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.
Like the NYT I too am demanding surrender. Where I differ with the NYT is on the matter of which side should do the surrendering.
The enemy speaks.
For completely altruistic purposes...I am sure!
Put another way, "Get out now, Mr. Bush! Otherwise, our anointed Hildebeest's fecklessness will be apparent so quickly we won't have a chance of stealing the health care industry!"
The surrender lobby is running out of time.
In 1951 full wartime censorship was imposed on correspondence out of Korea. Among the many stringent rules....
South Korea's first attempts at government were "rocky" after we freed it in 1945. There was still much social and political unrest when we made the disastrous mistake of withdrawing our troops prematurely in 1949. Some folks would have labeled the conditions in South Korea as a civil war. (see, for example, Cheju uprising, 1948-49)
As was forseen by some wiser minds who had said we should remain in S. Korea , a weak South Korea was invaded from the North in 1950.
In 1950, Truman sent our troops back to Korea, under the guise of fighting a "police action" against "bandits." He was able to get the UN to co-operate in the endeavor because Russia was boycotting the Security Council.
30,000 Americans died in Korea in the remaining 30 months of Truman's presidency
Most of them would not have died under Truman in 1950-53 if we did not pull out of South Korea under Truman in 1948-49.
Better than buying it at 42 : )
I think you have it backwards, Rat:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Cousin ... no right is absolute. Not even the First Amendment, especially when it’s being cynically used by an outfit like the Slimes that works so hard to undermine legitimate national security interests. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt didn’t tolerate this sort of treachery. Bush shouldn’t either.
After all, we lingered in West Berlin and West Germany, and our presence helped protect those places from their enemies to the East.
We abandoned South Korea in 1949 which did plenty to invite invasion from stronger neighbors.
If we want to abandon Iraq's men, women and children, let's at least be honest about it and quit pretending redeployment would protect them.
At the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the U.S. Army combat units nearest the scene were the four infantry divisions performing occupation duties in Japan. When the Army of the Republic of Korea, supported only by U.S. air and naval forces, was unable to halt the North Korean aggressors, these divisions, seriously understrength and only partially trained and equipped for fighting, provided the troops that were committed initially to action in response to the call of the United Nations Security Council.
You and your newspaper are a disgrace. If Americans wanted to read this drivel we would subscribe to Pravda. At least we know what side they are on.
You have sided with the jihadists against your own president and for what? Because you have been beaten by that moron from Texas so many times that it is making you look like the morons? Is it so that you can get Hillary! elected president and she can push through all of your pet wealth redistribution programs.
In days past, you and your ilk would have been labeled by their proper names Treason and Sedition.
You claim to care so much about the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that do all of the fighting and dying and yet my guess is that there arent many of those same people invited to your swank parties on the Upper East Side. The reason is that you dont care about them unless they are fighting for the children of some far off land that the Times have deemed worthy of their sacrifice. What costs have you incurred because of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq? My guess is nothing because none of your children and those of your colleagues would ever consider lowering yourself from your ivory tower in New York to join the military.
When and if you get your wish, those same soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are going to start coming home and I believe that they are going to tell you and your other socialist partners that not only was your help not appreciated but that it got men killed over there. The NY Times has done what no one thought possible you have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I also believe that they will come home and tell you that you and your newspaper should go f!$% yourselves! Pardon my French! Speaking of the French, has the Times decided to surrender to them yet?
As well, when your Marxist buddy Hillary decides that she needs to take the military to war in some other far flung country dont even think of trying to sell it to people like me. You and the liberal press have now set the bar so high that we wont be able wage war against any of our enemies and you know what, when you try to sell it to us because it is for the children I will have one question to ask you Do they have weapons of mass destruction? If the answer is no then you should not expect any one on this side of the fence to sign on. You made it so and now you and the Democrats that want the office will have to deal with the aftermath of this petty decision.
Also, you claim that we have diverted resources from Afghanistan? Is that the same Afghanistan that you said would be a quagmire for our soldiers? If you had any understanding of military theory you would see that we have Iran in a pincer movement with troops on both sides of them. Why do you think the Iranians are so nervous? Because they see American soldiers everywhere around them now! If you dont believe that this will give them a moment of pause then you and the rest of the bed- wetters at the Times couldnt fight your way out of a wet paper bag.
Oh and lets consult with our allies in the region and while we are at it lets consult with our enemies and see how they feel and if they would like a boat load of our money to make them happy and make them like us again. What a bunch of simple simons! Im sure if we only acquiesce to all of their demands then everyone will think we are great! Especially those Al-Qaeda types! What you liberal multi-culti morons dont realize is that they want a global caliphate under sharia law and they dont care if you write for the Times or not. You either submit or if you dont you pay the jizya and if you dont do that you go under the sword. Im sure that your wives and daughters will look great in a burqa!
All of this would be funny if it wasnt so tragic. You and the communist/Marxist left in this country have made your deal with the devil. The hilarious part about that is that when the Jihadists finally get their wish they are going to come for you and the liberals first because you represent all that is evil in the world to them but hey anything to get George Bush right! Oh and by the way, when are you going to get a charge to stick against President Bush? Youve tried everything you can think of and you are still flummoxed by the dummy from Crawford and his puppet master Darth Vader oops I mean Vice President Cheney!
We understand that the Times and the Democrats would sell their mothers down the river to get the President but what we didnt know is that you would send them C.O.D. When it all goes south in Iraq Im sure that the Times will apologize to all those people in Iraq that they advocated abandoning to Al-Qaeda but Im not going to bet my rent money on it. You are cowards with no stake in game and even worse you have sold out your country for 40 pieces of silver. The real men are over trying to accomplish the mission while you sell them short here at home.
One day, people like you will be held to account for stabbing our soldiers in the back and pay back as they say is a bitch!
Have a nice day!
Why do stories disappear off FR so rapidly?
Actually, Rat, each one of those presidents tolerated a great deal of “this sort of treachery” before, during and after their respective wars. Those notorious instances when they failed to do so turned out to be blots on their otherwise sterling reputations.
Germany was (compared to Iraq) an ethnically and religiously homogeneous society with strong roots in Western rationalism.
Likely - as in Iraq today - we would have had a lot less success in places more similar to Iraq in this regard.
An example would be Yugoslavia, where totalitarian repression was required to tamp down these differences.
And where even 50 years later they boiled over - just as in Iraq as has soon as the lid was off - and it was impossible to hold the country together.
These measures were judged as “blots” by liberals in academia, especially those “thinkers” who view every bit of history through the prism of the “Marxist dialectic” that has been metastasizing through higher education for 40+ years.
Lincoln’s activities against the Copperheads, Wilson’s Committee on Public Information, Roosevelt’s various crackdowns, the pursuit of Communists through McCarthy and HUAC, and Nixon’s efforts to undo radicals and traitors (who, tragically, undid him through many of the same traitorous elements in our midst now)-—all of these were admirable, effective and pragmatic. By shutting down the Times (and why not CBS and one of the more TreasonRat blogs as well?)
American Conservatism believes in minimalist government, but not to the point of letting internal and external enemies work together to destroy the Republic. To that end, few things would warm my heart more than to see the Times shut, its assets seized, and the slimebags who edit and write it left to rot in the pokey.
Is this a muscular approach? You bet it is. But we are way overdue for smackdown of the psychopathology of liberalism, a condition that has robbed us of common sense and the instinct for national self-preservation. Bush’s continued acquiescence to liberalism — as seen in the debate over illegals — proves how far out of balance things have gotten.
The Thirty Years' War began as a civil war and was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany.[snip]Wars of religion are often very bloody. Consider the The French Wars of Religion, (1562 to 1598)
The major impact of the Thirty Years' War, which primarily used mercenary armies who had little concern for anyone's rights or property, was to lay waste to entire regions scavenged bare by the foraging armies, causing a much higher than normal death rate among the civilian population, as episodes of widespread famine and disease (a starving body has little resistance to illnesses) devastated the population of The Germanies and The Low Countries, while bankrupting many of the powers involved. [snip].
Germany's population was reduced by 30 % on average, in the territory of Brandenburg the losses had amounted to half, in some areas to a an estimated two thirds of the population. Germany’s male population was reduced by almost half.
were a series of conflicts fought between Catholics and Huguenots (Protestants) from the middle of the sixteenth century to the Edict of Nantes in 1598, including civil infighting as well as military operations. In addition to the religious elements, they involved a struggle for influence over the ruling of the country between the powerful House of Guise (Lorraine) and the Catholic League, on the one hand, and the House of Bourbon on the other hand. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in these wars.Wikipedia has great lists of Civil Wars - past and present. They are not as uncommon as one might think at first.
I believe you’re creating a straw man. Allowing the Times to continue with its treason WILL eventually put the “wrong people” end up in power. The Times, CBS, PBS, etc. don’t have a right to help Jihadists, illegals, Marxists hasten this country’s self-demise.
The people to go after are those leaking info to the NYT etc. If you start going after freakin bloggers you are creating a Stalinist State pure and simple.