NY Times: Out of Iraq
The very serious newsies who comprise the editorial board of the New York Times, after years of Iraq war boosterism and catapulting the Bush regime’s propaganda, have finally decided that enough is enough. In their august opinion, it’s time to get out of Iraq. In my less-than-august opinion, I’d agree with Ankush writing [...]
The very serious newsies who comprise the editorial board of the New York Times, after years of Iraq war boosterism and catapulting the Bush regime’s propaganda, have finally decided that enough is enough. In their august opinion, it’s time to get out of Iraq. In my less-than-august opinion, I’d agree with Ankush writing at Ezra Klein that the very serious people on the NYT editorial board are way behind the curve on this one.
Here’s a choice cut from the editorial:
…Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave…
“Could be”?? I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say “will be”. The U.S. has effectively armed both sides in the ongoing sectarian conflict civil war, and by inference, has required all nation-states in the middle east to pick a side. Iran is working with the Shiites. Saudi Arabia is working and funding the Sunnis. Jordan is trying to play honest broker, while being strained to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees from the conflict (as is Syria). So if anything, the U.S. has simply been acting as an armed buffer between the various factions who are gearing up for a battle royale the moment the last U.S. helicopter departs after our favorite mixologist, Heidi, calls “time, gentlemen…” - for the last time - at the Green Zone Bar and Grille.
The bottom line is that the Bush regime’s actions have enabled all of the cornerstones of another anti-American theocracy to be laid, but more importantly, these actions have destabilized the entire region for generations to come.
Enjoy your three dollar gas, Mr. and Ms. NYT editorial board member - because you ain’t seen nothing yet in the world oil markets. But it’s nice that you finally acknowledged that the child who is running the country has screwed things up dramatically.
What’s your basis for believing that oil will continue to rise, Richard? I’m just curious.
When the whole middle east flares, Charles - whether BushCo goes after Iran or not - the petromarkets are going to be so destabilized that we’ll be longing for the days of $70/bbl oil. My humble opinion only.
The media has been Al-Qaeda’s Fifth Column giving quislings like Mr. Elizabeth Edwards room to call the GWOT a “bumper sticker.” Meanwhile, the NYT is of more than one mind about this, with a good article by John Burns, who refuses to drink the Kool-Ade, on Anbar & rolling back AQ in the field.
But as for WHAM, the NYT is helping AQ here in the states & the Dems are heavily invested in an American defeat, so they can blame it on Chimpy McHitlerburton & his evil VP plus those nasty Repubs……
Too bad Talk Radio doesn’t really run the country, Trent-boy.
Speaking of oil & gas: REUTERS: “Oil surged to an 11-month high above $76 a barrel on Friday, closing in on the all-time record as Nigerian disruptions and OPEC output cuts stirred supply concerns amid rising U.S. refiner demand.”
Said article leads me to conclude, since gas was about $3.50 per gallon around here 2-3 months ago but is now back around $3.00, that the prices are indeed manipulated. Guess maybe they don’t want to lose too many customers in the warm touring months.
Yeah, Dave, just keep putting your fingers in your ears and chanting “LALALALAWE’REWINNINGWE’REWINNINGICAN’THEARYOU.” That’ll work.
As for the NY Times, this is far from the only time they’ve bent over backwards to accommodate the right-wing view of a political issue. I remember (not firsthand—I’m not quite that old) their detailed coverage of all the intricate, confusing lies of Joe McCarthy’s charges of Communist treason against this or that unfortunate victim.
The NYT eventually admitted that almost nothing they printed had been true, but justified themselves on the grounds that since the charges were made by a U.S. Senator and attracted attention, they had no choice but to print them. McCarthy biographer Richard Rovere remarked that this was like a restaurant saying that if it served poisoned food, it was up to the diner to refuse it.
(Although, to put it in context, Rovere made it clear he agreed with the NYT’s attitude, saying that the news media shouldn’t decide what is and isn’t “news.” As much as I respect the man, that position never made any sense to me. It seems like that’s the most basic function of any news medium.)