Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The New York Times Calls for Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq

1

"P.S. Sorry we said this was a good idea back when our opinion might have meant something."

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 7, 2007 6:25 PM
2

Yeah, it's a shame they didn't take this position when it would have really mattered.

But this editorial could contribute to the general efforts to end the war. The paper actually does have some influence after all.

Posted by Jay | July 7, 2007 6:51 PM
3

"A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago." We, however, have been procrastinating in the strangled hope that someone would come up with a good idea to at least leave this country as well off as it was when we got there. Alas, despite all our (blind, media pawn) faith, the Bush administration did not do so.

To the overeducated New York Times editors I have one thing to say: Duh! When the majority of Americans is ahead of you, you're really, really behind.

Posted by bitch on heels | July 7, 2007 7:07 PM
4

The NY Times was just playing it safe like all the other well known mainstream news sources, suckered in by Powell's bullshit WMD case and the idea that we'd be greeted as liberators. In that sense, they were not entirely unlike the majority of democrats in congress who approved the war. I think a lot of them approved it in bad faith, not believing in the WMDs necessarily but not wanting to be wrong about a potentially successful war- in this sense, they were even worse than the press. As for the people, I certainly knew a lot of average people in Vegas who thought there was good cause for the war in the build up and the first few months. What all these samples have in common is they all piss me the fuck me off.

I still like the Times though, despite their hitherto bullshit editorial stance.

Posted by Jay | July 7, 2007 7:24 PM
5

Another great example of fixing the barn door after the horses come home...

Great book to read, "God is Not Great" TOTALLY a super read. I am consumed by the great arguments and the writers destruction of religon. GOD NEVER EXISTED!!! Atheism is fact!!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | July 7, 2007 7:25 PM
6

Cato was a little stoic bitch who got his in the end.

Not really, but conservatives need to stop brandishing his name.

Posted by Jay | July 7, 2007 7:31 PM
7

Too little, too late? Sure, but I think even this late in the game such an editorial from the NYT could do some good.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 7, 2007 7:44 PM
8

I thought hey always had editorials like that to some degree, and not only editorials but the main columns upon columns have always shed a negative light on the war( I've seen articles calling the war desperate, that the stranger had linked us to. Its New York times for goodness sakes.
And besides wasn't O'reilly and that other guy from MSNBC the goofy chubby one with glasses always on about how liberal the New york times were about the War. exspecially Micheal Savages rants on the NY times. Hes been calling the paper a bunch of traitors for two years now.

Posted by summertime | July 7, 2007 8:08 PM
9

I wish I had your sense of optimism, IMM, but while it might skew the polls even slightly more against shrub, and possibly compel a few more fence-sitting Republicans to jump on the bandwagon (yeah, yeah, mixing metaphors), it's not going to sway the NeoCons in the Executive/Vice Presidential branches (or whatever name Cheney has come up with for his new supra-officio branch of government) one iota.

As others have pointed out, shrub & Co. are just going to sit this out to the bitter end, then leave it to a Democratic administration to clean up their mess; meanwhile the GOP and their lapdogs in the Right Wing Media will be hounding them from Day One, claiming ANY direction they take as constituting a betrayal of the troops, the Iraqi people, and the previous administration's efforts to secure the peace.

Just as everything that went wrong in the first four years of shrub's administration was "all Clinton's fault", so too will everything that goes wrong in Iraq during the first several years of a Democratic administration be branded as a failure to follow through on shrub's brilliant strategies.

In other words, the spin from the Right will be, "shrub's plan would have worked (eventually), if the Dems hadn't gone in and screwed it up".

Mark my words.

Posted by COMTE | July 7, 2007 8:15 PM
10

And did you read Frank Rich today as well? Damn. Someone buy that guy a martini for me. Great piece.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 7, 2007 8:15 PM
11

The BEST way to end this war and make sure any other future wars are under thorough scrutiny is - bring back THE DRAFT.

Those in power will do EVERYTHING to prevent this (The government learned its lesson with Vietnam - running a brutal, oppressive and heartless war cannot be done with a volunteer army) but this is the ONE SINGLE POINT where republicans/democrats/blue state/red state/patriot/liberal/etc HAVE TO AGREE UPON. Its truly the most patriotic thing you can have - which is every able citizen, fighting on behalf of your country for truth, justice and the american way. And thats the only thing that will force the general population to WAKE UP from its COMA. Because once the draft is in place, theres going to be a lot more people taking a closer look at the reasons for engaging in a war.

Posted by joe | July 7, 2007 8:30 PM
12

Joe,

To a certain extent I agree with you, but at this late date implementing Selective Service, or its contemporary equivalent, isn't going to do the GOP much good, since it won't gain them votes, and it would probably end up doing the Democrats worse, since in all likelihood they would be the party in power after it was re-introduced (assuming that it occured before the 2008 election, which seems unlikely).

Besides, those scions of the upper classes - regardless of party affiliation (although it stands to reason thaat most very wealthy people tend to support the GOP) will always find a way to wiggle out, just as shrub and Cheney did in their day, leaving the middle and lower classes basically in exactly the same position they're in now, namely, sending their sons and daughters into harms way.

Posted by COMTE | July 7, 2007 9:47 PM
13

You know, I was talking to someone the other day about the upcoming elections, and they asked me what my "deal breakers" were. Iraq wasn't one of them, because no candidate has actually talked about radically changing our policies in the middle east (i.e. getting our millitary bases out, stopping the support of Israel)...any of the dems might get us out; but either way, we're building bases there and will be there for a long, long time.

Posted by Dianna | July 7, 2007 10:14 PM
14

it's never too late.
this piece from the NY times will be the catalyst for other larger newspapers to follow suit...

Posted by eugene | July 7, 2007 10:16 PM
15

The part they are missing is that this has nothing with Iraq or Al Qaeda. They are have major help from Iran, North Korea or someone. This has everything to do with power and money and has shit to do with religion. We pull out and the ramifications I will rub in the nose of this newspaper for years to come!!!

Posted by Touring | July 7, 2007 11:24 PM
16

Yes on the draft.

IT prevents the rich from owning the armed services. It MAKES US FIGHT BAD WARS instead of all sitting at home pecking at the computer.

WE ARE THE USA. We need to take control. Giving up the draft which ties the people to the armed services only "frees" the armed services from the currents of popular will.

If all the middle and upper middle class kids were at risk, we would be out of Iraq.
As to short term v. long term:

you have to kill the alligators and also drain the swamp at the same time.

Think. Try to do two things at once.

Also ITMF now. For deliberately putting troops in harm's way to extort us into continuing a war for no reason.

What greater treason is there?

Posted by unPC | July 7, 2007 11:29 PM
17

Exactly - I think the middle class is completely OBLIVIOUS to what is going on. Kids of the uber-wealthy won't get affected, I don't give a damn about that because they aren't the majority.

Anyone see the young girl at westlake center today, spouting off the anti-war rhetoric with a megaphone? That was pretty ballsy, not sure how effective that ends up being..

Posted by joejoe | July 7, 2007 11:48 PM
18

It's interesting you assume that the draft would recruit rich and middle class people. A universal draft might, but you only need look at Vietnam to see how racists and classist the draft can be. A real draft, where every citizen has to join up would be fine, but that's not how it worked out the last time.

Posted by Jay | July 8, 2007 12:38 AM
19

Comte, as usual I pretty much agree with you.

But you're assuming that Cheney and his boys are going to let that "supra-officio" office get away from them. I'm not convinced we'll be "getting" a Democratic president. I believe that Cheney's evil runs deep, and that he is one of the most dangerous people since Hitler. Who knows what they are capable of doing? Just look what blatant crimes they've committed and gotten away with thus far.

The sheer moral bankruptcy of those monsters is almost incomprehensible to me. We're seeing things happen in this country that I was promised in my little midwestern schoolhouse in the 1970's only happened in scary totalitarian socities like the USSR, Cuba, and the Britain of Orwell's 1984.

Nothing would surprise me at this point.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 8, 2007 1:44 AM
20

To the first commenters, I guess if you weren't out protesting the first days of the war you should keep your mouth shut now? Even if you're a national newspaper or a senator or presidential candidate who actually has some power or influence in this country? We should only rely on the earliest protesters to stop the war?

Oh right, I forgot its all Dan Savage's fault, he sits at Dick Cheney's right hand.

Posted by anna | July 8, 2007 8:45 AM
21

My point exactly, IMM, which is why I can't imagine them instituting a draft in the last 16 months of their run, since not only would that be an admission of their own failure to secure the peace in Iraq, as we've been promised they would over-and-over, but it would most likely have the effect of assuring a Democratic sweep in 2008, since all they would then have to do to win would be to promise to rescind the draft once in office. And while Karl Rove may still be the mastermind inside the White House, I can't imagine, given the current disarray of the GOP, that he holds much sway in the party aparatus itself.

Posted by COMTE | July 8, 2007 9:03 AM
22

@19: Mark, I agree with everything you wrote. Please take a look at this booklet with a healthy degree of skepticism tempered with the knowledge that with someone like Cheney in charge, nothing would surprise you at this point.

Bush and Cheney benefited from it, they had the power to prevent it, they pushed hard for there not to be any investigation, and their people ran the joke of an investigation that did occur. We need to reinvestigate.

Posted by Phil M | July 8, 2007 9:36 AM
23

@22. I agree about Rove. He's on the losing part of the team -- Little Bush's.

It's the antics of the Cheney government that haven't been fully revealed yet. If we do manage to wrest the power away, we'll be hearing horror stories for years to come. It's why Nixon looks so relatively harmless from this vantage point. Cheney et al have completely upped the ante on lying, cheating, and misrepresentation. It's a swindle on a global scale.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 8, 2007 9:53 AM
24

I meant to say @21.

@22 Ummm, thanks for the info?

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 8, 2007 10:12 AM
25

Don't tell anybody, but Bush\Cheney are not running in 2008. As for the draft, except for certain specialties, it is neither necessary nor desirable in today's military. A broad based draft will not generate the quality of invividual that our military needs today, which tends to be much more highly educated and technically oriented that the draftees of the past. In any event, the Clinton's, Romney's and Giuliani's and their ilk will always find a way not to serve.

Posted by old timer | July 8, 2007 10:48 AM
26

@25 Maybe it's cynical. But hardly paranoid.

I have no opinion on the draft at the moment, because I can't imagine it happening in what's left of Bush's term.

As far as the quality of the individual generated for the military though, I've got to wonder about the current loosening of standards in recruiting offices, as regards pre-military criminal behavior, basic education, etc.

I'm no expert on any of this. I'm usually hesitant to even talk about matters political. I'm so sickened by what I see in Washington that it's hard to look too long in that direction.

But I agree like hell with your last sentence.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 8, 2007 11:01 AM
27

IMPEACH

Posted by montex | July 8, 2007 5:18 PM
28

IMPEACH

Posted by montex | July 8, 2007 5:18 PM
29

@25, 26

It's a total myth that politicians never serve. Clinton and Bush, true, did not. But there are also Kerry, McCain, Webb and the like. There are will always be draft dodgers. Some of them become politicians.

Posted by Matt | July 8, 2007 8:01 PM
30

Hey, I know, let's just discuss it for two more years and do nothing about it.

And I met a US draft dodger from the Vietnam War era who is running a museum up in BC when I was on vacation.

Personally, I don't much care who decides to bring the troops home - so long as it's sooner instead of later.

Give Pres. Cheney a 90 day budget to bring the troops home and if he gets Bush to veto it, then give him one for 90 days minus the time since the last one.

No money and the troops all come home anyway.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 9, 2007 1:32 AM
31

Interesting that nobody's talked about the consequences of an "immediate withdrawal" - the NYT article says that there must be an "honest discussion" about the possibility of ethnic cleansing, "even genocide".

The only responsible thing to do is clean up the mess we made. "Immediate withdrawal" feels good politically, but it's going to leave a potentially monumental bloodbath in its wake. Call me a cynic, but I don't happen to believe that there's anything so intrinsically savage about people in Iraq that they need a bloodthirsty dictator to keep them in line. So the question becomes how to protect the nascent Iraqi government from factional violence without an American military presence?

Posted by Roger Williams | July 9, 2007 3:02 AM
32

Well, Roger, you don't basically. That's what's great about this war. We leave we lose, we stay we lose. Which is probably why it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Sometimes you just lose.

Posted by Jay | July 9, 2007 4:23 AM
33

Let's not forget that we now have as many private contractors over there now as soldiers. What exactly would it mean to "bring the troops home"? Would that include the mercinaries? Would pulling out the volunteer army end the occupation or not?

Posted by Phil M | July 9, 2007 8:09 AM
34

it isn't a complete loss. there are parts we "won" and parts we "lost".

for example...
ending a brutal dictatorship: win
establishing corporations: ???lost
setting up a fair self-government: lost

in order to know how to win or lose, you have to know what is on the table first.

Posted by infrequent | July 9, 2007 9:55 AM
35

There was that eternal question back in the '70s: "How do we get out of Viet Nam?" San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen suggested: "Same way we got in - ships and planes." Shake, repeat.

But realize that whatever happens BEFORE THE END - Bush will pardon himself and Talk-About-a-Tricky-Dick-Cheney and whoever follows falls heir to cleaning up their shit-filled Augean Stables. The rest of us will just have to shoulder on with our iPhones and dates at Cafe Presse and pretend we ever cared much at all about things we scarcely understood.

Posted by KENTUCKY KERNEL OF TRUTH | July 9, 2007 2:38 PM
36

Yes, Let's Fight Terrorism on OUR Streets


Perhaps it is time to leave Iraq, considering the media and the liberal left feel we are not winning the war there and the accomplishments they desire have not come quickly enough. Their disillusionment with the sacrifices of our military is all together transparent with Op/Ed pieces such as these.

Perhaps the better place to fight terrorism is here, on our own streets. That way, there will not be so many "innocent victims" in Iraq and our military members won't be crucified by a pacifistic media.

We certainly have the means to fight the 2,000 suicide bombers Iran claimed to dispatch to the U.S. a few weeks ago and those claimed by Hizbullah, to be waiting in the wings in South America to attack us. Our police departments can effectively handle the investigations of bombings of school buses, pizza parlors, movie theatres and other places where young people congregate. They have been trained to handle terrorist incidents and the if we learned anything from Hurricane Katrina, our public agencies are ready to immediately respond and evacuate hospitals, schools and individuals in urban areas in the event of a terorist incident.

On the up side, we also now have over a million young men and women trained in terrorist tactics, such as used of IEDs used in roadside bombings, suicide bombs and roadside bombs, thankfully to their experience in Iraq. When these situations occur, we will be likely to be able to apprehend the culprits, unless they hide within our population. We survived 9/11, at least some of us did, and we are now prepared to take on the war here.

When the terrorists start bombing the churches and mosques because they preach a different religious idealology than what their own organizational covenants call for, we will have bomb experts available to conduct the investigations to see which terrorist organization was involved. We will also have some pretty high tech equipment which may identify which of the hundreds of Iranians, Iraqis and other middle easterners who are currently smuggled in over our borders are terrorists--that is, if they have a history of involvement with a terrorist organization.

We have more than enough land in our national forests to build graveyards for the victims in our society, as well as more than enough money to pay over $50,000 a year to house each terrorist per year in our prisons. We have tons of federal grants and funds available to appoint them a lawyer.

Fighting terrorism in America will boost our economy and raise the economy of our state and federal workers. Lord knows, we have more than enough money in our federal coffers to hire thousands and thousands more individuals for terrorism interdiction. It will boost the economy of those involved in the funeral trade. It will boost the economy of those involved in the legal trade, who will receive considerable federal funds to represent them. We can build bigger and better prisons which will be equipped to handle the special needs of the Muslim terrorist, such as prayer rugs, special diets, with all the windows facing the east!

It will decrease the populations in our urban areas. When our inner cities are nuked with bombs, we can simply view the situation as an opportunity for urban development to rebuild and make them better. When our roads are destroyed, we can always use the power of eminent domain to raze houses and build bigger and better ones.

If we chose to fight terrorism on our soil, rather than in the middle east, where the terrorists are currently going to fight "Jihad," our citizens will have an opportunity to experience a "different culture" and open their minds to different religions and ways.

Those women who choose to embrace the terrorists' ideology can wear Jihabs and Burkas and those who don't can acquire a gun and learn to shoot in order to protect themselves and their families to maintain the freedoms we have known.

The use of energy will be greater increased due to the need of air conditioning in hot weather, because women will be covered during times of hot weather however perhaps this will be compensated during cooler climate trends of other seasons.

Perhaps the way to end this crisis once and for all, in the United States, is for our legislators to simply pass a resolution so all Americans will become Muslim--Wahabi Muslim to be specific--and in doing so, we won't risk having to fight for our survival or for the survival of other countries.

Yes, let's get out of Iraq now --- and Afghanistan ---and save a lot of money. Let's simply give into terrorism.

Posted by 2LB | July 15, 2007 1:24 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).