Posted on 07/13/2008 8:00:15 PM PDT by Uncle Ralph
A year ago today, the New York Times said we should surrender even if that led to genocide in Iraq.
Today marks the first anniversary of the New York Times's endorsement of genocide in Iraq. In a horrific editorial, "The Road Home," the editorial board of the Times decided to hell with the 24 million people of Iraq.
It is an evil editorial.
I cannot think of another description.
It is one thing to disagree, it is another thing to openly advocate a policy that you predict will lead to holocaust.
Wrote the Times:
"A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.
"That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate."
Thank God Congress ignored this endorsement of chaos. Thousands would have been slaughtered had anyone been foolish enough to follow the advice of the New York Times, which was even willing to go along with genocide.
Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential nominee would have followed this advice. Last July, Obama told the AP that he rejected the argument that the USA must prevent genocide:
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."
The obvious difference is we already are in Iraq. And again, he is factually in error about the Congo. And of course, Bush has negotiated the end of one of the two civil wars in Sudan.
What is horrific is that the leading candidate to be leader of the free world is so indifferent to the suffering of others. Politics first, humanity second.
Principle? In July 2004, Obama said: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage."
Last year, he said that he made that statement for political reasons.
The New York Times, Obama and all the rest were wrong about it being an endless civil war, they were wrong about Iraq not being the home of terrorists (Saddam Hussein funded terrorism in Israel) and they were wrong about the Surge not working.
Thank God that Republican Sen. John McCain (who pushed for the Surge) and President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus got it right.
And thank God the Republican Party stood by them — and the people of Iraq.
If the decision is between the lives of millions of people or their brand politics, the Left will choose their politics every time.
Starting with abortion.
The US has lost 2 (two) to hostile action in Iraq in the last 18 days.
My step dad is like that too. Nuance and negotiation are not his thing. It's this way. EOD. I admire it. It's rare.
Old FR Post - Intellectuals Lie, the Powerless Die
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043401/posts
Old FR Post - Intellectuals Lie, the Powerless Die
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043401/posts
Good editorial, however this is not the first time the New York Slimes has endorsed genocide. They’re just following their own historical pattern.
They’re kind of like lemmings. The only difference is that they’re pushing innocent human beings off the cliff instead of themselves.
It's perfectly true, as Obama points out, that we (Republicans or Democrats) haven't undertaken to use military force to prevent/stop every genocide in Africa. That is a fact.It is more than a little different, however, to say that we should therefore not factor the possibility of a genocide as a result of our military decision into our decision to pull the military out of a space it currently occupies. And that is doubly so in consideration of the fact that people in Iraq have staked their reputations and their own and their families' lives on the reliability of the US.
The single most objectionable thing about Democrats is their willingness to ask for the trust of people, and then to betray that trust. Which is nowhere more amply and objectionably illustrated than by the Kennedy/Johnson policy of enmeshing our military in Vietnam, and the Kerry/(Ted) Kennedy policy of betrayal of everyone who trusted that committment in Southeast Asia - our own servicemen not excepted.
Mom, Apple Pie, and the Ghost of Quagmires Past
21 January, 2004 | marron
See my #8
BTTT
Of course, there have been other genocides we've not interfered in : Ukraine, Cambodia, North Korea, but they don't count I guess.
Thanks very much for this ping, c_I_c.
WOW!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.