NYT on Libya: Bailing out of a war before it’s won will hurt U.S. credibility

posted at 5:22 pm on June 24, 2011 by Allahpundit

This isn’t even the most embarrassing thing in the Times today. That honor goes to their story about the jihadi plot against the U.S. military center in Seattle. The plotters allegedly admired Anwar al-Awlaki and did the usual mumbling about being soldiers of Allah, but all the NYT will tell you is that “They were frustrated … by American war policies.” Either that’s a nifty bit of whitewashing or else the Times simply assumes that you’re familiar enough with stories like this by now that you can fill in the blanks yourself by extrapolating from the suspects’ names. Cowardly or lazy, take your pick.

Anyway. Each new day brings another step through the looking glass on Libya, and today it was the NYT’s turn. First Obama out-Bushed Bush, then Hillary started questioning the patriotism of war opponents, and now we’ve got the flagship paper of the liberal intelligentsia wondering why anyone would jeopardize American military credibility by pulling the plug before victory’s been declared. Really.

Am I awake?

One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.

They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow…

We also believe Congress has an important role to play in this debate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to vote on the Kerry-McCain measure next week. The majority leader, Harry Reid, has said he has the votes in the Senate. Thankfully, some Senate Republicans also seem to understand the importance of the United States following through on its national security commitments.

It’s not just the Times either. Check out the partisan split on Libya via Gallup:

Despite the fact that “days, not weeks” has turned into months; despite the fact that NATO’s mission has lurched from one goal to another; despite the fact that Obama ignored his own lawyers when they suggested that the war was illegal; despite unusual bipartisan opposition in Congress; despite periodic reports of an ominous Islamist strain within the rebel ranks; and despite the fact that some NATO commanders are now suggesting that ground troops might be needed in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall to keep the peace, the number of Democrats who approve of the war has actually increased since it started. Who knows? If it drags on through the end of the year, he might end up with 60 percent approval from his base.

Update: You know, in a way, I admire their shamelessness here. The NYT editorial board isn’t stupid; surely they know how preposterous it is for them to be taking a line this hawkish (especially on a war as compromised as this one is) after the past eight years. But darn if they didn’t do it to help Obama out. No pretense of consistency or neutral principles, just raw partisanship. There’s honesty in that, as hackish as it is.

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

At first I was really confused why Bachman, West, and Paul all voted against defunding today. But it makes a lot more sense after watching this.

poorrichardsnews on June 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

This war has made it pretty clear that we can expect partisan support or opposition to wars.

taney71 on June 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

we will not falter, when a Dem is President.

rob verdi on June 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

What’s wrong with the Times? Don’t they know it’s not a war???

Wander on June 24, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Blood for oil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Obama 2012

rob verdi on June 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Cowardly, no doubt.

rob verdi on June 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Everyone together now:

Not anti-war.

Anti-Bush.

Anti-Republican.

Anti-Conservative.

Not anti-war.

amerpundit on June 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Someone should let the Times know that the U.S. has no credibility to lose.

Bowing to your enemies will do that to a nation.

This has been an especially bad week to be an American.

turfmann on June 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Lazy cowards…!

d1carter on June 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Not anti-war.

Anti-Bush.

Anti-Republican.

Anti-Conservative.

Not anti-war.

amerpundit on June 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM

This. I don’t think anyone here will be surprised.

Washington Nearsider on June 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Despite the fact that “days, not weeks” has turned into months; despite the fact that NATO’s mission has lurched from one goal to another; despite the fact that Obama ignored his own lawyers when they suggested that the war was illegal; despite unusual bipartisan opposition in Congress; despite periodic reports of an ominous Islamist strain within the rebel ranks; and despite the fact that some NATO commanders are now suggesting that ground troops might be needed in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall to keep the peace, the number of Democrats who approve of the war has actually increased since it started.

It’s called circling the wagons. Well that and sticking your head up where the sun don’t shine. Democrats can never admit to themselves that A)they were sold a bill of goods with Obama and B)that everything they claimed to be against in the past decade was simply for political purposes(and bitterness over Florida in 2000).

Doughboy on June 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

The Dems aren’t anti-war. They just don’t like the ones they don’t start themselves or have control over.

Elect a Republican president next election and they’ll be having a hissy fit about Libya before the Inaugural Balls are over.

trigon on June 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

The following Republicans voted against smacking down Obama on this illegal war because the bill was bad?

1. Brooks, R-AL
2. Crawford, R-AR
3. Griffin, R-AR
4. Flake, R-AZ
5. Franks, R-AZ
6. Gosar, R-AZ
7. Quayle, R-AZ
8. Campbell, R-CA
9. Dreier, R-CA
10. Issa, R-CA
11. McClintock, R-CA
12. Rohrabacher, R-CA
13. Royce, R-CA
14. Gardner, R-CO
15. Tipton, R-CO
16. Adams, R-FL
17. Diaz-Balart, R-FL
18. Nugent, R-FL
19. Posey, R-FL
20. Rivera, R-FL
21. Ross, R-FL
22. Southerland, R-FL
23. Stearns, R-FL
24. West, R-FL
25. Broun, R-GA
26. Graves, R-GA
27. Westmoreland, R-GA
28. King, R-IA
29. Labrador, R-ID
30. Biggert, R-IL
31. Dold, R-IL
32. Hultgren, R-IL
33. Johnson, R-IL
34. Kinzinger, R-IL
35. Manzullo, R-IL
36. Roskam, R-IL
37. Schock, R-IL
38. Walsh, R-IL
39. Burton, R-IN
40. Pence, R-IN
41. Rokita, R-IN
42. Stutzman, R-IN
43. Huelskamp, R-KS
44. Pompeo, R-KS
45. Landry, R-LA
46. Bartlett, R-MD
47. Amash, R-MI
48. McCotter, R-MI
49. Miller, R-MI
50. Rogers, R-MI
51. Bachmann, R-MN
52. Paulsen, R-MN
53. Ellmers, R-NC
54. Jones, R-NC
55. McHenry, R-NC
56. Guinta, R-NH
57. Garrett, R-NJ
58. Lance, R-NJ
59. Smith, R-NJ
60. Pearce, R-NM
61. Heck, R-NV
62. Buerkle, R-NY
63. Hanna, R-NY
64. King, R-NY
65. LaTourette, R-OH
66. Cole, R-OK
67. Lankford, R-OK
68. Sullivan, R-OK
69. Dent, R-PA
70. Pitts, R-PA
71. Thompson, R-PA
72. Duncan, R-SC
73. Gowdy, R-SC
74. Mulvaney, R-SC
75. Scott, R-SC
76. Blackburn, R-TN
77. Duncan, R-TN
78. Fincher, R-TN
79. Burgess, R-TX
80. Canseco, R-TX
81. Carter, R-TX
82. Johnson, R-TX
83. Marchant, R-TX
84. Paul, R-TX
85. Poe, R-TX
86. Chaffetz, R-UT
87. Ryan, R-WI
88. Sensenbrenner, R-WI
89. Lummis, R-WY

What part of DEFUND OBAMA NOW, and DEFUND OBAMA LATER

Is so hard to understand?

Boehner EPIC FAIL for allowing this to go to the floor if it was so bad.

What happened? Obama let you tee off first?

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM

At first I was really confused why Bachman, West, and Paul all voted against defunding today. But it makes a lot more sense after watching this.

poorrichardsnews on June 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Wow–gotta admit that crazy Ron kicked some serious butt there.

ElectricPhase on June 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM

This isn’t even the most embarrassing thing in the Times today.

That entire “newspaper” is embarrassing on a daily basis.

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2011 at 5:41 PM

NYT’s following the Soviet model of hitting objective journalism right out of the park.

At least the reputation of our military is safe when they are fighting and dying under a Marxist president.

Hening on June 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM

So let me get this straight.Bailing out of Libya is bad and bailing out of Afghanistan is good?Okay. Libya is supposedly not a “war” so what exactly are we doing there spending 9.2 million dollars a day?Also telling the Taliban when we are leaving Afghaistan is good? Words fail me…..

sandee on June 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM

“At first I was really confused why Bachman, West, and Paul all voted against defunding today. But it makes a lot more sense after watching this.

poorrichardsnews on June 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM”

Low hanging fruit for Spathi…

… Do you know what you have done?

/

Seven Percent Solution on June 24, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Wow–gotta admit that crazy Ron kicked some serious butt there.

ElectricPhase on June 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM

When he’s right, he’s REALLY right.

If I could somehow cure his crazy half he would likely be one of our best representatives.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 24, 2011 at 5:43 PM

OUT: Cut and Run
IN: Resolve

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 5:43 PM

“Nuke their ass , take their gas!” NYT.

Change.

the_nile on June 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM

ElectricPhase on June 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Ron Paul gives moonbats a bad name

Gates offers grim account of NATO’s Libya efforts

Among the problems Gates cited:

-Two of the alliances smaller members, Denmark and Norway, are conducting 30 percent of the bombing missions aimed at Gadhafi forces. “While every member voted for the Libya mission,” less than half of NATO’s 28 members have participated in the campaign, Gates said.

-Pilots flying the world’s best fighter jets can’t find targets because they don’t have the proper intelligence. “The most advanced fighter aircraft are of little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign,” he said.

-The NATO control center where the Libyan missions are planned is strapped and can barely handle the 150 sorties that aircraft are flying daily against Libya – only half the number of missions the center is designed to handle, Gates said. Even that required “a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the U.S., to do the job – a ‘just in time’ infusion of personnel that may not always be available in future contingencies,” he added.

-The mission is running short of bombs and missiles and is having to turn to the United States for new supplies, even though Gadhafi’s Libya is “a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country.”

What’s wrong with DEFUND NOW AND DEFUND LATER?

149 Republicans who voted TO DEFUND are wrong and 89 Republicans who voted for Obama are right???

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM

“NYT on Libya: Bailing out of a war before it’s won will hurt U.S. credibility”

.
This is proof that journalists are stupid.
.
Chisel it in marble.
.
This war should have been concluded not more than 10 days after the first US involvement.
.
That it was not concluded then, and is still going on, is testimony to JEF’s incompetence. And it is damaging US credibility … if we’re still fighting Moamar the Whacky, who should be afraid of us?

Arbalest on June 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Okay, let me get this straight. We shouldn’t bail out of the Libya war, that really isn’t a war, that we are fighting for what reason, without Congressional approval? However, we should have bailed out of Iraq when it wasn’t yet won, when Bush was in charge, and now we should bail out of Afganistan, which isn’t yet won either? The latter two are legitimate conflicts in the war on terror, which were approved by Congress, so what gives idiot liberal media?

Can you be any more hypocritical N Y Times?

Susanboo on June 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Wasn’t it Bill Keller that said:

one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter

Kini on June 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

The NYT editorial board isn’t stupid…

You wanna bet?

No pretense of consistency or neutral principles, just raw partisanship. There’s honesty in that, as hackish as it is.

No pretense of integrity either. But hey, I don’t expect any from the NYT.

tgharris on June 24, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Outside of the fact he needs to be committed for electro shock twice every 3 months to tame his foreign policy insanity – he’s fantastic.

rickyricardo on June 24, 2011 at 5:50 PM

This is amazing. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this kind of blatant flip-flopping hypocrisy in my life.

The people who used to complain that their patriotism was being questioned are now questioning people’s patriotism.

The people who used to claim that launching unprovoked wars was unconstitutional are now launching unprovoked wars.

The people who used to say that we needed to cut and run are now saying that it is irresponsible to cut and run.

You would think they would at least be a little ashamed to expose themselves as that hypocritical, but they don’t seem the least bit bothered by it. It’s unreal.

As someone said before, there never was an anti-war movement in this country. There was just an anti-Bush movement.

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Personally, I though this was a gutsy call by the NYT.
/

pain train on June 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM

But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous.

Of course, since it’s the New York Times, they consider that to be a Good Thing (TM).

malclave on June 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

The best reason for getting out is the ‘NY Times’ saying “stay in.”

MaiDee on June 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

“Nuke their ass , take their gas!” NYT.

Change.

the_nile on June 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM

General Betrayus

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I suppose the NYT’s simply doesn’t care to hide it anymore … not that they ever really did anyway.

darwin on June 24, 2011 at 5:55 PM

America needs to fear it when the NYT is advocating on behalf of our most dangerous enemies.

Please conservatives (I no longer say GOP)call these leftist media folks what they are -the enemy of America. Time mag wants to talk us out of our Constitution. The commies are out of the closet now and boldly going for the entire take down of our nation.

Don L on June 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM

This war should have been concluded not more than 10 days after the first US involvement.
.
That it was not concluded then, and is still going on, is testimony to JEF’s incompetence. And it is damaging US credibility … if we’re still fighting Moamar the Whacky, who should be afraid of us?

Arbalest on June 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

This is a great point. Obama thought that this would show how effective international institutions like NATO and the UN are at handling a crisis.

Doesn’t it just show the opposite? Doesn’t this just show how impotent NATO is if we are not leading the charge? I think this has undermined NATO’s credibility.

Seriously, if the combined might of the NATO alliance can be stymied by a tin-pot dictator like Qadaffi, what do you think Ahmadinejad and Putin are thinking? The oldtimers in Russia have got to be thinking: WTF? We lost to these guys?

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Bailing out of a war before it’s won will hurt U.S. credibility?

Couple of comments.

First, was this the NYT policy in 1968? Or 2003?

Second, I thought Obama said it wasn’t a war but some kind of kenetic action?

Third, starting a war for no good reason does nothing at all to enhance US credibility, especially if we start one and can’t even get the advantage on a tinpot dictator (who has to buy his mercenaries from unemployed misc. African armies) after several months of throwing our best technical resources into the campaign.

This Obama-Libyan war is the stuff of textbooks…how not to engage in warfare.

And, a question for the NYT…where is Code Pink these days? Shouldn’t this naked aggression at least get some token protests?

coldwarrior on June 24, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Wasn’t it Bill Keller that said:

one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter

Kini on June 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM

No, Bill Keller refuses to use the T Word, and that’s based on personal anecdotal evidence.

Back in the late 1990s, I actually had a fascinating e-mail exchange with Mr. Keller. This was back in the days of the Usenet newsgroups. Remember those?

Anyway, I told Keller I’d been a daily reader of the NYT since the mid 1960s, and asked him several questions about the paper. He answered all of them thoughtfully, except for one, which he refused to answer.

Said question went basically like this:

“Dating back to at least the 1950s, the NY Times regularly referred to the bad guys as “Terrorists”, especially on Page 1. Yet sometime in the early 1990s, the NYT mysteriously stopped using that word. Why?”

As I said, it was the only question I asked that Keller refused to answer. Wonder why?

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM

This is amazing. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this kind of blatant flip-flopping hypocrisy in my life.
The people who used to complain that their patriotism was being questioned are now questioning people’s patriotism.

The people who used to claim that launching unprovoked wars was unconstitutional are now launching unprovoked wars.

The people who used to say that we needed to cut and run are now saying that it is irresponsible to cut and run.

You would think they would at least be a little ashamed to expose themselves as that hypocritical, but they don’t seem the least bit bothered by it. It’s unreal.

As someone said before, there never was an anti-war movement in this country. There was just an anti-Bush movement.

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

You must understand that hypocrisy to a leftist is a badge of honor.

Don L on June 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Seriously, if the combined might of the NATO alliance can be stymied by a tin-pot dictator like Qadaffi, what do you think Ahmadinejad and Putin are thinking? The oldtimers in Russia have got to be thinking: WTF? We lost to these guys?

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM

PAYBACK if it takes 50 years.

We need a new GOP that has ballz.

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM

“Dating back to at least the 1950s, the NY Times regularly referred to the bad guys as “Terrorists”, especially on Page 1. Yet sometime in the early 1990s, the NYT mysteriously stopped using that word. Why?”

As I said, it was the only question I asked that Keller refused to answer. Wonder why?

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Before or after the first World Trade Center bombing?

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 6:01 PM

They are shameless. No doubt about it.

However, it would be a bad idea to just bail out on this mission. But then again bailing out on Iraq would have been worse and Bush had all the legal backing in the world that he could need. Was that enough for the Times? Hell no. They could have cared less.

Terrye on June 24, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Well, I said earlier that the vote today would be treated as de facto congressional approval. I turn on special report right now and wham: Hillary is out there touting the results of the vote. She even emphasized how decisive the vote was to reject limiting funding for the war.

Well done, Boehner, well done.

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM

But darn if they didn’t do it to help Obama out. No pretense of consistency or neutral principles, just raw partisanship. There’s honesty in that, as hackish as it is.

Someone has to be the Number One Obama asscrawler!

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Well, I said earlier that the vote today would be treated as de facto congressional approval. I turn on special report right now and wham: Hillary is out there touting the results of the vote. She even emphasized how decisive the vote was to reject limiting funding for the war.

Well done, Boehner, well done.

JohnInCA on June 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Wait until the Obama Re-Election ads start with support from 89 Republicans on his handling of the war.

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM

However, it would be a bad idea to just bail out on this mission. But then again bailing out on Iraq would have been worse and Bush had all the legal backing in the world that he could need. Was that enough for the Times? Hell no. They could have cared less.

Terrye on June 24, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Terrye, what is our mission?To kill Qaddafi?Was that the agreed upon “mission” in the UN edict? No, I don’t think so. They were only supposed to protect the citizens of Libya and enforce a no-fly zone. This is not what they are doing. They are after Quadafi. . Assassinating the leader of a Sovereign nation is serious stuff. If this is okay why not Syria then?

sandee on June 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Thankfully, some Senate Republicans also seem to understand the importance of the United States following through on its national security commitments.

What “national security”? Quadafi was a pimple on the world’s azz. Now, Obama raised his profile to a potential real terrorist.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2011 at 6:11 PM

This has been an especially bad week to be an American.

turfmann on June 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

That’s what I thought last week. And the week before. Yet somehow Barry always manages to hit a new low.

As for the NY Times, I find it coming in handy as I house train the little pisspot puppy that I unwillingly adopted recently.

Naturally Curly on June 24, 2011 at 6:12 PM

However, it would be a bad idea to just bail out on this mission.

Terrye on June 24, 2011 at 6:02 PM

What is the stated mission?

Do you even know???

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 6:13 PM

I would be a lot more worried about tne NYT switching sides on the Hawk/Dove spectrum if the Republicans weren’t doing pretty much the same thing. Qadaffi is every bit as vile as Saddam and has actually directly sponsored terrorism against the US and her allies. Obama needs to make this war legal, but Republicans in Congress need to make it clear that they support such a proposal.

The problem here isn’t that we shouldn’t be fighting in Libya, but that we shouldn’t be doing it in such a half-hearted way. Arguably Obama, like Carter, Johnson and maybe even Kennedy and Truman before him, may be the wrong man or at least the of wrong party to credibly conduct a foreign war. But that needs to be our argument in 2012, not today. Now we are engaged with a despicable enemy and we need to pull out the stops or Libya, rather than Iraq, will turn out to be our new Vietnam.

JackOfClubs on June 24, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Where have you people been?

In light of all the Cult of Personality overtones in this guy’s presence, this surprises you? Look at the last two decades in the media.

Give it another oh, about ten years.

We are about to go bankrupt as a country while illegal, fatherless and nonwhite births are about to become the majority.

I do better when I don’t spot the trends.

IlikedAUH2O on June 24, 2011 at 6:20 PM

The solution to this problem isn’t for America to fight an unnecessary war without cause to the bitter end. We shouldn’t be killing people and getting mixed up in civil wars just to save face for one man. Obama and the NYT could kill every last person in Libya if they wanted to but it still would not conceal the real problem, Obama’s incompetence. There is only one solution to that problem, replace Obama, and the most immediate way to accomplish that task is, for the good of the nation, Obama were to resign.

FloatingRock on June 24, 2011 at 6:26 PM

You hope the NYT realizes the preposterousness of their argument, more likely they have such short term memories and are so beholden to the liberals that they know it and don’t care. All that matters is the republicans can’t win

Defector01 on June 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM

AP you sound a little pissed in you UPDATE:

Mord on June 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM

No pretense of consistency or neutral principles, just raw partisanship. There’s honesty in that, as hackish as it is.

We really, really need to let the NYT and the MSM pick our candidates for us. Go Romney!

FloatingRock on June 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM

We really, really need to let the NYT and the MSM pick our candidates for us. Go Romney!

FloatingRock on June 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Resistance is futile

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM

The solution to this problem isn’t for America to fight an unnecessary war without cause to the bitter end. We shouldn’t be killing people and getting mixed up in civil wars just to save face for one man.

FloatingRock on June 24, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Hell yes. Especially when the ‘man’ in question is the most worthless ‘leader’ ever elected to the office of President.

We do not need to send our soldiers to die for no good reason, much less to sooth the ego of this Grade-A a$$hat.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 24, 2011 at 6:56 PM

New York Times, all the war-mongering that’s fit to print. Depending.

curved space on June 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Of course, the NY Slimes and Walter Cronkite had no interest in the nation winning the Vietnam War and every interest in the enemy succeeding.

viking01 on June 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM

four legs good
two legs bad

is now

four legs good
two legs better

Whatever. Keep lying to yourselves and try not to think of the day when the bill for all the lies will come due…

moc23 on June 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM

The NYT MoT:

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia said that staying the course was the best policy.

We’ve never been at war with Eurasia said that troops should be brought home before victory is achieved.

Left Coast Right Mind on June 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM

The NYT editorial board isn’t stupid

You really think that? Love to hear your definition of stupid…

winston on June 24, 2011 at 8:32 PM

The next thing you know, the NY Times will be refusing to publish leaked state secrets because it would put our fighting forces at risk and harm the mission.

PatMac on June 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Before or after the first World Trade Center bombing?

Roy Rogers on June 24, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Definitely after.

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2011 at 8:58 PM

FYI I would recommend Clay Waters’ NY Times blog. He’s also a contributor at NewsBusters.

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM

First Obama screws up the MoH recipients name and now this. I’m going to bash my head in if I keep on doing a *facedesk* at all this stupid.

Yakko77 on June 24, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Bailing out of a war before it’s won will hurt U.S. credibility

Soooooo….we shouldn’t pull troops out of Afghanistan????

(Liberals have SO much trouble with “logic” and “consistency”!!)

landlines on June 24, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Which ‘war’ would that be, NYT? We’re in so many these days, you need to be more specific. How do the Repubs manage to be so incompetent would be a better story. They can’t pass a defund it now bill after all the talk about how tough they were going to be and then fail.

Kissmygrits on June 25, 2011 at 9:47 AM

bailing out of a war before it is won is about as bad as entering one without Congress approving it. So, that means we will be in the Middle East for the next one thousand years. The Arab Tribes have fought each other from the beginning of time and will be as the Earth dies in another million years or so. If a war is to be won, you have to establish what winning is before you get involved. Afghanistan was for the purpose of finding and killing Osama, that has been accomplished. I say we leave there like we left Vietnam, I think it took less than a year.

old war horse on June 25, 2011 at 10:06 AM

It is my opinion that President Obama has done what every Demoncratic President has done since FDR in defending U.S..

Specifically, earned U.S. an Honorable Mention for showing up.

MSGTAS on June 26, 2011 at 9:34 AM