By Robert Parry
August 13, 2008
On Tuesday, the sub-head for the Washington Post’s lead editorial read, “The West confronts an unfamiliar sight: a nation bent on conquest.”
The nation in question, of course, was Russia and the “conquest” was its border clash with neighboring Georgia over two breakaway provinces that want to join the Russian Federation.
But an objective person might note that the sight of “a nation bent on conquest” shouldn’t be “unfamiliar” to Western nations unless they don’t look in the mirror. For example, the United States – with its “coalition of the willing” – invaded and conquered Iraq in 2003.
In that aggression, President George W. Bush had the support of Great Britain, Spain and a host of smaller states, including Georgia. You’d think the Post’s editorial writers would have remembered that since they were leading boosters of the Iraq conquest, pushing the argument that Iraq was threatening the United States with weapons of mass destruction.