A New Low - Even for the Register

There’s a growing sense of desperation at the Des Moines Register over the upcoming war in Iraq. The anti-American drumbeat displayed on the Register Editorial page and from most of its columnists is becoming more frenetic, strident and nonsensical.

The lead editorial today, Bush’s Justification de jour (that’s French -- hmmm, coincidence? -- for “of the day” for us Midwestern simpletons), is a lame attempt to show that President Bush and his cabinet are stumbling and improvising their way into the coming war. Jeez, you just never know what that knucklehead Bush is going to say or do next!

Then there is a column by the ever oblivious mistress of appeasement, Rekha Basu. Show Saddam how democracy works: debate him. Alright, it’s a stupid idea, and Rekha knows it. The “debate” ploy is just a vehicle to go after Bush. She goes on in the piece to suggest that in a debate Saddam Hussein would garner sympathy with Americans. Yeah, that’s it… that’s why President Bush won’t debate him. Bush is afraid that, through the magic of television, Saddam will become a sympathetic figure to us.

What planet are you from Rekha? Does the Register actually pay you to write this drivel?

Rekha then uses the piece to take on the role of Saddam Hussein’s debate coach. She WANTS him to win the debate. She apparently WANTS him to stay in power. Here’s a sample:

Saddam might try to turn the tables and grill Bush on U.S. plans to install an American military government in Iraq and exploit its oil supplies.

He might bring up questions about our failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for nuclear weapons - in fact, our failure to rule out using nuclear weapons on Iraqis. He might hammer on the absence of anything linking him to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida or Sept. 11. He might actually make some Americans realize that however ruthless and unpopular, he's the president of a country, not the leader of some terrorist cell as many believe.

Rekha, why did you come back to Des Moines? Wouldn’t you and Rob have been much more at home in Paris, or… Baghdad? If you want to be Saddam’s debate coach, why not put your money where your mouth is and move to Iraq. I dare you to become an Iraqi citizen and write or even say something even vaguely critical of Saddam. That sound you hear in the middle of the night will be the clacking of hobnailed boots. The next sound you hear will be your own screams, or those of your children.

Please, if you haven’t already, read both of these pieces. They speak for themselves. They are both filled to the brim with liberal posturing, the world weary ennui (hey, check it out… I can use French words too!) of the self proclaimed post modernist elite, and the now tired litany:

Let’s not rush to war.
George Bush is not smart.
We just want their oil.
Let’s not act “preemptively”.
If we act, it will make us LESS safe from terrorists.
Trust the UN.
Anything is better than war.
We’re going to lay waste to Iraq

Rekha, you and your friends at the Register better hold on tight. America is about to change the world, for the better… again.

We did it 60 years ago in World War Two. After the war, did we take advantage of our undeniable military superiority (we were the only country with the bomb, okay). No, we helped the Japanese rebuild their society, keep the best of their culture and helped propel into a position as a global trading partner and competitor. We did it with the Marshall Plan, rebuilding Europe and providing them with an economic shield against Communist totalitarianism.

We did it by using our young men in Europe as a tripwire to show the Soviet Union that we were serious about defending Western Europe. We did it by making it clear to the Soviets that if they attacked Europe that we would consider it an attack on US soil and respond with nuclear weapons if necessary. We did this for over 40 years, holding to our beliefs while slogging through the Cold War.

Yes, we are about to do it again. Do we do this primarily for altruistic reasons? Of course not, but we Americans are not the jingoistic, imperialist trolls that Rehka and her pals believe we are. We are, however, confident. And that is something that the post modernists cannot abide.

Why do we do this? First, we will undertake this war for our own self interest and national security. That is the only prime reason for a nation to take up arms. Second, we do this to promote the light of liberal democracy throughout the world. This is also in our long-term self interest, because liberal democracy and its institutions promote prosperity and a more stable world. Here our interest coincides with that of the population of the world as a whole. Third, and this is historical serendipity, we are going to free a people who have suffered unimaginable terror and deprivation under the boot of a tyrannical thug. And here’s the beauty part, we are going to do this at incredibly low risk and cost.

The United States and its allies are in a position to take Iraq quickly and minimal loss of life. Never have such pains been taken to avoid casualties… TO ENEMY COMBATANTS! We have made it clear that we do not wish to hurt and kill Iraqi soldiers. The risk vs. gain analysis is a no-brainer. We are liberating a country that is has is rich with oil. No, we are not going to take it for ourselves. We are going to allow the Iraqi people to claim their right to their own riches and help them to use it to rebuild their society.

I can’t fathom the current mindset of the Editors at the Register on these issues. When they write about the United States and its role in the world, it’s like they are describing a country I do not even know. It’s as if they have no perspective on the last hundred years of U.S. history. It’s as if they see only the peccadilloes and errors that we committed during the Cold War and not the overwhelming integrity and restraint that the United States has shown as a rule since World War II. That is the lens through which they view our country and place in the world. This is what manifests itself on the editorial page every day. In essence, it is no different than the editorial stance of Le Monde. And this is the editorial voice of DES MOINES REGISTER!

I can only come to the conclusion that the editorialists at the Register want us to fail. They want the war to be a bloody mess. They want another Viet Nam. Why? I beginning to think that behind it all there is actually a pretty simple answer. They do not want to admit that their world view is a postmodernist, deconstructionist failure. To give this up would rob them of their status and position. And, it would force them to reevaluate positions that they most likely never subjected to any real intellectual rigor to begin with. Please, please read those two pieces and ponder the likelihood of that ever happening.