Skip to comments.The Road Home [NY Times Editorial Demanding Surrender in Iraq]
Posted on 07/07/2007 10:07:54 PM PDT by bnelson44
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
At first, we believed that after destroying Iraqs government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bushs plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
LOL! It does indeed. The authors are seriously suggesting that the route to Kuwait is so insecure that U.S. troops might not manage a retreat. It is really quite amusing that these idiots fantasize that Bush is out of touch with the situation in Iraq and that they are not.
I’ve got a better idea. How about we try the editors for the NY TImes for treason. And hang them in Times Square.
Anybody want to form a syndicate to buy the New York Times?
We need to buy the New York Times!
Running low on TP?
If we bought it, the editorial section would be ours : )
That works for me.
Count me in. But you have to let me be the one to fire Maureen Dowd.
Total Bravo sierra.
OK, I will relinquish my pet peeve to you!
This is a sign of desperation by the Slimes. They are afraid the surge might work, and that the September assessment by Petraus might reflect positive developments. Therefore, the Slimes is trying to push the Rats in Congress to pull the plug now, not wait for September, with the sole motivation being to ensure that Bush is perceived to suffer a defeat in Iraq, and positioning the Rats for the 08 election. The Slimes couldn’t care less about Iraqis, or about American troops. If al qaeda is decimated in Iraq and the shiite militias weakened, and the Iraqi government strengthened, that is not good for the Slimes or for the Rats, so it must not be allowed to happen.
There is no force in American politics more cynical or more irresponsible than the Slimes and its Rat allies. For them, it is about, and only about, gaining power. So they use their position to shape public opinion among the ignorant in order to enable the left to gain power. Nothing else is important to them.
This nation is at war. In light of this fact The Times editorial is not “protected speech.” It is treason.
The Times has repeatedly violated national security with its reporting on interrogation techniques, intelligence monitoring of terrorist finances, etc. Could it be any clearer that the Times is in business to serve our enemies?
Why haven’t the Times’ presses been shut down and its publisher, editors and reporters jailed? Why is Bush afraid of sending a clear message to the liberal traitors in our midst?
Great, the leftist bozos who have been running the formerly distinguished NY Times into the ground for many years think they know how to run a war and manage a surrender better than they can manage their now pitiful pile of fishwrap, which is spiralling downward toward bankruptcy.
I don’t understand why the Times is so upset about it because if the American people are so upset about Iraq then they’ll elect a Rat and they can pull the troops day one and be the heroes to the rescue from the Bush policy. The MSM and Rats have been wanting us to lose in Iraq since day one so if the Rats really want to retreat in defeat let them if they get elected.
Interesting that this editorial is in the same edition of John Burns’ report from Iraq that details the turnaround in Ramadi, erstwhile hot bed of insurgency.
Burns is no apologist for the administration so they ought to listen to their man on the ground.
One day soon.
A society can only tolerate fools to the point that the fools do not endanger that society.
We are rapidly reaching that point.
This type of thinking is what has tempered all of my optimism that we can turn the corner in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq broke the will of Liberals in America a long time ago. Lately, RINOs have been joining the Left and acting like pretentious sages as they do. Now, we have Americans working as diligently to hand Iraq over to al Qaeda and Iran as al Qaeda and Iran are working to take it. It is like Vietnam, indeed, they have finally got their template right, in the sense that victories on the battle field are irrelevant since the enemy will not be denied a victory because the Liberals will assure that no matter how defeated the enemy is they at the end of the day will have achieved their goals. The Left ignores the consequences of capitulation. The Left so hates Bush and the US that they would rejoice at an ignominious US defeat regardless of the outcome, just as they do to this day despite Pol Pot and the genocide in Cambodia.
And that while AQ and its clones may act so viciously as to anger the inhabitants of Sunni areas even more than a US occupation, and while US forces my be astute enough to turn Sunni opinion against AQ, Sunni anger and Shia ambition will remain an underlying cause of violent conflict whatever our success in eradication "foreign fighters" and "foreign influence" in Iraq.
And my guess is that over the next six months to a year we will see an increasing number of posters here adopt one of the options put forward in that editorial: the breakup of Breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines, even if that means relocation of a large part of the population.