Why Are We Back In Iraq?

Thursday's edition of The New York Post (August 26, 2004) carried a gleeful editorial entitled "PROTESTERS LOSE AGAIN" in response to State Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline Silbermann's decision to deny the use of Central Park this coming Sunday for a rally organized by United For Peace and Justice.

While past editorials in Rupert Murdoch's Fox-controlled paper-of-little-record were somewhat supportive of UFPJ's months-long struggle to allow protesters the inalienable right to peacefully gather in the park, The Post's position now seems to be that they should have sued the city in court instead of attempting to bargain with officials in good faith: "The group could have filed suit months ago charging the city with bad faith."

But changing their neocon tone about the frivolity of lawsuits in America wasn't the only blunder The Post made in this editorial. They also offered up a fantastic Bushism: "The ultra-lefty UFPJ is wrong about everything it stands for, but it should have a right to be wrong in public."

Of course, UFPJ stands for United for Peace and Justice. This would mean that Rupert's awesome Vice Presidential handicapping staff can't stand unity, peace or justice. Those are some of the reasons why we are back in Iraq.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 8/27/2004 04:02:00 PM