More New York Times Propaganda and Stale Revisionism

The New York Times, famous for encouraging our enemies, subsidizing immorality and hosting artful innovations in the showground of political revisionism has closed the historical and intellectual doors for Viet Nam and announced  the reasons for the failure. [1]

So often we hear about our reasons for failure from the far left. More often, we hear silence or some stilted account of leftist failures, such as Bolshevism, Maoism, the mess in Cambodia and Somalia. It seems the Times can only spot a few wrinkles in the space-time continuum and only those on the right side of the aisle. They seem to be silent on the 100,000,000 dead from Communism in the last century.

We learn that Prime Minister Maliki will fail because, like Viet Nam, we read:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has been catastrophic for Iraq ever since he took over from the equally disastrous Ibrahim al-Jaafari more than a year ago. America helped engineer Mr. Jaafari’s removal, only to get Mr. Maliki. That tells you something important about whether this is more than a matter of personalities. Mr. Jaafari, as it happens, was Iraq’s first democratically chosen leader under the American-sponsored constitution.

Many of us labor under the false notion that Maliki was elected by popular vote. Isn’t the government a coalition of some sort?

The real lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is clear enough. America lost that war because a succession of changes in South Vietnamese leadership, many of them inspired by Washington, never produced an effective government in Saigon. None of those changes, beginning with the American-sponsored coup that led to the murder of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, changed the underlying reality of a South Vietnamese government and army that never won the loyalty and support of large sections of the Vietnamese population.

According to the NYT, we read the following about Jaffari:

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Ibrahim al-Jaafari, leader of one of Iraq's major Shiite religious parties, is appointed prime minister, crystallizing leadership of first elected government in decades and ending more than two months of divisive negotiations; Ayad Allawi resigns as interim prime minister but will remain head of caretaker government until full cabinet is chosen; Jaafari, whose Shiite coalition was formed under auspices of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has made clear that he favors strong voice for Islam in Iraq's new constitution; he has been vague about specifics; he has expressed support of strong political role for women and opposition to any law forcing women to wear head scarves in public; his appointment underscores anxieties of some Arab leaders about Iran's influence in region; he lived in Iran for part of his 20 years of exile from Iraq, and he forged close ties with Iranian leaders, as did many members of his party [2]

On April 22, 2006, more than four months after elections were held, a prime minister-designate was named. Shia politician and Dawa Party member, Jawad al-Maliki was nominated. [3]

Here, we wonder just how the Americans placed Maliki and other potential leaders on  pedestals, affixed strings and deftly pulled them so as the make them Dance the Dunciad to whatever tune President Bush wanted to hear. The core of good propaganda, something the NYT excels at, is to proffer some analysis based on partial truths and to noisily funnel that analysis toward supporting some political objective, in this case the usual anti-American war conduct. Chum chuckers in muddy fishing ponds and sausage machines work in a parallel manner. How would the NYT times know who would provide “effective government” in Iraq [or Saigon for that matter]? What is an effective government?? Does Cuba have an “effective government?”

More:

The problem is not Mr. Maliki’s narrow-mindedness or incompetence. He is the logical product of the system the United States created, one that deliberately empowered the long-persecuted Shiite majority and deliberately marginalized the long-dominant Sunni Arab minority.

We should not empower the Shia majority in the country?? Can we use this twisted reasoning to disenfranchise the former minority-now- majority Democrat Party in the US? The NYT has somehow misplaced the notion of majority rule with minority rule, an authoritarian stance espoused by Bolshevism and other leftist ideal governments.

So, what would we do in Iraq? Were we supposed to  just ask the Sunnis who they would want to be in charge and ignore the Hussein Ba’ath Party’s rise to more power if they were selected? Was it some kind or religious bigotry that the Nazis were deposed?  Was General Douglas McArthur in error when he looked at the first democratic election in post-war Japan, noted that the Communists won too much power and promptly cancelled the result and forced another election?

Diem of Viet Nam was the personal choice of JFK and Mike Mansfield, and Diem’s brother was a Roman Catholic Cardinal in the North East and a friend of Mansfield. Who did the NYT support then for Viet Nam? Ho? Che?

We can wonder how Jim Wright, Speaker of the House, supported Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua against Ronald Reagan’s Contras, knowing that he was a Marxist and  a person who did not have wide support in that nation as he lost promptly in the next election. His recent win was the result of a plethora of candidates. He did not win a majority. Jim Wright was not exactly in charge of the Executive Branch of our government.

We can wonder how the NYT continues to support and defend Fidel Castro in Cuba, a person who murdered thousands, many more than his predecessor. Cuba is an economic basket case and food, electricity, paper and other essentials are strictly rationed.

Apparently, the tack here is to just blame non-liberals for any and all reasons while being silent on the solution to the problem. A full power pull-out in Iraq might be considered the best solution by the NYT although they would support putting US troops in Sudan to fight genocide. Who in Darfur might be the proper leader in Sudan?? Does the NYT have a recommendation?? The ‘leader’ in the Sudan is President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-BASHIR[4] Bashir is considered: ”… Part blowhard, part thug, al-Bashir is a graduate of the 'Idi Amin School of Dictators'.” [5]

The art of propaganda is to make sweeping conclusions from limited and truncated data that is first massaged so as to appeal to certain special interest groups. What the New York Times needs to do to be convincing is to tell us what form of government is appropriate for Sudan, Iraq, Iran, and other gardens spots and propose singular leaders who can solve social problems according to NYT standards, if any such notions exist.

Harping on the Iraqi problem is a mundane and pedestrian political exercise and mumbling about choices is called ancient history and rarely opens new doors for solutions. Leftists, following Machiavelli, tend to think backward toward successful political ideas and processes.

Digging around in the fetid wreckage of Viet Nam just prompts us to consider what really happened in Cuba, South Africa, Mozambique, Waco, The Crusades and wondering where the NYT’s preferences lie. They used to be for ‘land reform’ whenever some slimy Marxist despot promised this phony sop to the ignorant masses.

The New York Times is posturing in this article and avoiding essential definitions of what good government might look like and who would be suitable candidates for leadership in such systems. The New York Times is merely chattering away at the issues having probably read <i>Plato’s Republic</i> and noted that government, justice and democracy are but illusions.

The opinions of the NYT, known as Pinch’s Tautologicals  by the hacks that work the word processor levers, are worthless  unless supported by theory and applications in politics and governments. Perhaps they still think the October Revolution was still the best idea for world wide leadership. Is the dialectical opposite of orange merely purple or is it really pink?? Would we now have justice if George McGovern had been elected?

Drop your subscription to the NYT and buy a fish. The NYT has no clue as to what effective government might be unless it would legalize drugs and sex with children.

ryckki