NY Times Calls Iraq a "Lost Cause"

[michael_ital]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The New York Times on Sunday called for US troops to leave Iraq now, writing that President George W. Bush's plan to stabilize the country through military means is a lost cause.

ADVERTISEMENT

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit," the influential daily wrote in a rare, single-issue editorial taking up one-half of an entire news page.


"Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward," the daily wrote.


But it has since emerged, the Times concluded, that Bush has "neither the vision nor the means to do that."


"It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost," the daily opined.


The Times editorial went on: "Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces ... It is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles."


The editorial concluded: "This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage -- with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading."


The article by the influential newspaper -- the latest sign of increasing public restiveness on Iraq -- comes as a growing number of Bush's formerly loyal Republican backers on the Iraq question have defected and begun calling for US troop withdrawal.


The Times conceded that, as violent at Iraq is, the situation there might turn even deadlier after a withdrawal of US forces. Still the daily wrote, "Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.


"The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise."

[Cilmiile]

America would not have pacified Japan if they adopted the wishywashy tactics of Bush. Nuke Diwaniyah province. Submit or Die. Worked for Ghengis Khan in subduing Baghdad all those years ago.

Otherwise the Americans must leave Iraq cause they are not serious.

[gurey25]

its not wishywashiness Cilmile.
it complete incompetance.


they disbanded the army, and they got rid of the Baath beauracracy.

in Japan and Nazi germany, they kept the beauracracy.

Cheney and Rmsfeld ignored the advice of thier own government experts, including the CIA, and listened to a foolish iraqi emigres.

[*jr]

With exception of Krugman and Herbert and Rich and the occasional slam-dunk editorial, the NYT has been part of the mainstream media that promoted this war with front page false WMD reports. Oh well, better late than never.

[michael_ital]

*jr

Exactly. Which is the main reason I posted, because if they're proclaiming it a lost cause, then you KNOW it is.

[*jr]

Yep. I guess they finally realized that transcribing neocon propaganda isn't helping their business.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

'NYT' Public Editor Hits Paper's Surge in Blaming 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq

By E&P Staff

Published: July 08, 2007 10:10 AM ET

NEW YORK In a remarkable column today, Clark Hoyt, the newly arrived public editor at The New York Times, charges that the Times in recent weeks has too often gone along with the new drive by the White House and the military to blame insurgent attacks on al-Qaeda. The column arrives on the same day the paper calls for a U.S. pullout in Iraq. .

E&P and other news outlets last week had noted the same tendency in the Times in the reporting of Michael R. Gordon and others. A top Times editor admits to Hoyt that the paper's reporting in this regard has become "sloppy."

Hoyt, who has had a long and varied high-level newspaper reporting and editing career, most recently directed the Iraq reporting out of the Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) Washington bureau which gained plaudits for its tough and skeptical reporting on the run-up to the war and progress since.

Today, Hoyt charges that the Times "in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

"And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.

"There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is but one of the challenges facing the United States military and that overemphasizing it distorts the true picture of what is happening there. While a president running out of time and policy options may want to talk about a single enemy that Americans hate and fear in the hope of uniting the country behind him, journalists have the obligation to ask tough questions about the accuracy of his statements."

He then quotes Middle East experts he talk with who dispute the heavy focus on al-Qaeda. Then Hoyt reveals:
"Recent Times stories from Iraq have referred, with little or no attribution — and no supporting evidence — to 'militants linked with Al Qaeda,' 'Sunni extremists with links to Al Qaeda' and 'insurgents from Al Qaeda.' The Times has stated flatly, again without attribution or supporting evidence, that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year, an event that the president has said started the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites."

Hoyt went back and examined stories from the past month where he found references to Al Qaeda "creeping in with greater frequency."

Susan Chira, the foreign editor, told him she takes “great pride in the whole of our coverage” but acknowledged that the paper had used “excessive shorthand” when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. “We’ve been sloppy,” she said. Three days ago, she circulated a memo with guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. The operational connection between the two may not exist.

"It’s a good move," concludes Hoyt. "I’d have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration’s drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.

"Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure."

[paidmonk]

Faggot liberals will write anything for money. I hate Bush's tactics and everything he stands for, we need a TRUE Republican, a Fiscal, Reagan-esque Republican as President. Someone who will pacify, force-submit, and destroy any threat to American well-being.

I have my money on Rudy Giuliani, the guy is everything America needs and more.

[*jr]

[quote="paidmonk"]Faggot liberals will write anything for money. I hate Bush's tactics and everything he stands for, we need a TRUE Republican, a Fiscal, Reagan-esque Republican as President. Someone who will pacify, force-submit, and destroy any threat to American well-being.

I have my money on Rudy Giuliani, the guy is everything America needs and more.[/quote]

You mean this Giuliani in a dress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18108978/

[*Arabman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

[michael_ital]

[quote="paidmonk"]Faggot liberals will write anything for money. I hate Bush's tactics and everything he stands for, we need a TRUE Republican, a Fiscal, Reagan-esque Republican as President. Someone who will pacify, force-submit, and destroy any threat to American well-being.

I have my money on Rudy Giuliani, the guy is everything America needs and more.[/quote]

A cross dressing Italian? Never!

[*jr]

[quote="michael_ital"][quote="paidmonk"]Faggot liberals will write anything for money. I hate Bush's tactics and everything he stands for, we need a TRUE Republican, a Fiscal, Reagan-esque Republican as President. Someone who will pacify, force-submit, and destroy any threat to American well-being.

I have my money on Rudy Giuliani, the guy is everything America needs and more.[/quote]

A cross dressing Italian? Never![/quote]