March 20, 2006

Let’s Entrust Steve Lindsay With Our Nation’s Security

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have oft discussed the remarkably low quality of letters printed in The New York Times. In fact, this has been such a preoccupation for us that we hardly think it necessary to mention it again.

Still, dear reader, it is lots of fun. Especially when the epistlers seem so downright full of themselves.

Case in point is a missive from a fellow in response to a David Brooks column titled “Rumsfeld’s Blinkers.” Printed on March 17, 2006, the letter in question reads as follows:

To the Editor:

David Brooks says the turning point of the war was March 2003, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy R. Franks neglected to heed the good advice of “armchair generals” and “pundits.”

Actually, the turning point was in the fall of 2002, when Congress allowed itself to be suckered by a bunch of “armchair generals” in the White House and, encouraged by pundits like Mr. Brooks, voted in favor of attacking a small country that did not pose a real threat to America.

The common excuse for this—that “everyone” thought that Iraq was a serious threat—is false: millions of Americans opposed invading Iraq, demonstrations were held, people marched, and 23 senators and 133 members of the House voted against the resolution.

Steve Lindsay
Tenants Harbor, Me.

As regular readers of the Gray Lady will undoubtedly attest, this is the brand of finger-wagging pseudo-one-upsmanship that regularly greets the publication of a David Brooks piece.

And how obnoxiously self-important it is! Excuse us if we are incorrect, but we have the sneaking suspicion that it’s a bit off base.

First, we doubt that those mentioning Iraq as a security threat mean positively “everyone”—including gaggles of anti-war hippies who were opposed to striking the Taliban too. Rather, they refer to assessments of those with access to intelligence information. And it appears that Steve Lindsay does not have much access to intelligence at all.

But perhaps we are being unfair. Let’s forget the fact that the presence of WMDs was only one justification for the liberation of Iraq. And let’s forget the fact that David Brooks’ article clearly referred to the military operations in Iraq, not pre-war wrangling over intelligence.

Maybe we ought to take Steve Lindsay seriously. Maybe we ought to hand over our nation’s security to him. After all, he and millions of his co-demonstrators were opposed to the removal of the loveable Saddam Hussein, presumably on the basis of intelligence reports that made their way to Tenants Harbor, Me.

So why don’t we fork over the duty to protect our nation to Steve Lindsay? We can all rest easy now.

Posted at March 20, 2006 12:01 AM | TrackBack