How is it that the New York Times managed to locate the only eight people in America opposed to attacking Iraq? (By "America," I obviously mean to exclude newsrooms, college campuses, Manhattan and Los Angeles.)
Americans have been repeatedly polled on the question of using military force to depose Saddam Hussein. Within the last six months, the ABC News-Washington Post Poll showed 72 percent supporting a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The FOX News-Opinion Dynamics Poll also has 72 percent supporting it. The Newsweek poll shows 68 percent in favor. The least support for an attack comes from an NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll showing only 57 percent in favor of attacking Iraq.
Yet the Times' man-on-the-street article – in Arizona, no less – did not manage to ferret out a single American supporting an attack on Iraq. Instead, the Times stumbled upon eight citizens, manifestly not at random, every single one of them opposed to war with Iraq. This allowed the Times to run an aggressively dishonest headline describing Americans as backing Bush – "but not into Iraq."
Intriguingly, the interviewees included a "lifelong Republican" living in "solid Bush country" who "worked on Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964." (It's amazing we didn't win that election with all the former Goldwater girls constantly popping out of the woodwork, such as Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.)
Even during the 1984 presidential campaign, the Times miraculously produced a poll showing Walter Mondale in the lead. Approximately three months before Reagan would win 49 states in the largest electoral landslide in history, readers of the Times were informed that Mondale "led President Reagan in a recent Gallup Newsweek poll, 48 to 46 percent."
So it's pretty pathetic when the Times can't even cite some phony Newsweek poll corresponding with its own evident desire to keep Saddam Hussein in power.
In a manly editorial that ought to have been titled, "SURRENDER NOW, GREAT SATAN!" the Times proposed patient suasion with the harmless and misunderstood Saddam Hussein. Demanding that "every available diplomatic option" be tried, the Times urged waiting until a "future link between Iraq and terrorism" can be established.
In the breezy style the Times uses for all its crackpot ideas, it explained that America need only "ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons." The same editorial warned against invading Iraq on the grounds that "there may be no way to deter Iraq from using unconventional weapons against American forces." Wait a minute! Weren't we easily disarming Saddam of unconventional weapons a couple paragraphs back?
The Times also assured its readers that there is "no reliable evidence" that Saddam is connected to the Sept. 11 attack or to al-Qaida. What liberals mean by "no evidence" is always that there is lots of evidence, but arguably not enough to convince an O.J. jury.
Accepting for purposes of argument the ludicrous idea that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are no threat to America unless Bush can also produce cell phone records connecting Saddam to Mohamed Atta, there is at least some evidence of a connection. Czech intelligence claims that five months before his monstrous attack, Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague.
In addition, the Times cheerfully announced that there "appears to be no evidence" (no evidence!) "so far that Baghdad means to share its deadly arsenal with others." Well, that's a relief. So the only guy with the deadly arsenal is a madman who gassed his own people, murdered his family members and passionately yearns for the total annihilation of the United States.
Days before the Times' "SURRENDER NOW" editorial ran, Khidir Hamza, a former member of Iraq's weapons-building program, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Saddam is actively developing weapons of mass destruction and will have accumulated enough enriched uranium to have three nuclear bombs by 2005.
The Times did not report Hamza's testimony. Sworn statements given to a Senate committee by a former member of Saddam's government presumably constitute "no evidence." It will take Manhattan and Washington being nuked before satisfying the exacting threshold of "evidence" demanded at the Baghdad Times.
It is as if the Times operates on Islamic holy logic – what should be true, on grounds of faith, must be taken as true, and hard evidence establishing the contrary can be dismissed as mere fact. There's a reason that reading the New York Times these days is like reading a newspaper published in Saudi Arabia.
Liberals are panicked at the idea that America might defend itself by attacking Iraq, but are perfectly copacetic about living in a radioactive world. They seem not to understand that – unlike their other insane policies, such as school busing – their heartfelt desire to keep Saddam Hussein in power will affect their children, too. Nuclear annihilation cannot be safely confined to the outer boroughs.