Trash talking Times
The NY Times in its lead editorial accuses the President of "trash talking" Iran by raising the specter of World War III if Iran develops nuclear weapons. The Times appears to be under the misimpression that there is something to be accomplished diplomatically with Iran despite a 28 year record of failure of diplomacy to get the Iranians to stop its war against us. What the President was doing was warning of the consequences that would befall the world if Iran got the weapons. That seems like a prudent step to those of us who can dee the failure of diplomacy with Iran.
The Times editorial board also demonstrates it cluelessness on the Iraq war by calling it "pointless." What an insipid ridiculous statement for a major paper to make. There have been numerous points to the war in Iraq that the paper's reporters have noted even if the editorial board has remained willfully ignorant.
Right now we are handing al Qaeda its biggest defeat since the fall of Afghanistan and there is a point to that even the Times should be able to see. The rejection of al Qaeda by the Sunnis in Iraq is huge loss for al Qaeda in the "war of ideas" that the paper likes to talk about when it thinks we are losing.
We are also demonstrating that the method of warfare chosen by the enemy in Iraq can be defeated. This is hugely significant for the long term because it should mean that fewer adversaries will attempt to challenge the US this way. Perhaps that is a disappointment to the Times which would prefer to see us fail so that we will not challenge our enemies in the future.
The Times editorial board also demonstrates it cluelessness on the Iraq war by calling it "pointless." What an insipid ridiculous statement for a major paper to make. There have been numerous points to the war in Iraq that the paper's reporters have noted even if the editorial board has remained willfully ignorant.
Right now we are handing al Qaeda its biggest defeat since the fall of Afghanistan and there is a point to that even the Times should be able to see. The rejection of al Qaeda by the Sunnis in Iraq is huge loss for al Qaeda in the "war of ideas" that the paper likes to talk about when it thinks we are losing.
We are also demonstrating that the method of warfare chosen by the enemy in Iraq can be defeated. This is hugely significant for the long term because it should mean that fewer adversaries will attempt to challenge the US this way. Perhaps that is a disappointment to the Times which would prefer to see us fail so that we will not challenge our enemies in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment