Dear New York Times:

I love your lead paragraph in this morning’s “Endgame in Iraq” editorial. Let me quote it. “Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to open civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror.” Can it be you are unaware as to why Iraq is “sliding closer to open civil war”? Can it be that you are ignorant about why “thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity”? But no, later, you say, “Unfortunately, after three years of policy blunders in Iraq, Washington may no longer have the political or military capital to prevail.” And further on, you say, “That may be hard for Americans to understand, since it was the United States invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and helped the Shiite majority to power. Some 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have died there so far and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent.” Now it’s clear: You are not unaware and ignorant, you simply have your collective head up your mainstream media ass. The point you make that the US invaded Iraq, helped the Shiites come to power, and have killed 2,330 American soldiers is exactly what Americans find easy to understand. You say “The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.” HELPED bring it to pass? HELPED? What Americans find easy to understand is that the Bush administration, in its hubris, single-handedly BROUGHT ALL THIS TO PASS. And it was not to aid the Iraqis in throwing off the shackles of a despotic, corrupt and sadistic ruler, nor was it to bring democracy to an oppressed people. We have proof via a memo written by PM Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning in 2003 that President Bush was determined to find an excuse to attack Iraq despite the fact that his plans were illegal, unethical, and lacked sound judgment. And the reason the White House was willing to tell lies, to attack without a second UN resolution, to attack without getting Congress to declare war even now is murky. It may have been because Iraq was an easy first step in a US global aggression scheme, or it may have been to solidify American power in the Middle East, or perhaps safeguarding American oil interests in Iraq was, after all, what the war was about. But the Bush administration made a decision to own Iraq by military means. And now the Bush administration owns Iraq. It owns all the strife, all the killing, and the civil war. Most of all, New York Times, I love your editorial’s send-off: “It is conceivable that the situation can still be turned around,” you say. Following it with, “Mr. Khalilzad should not back off. The kind of broadly inclusive government he is trying to bring about offers the only hope that Iraq can make a successful transition from the terrible mess it is in now to the democracy that we all hoped would emerge after Saddam Hussein's downfall. It is also the only way to redeem the blood that has been shed by Americans and Iraqis alike.” Who the hell is that “we all” who hoped democracy would emerge in Iraq? Let me go on record, you gnat-brained editorial morons, it was never a remote dream or hope of mine that democracy would emerge from the mess we caused in Iraq. I never thought it would be possible. I never believed the Bush lies. I never thought the Iraq people could embrace democracy overnight after centuries of dictatorships. And I never thought it was a good idea to push the concept of democracy onto the Iraqis. I am not alone. There are millions of people who sat in dismay and felt hopeless for Iraq and its people when the Bush administration, in its incredible hubris, decided to attack and then force fed democracy and Christian precepts down the throats of a Muslim nation that for centuries only knew and understood autocracy. There is absolutely no way to “redeem the blood that has been shed by Americans and Iraqis alike.” And certainly, calling our vicious and illegal attack of Iraq an act of kindness, does not effect redemption. This morning’s inane editorial sounds like the propaganda dished out by the White House disinformation department. They think that calling something by another name changes the nature of the thing in question. It doesn’t. They think that couching bad policy in new rhetoric changes bad policy to good policy. It doesn’t. This morning, the New York Times said we all hoped democracy would emerge after Saddam was ousted from power. No we didn’t. This morning, the New York Times said the situation in Iraq could be turned around. No it can’t. This morning, the New York Times said that bringing democracy to Iraq would redeem the blood the Bush administration has shed in Iraq. No it won’t. Wishing does not and never will make it so.