Considering the consistent anti-war position of the New York Times, this editorial, where they pull a Murtha and call for an immediate pull out of Iraq, is hardly surprising:
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.
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.
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.
In a post titled “Genocide Preferred,” Jules Crittenden slams the NYT:
OK, let’s review. Bloody chaos and genocide preferable to what’s going on now. What’s going on now not discussed in any inconvenient detail. NYT has retreat all figured out, will shares plans with Pentagon. Fighting terrorism works better from a distance. Democrats are “foolish” but so is NYT. Iran, Turkey, etc., should all step up to the plate and get Israel to build a fence around Iraq. And finally, Bush lied, people died.
Makes sense to me. Out now!
Don Surber isn’t pulling any punches, either:
In calling for abandoning Iraq, the Times has abandoned the underpinnings of liberal principles: that the government exists to protect the poor, the elderly, the infirm and women.
While I believe that government exists to protect the rights of its citizenry, I respect that contrarian position.
The Times would leave that principle on the battlefield in its bizarre call to flee at once — “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
The Times argument is the war is unpopular so we should. That is childish. Was the war right because it was popular at the time? Should we execute criminals because that is popular? The Times has too long a history of unpopular things that it supports to make the “applause-o-meter argument.”
What I find appalling, though, is the way the NYT frames part of its argument around this mythical ‘concern’ for our troops they all of a sudden have. Considering their – and the rest of the MSM’s – round-the-clock saturation of the offenses that happened at Abu Ghraib (even running with a story about the alleged ‘hooded Iraqi’ who was later proven to be a fraud), their belief from the word go that those US troops in the Haditha incident knowingly and deliberately killed innocents – this despite the NYT’s past stances of giving the accused in other cases the benefit of the doubt (depending on whether or not that person was a Democrat and/or ‘whistleblower’ of course), continuously undermining our national security which undercuts the mission in Iraq, their obsession with finding wrongdoing by our troops at Gitmo … now all of a sudden we’re supposed to miraculously believe they give a damn about the troops?
I don’t think so.