One Year After Endorsing Genocide-- Old Gray Lady Eats Iraqi Crow
Don Surber reminded us yesterday that it was the one year anniversary of The New York Times startling editorial endorsing surrender in Iraq even if it led to genocide.
Nice group of writers, huh?
Of course, Barack Obama felt the same way last year and said so. He was for genocide in Iraq before he was against it.
But, fortunately they did not get their way.
The Bush surge worked so well that the president is now considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq.
In this March 1, 2008 file photo, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force - Iraq, talks with a group of Iraqi boys at the Al Zawra Stadium in the Karkh District of west Baghdad. Photo by Sgt. James Hunter, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (AA) Public Affairs. (MNF-Iraq)
As many as three more brigades may be pulled from Iraq this year starting in September.
The New York Times * reported:
The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago...There were those -Murtha, Reid, Pelosi, Obama- who wanted to surrender Iraq to Iran and Al-Qaeda.
Although no decision has been made, by the time President Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for withdrawal, the officials said.
Thankfully they were wrong
Enjoy your crow.
Hat Tip Larwyn
* Just a side note that the NYT makes it sound as if the additional troop withdrawals from Iraq are because we are losing in Afghanistan.
This is just propaganda from the Times, a lie. The US is pulling troops from Iraq because they are no longer needed there, period.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 7/12/2008 04:41:00 PM
13 Comments:
Perhaps you have forgotten, but all the good that is coming out of Iraq was the democrats doing - just ask them. Only good comes from the demonrats; only bad comes from the republicans.
Democrats were always willing to go the extra mile.
“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."
Genocide and disaster was a risk they were willing to take if that's what it took to lose.
They wanted it. They wanted it bad.
They lost. Defeat is off the table.
You should consider posting this picture of General Petraeus next to the one of Saddam from the first gulf war and his attempted human wall of children of diplomats.
"This is just propaganda from the Times, a lie."
And this is somehow noteworthy ?
If you took any one article in that rag and examined its intent, you could probably say the exact same thing. The only thing more embarrassing than the Times itself is its 'conservative' in-house poodles and apologists, such as David Brooks.
I believe liberal opponents of the war knew that sooner or later the United States was going to put the pieces together and put the Iraqi people in a position to succeed, and thus the reason they lobbied so hard for withdrawal. They weren't advocating for "defeat" per say, but attempting to preempt the opportunity for success to take root.
Unfortunately for them, they didn't have the political power or political mandate to end this war before the real successes could take hold, and ever since have moved the goalposts and still attempted to declare the operation a disaster, when by nearly every metric it's been a tremendous success and has the potential to change the landscape in that region for the better.
The reality is, the Democrats have failed on a gigantic proportion in the post 9/11 security atmosphere, completely unable to muster any political power, any popular will, or put forth any sort of position on matters of security that is taken seriously by more then a handful of the most feverent anti-war supporters.
George W. Bush, the left's favorite retard, has spent the last seven years toppling the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, ran Charles Taylor out of Liberia, has turned up the dial on Ahmadinejad, Assad, and others, and destroyed al Qaeda's mid-level leadership. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats have spent the last seven years tossing peanuts from the gallery.
Nice photo op there. Not surprising as this is the photo-op administration.
I see that the US has been winning more hearts and minds in Afghanistan recently. How's that war going?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7501538.stm
Mmm, crow... http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm
Well is the New York Times really eating crow? Or are the still being delusional like they
The gray, old slag has yet to apologize for the antics of its reporter Walter Duranty...
The Times is still wallowing in its collective delusion over Duranty...
Well leave it to a libtard to use a socialist news outlet as a credible source: "I see that the US has been winning more hearts and minds in Afghanistan recently. How's that war going?"...
Much better than the fairy tales foisted off as news by the MSM crowd...
Hey libtard, do some homework: Progress in Afghanistan
Afghanistan's the NATO war isn't it? Which might explain the situation there. We went to war in Afghanistan with all the "right" allies and yet it may be that Afghanistan turns out to be harder to win than Iraq, where our coalition of the willing was scorned by the MSM and the lefty politicians.
Afghanistan will probably prove a harder nut to crack than Iraq not just because NATO is in charge there now, but also because it doesn't have Iraq's experience of a technically functional (though philosophically dysfunctional, if that makes any sense) central government. But it ain't over, and our successes in Iraq will, I hope, encourage us not only to continue to progress there but also to keep on plugging away among the NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Something Obama doesn't seem to grasp is that real and profound change is hard. Bush gets that, of course; he's been saying so for years, and some of us have listened.
I'm also increasingly doubtful of the idea of "natural allies," as it's generally meant. I think the US does have "natural" allies; they're just not necessarily the ones historically found beside us. Or all of them, at any rate. Instead, they're the nations who share or wish to share the individualistic values of the Enlightenment and who recognize the need to fight for them at times.
I wouldn't get too excited just yet. The Islamo-fascists are probably just waiting out the U.S. elections, and then they will start truck-bombing everything under the sun again as usual.
Like the sun rising in the East you can count on the left siding with totalitarian mass murderers.
It took 3 1/2 years of fumbling around, trying to win the peace Don Rumsfeld's way without sufficient manpower on the ground before President Bush listened to and finally took the advice of those who had been saying we needed more manpower in Iraq to police the country and allow Iraqi political settlements, Iraqi armed forces to be trained, etc., and sent more forces. He finally got it right. We seem to have a habit of getting things wrong for a time before getting them right in foreign engagements and Iraq was no exception. And now the military has a successful example of defeating a guerilla-style opponent it can model should it need to again in the future.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home