Friday, July 8, 2005
Ah, the bombings in London. Just another excuse for the Globe's worst columnist (he's tied with James Carroll, of course) to repeat his favorite Bush-bashing mantras -- no Saddam-9/11 link, where are the WMD's? -- bad and predictable enough, of course, but he really out-does himself today. Today he goes beyond his usual finger-pointing at Coalition forces for the deaths that have occured (Always missing from Jackson's calculus are the millions Saddam murdered. They're missing from the calculus, of course, because they don't count as points to stack against the Great Satan Bush.) in the liberation of Iraq. The clear implication of today's column is that, in the murder of innocents, yesterday's terrorists have nothing on us. I kid you not.
Boston Globe: A look in the mirror for America
Or perhaps you forgot about them. That was by design. We have rightfully mourned the loss of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. We have begun mourning the loss of about 40 people in London. We have mourned the loss of 1,751 US soldiers, who, bless them, were following orders of their commander in chief. But to this day, there has been no major acknowledgement, let alone apology, by Bush or Blair for the massive amounts of carnage we created in a war waged over what turned out to be a lie, the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction...
...The propaganda of an invasion with invisible innocents surely allowed Bush to seamlessly switch his stated reason from the unique horrors of WMD to liberating an oppressed people. It is a lot easier to tell the world you are their great liberator if you do not have to own up to the thousands of dead people who will never get the chance to vote in that free election. It sounds a little bit like people who say African-Americans should be thankful for slavery because they are no longer in Africa.
[And this year's award for most uses of the word "innocent" in a single paragraph goes to...]
Worse, this denial of death, in a war that did not have to happen, is sure to fuel the very terrorism we say we will defeat. The innocents in the so-called war on terror are always ''our" citizens or the citizens of our allies. The only innocent Iraqis are those killed by ''insurgents." Our soldiers clearly did not intend to kill innocents. But this posturing of America as the great innocent, when everyone knows we kill innocents ourselves, is likely only to make us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber.
Would someone please explain to Mr. Jackson that the suicide bombers are the ones targeting regular Iraqis? We're trying to defend them. Oh, I forgot. The Iraqis don't actually figure in this, so no calculation involving them will make sense. This has nothing to do with Iraqis, or Americans, and everything to do with Derrick Z. Jackson's chafing case of BDS -- Bush Derangement Syndrome. The rest is just a prop.
In the world of the Boston Globe, the only difference between the deaths of innocents intentionally murdered at the hands of Jihadi killers, and the deaths of innocents sadly killed by a Coalition trying to bring order to a wrecked region is in the use you can make of them toward establishing your Boston "liberal" bona fides. Those of us with a more discerning moral eye than the writers at the Globe get the difference. Derrick Jackson doesn't.
what a complete buffoon he is. i am so tired of this attitude... how facile that he cannot, or dare i say, will not ackowledge the fact that war is ugly and innocent people, the enemy and our own soldiers die. that in no way can be compared to the cowardly death demon terrorists targeting innocent people going about their daily lives.