Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I talked about how dishonest our media have been about who is responsible for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq.

That was before I read the lead editorial in today's New York Times.  If I had done so, I would have featured it to make my point.

The Times' first paragraph;

On Tuesday the American combat mission in Iraq — a war that should never have been fought — officially ends. President Obama deserves credit for promising the withdrawal and for sticking to it. But America’s responsibilities in Iraq will not end now.

All credit to Barack Obama.  Not even 1% to President Bush.

But it's not like they didn't mention Mr. Bush.  Later on in the editorial:

President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 looking for weapons of mass destruction, and defended that rationale long after it was clear that those weapons were not there. America’s credibility has still not recovered. The war cost the lives of more than 4,400 Americans, as well as those of an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians, and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Iraq war also, disastrously, shifted attention and resources away from the far more important fight in Afghanistan. The Taliban — routed by the United States and Afghan forces after 9/11 — quickly regained the battlefield momentum after the Pentagon and White House lost interest. The two wars have grievously overtaxed American forces.

What a pile of manure.

Yes, President Bush invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction --- weapons that intelligence agencies around the world said were there, and virtually every politician, including virtually every Democratic leader (among them, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry and Pelosi) agreed were there.  How nice of the Times to leave that out.  How nonpartisan.  What a wonderful display of professional journalism.

And, with all due respect to the Times (which, in this case, means almost none), the taliban never "regained the battlefield momentum" throughout Mr. Bush's two terms.  Ironically - and, of course, unmentioned by the Times - the closest the taliban has come to doing so is right now  After over a year and a half of President Obama and with the Obama troop surge that has four times as many of our military personnel there as Bush ever had.

Sometimes I think the New York Times editorial staff is in a competition to win the "Most Dishonest and Unprofessional Newspaper Of The Year" award. 

If this editorial is any indication, they're certainly in the running.