NYT editorial: Pull out now

posted at 12:32 am on July 8, 2007 by Allahpundit

Four years in the making but published tonight to boost the new push for withdrawal and give Russert something to pant over tomorrow morning. Their plan: Baker-Hamilton, essentially, minus any much-needed U.S. military advisors to train the Iraqi army and with the UN naturally in the lead in negotiating a sectarian settlement. To give you a taste of how workable it is, here’s their solution to the Iranian problem. What’s the one thing we know from painful experience that won’t work on Iran? Well, let’s try that then:

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

Five years of “international pressure” plus two rounds of sanctions plus endless threats of a bombing campaign by Bush and Cheney hasn’t convinced them to stop enriching uranium. It won’t convince them to stay out of Iraq, either. The Times knows that, of course, but they’re ashamed to say what they really want — an immediate pullout regardless of the consequences to Iraq or Iraqis — so they feel obliged to offer some sort of pro forma, dead-on-arrival “solution” to cover their tracks. Pathetic. You can read the rest for yourself, if you care. But be warned that you’re in store for arguments like this –

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders.

– which are directly contradicted by the lead story on their own front page at this very moment.

Since we’re Times-bashing, it’s worth mentioning the new column by their stooge ombudsman, Clark Hoyt. You may remember the rumors that Bill Keller was going to liquidate the ombudsman position after Barney Calame’s tenure expired, so allegedly unhappy was he with Calame’s criticism. He seems to have found a better solution: keep the position and fill it with a guy who’ll defend the Times three times out of four and on that rare fourth occasion will come at them from the place they don’t particularly mind being attacked from, i.e., the left. Hence tonight’s piece, which scolds the Times for its coverage of Al Qaeda — not the dearth of coverage of atrocities like the ones Yon’s been writing about this week but the excess of coverage in labeling enemy fighters “Al Qaeda” instead of “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” or “Sunni insurgents” or “BushCo’s pretext” or whatever he prefers. Let him explain why:

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…

For the president, an emphasis on Al Qaeda has political advantages at a time when powerful former allies, like Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are starting to back away from his war policy.

Indeed, just as downplaying Al Qaeda has political advantages for a media opposed to the war and eager for it to end regardless of the consequences. If Hoyt’s lament sounds familiar it’s because Greenwald was beating his own wee drum about the same thing a few weeks ago. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Hoyt got the idea for this piece from Greenwald’s sycophants spamming him with GG’s Salon column on the subject.) Bob Owens debunked him not once but twice using the military’s own press releases, but let me suggest that if there’s been an added focus in the news lately on AQ, perhaps it’s due to the fact that the military’s in the middle of a giant operation designed mainly to smash Al Qaeda. The Times itself posted a dispatch yesterday from Baquba about Sunni insurgents from the 1920s Brigades being quasi-deputized by U.S. troops because of their usefulness in helping to purge the Salafist AQ forces from parts of the city. How does Hoyt explain that distinction if, per him and Rick Ellensburg, the media’s supposedly engaged in blackballing all Sunni fighters as Al Qaeda? He doesn’t. Just like he doesn’t explain, in his haste to note that Al Qaeda in Iraq “is not believed to be under [Osama's] operational control” and thus presumably isn’t part of the “real” war on terror as the left conceives it, why then money is reportedly flowing from Iraq to the Pakistani tribal areas — a humiliating admission by U.S. counterterror officials which supports the Times’s own point in the editorial about how the war has backfired.

That’s what he gets for cribbing from Ellensburg, whose own pathetic, agenda-driven denial about the “awakening” in Anbar is comically blown to pieces in tonight’s edition of — wait for it — the New York Times, in a piece by the typically excellent John Burns about the “astonishing success in Anbar” generally and Ramadi in particular. Of the three Times pieces linked here, that’s the one to read. Not because it’s optimistic (it isn’t) but because it puts the lie to Hoyt’s leftist complaints about the coverage. Takeaway:

Many recruits, American officers acknowledge, were previously insurgents. “There’s a lot of guys wearing blue shirts out there who were shooting at us last year,” Colonel Charlton said.

Update: One other thing. After four years of open warfare with Sunni insurgents, thanks to delicate diplomacy by military envoys and Iraqi politicians and the Sunni population’s own disgust with Al Qaeda’s Salafism and brutality, we’ve finally achieved something like a detente with some of the indigneous non-Salafist groups in Anbar and Baquba. And Hoyt’s complaint seems to be … that Bush isn’t doing enough to re-antagonize them by lumping them in with AQ in his speeches about who our enemies are. Good thinking.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why didn’t they just publish this four years ago? At least then all of their crap coverage would have been more credible.

fiatboomer on July 8, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Well, Allahpundit, if I didn’t know better, I’d say your title was a double entendre!

For the record, the Times is either very, very stupid or very, very dangerous. I would have to say they are being the former and thus becoming the latter.

Damian G. on July 8, 2007 at 12:45 AM

If only their fathers had followed this advice

Pull Out Now

decades ago we might have a chance to win the War to save our Civilization.

profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Allah,

Did John F Burns have any input into this?

bnelson44 on July 8, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Not stupid – just actively working for the other side.

CrazyFool on July 8, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Many recruits, American officers acknowledge, were previously insurgents. “There’s a lot of guys wearing blue shirts out there who were shooting at us last year,” Colonel Charlton said.

Sounds like the former Nazis who ran Germany after we gave them back control. What does the left want us to do? Excecute all of them Hussein style?

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2007 at 12:51 AM

OK I read the editorial. Let me guess: the adults are all on vacation and they left the interns in charge?

bnelson44 on July 8, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Not stupid – just actively working for the other side.

CrazyFool on July 8, 2007 at 12:49 AM

So true!

xplodeit on July 8, 2007 at 1:17 AM

I may have gone along if they had called for a pull out with redeployment along the Mexican border to defend our sovereignty.

SouthernGent on July 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM

From the article:

“Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.”

Am I right in reading that last line as implicitly claiming that the American military is responsible for a “slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing?”

That’s an abhorrent thing to say, if my reading is right, especially for editors in a newspaper.

Matthew Anderson on July 8, 2007 at 1:46 AM

Some of us are old enough to remember when The New York Times was actually a serious newspaper.

Rusty Bill on July 8, 2007 at 1:49 AM

President Bush – “Our troops are helping them build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law and fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror”

Given the “ingredients” of Islamic Shiites and Islamic Sunnis, as the New York cab driver said, “You can’t get there from here”.

One might just as well try to build a Starship out of mud and straw.

Bush is not a stupid man, so he almost has to know this, but he apparently now has so much personally vested [over 4 years, over 3,600 dead American troops, many more severely disabled, and hundreds of billions of dollars in the process] in the fantasy that Muslims, the followers of Mohammad, are just yearning for democracy and human rights and are ready, willing and able to “fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror” if “we” just “hang in there”.

With so many others paying such a heavy price, a better man, a man with less exaggerated self pride, would have admitted his mistake some time ago and would have started to end this.

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 1:55 AM

AP, I have a question. If you post links to a printable page for NYT, can we all read it?

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 2:00 AM

OK I read the editorial. Let me guess: the adults are all on vacation and they left the interns in charge?

bnelson44 on July 8, 2007 at 12:59 AM

The editor of my local rag, which has gone completely left over the past few years, admitted that at 50 years old, he is the oldest staff member at the paper. That is telling.

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 2:05 AM

Not stupid – just actively working for the other side.
CrazyFool on July 8, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Hitchens:

The June 30 New York Times report managed to quote three people, one of whom attributed the aborted atrocity in London to Tony Blair’s foreign policy; one of whom (a New Zealand diplomat, at that) felt “surprisingly all right about it”; and one of whom, described as “a Briton of Indian descent,” was worried that “if I walk up that road, they’re going to suspect me.”

The “they” in this sentence was clearly the British authorities, rather than the Muslim gangsters who have declared open season on all Hindus as well as all Jews, Christians, secularists and other kuffar, or infidel filth.

Stephen M on July 8, 2007 at 2:13 AM

MB4

I dont think you get it. Are you reading what is happening in Iraq? The tide has turned. Sunnis and Shiite are starting to trust but verify.

Who are you to say what an Iraqi wants or not? America is not forcing their will on anyone, but giving them direction.

We have seen elections.

I am sorry, but EVERYONE wants freedom and want to live in peace, yes, even Iraqis.

I have hope that Iraqis will move past the bullets, like we did here in the US, heck, like we do today. Liberals and Conservative dont like each other very much. We have our thoughts about them and their San Fran vaules, they have their thoughts about us and our wanting to have a war on terrorist.

A City that had 200 attacks a day is down to 1.

On a side note, I like the way the Times feels it is OK to have ethnic groups that are all gathered together, but they are the first to want to bus people in the US to make sure a school has a mix of races and call out the Supreme Courts profiling ruling.

On that note and a rant, busing was so stupid, my brother was bused to another school than me in Jr. High, though we were one grade part, and California JR high was 7-9th then. He had black hair, brown eyes and may of looked a little more Spanish than me who is light brown hair and blue eyes, so I went to a local Jr high that may of been 50% Spanish, he got bused I have no idea how man miles way to a more white school, Patrick Henry, I went to Pacomia. Same household, 1 grade apart.

WoosterOh on July 8, 2007 at 3:08 AM

Dividing a country more than it has already become is not the solution, I say pull back to the borders of Iraq and kill anything trying to come in or go make them fight it out tell the fight is out of them.

American8298 on July 8, 2007 at 3:20 AM

I can see why sales of the New York Times have been tanking. It’s because of people like Clark Hoyt, who write a front page editorial, while sitting in his New York City office, that President Bush needs to leave poor little Al Qaeda alone.

SoulGlo on July 8, 2007 at 4:26 AM

The DEMs are desperate to force Bush to be the President to withdraw from Iraq mainly because they don’t want the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on their own hands. As badly as the press wants to report how the war is going they know that the genocide that will follow our withdrawl will be a thousand times worse and the press will savage them for it.

I say we respond to their demands by telling them that Hillary or Obama can certainly follow their suggestions when and if she gets in the White House.

What Republican candidates have to do is show the American voter their plan for a military solution in Iraq and how it will work. So far, I’m not hearing this.

Buzzy on July 8, 2007 at 4:58 AM

Nothing that the Times says can be believed. Their publisher is rabidly anti-war and anti-American. During Vietnam, his father asked him if a NVA and an American soldier met face to face, who would he want to win and he responded the NVA soldier.

Sulzberger’s paper illegally published national security secrets, twice. Why isn’t he and his editor Kellor sitting on death row awaiting execution for treason?

georgej on July 8, 2007 at 6:50 AM

Five years of “international pressure” plus two rounds of sanctions plus endless threats of a bombing campaign by Bush and Cheney hasn’t convinced them to stop enriching uranium.

No no, that’s mean talk and threats. The NYT wants nice talk, be nice you brutes!

Sigh. Oh Iraq, such a mess. Its sad it’s going to end this way. You know we’re pulling out soon, the writing has been on the wall for a long time now. I wish nothing more than to wake up one morning and hear the surge is working. Working well enough that it’s irrefutable. Working as obvious as the purple stained fingers during the Iraqi elections. And while I’m wishing, I’ll take a side order of “Osama Bin Laden was captured in a spider hole today” in my morning news too.

But … I dont think that’s meant to be. And through it all, what is the lesson we’ve learned? What do I take from this episode in US history? I dont even know.

Dash on July 8, 2007 at 8:07 AM

Ah, the propogandists at the NY Slimes are at it again. Always on the side of our enemies. You have to be a thorough simpleton to buy this pathetic rag. There isn’t a reputable journalist among them.

lynnv on July 8, 2007 at 8:14 AM

pathetic rag.

damn

American8298 on July 8, 2007 at 8:40 AM

I may have gone along if they had called for a pull out with redeployment along the Mexican border to defend our sovereignty.

SouthernGent on July 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM

HearHear..

Legions on July 8, 2007 at 8:56 AM

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

These dillholes, even though they do make a cursory mention of the terrorists, never apply the attention to detail when evaluating the terrorist mindset like they do when evaluating the mindset of the president, congress, the Iraqi politicians, and the world community. The terrorists aare the major player in this conflict. They are the ones driving the war and forcing us to fight it on their terms. These is a recipe for failure. General Patreaus is well on his way to changing that dynamic reality, to a reality where the terrorists have abandoned their assault on Baghdad and now are working in the out lying areas. This was exactly the strategy he was hoping for and it is succeeding. I know a lot of people think this is a whack-a-mole strategy. The difference is that Patreaus’ whack-a-mole strategy seals up the holes in the capitol with security forces. He will then (he already is) working on the areas where these terrorists have popped up. He will seal those holes and so on until the only holes for these sons of Satan will have to pop out of will be outside of the borders of Iraq.

This article is a setup for the inevitable Tet-type offensive that the terrorists will launch just before the September report. (how STUPID is it for the congress to demand reports that PUBLICLY announce it’s exact date for the world and the terrorists to see!? Especially reports that will discuss the state of the surge and whether or not we will leave Iraq to the terrorists!!) The NYT KNOWS for a fact that we aren’t going anywhere. They will be free to say “We told you so back in July that we should have left then!!) when the offensive against our troops begins. Of course all US and Iraqi civilian casualties will left left at the feet of the American people who did not begin the amnesty-bill style assualt on the congress and the president.

The only bright spot to the NYT valley of darkness is that Patreaus KNOWS the offensive will happen and will be prepared to deal with it to the point where it’s prosecution will be thwarted. We hope.

csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Additionally, the Patreaus plan certainly will stabilize Iraq to the point where the terrorists will begin to take their terrorism to the Muslim countries who are tacitly enabling the US to make significant end roads in Iraq. THAT is the secret to getting the other countries involved in the fight against terrorism.

No, the only answer when some one asks when we should leave Iraq should be: NEVER….until the fight is won!!

csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 9:39 AM

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

Yes and we should all click you heels together three times.

The New York Times like many (formally) major papers is losing subscribers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/media/31papercnd.html?ei=5090&en=085a075e9ab0ddd7&ex=1319864400&pagewanted=all

It looks like the NYT is going the way of MSNBC to try to stay alive.

TunaTalon on July 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

The pull out method doesn’t work. I knew too many girls in college that found that out the hard way.

ericire12 on July 8, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I think the New York Times should pull out of America.

Dave Shay on July 8, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Am I right in reading that last line as implicitly claiming that the American military is responsible for a “slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing?”

I don’t think he was implying that. He’s stating that is the situation and not ascribing blame to the US or to Al Qaeda. He should have mentioned that it is Al Qaeda’s fault but I don’t think that’s the same as blaming the US.

aengus on July 8, 2007 at 11:39 AM

The New York Times has met the enemy . . . and it is they. That leftist rag is a danger to the Republic.

rplat on July 8, 2007 at 11:41 AM

NYT editorial: Pull out now

Sounds like good advice if you don’t want something worthwhile to grow.

One other thing. After four years of open warfare with Sunni insurgents, thanks to delicate diplomacy by military envoys and Iraqi politicians and the Sunni population’s own disgust with Al Qaeda’s Salafism and brutality, we’ve finally achieved something like a detente with some of the indigneous non-Salafist groups in Anbar and Baquba.

War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.
William Tecumseh Sherman

If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.
William Tecumseh Sherman

Speakup on July 8, 2007 at 11:52 AM

NYT surrenders by Don Surber

bnelson44 on July 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Clark Hoyt

Too bad his dad didn’t pull out.

infidel4life on July 8, 2007 at 12:37 PM

WoosterOh

I don’t think you get it. Are you reading what is happening in Iraq?

“The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.”

“July 8, 2007 – A flurry of bombings in Baghdad killed 26 people Sunday, and officials said the death toll from a giant suicide truck blast that devastated the market of a Shiite farming town north of the capital a day earlier could reach 150.

Officials earlier had said Saturday’s bombing in the town of Armili killed 115 people, one of the deadliest attacks in Iraq in months. The blast suggested Sunni insurgents are moving further north to strike in less protected regions beyond the U.S. security crackdown in Baghdad and on the capital’s northern doorstep.”

“Sunday, July 8, 2007 – U.S. soldiers in night-vision goggles piled out of a Chinook helicopter under a wide, orange moon. They crawled through mud along canals south of Baghdad, then stormed a chicken farm that the U.S. military believed doubled as a car bomb factory.

But something was missing: Iraqi partners.

The Iraqi army has yet to deploy a single soldier on this 380-square-mile swath, where the U.S. military is waging an offensive to dislodge al-Qaida fighters from marshlands along the Tigris River.

In Tuesday’s predawn raid, the lack of Iraqi backup meant a frustrating outcome for U.S. forces. When suspects fled, there was no Iraqi cordon to catch them.

But more broadly, it illustrated a key weakness in the new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy of “clear, hold, rebuild.” American commanders say the “hold” phase relies on Iraqi forces’ ability to move into cleared areas and keep insurgents in check once the U.S. draws down its troop levels.

But areas such as Salman Pak – once an enclave for Saddam Hussein’s favored officials – reinforce the accusations that the Iraqi military is still a long way from meeting U.S. expectations.

“We’re all very frustrated. We’re trying to fix this country, but the Iraqis are having trouble recruiting and getting their numbers up,” said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which is deployed in the area.”

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 1:06 PM

georgej on July 8, 2007 at 6:50 AM

Sulzberger’s paper illegally published national security secrets, twice. Why isn’t he and his editor Kellor sitting on death row awaiting execution for treason?

That my friend is a damn good question to which there is currently no good answer…

doriangrey on July 8, 2007 at 1:13 PM

georgej, doriangrey

There is no such thing as treason, or being held accountable for it anyway, in America anymore.

Not since Jane Fonda sat on that North Vietnamese gun.

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 1:32 PM

This is going to be long, I apologize in advance.But I think it needs to be put here.
Part of a letter from a soldier stationed in Iraq

“These letters we got are important to us. Soldiers sometimes feel that we are alone in this. that we are in the fight of our lives and nobody supports us. We know not many Americans seem to support this war. We have a lot invested in it now. We’ve spent hundreds of hours putting our lives on the line for the Iraqi people, and have seen their communities flourish for it (at least I have). We have given them more freedom, security and and basic social services than they’ve ever had in their own country. We’ve also fought terrorist and Anti-American resources on this soil as opposed to American soil. We’ve all paid a price, lost comrades, friends. And we owe it to them to make sure they didn’t die for nothing. No matter where you stand on this war, please know, for us defeat is not an option. We cannot leave here like we left Vietnam. We leave victors, or not at all. Supporting the troops means supporting the war, and giving us the tools we need to win.”

PowWow on July 8, 2007 at 3:08 PM

The NYT is not a newspaper, it is a political tool being weilded by a wealthy crypto-communist family to elect Democrats who will more reliably follow their political agenda.

But they are getting scared that their overseas team, the headchoppers, are losing.

I ask, is there no reporter at the NYT who has the basic decency to publicly resign over this and expose their agenda?

drunyan8315 on July 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM

PowWow – “We leave victors, or not at all. Supporting the troops means supporting the war”

For how long?

5 more years? 10 more years? 25 more years?

Until there are troops serving how many Iraqi tours?

Four tours? Six tours? Eight tours? Ten tours? Twelve tours?

Until there are how many dead American troops?

5,000? 10,000? 25,000?

Until Islamic Shiites and Islamic Sunnis all learn to get along and build a nation together or until Hell freezes over, which ever comes first?

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Disheartening story about the outposts in Baghdad not working. What I have not understood is why our troops fight the militias yet we don’t target the leaders. Why aren’t we firing missiles from gunships into their homes and offices like the Isrealis? Kill the leaders and as soon as a new one steps forward you kill him also. If Maliki doesn’t like it tell him he’s going to be walking point on patrol through Sunni neighborhoods until he changes his tune. This is a fight to the death and we seem to not want to kill anyone.

I am not denigrating our armed forces but it’s a farce saying we have an offensive underway. There is no end to the supply of brainwashed islamic death-eaters they can throw at us. We will never be able to kill them all. We have to start targeting the leaders and doing it in a brutal and very obvious fashion. Sadr needs to die an ugly death and anyone who raises his hand to be the leader next needs to die within 24 hours of his identifiing himself. Keep working hard at rebuilding the country and anyone who gets in the way goes.

peacenprosperity on July 8, 2007 at 8:38 PM

MB4 on July 8, 2007 at 6:42 PM

I’ll ask when I write back

PowWow on July 8, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Don’t mind the NYT, they just had finished watching Knocked Up

Tim Burton on July 9, 2007 at 2:46 AM

Some of us are old enough to remember when The New York Times was actually a serious newspaper.

says Rusty Bill on July 8, 2007 at 1:49 AM

You mean like when Walter Duranty was writing for them?

MSimon on July 9, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Until Islamic Shiites and Islamic Sunnis all learn to get along and build a nation together or until Hell freezes over, which ever comes first?

Yep. One or the other.

MSimon on July 9, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Five years of “international pressure” plus two rounds of sanctions plus endless threats of a bombing campaign by Bush and Cheney hasn’t convinced them to stop enriching uranium. It won’t convince them to stay out of Iraq, either. The Times knows that, of course, but they’re ashamed to say what they really want — an immediate pullout regardless of the consequences to Iraq or Iraqis — so they feel obliged to offer some sort of pro forma, dead-on-arrival “solution” to cover their tracks. Pathetic.

EXACTLY!. You are dead on correct AP. They are pathetic.
They know that they are not the trip wire vote for pull out which would cause the price of oil to top $100.00 for a very long time, ie: economic disaster.
So the moment a pull out could look imminent they would do just that, cover their a** with a “brilliant” insight.

What they are really doing of course is trying to make the Bush Admin look stupid, while they come out looking “brilliant”.

Note to the Times management: this doesn’t make you “shine” like a hero. This is why you are losing subscribers, you idiots!

Mcguyver on July 10, 2007 at 12:27 PM