The Times writes:
Under Republican control, Congress has exercised virtually no oversight of the administration’s misconduct of the war, and the new Democratic leadership is eager to hold extensive hearings. The public deserves a full accounting (backed by subpoenas, if necessary) of how prewar intelligence was cooked, why American troops were sent to war without adequate armor, and where billions of dollars in reconstruction aid disappeared to.Once again, the New York Times puts its agenda over the facts. This isn't surprising, but it does show that the Times' readers are not being served by that agenda. Instead of getting the full picture, they're getting a partial story and claiming that Congressional Republicans provided no oversight of the Bush administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Of course, the Left and the Times (okay, I am repeating myself here) would find hundreds of hearings insufficient because they opposed the Administration's efforts from the get-go.
Now, are those hearings sufficient? Did the Times even bother to check? Considering that they claimed only limited oversight took place, I'd say the answer is a big fat no.
And that doesn't even begin to address the substantive portion of the claims. The Times wants to know why troops were sent to Iraq with what they claimed was inadequate armor. The issue of armor has been discussed quite a bit - whether it's uparmored humvees (and all the related problems that uparmoring vehicles that were never designed to be armored in the first place - and the Times itself was reporting that they were being up-armored even before the media kerfuffle broke out) or the body armor issue (and the related coverage of how the media provided guide to the terrorists on how to defeat our current and best body armor).
Others blogging: Sister Toldjah and Don Surber.
Dan Riehl notes that while the Democrats are planning a whole range of investigations, the region's powers are not standing still. Hizbullah, Iran, and Syria are all on the move. I would further note that Congressional Democrats are already trying to lose Iraq. Now, they'll call it withdrawal on a timeframe, but it's a loss no matter how you cut it. I'm not alone in that assessment either. Democrats are going to make losing Iraq a central tenet of the upcoming session.
And yes withdrawal=losing. That's what the leftists want. They don't care about Iraq. They don't care about the Iraqis. Least of all, they don't care about our national security or that our ability to make and keep allies is degraded because we're seen as weak and our word isn't worth much at all. Leaving Iraq before the job is done isn't going to save American lives, or anyone else's lives for that matter. It means that the jihadis who are already in Iraq (and at this point does it matter whether you believe that they were there before the US invaded or have come into Iraq or grown because the US is already there) will not only claim victory, but use Iraq as a springboard to the rest of the world. We have to prove our staying power in a long war - and don't be fooled by Democrats and leftists who bray otherwise. This is a long war - and it's been ongoing for 30 years now, and will likely go on for 30 more.
Still others taking the Times to task for this editorial: Charles at LGF, and Right Wing Nation.