not exist, as the above quote shows. Duelfer and his team did not stop because the WMD didn't exist; they stopped because they had run out of time, resources, and jurisdiction. Duelfer recommends further investigation, a clear indication that he believes the question remains open on WMD transfers to Syria, a recommendation that CNN and other media sources predictably leaves out of their reports.
Yes, freedom for the Iraqis was one reason for overthrowing Saddam's regime. And yes, the question of Iraq's WMD was a good reason to destroy Saddam's regime. We will find out what happened to the WMD given enough time. And we will create a better Iraq given time.
What we will never find is the Times credibility to accurately report news.
