The authors, from center-left Brookings, have been critical of the war’s conduct. But, then, so have we all, often justly.
For example, the NYT’s op-ed says:
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
What’s really important is that their op-ed parallels the informed and first-hand judgment of everyone, except the Congressional Democrats and the New York Times’ editorials.
Their premature rush to abandon Iraq and, in effect, the MidEast to dangerous thugs is a disgrace that more Americans are recognizing, and should relegate them back to the opprobrium they earned last time they abandoned many millions in Southeast Asia to genocide and suffering.
Bruce Kesler
++
ReplyDeleteyes, even the despicable NYT.. the darling of the Dhimmicrats have to eventually face the truth or face disgrace.. no kudos to the NYT forthcoming here.. they're still the politically guagmired's lackey..
(pardon my play on words re: guagmire)
==
++
ReplyDeleteps: imho, in what promises to be a decades long war against Militant Islamism.. the war in Iraq is just part of a larger war that has been declared on civilization itself.. a war that the anti-liberationist Dems must lose if the enemies of freedom are to be defeated..
==
Personally I was shocked to the point of almost drowning on my coffee when I read the link...
ReplyDeleteReading the commentary itself shocked me even more...
Phrases like, "outstanding Marine captain" instead of Murtha's, "murdering bastards" type rants had me dumbfounded...
Good stuff, shocking that the NYT a paper long used to lying to its readers actually ran it...
I'm echoing bg's sentiments on this...
BTW bg I found the Debka file for the: "US Sinks North Korean Ship Bound for Iran"...
++
ReplyDeletejust thought i'd share.. ;)
albeit's not winning the hearts &
minds of compassionate liberals..
Kryptonite Words
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that
sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price
to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that
genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S.
troops home."
perhaps a tag all pro Iraq
Liberationists should use..
ps: juandos @ 12:04 PM
got it.. (thumbsup)
==
++
ReplyDeleteOT.. i may have missed this in the previous
JD thread.. so please pardon if a repeat.. ;)
HT : Razor Sharp Claws
"John Doe" Protection Provision put back in Homeland Security Bill
==
No doubt about wonkette the STD queen doing her best to fit in with the KOSTards
ReplyDeleteThen again what's a liberal without a lie?
Remember this canard the libtards continually push? That so called ENERGY SHORTAGE ?
What on earth do they mean when they use the word "we"?
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeletethere's the NYT & then there's..
NYT John Burns: "The Possibility Of
As Many As A Million Iraqis Dying"
excerpt (emphasis mine):
[HH: One of the arguments for those favoring a timeline for withdrawal that’s written in stone is that it will oblige the Iraqi political class to get serious about such things as the oil revenue division. Do you believe that’s an accurate argument?
JB: Well, you would think it would be so, wouldn’t you, that the threat of withdrawal of American troops, and the risk of a slide into catastrophic levels of violence, much higher than we’ve already seen, would impel the Iraqi leadership to move forward. But there’s a conundrum here.
There’s a paradox. That’s to say the more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions.
They’re much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect, of an effect that persuading people well, if the Americans are going, there’s absolutely no...and we’re going to have to settle this by a civil war, why should we make concessions on that matter right now?
For example, to give you only one isolated exception, why should the Shiite leadership, in their view, make major concessions about widening the entry point for former Baathists into the government, into the senior levels of the military leadership, that’s to say bringing in high ranking Sunnis into the government and the army and the police, who themselves, the Sunnis, are in the main former stalwarts of Saddam’s regime. Why would the Shiites do that if they believe that in the end, they’re going to have to fight a civil war?
This is not to reprove people in the Congress who think that the United States has spent enough blood and treasure here. It’s just a reality that that’s the way this debate seems to be being read by many Iraqi politicians.]
transcript available now, the audio
will hopefully be available soon..
==