New York Climbs
NYT Editorial Board talks tough again, but adds a remarkably clever twist, having seen the surge news out of Iraq isn’t going its way:
President Bush lost touch long ago with Iraq’s political reality — not to mention Americans’ anguish and disbelief at his mismanagement of the war. So we welcome the House of Representatives’ long-overdue attempt to shake some sense into Mr. Bush with a resolution opposing his decision to send another 20,000 combat troops to fight this disastrous war without any plan to end it.
Yet yesterday’s vote, in which 17 Republicans joined the Democrats to produce a margin of 246 to 182, was the easy part. It takes no great courage or creativity for a politician to express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly unpopular and unpromising military escalation. Even if the Senate manages to overcome its procedural self-hobbling and approve a similar resolution, the war and the mismanagement will go on.
Courage is an interesting word for that display of gutlessness, particularly the hypocritical suckup “support the troops” part they used as a preamble to the “shaft the troops” part. Except that the supporters of this non-binding resolution lacked even the guts to do that. Nor, I suspect, will they develop the fortitude to carry it out.
So now even the New York Times is distancing itself from Murtha’s insane extortion, with this clever ploy:
Congress’s overriding goal must be to find the most responsible way to extricate American troops from what is becoming an increasingly unwinnable war, while trying to contain the suffering and minimizing the damage to American interests in the region.
Instead of camouflaged troop squeezes, Congress needs to grasp the problem straight on and do what the administration won’t do. It must impose tough requirements and deadlines on the Iraqi government, and link the future of all American troops in Iraq to the timely achievement of these goals.
The editorial kicks the crap out of George Bush, and yet, near as I can tell, has just endorsed his surge strategy and wants after its own fashion to climb onboard. Let Bush do his thing, clamor for deadlines on goals that Bush and the Iraqi government are already the way to achieving, and then claim the victory. Very impressive piece of editorializing. I think we’ve just seen the future. George Bush is magnanimous enough to play along.
Only one problem. The minute some narrowly defined goal is achieved, the New York Times wants us to pull the troops out. No can do. US troops will have to be in Iraq for many years to come, just as they have stayed in Germany and Japan. The cessation of hostilities does not mean the war is over. The war just shifts a little.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post does its own Murtha smackdown, seizing on his remark that the NBR (non-binding resolution) was not the “real vote.” WaPo doesn’t like Murtha’s crazy and dangerous ideas, and says yes the NBR was the real vote. It gave the anti-war crowd their big opportunity to send George Bush a really strong message. They’re mad as heck and they won’t take it anymore.
Right for the wrong reason, WaPo. It was the real vote, not because it was a formal yammerfest for Bush to ignore as he has the informal yammering, but because they’ll never agree on anything more meaningful than that, and events are already pulling away from them.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:10 pm on Saturday, February 17, 2007
6 Responses to “New York Climbs”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Sounds like NYT is trying for a “Tails-I-win-heads-you-lose” strategy. Except, of course, for their desire to cut and run at the first possible excuse. Unless “I = NYT” and “you = America”. Or possibly “you = Iraq”…..it’s hard to tell some days. In any case, they don’t need to cut and run, they will merely attempt to occupy the morale high ground and further complain.
But you are correct, there will be an American presence in Iraq for years to come; Iraq will likely become our next Europe. It’s hardly a coincidence that we are drawing down our forces in Europe (aside from the fact that we haven’t been needed there — beyond a token presence) for at least 10 years.
As for Congress…..that institution seriously needs to remove its collective head from its collective butt. I know, the Democrats are leading the charge, but all of them need to regenerate a spine. Fight the war in Iraq, not in the NYT editorial pages.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:04 am
You’ve got to love the bit about the Senate’s “procedural self-hobbling” though, considering all the editorials about judicial filibusters. But they’re not biased–no siree.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:32 am
New York Climbs
New York Climbs Jules Crittenden NYT Editorial Board talks tough again, but adds a remarkably clever twist, having seen the surge news out of Iraq isn’t going its way: President Bush lost touch long ago with Iraq’s political reality —
February 18th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Bill’s Nibbles — 2007.02.18
Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the items within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the
February 18th, 2007 at 7:07 am
This is a lot like the Wapo oped slamming Murtha after the fact. I read that and thought, Why now? He was a moron 6 months ago too.
In truth if it were left to NYT there would not be any Iraqi government there to meet the bench marks. There would just be Saddam dressed like Al Capone standing on a balcony shooting off his AK while he laughed at the UN, the US the dead Kurds and Shia, as well as the useful idiots of the editorial board at the NYT.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:14 am
They’re caught in a dilemma, the Defeatocrats and their enablers. They’ve been bleating “Vietnam” for so long, they can’t back down now and admit that this isn’t Vietnam, or 1968. It would be too humiliating.