The surge is working and we can create stability in Iraq — so says an editorial in the New York Times!
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
It’s from the Brookings Institution which I don’t know anything about — but they sound smart. As the drinker of puppy would say, “Read the whole thing.”
As I’ve long said, we have the greatest military that ever existed and it’s perfectly capable of winning conflicts if people back home don’t whine so much. Even though we’re not getting shot at or asked to make any sacrifice at all, people here in America just can’t help but whine. I guess we have whining, bitching, moaning culture. Even so, the military is still very good at shooting bad people. God bless them.
I’m conflicted, I support the war in Iraq but I hate agreeing with the NYT..
Damn, if this surge keeps working the New York Times will soon have to find a new group to cower before while denouncing America.
Why would the NY Times publish this if they want the Islamofascists to win?
Maybe they don’t hate freedom (and liberty) as much as you thought.
Thompson/Petraeus – 2008
Lies! All lies!
ChimpBusHitler has finally rounded up the NYT employees and put them in the camps.
I bet tomorrow the NYT will report that the economy isn’t worse than the Depression.
But it is!!!!!
(And if things are better in Iraq, it’s because of the brilliant leadership of our Democratic Congress!)
You bunch of neo-con chickenhawks!!11!!!1!
Hail Satan!
(and Ron Paul)
Monkey Faced Liberal
I’m conflicted, I support the war in Iraq but I hate agreeing with the NYT.
Don’t worry, it’s Brookings saying this (it’s a lefty think tank, though not a rabidly lefty one, and pretty well respected which is why they got published) – the NYT likely still has the same position as always. It’s interesting to see this coming from Brookings and I’ll admit I’m surprised to see the Times publishing this, but maybe even they realize how shrill they sound occasionally.
“Thompson/Petraeus – 2008”
Now there’s a thought . . .
We send our best and brightest overseas to get their asses shot off for very little reward financially and our society idolizes pricks like Michael Vick and Lindsay Lohan! We have elected politicians that are not deserving of the sacrifice that these brave souls make every single day and our media is run by people who couldn’t care less about victory or defeat as long as they get their leftist agenda advanced a little further each day! They can keep trying to cram it down our throats but there are many of us who aren’t going to swallow…sorry in light of Monica that’s a bad analogy…
Great post Frank! Tell the next Service Man or Woman you see on the street Thanks for their service. It means a lot to them and they should mean even more to every one of us!
Once a decade or so, the NYT publishes a mildly moderate view. This is not to be confused with the official editorial position which is still “lose or else!” This article is merely a tool to be used as a reference for the next 10 years to illustrate the objectivity of the paper. Normal left-leaning screed will return tomorrow.
You sure you weren’t talking about tarps?
Didn’t someone with a southern accent say a few years ago that the fight would be long and difficult, brave men & women would sacrifice their lives, BUT that the U.S. led coalition, APPROVED by Congress, would prevail? Hmmmm…didn’t lose credibility in my eyes NYT.
Hillary’s percieved pro-war stance is now backed up by the illustrious Brookings Institution – so she seems to have more gravitas – and Obama’s credibility on Iraq is destroyed.
Obama had been getting in Hillary’s face and getting downright uppity against her Thighness. Thus his credibility had to be destroyed. A phone call to old friends and he was taken care of.
This has nothing to do with NYT’s stance on the war, it’s entirely to do with SOCCER, ’cause as we all know soccer is a totally gay sport and the NYT will always support anything totally gay. They want Iraqi’s to play this totally gay sport and the only way they can do this well is if they are a free democracy.
And that’s all I have to say about that.