USA Today Pronounces Iraq War Not 'Right' Vote

In another grand example of "journalistic" integrity, USA Today has declared the Iraq war a total failure even as we are still in the middle of it all. With that "truth" reported, I'd like to have their crystal ball to get the next lottery numbers, too.

Now, it is absolutely true to say that the peace in Iraq has been hard to win. It is a fair assessment to say that the Bush administration has made many mistakes in re-building and nation building in Iraq. But, it is not fair to say the efforts in Iraq have been a failure. This project the Bush administration has undertaken will not only take many, many years to develop but it will be many decades to see the full range of effects that the effort at democracy building in Iraq (as Bush duly warned us when he began it all).

Yet, the soothsayers at USA Today have shined up their crystal ball and pronounced that any vote for the war in Iraq was not the "right" vote. In an article titled 2 wars, 2 votes in Congress, only 10 who got both right, USA Today has presumed that they know if our efforts in Iraq was "right" or was 'tragically ill-conceived".

The arrogance of this proclamation is amazing for a supposed "news" paper that is supposedly dedicated to "reporting", instead of creating, the news.

The paper has decided that a vote to give Bush the go-ahead to enter Iraq in 2002 was the "wrong" vote.

Just as certainly, the wiser vote in 2002 was to deny the second President Bush authorization to invade Iraq.

They know this.... how?

This is based on... what?

Just the fact that we are having trouble now? Using that simple-minded formula just about every war we have won could be proclaimed a "failure" or the "wrong choice" while at a low point in the effort!

Are they using casualties as a guide?

If so, we could consider WWII a failure during Iwo Jima, for instance, as we lost nearly 7,000 killed and 21,000 wounded during that bloody battle. Would USA Today have declared WWII a "loss" at that time were they "reporting" the effects of that war?

Presumably they would.

Worse, the entire premise is wrong as the war itself was a smashing success. We went through Saddam's forces with few losses and in record time. The war part of our invasion was quick and a complete success. It's the occupation and peace building we are having trouble with.

One simply cannot judge a war's outcome while in the midst of it. Wars take many years to fully reveal their effects and for USA Today to act as if they fully understand the war in Iraq and can pronounce it a failure is an exercise based on pure partisan stupidity and NOT any kind of logical analysis.

Before we became a Nation there was what amounted to a world war called "King George's War" which led to the "French and Indian War" in the USA. The outcome of that war was the end of French influence in the Americas (for the most part) and supremacy for the British and the Colonists.

But, while the Brits won, the experience sent the Americans closer to independence because of the fact that the British Crown forced the Colonists to defend themselves causing the Colonists to begin to wonder why they needed the Brits in the first place.

On the other hand, and after a war over 150 years later, the allies felt they had won the war at Versailles after World War One, for instance. The Germans were beaten and the French, Americans and Brits were divvying up German territory and setting terms. Great win after so many millions of deaths.

But the outcome of World War One was World War Two. The "win" turned into a further war. Would that have been fully understood as Wilson signed the treaty at Versailles?


Yet, USA Today thinks they fully understand the current actions in Iraq? They think they can predict and surely proclaim the war a failure?


War on Terrorism Military USA Today Journalistic Issues