NYT editorial page: "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." Yes it's true that this is a bit late, but I'll take it. I'd just like to see this -- departure without unnecessary delay -- become the progressive position, with things like CNAS's let's maybe end the war in a decade proposal (Hillary Clinton and Chuck Hagel at the launch event!) recognized as a conservative alternative.
« Telekinesis | Main | More Than Meets The Eye »
Homeward Bound
08 Jul 2007 10:01 am
Comments (8)
What's great about that article is that it takes the question of withdrawal as answered, and begins to look at some of the consequences of withdrawal and how we might deal with them.
I'll be really impressed if the Democratic leadership in DC can follow suit, but won't hold my breath.
I think we should withdraw to Iran. Yeah!
Deeper into the editorial one still finds worrying echoes of the residual force idea, however, including pondering putting an American force in Kurdistan. That's a horrible idea.
So, we should look this gifthorse in the mouth. But it is definite progress that the editors of the leading American newspaper have caught up with the American public after a mere six to eight month lag. Bonus was that the ombudsman conceded Glenn Greenwald's points about the careless use of "al qaeda' to describe Iraqi insurgents - although in keeping with the NYtime honored fashion of pretending that all criticism of the NYT has been proceeded within the little world of the NYT, the ombudsman didn't mention Greenwald, of course.
"Yes it's true that this is a bit late,"
Not really.
Remember, NYT editorial page was one of the few editorial pages that opposed the war from the beginning. When all the other MSM outlets were cheering on the war NYT came out against it.
Since then they have written many editorials, especially since 2004, urging that Bush come up with a plan to get out. They now realize Bush's "plan" is to drag it out till January 2009 and dump it on his successor. They are saying enough is enough.
Compare and contrast to the WP editorial page. They cheered on the war from the beginning. Portrayed opponents of the war as pro Saddam. They have written countless editorials urging "more time".
CNAS is basically what you get if you squint at the PNAC.
"I'd just like to see this -- departure without unnecessary delay -- become the progressive position, "
From watching the Sunday morning bobbleheads I thought our position was to have the soldiers drop their weapons and run screaming into the sea. Isn't that what Representitive Murtha keeps demanding? No?
I don't think what CNAS is proposing should even be called the "alternative". What CNAS is proposing should be labeled "support for the war". Period.
If you don't support pulling all American troops out, and getting rid of all the permanent military bases, then you support the Iraq War (and the continued murder of American troops that it causes).
Comments closed July 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Brilliant!! Michael O'Hanlon? Richard Armitage? Former CEO of Lockheed? No wonder why they want war to continue for another decade. That CNAS would put people like Armitage and O'Hanlon on its board is telling of just what a joke it is.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 8, 2007 10:46 AM