DeMediacratic Nation: Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

Will someone please, please, please flush the ~~toilet~~ Paper???

According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

"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."

This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, "Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier." Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a "quagmire" would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to "plan" or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

What would our "exit plan" be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we're already there? Hasn't Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

Of Iraq, the board asks:

"What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?"

(bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that "know" that getting out of Iraq 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."

This is the boards over riding "intelligence" estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for "extremists" would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they "stubbornly and damagingly" hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

Of Petraeus and Crocker's plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the "assumption" that "a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years." Forget the fact that it is a "war plan" and not the "change in direction" or "exit plan" the editors envision and "assume" is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):

"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."

One "illusion" here is that the board considers itself part of "everything" or perhaps "everything (that matters anyway)." Another "illusion" is that the "surge" and this newest plan isn't a re-evaluation of strategy. The last "illusion" is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

It must be nice to know.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1606177156462559660

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -