The NYT Waxes Poetic About Post-Withdrawal Genocide In Iraq

Jules Crittendon notes an incomprehensible editorial by the New York Times.

The NYT says that an American withdrawal could make Iraq "bloodier" and "more chaotic" and invite "power grabs" by Iran. And yet, despite this statement that a withdrawal will make Iraq worse off, they then assert:

. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.

Ah. So if we leave, Iraq will become worse, but we must be "honest" about the fact that keeping our troops there will also "make things worse."

Crittendon summarizes the next bit of contradictory dogfood logic:

NYT in remarkable admission says surrender-happy Democrats are “foolish” for thinking a forced withdrawal date will prompt the Iraqi government and its neighbors to “finally focus … on reality.” But, NYT goes on to state foolishly, a forced withdrawal date might prompt Iraq and its neighbors to finally focus on reality...

The left has a tricky mission here: In order to sound like they're not coming from cloud cuckoo land, they have to acknowledge that a withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, which the vicious lying demagogue Bush also asserts. But, having conceded a defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, they then have to go on to argue that this catastrophic defeat would actually, somehow, be in the American interest, and such a catastrophic failure could even be a success of sorts.

The American public doesn't like the war, but they also don't like losing wars. So the left is making this absurd argument that somehow we "win" by surrender.

If that were the case, France would rule the world.

More at Hot Air, which also takes on the NYT's "Public Editor"/True Believer Shill Clark Hoyt.

He finally finds fault with the NYT -- agreeing with the far-left of the blogosphere that the NYT has been excessive in branding Al Qaeda in Iraq as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

What a shock, huh?

posted by Ace at 01:41 PM

| Access Comments