|
Todayâs Bleat
James Lileks is on today:Letâs go back to the editorial page the day after the 1998 bombing. (Desert Fox) Lead edit. Title: âBOMBING SADDAM. Reason is clear; let attack be sustained.â The writer lays out the case: Saddam has not complied with his obligations; he threw away the last chance that President Clinton gave him in November; Tony Blair agrees. Said the editorial: âNeither will the attack be credible if it is limited to a few cruise missiles lobbed at Iraq. This must be the sustained, punishing effort that Clinton has promised.â The end result of which was five more years of Saddamâs rule. Interesting choice of words, that: âPunishing.â Saddam must be punished, then left in power. He must be hit with a credible attack, then left in power. The punishing, credible attack that leaves him in power must be sustained. And so forth. Iâve read enough editorials from various papers from this period to reinforce something Iâve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate this war is because they donât feel itâs theirs. If Clinton had risen to the occasion, wiped out al-Qaeda, sent Marines to kick down the statues and put bullets in those filthy sonsâ brainpans, this would be the most noble effort of our time. We would hear clear echoes of JFKâs call to bear any burden. FDR, Truman, Marshall Plan, forbearance, patience - the editorial pages of the land would absolutely brim with encouragement and optimism every damn day, because the good fight was being waged, and the right people were waging it. Read the whole thing, but you knew that. Posted by: Steve 2003-09-18 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=18851 |