Saturday, November 04, 2006

NYT Nukes Its’ Own Argument

and it unwittingly endorses the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

While an alliance of Arab States, Russia, France, Germany, and the generalized Angry left were trying to stall the United States in the year before the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration seems to have adapted from the Asian business model the concept of just in time bombing.

Trying to use it as a cudgel and an October surprise, the New York Times reports that in 2002, the Baathist regime was as little as one year away from having a working nuke. The odd thing is that this attempt to fault the Bush Administration underlines the fact that the NYT spent the last 3 years attempting to convince the public by underreporting relevant information and running endless speculative tales of doubt, that there were no WMDs, no programmes, etc. They might as well try to suggest that the Bush Administration concocted the letters W, M, and D for just that purpose, and their zombie readership would buy it.

To wit, release the blogs!

That notwithstanding they are actively publishing information of tremendous use to violent opponents of the United States, much as they did by publicizing the people and methods behind the United States’ communications and financial transfer intelligence efforts. This time they’re helping out insurgents figure out how to more easily kill coalition troops.

Those engaged in warfare are always seeking any edge, however slight, which may give them the advantage. Unfortunately some in the media are all to willing to display the coalition family jewels for all to see.

Graphic courtesy of the New York Times.
One might say that this isn’t treason, seeing that once the weakness of American body armor are known that word can get around – well, no. Cells in an insurgent network protect themselves by isolating themselves from one another. Their entrepot of information is the media, more to the point the overachieving western press and the bloodthirsty nature of the left-leaning people who run it.

Where their adolescent dreams of “sticking it to the man” comes from has been a matter of much speculation, but I’d guess it’s a close relative of the fear and excess rumination that comes from passivity and fear about the world. Since it’s a scary place, it has to be controlled forcefully by some wise entity that appeals to one. Judgment in every thing needs to be left up to such experts, down to the last detail, but always as it relates to oneself, ones’ pleasures, ones’ image, and the like – to the point of invention. An example can be found here where the writer asks:
Will there come a day when we can eat lots of high-calorie, fatty foods and offset the health damage by taking a natural substance found in red wine?
Wine exists. Fatty foods exist. Why not try it out and get back to us. No such beast. The outcome must be known.

Just as the left looks back at ”good” wars that they say they could get behind, saying that the morality of fighting the Nazis and Japanese Empire were clear, they’re hiding a lie. They like it because these wars are over, and they know the outcome.

Their absolute fear and unceasing lamentation of the future is what brings them to find any and all rhetoric possible to try to make any concurring change stop right away at all costs. It’s what would cause the likes of those who write for the New York Times to criticize the fullness of an effort they did everything they could to diminish.

No comments: