November 13th, 2006


That Tipsy Editorial Board

The universe according to the Times Echoes is an interesting one: they say silly, unconsidered things like this, which might pass as cocktail party chatter, after a few drinks, but wouldn't pass muster in the cruel light of day:

Truly transforming the military would have meant trading in expensive cold war weaponry, like attack submarines and stealth fighters, for pilotless drones, swifter ships and lighter, more mobile ground forces. Mr. Rumsfeld never had the interest — or the political will — to take on that fight. Instead, he bought peace with Congress and the military brass by holding down the size of ground forces in order to continue paying the ballooning cost of unnecessary weaponry. He created a smaller, more mobile force that was too small to successfully pacify Iraq.

Really. Now we come to the interesting question, the question that has preoccupied people for years: can the New York Times read?

The answer, of course, is "No." Unless someone can tell a reporter something verbally, the New York Times will never find out about it. (This is not only true for the New York Times: there are other aliterate reporters out there). So responses to the opinion from people who know better, delivered in letter form, will probably never see an editor, but for your enlightenment, here it is.

I'll just select a bit, shall I?

Secretary Rumsfeld’s tenure has seen one of the most dramatic transformations of the military in its history—for the express purpose of combating asymmetric threats. That is, Secretary Rumsfeld has done precisely what you accuse him of not doing—and I should add that he has done so despite resistance from elements in the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, and the Congress. He has proven time and again more than willing to “take on that fight.”

While I applaud their efforts, the futility of attempting to write to the New York Times is easily demonstrated. Try it sometime.

Time Magazine Expects Me To Apologize

Time Magazine has decided that they want an apology, an "Oops, I'm So Sorry" from "neocons" like me for advocating, and insisting on, the war in Iraq.

An apology?

How about this?

"We overestimated the threat posed by a lunatic dictator who hated the US and Israel, and who paid rewards to the families of Palestinian terrorists. In an age when two of the world's tallest buildings can be brought down with the tools used by stockboys at KMart, we should have demanded more concrete evidence of exotic weapons of mass destruction. We deeply regret freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous gang of thugs masquerading as a representative republic. We're sorry that the Iraqi people have discovered thousands of graves of their relatives murdered by Saddam, and appalled that we have upset our relations with strongmen and thugs across the Middle East by having three major elections in Iraq, allowing the Iraqis the chance to form their own government, and planning turning over security to them by March, 2008. We did not take into account their willingness to blow each other up, and their stubborn determination to kill themselves while blowing up women and children, which had never occurred before after any war we had encountered: and the growing eagerness of their fellow citizens to tell us about these attacks in advance surely hurts them grievously.

What an awful outcome. We are SO sorry."

Yeah, Right.

Profound kowtow to Scott Ott for the wholesale theft of language from his brilliant site. Read his site more often, will you?