Republic Editorial Missing the Point

In today's editorial, the Arizona Republic effectively tells President Bush "atta boy" and misses the point those who question whether Mr. Bush actually has a plan are saying, which is "where's the beef?" My issue with the Republic, as with the Bush administration, is they conveniently exclude little facts that bring the Bush "strategy" into proper context, that of a losing agenda.

For example, they state the "Washington political class" (whatever THAT means) thinks the debate on the war is all about "Congress" and the "attendant media." It is no longer about Iraqi elections, they tell us. It is no longer about Iraqi military capabilities. It is not about defeating the Baathists. It isn't about the "destruction of al-Qaida terrorists." Yup, it's all about Congress and what the media says. It's all about Congressional elections.

What a line of crap.

The debate on the war has everything to do with Iraq stability. It has everything to do with creating a calmer Middle East. It has everything to do with trying to set up a democracy in a part of the world that hasn't had a democracy since the beginning of time. It's only about the congressional elections because the Republicans have screwed things up so badly that their hold on power is legitimately threatened.

So what planet am I on that I can't see the legitimacy of the Republic's editorial? Can't I see that more troops are trained and are carrying the water of Iraqi defense and security? Am I so cynical that I ignore "the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers and the health of a strategically invaluable nation?"

Just to make this clear, I live on a planet where the sky is blue.

My skepticism is based on knowing facts the Republic chooses to ignore. Such as the fact that the Iraqi forces are more loyal to their local militia commanders than Iraqi military commanders and when asked to choose between the two, they'd choose the local militia.

My skepticism is based on the fact that the Iraqi people, while glad Saddam is gone, are fed up with no jobs, no water, no electricity, few paved streets, no sewage capacity. Who do they blame? Saddam? Bin Laden? Nope, they blame the U.S. for the problem.

My skepticism is based on an understanding that simply training someone doesn't mean they're ready for the job. How many of us have known someone who has gone through extensive training for some task yet seems to forget it the first chance they get, or leave to take that knowledge to another organization.

My skepticism is based on the knowledge that just because there is an Iraqi battalion located in some physical space, that doesn't mean they control all of the area around it.

There was nothing in the Republic's editorial that addresses these facts and how, when put against the President's speech of 29 Nov shows that there really is nothing new out of the Bush Administration when it comes to telling us the truth about the war and giving us the real story upon which Americans can make an informed decision.

Not that I'd expect them to...

So how can the Republic improve? They can stop towing the line and start printing the facts. In other words, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No spin. No agenda.

Now if only pigs could fly...