NY Times Leads Surge For Defeat

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, Jul 26, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The NY Times, the daily talking points for the DNC, is once again screaming for surrender and appeasement in Iraq



    No Exit Strategy

    Published: July 25, 2007
    The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit? That is the essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is exactly the question that Mr. Bush, his top generals and his diplomats so stubbornly and damagingly refuse to answer.

    Yesterday provided two more frustrating and shameful examples of this denial. One was a new war plan drawn up by America’s top military commander and top diplomat in Baghdad that will keep American troops fighting in Iraq at least until 2009. The other was yet one more speech by President Bush that claimed that Iraq was the do-or-die front in the war on terrorism — rather than a rallying point for extremists and a never-ending drain on the resources America needs to fight that fight.

    The war plan drawn up by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker simply assumes that a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years.

    So much for Mr. Bush’s soothing incantations about a relatively short-term “surge” of additional troops. The plan ignores the fact that the volunteer Army cannot sustain a prolonged escalation without grievous losses in quality, readiness and morale. Even more unrealistically, the plan assumes that with two more years of an American blank check, Iraqi politicians will somehow decide to take responsibility for their political future — something they’ve refused to do for the last four years.

    General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker may feel they have little choice but to project the administration’s flawed policies to their logical, or illogical, conclusions. Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. Instead, he spoke yesterday as if the latest National Intelligence Estimate had not found Al Qaeda’s top leadership regrouped and resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier. Or as if the latest bleak assessment of the Iraqi government’s political and economic failures had never been issued.

    Mr. Bush proposed no realistic new plan for more effectively fighting Al Qaeda in its heartland or for exiting from the tragic misadventure in Iraq. Instead he offered the familiar, simplistic and misleading arguments that he used to drag the country into this disastrous war to start.

    Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists. If Mr. Bush’s advisers can’t tell him that, Congress will have to — with a veto-proof majority.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    The NYT editorial staff should immediately travel to Iraq and offer their surrender to Al Qaeda. Can their be any doubt that the murder squads composed of foreign nationals in Iraq will be pleased to take time out from their busy schedule of randomly bombing and killing Iraqi civilians to have the NYT sign the surrender documents? Then after the NYT completes the surrender process, American forces can run away from Iraq and let the 12 million who voted for representative government, and their children, fend for themselves against murder squads composed of Al Qaeda foreign nationals, Sunni homicide bombers, and Shi'ite killers.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    They have been helping Al Qaeda for years. Leakinh classified information and doing whatever they can to undermine the war and Pres Bush

    Much like the Dem party
     
  4. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    I have a better idea...Why don't you two go to Iraq and single handedly kill all of the insurgents, establish a Jeffersonian democracy and bring our troops home.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    We may have to

    Libs sure as hell do not want to fight
     
  6. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Yet another in a long string of sweeping, broad, and fallacious generalizations on your part.

    The invasion of Iraq, regardless of how you wish to parse it was a violation of numerous US treaties and international law. Our troops should never have been sent there. I, and many others you brand as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, will fight in a just cause any day...But if that cause is in violation of US treaty obligations, hence US law, and international law...A war of choice...a war of aggression...I, and many others, will stand opposed to it.

    You make these generalizations as you have no argument to make, beyond spouting the White House talking points. So you attempt to marginalize those who stand opposed to the war in Iraq as somehow less than American, un-patriotic, treasonous, or otherwise quislings. You attempt to make dissent against an ill-conceived and illegal war an act of treason. And THAT my pin-headed little friend, is treason of the highest order.
     
  7. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I think you should.

    I think you should step away from the sidelines, put down your pompoms, get on the field, pick up a rifle and go put YOUR life on the line in this war you love so much and seem so perfectly willing to send other Americans to die in.

    I would mourn your loss if you left us in such a manner.
     
  8. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    People go to hell for lying too ya know!
     
  9. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    This from the MASTER of generalizations!
     
  10. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    no.

    if RSR put down the pompoms and laid down his life in Iraq, I would mourn his loss.

    honestly.

    However, until he goes and puts his life on the line, I will continue to view his behavior as despicable, slanderous, and profoundly annoying.
     

Share This Page