New York Times stabs Iraqi democracy in the cradle

By

Somebody please stop the New York Times before it kills what fifteen million Iraqi voters are risking their lives for: a tiny but hopeful democracy. To greet the New Year, the NYT headlined a story,

Iraqi clerics found on Pentagon payroll

Ever since Saddam was overthrown ——— against the advice of the NYT ——— it has been warning about the danger of a bloody civil war in Iraq, as the Sunni Saddamites try to regain power, killing thousands of Shiite civilians in the process. Under the circumstances, given Middle East reality, it is hardly surprising that the US military has tried to get some Sunni clerics to support the new government and evade a certain bloodbath.

To the NYT, US efforts to enlist Sunni religious leaders is not just news, but it is shocking headline news, perfectly timed to undermine the fragile peace that is now aborning. Writes the Times, in its phony "Shocked, shocked!" tone of voice:

Lincoln Group, a Washington—based public relations firm, was told early last year by the American military to identify religious leaders who could help craft messages that would persuade Sunnis in violence—ridden Al Anbar Province to participate in national elections and reject the insurgency, according to a former employee. ...Since then, the company has enlisted three or four Sunni clerics and religious scholars to offer advice and write reports for military commanders on the content of propaganda campaigns, the former employee said. But documents and executives say the firm's ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis is aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the U.S. military.

But in Iraq "the US military" is us, you and me and three hundred million other Americans.  That's who the NYT is sabotaging in its blind arrogance. In the process, the newspaper has likely signed the death warrants of the  "three or four" Sunni religious scholars who may be helping the US. "Al Qaida in Iraq," you might remember, has warned Sunni scholars in its public statements not to interfere with its murderous efforts to trigger civil war. It should not be difficult for Zarqawi to find out who they are and assassinate them. Al Qaida has its spies, and so do the Baath fascists.

The political situation in Iraq is at an excruciatingly delicate moment. Sunnis finally turned around and voted in the last elections, and talks are constantly taking place to bring Sunni leaders into a peaceful political process. If we fail, the Iraqi people fail, and so does the hope for peace and democracy in the Middle East. This is no small betrayal the New York Times is engaging in ——— like some maddened abortionist, it is wildly stabbing at the infant of democracy just as it is struggling to be born. 

Four years ago, al Qaida killed 3,000 innocent New Yorkers a few miles south of the New York Times' headquarters on 43rd Street. Today, the NYT is willingly fanning the flames of war being lit by Al Qaida in Iraq.

You try to explain it. I can't.

James Lewis   1 02 05

Somebody please stop the New York Times before it kills what fifteen million Iraqi voters are risking their lives for: a tiny but hopeful democracy. To greet the New Year, the NYT headlined a story,

Iraqi clerics found on Pentagon payroll

Ever since Saddam was overthrown ——— against the advice of the NYT ——— it has been warning about the danger of a bloody civil war in Iraq, as the Sunni Saddamites try to regain power, killing thousands of Shiite civilians in the process. Under the circumstances, given Middle East reality, it is hardly surprising that the US military has tried to get some Sunni clerics to support the new government and evade a certain bloodbath.

To the NYT, US efforts to enlist Sunni religious leaders is not just news, but it is shocking headline news, perfectly timed to undermine the fragile peace that is now aborning. Writes the Times, in its phony "Shocked, shocked!" tone of voice:

Lincoln Group, a Washington—based public relations firm, was told early last year by the American military to identify religious leaders who could help craft messages that would persuade Sunnis in violence—ridden Al Anbar Province to participate in national elections and reject the insurgency, according to a former employee. ...Since then, the company has enlisted three or four Sunni clerics and religious scholars to offer advice and write reports for military commanders on the content of propaganda campaigns, the former employee said. But documents and executives say the firm's ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis is aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the U.S. military.

But in Iraq "the US military" is us, you and me and three hundred million other Americans.  That's who the NYT is sabotaging in its blind arrogance. In the process, the newspaper has likely signed the death warrants of the  "three or four" Sunni religious scholars who may be helping the US. "Al Qaida in Iraq," you might remember, has warned Sunni scholars in its public statements not to interfere with its murderous efforts to trigger civil war. It should not be difficult for Zarqawi to find out who they are and assassinate them. Al Qaida has its spies, and so do the Baath fascists.

The political situation in Iraq is at an excruciatingly delicate moment. Sunnis finally turned around and voted in the last elections, and talks are constantly taking place to bring Sunni leaders into a peaceful political process. If we fail, the Iraqi people fail, and so does the hope for peace and democracy in the Middle East. This is no small betrayal the New York Times is engaging in ——— like some maddened abortionist, it is wildly stabbing at the infant of democracy just as it is struggling to be born. 

Four years ago, al Qaida killed 3,000 innocent New Yorkers a few miles south of the New York Times' headquarters on 43rd Street. Today, the NYT is willingly fanning the flames of war being lit by Al Qaida in Iraq.

You try to explain it. I can't.

James Lewis   1 02 05