Now the New York Times Sells "Bloodbath" as a Rationale for Staying in Iraq

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

There’s been no stage in the grim progress of the US onslaught on Iraq at which the New York Times hasn’t been shoving the whole ghastly enterprise along. First there were Judy Miller and Michael Gordon promoting the WMD rationale for attack. More recently there was Michael Gordon selling the surge.

Now it’s John Burns, pushing the notion that if the US withdraws there’ll a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions as the Iraqis slaughter each other. The administration is seizing eagerly on this, which is a bit like Dracula saying his castle is the best security guarantee against local peasant girls being attacked by vampires.

There’ll certainly be no prospect of peace so long as US troops are occupying Iraq. Ask Iraqis, whom we can safely assume have a clearer grasp than Burns of what might improve the awful conditions of their lives. Outside Kurdistan, continued American occupation is not a popular view. Over 80 per cent of Iraqis tell pollsters they want the Americans out.

Will things get worse if Americans leave? Probably so, at least for a while. In 2005 the US said there would be a bloodbath if they left. So they stayed and there’s been a worsening bloodbath.

[zabet]

1. Just a recap of Chimpy's speech where...

Al kayda was mentioned 90+ times. Blood, murder, chaos, terra terra terra......
unadulterated bullshit from the chimp in charge.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Counterpunch is getting loopy.

This is an article that cites another Counterpunch article written about, you guessed it, a Counterpunch article. I guess they figured they didn't quite make the point of the NYT being a rightwing propaganda rag the first time. Or the second time.

By the way -- the NYT did a horrid job of sifting through the Bush administration sales pitch for Iraq, but they weren't alone. In fact, they would have stood alone if they'd have opposed it; it would have been the right thing to do, but that point was clear only to about 8% of the population. (I gd guarantee you that more than 1/3 of those at DU today supported those hostilities, but you'd never get them to admit it.) Makes me wonder about Counterpunch's mad fixation about the NYT, particularly considering that the right hates them to their very marrow.

[seemslikeadream]

3. I believe there was just one word in that article you didn't like

hence the "loopy"

on edit maybe two

[Buzz Clik]

5. One word? Hardly.

I expressed my opinion quite clearly, and I was not taking offense at one word.

How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. (Perhaps it would have been helpful if you were brave enough to mention the word. I might understand where you got your idea about the word, but you would still be wrong.)

[Berry Cool]

4. Get ready for the next presidential prress conference drinking game

"September the 11th...bloodbath...September the 11th...bloodbath..."

[VTMechEngr]

6. LOL

Reminds me of a Doonesbury strip from the book Call Me When You Find America when B.D. visits commie Phred in Vietnam and they have this conversation:

Phred: You know, B.D., since Milhous came to office, you Americans have lost 20,000 lives, and we Asians have four million killed, wounded, or made refugees!

B.D.: Yeah, Yeah, I know the stats! But you KNOW it's been Darn worth it, lasting peace-wise!

Phred: How so? You're getting the same terms you would have gotten four years ago! Why didn't you just pull out then?

B.D.: Are you kidding!? And Cause A BLOOD BATH?!

Phred: *sigh*