 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
April 29, 2004
| Pentagon parrots |
From now on, I'm keeping a saltshaker handy whenever I read the New York Times. Taking their news with just one grain of salt isn't going to cut it anymore -- especially when it comes to war coverage.
Wednesday's front page had a headline reading, "Hussein's Agents Are Behind Attacks in Iraq, Pentagon Finds." The article goes on to state that "many" of the Iraqis killing and maiming our soldiers are members of Saddam Hussein's "secret service."
Whew. For a while there, it looked like there were all sorts of hostile factions in Iraq, with different agendas and different tactics, ganging up on U.S. troops. A real mess, getting messier. But not to worry -- the Pentagon's looked into it, and we're still mostly fighting Saddamistas. As we all recall, there are no complications when it comes to Iraq's former regime: it's evil, and nasty, and worth every single sacrifice we incur along the way.
Of course, this is the same sort of military intelligence that told us yes, there are WMDs in them thar dunes -- and we even know where they are! This is the arm of government that had Paul Wolfowitz forecasting flowers and cheers for American soldiers instead of, say, rocket-propelled grenade attacks. And, of course, it's the same military intelligence that lowballed how many troops and how much money this excellent adventure would require.
To be fair, the article does mention that "other important assessments of American intelligence on Iraq have been challenged and even proven wrong." I think that little nugget belongs in a subhead, not the 4th paragraph, but hey, why take the air out of a nice, attention-grabbing headline? The most revealing detail of the story is that Saddam's secret service "planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad."
Gee, not a bad idea. Looks like when a tired, old figurehead -- in this case, Saddam Hussein -- was deluding himself on the probable outcome of an American invasion, his underlings went ahead and planned for the worst. Makes you wish we'd had some of that same foresight, even if our own deluded figureheads were convinced everything would turn out lemon-fresh.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nate Puckett at April 29, 2004 04:47 PM |
|
Back to top