Jul 20 2007

NY Times Bureau Chief Says US Critical To Iraq Stability

Published by at 2:17 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

I am off for a bit of a vacation weekend, so my apologies if comments get stuck in the spam queues. But I will leave knowing some at the NY Times finally see the light and realize America is playing a critical role in stabiltizing Iraq and inhibiting violence:

Well, I think, quite simply that the United States armed forces here — and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds — the United States armed forces are a very important inhibitor against violence. I know it`s argued by some people that they provoke the violence. I simply don`t believe that to be in the main true. I think it`s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence. Remove them or at least remove them quickly, and it seems to me — controversial as this may seem to be saying in the present circumstances, while I know there`s this agonizing debate going on in the United States about this — that you have to weigh the price. And the price would very likely be very, very high levels of violence, at least in the short run and perhaps, perhaps – perhaps for quite a considerable period of time.

Stay the course, see this through, drive for success. So ‘controversial’ but true. And achievable.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “NY Times Bureau Chief Says US Critical To Iraq Stability”

  1. WWS says:

    Of course, Obama says “genocide? Not my problem!!!” and I guess that’s that.

  2. Terrye says:

    Yes, Jules Crittenden has a post up on Obama’s remarks.. I was shocked, to be truthful. Now they decide that genocide is not a big deal.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    I can see it all now .

    Pres Hillary sends VP Obama on a mission to Pakistan then Osama (or some other tall dark guy in a sheet) gets the Predator treatment with a hellfire missile.

    VP takes extended tour of the Indian subcontinent….film at 11.

  4. MerlinOS2 says:

    Meanwhile in other news

    The ashes of VP Oboma were discovered in Marcy Park where he evidently in a fit of delusion poured gas on himself and did the Buddhist Monk thingy.

    Police are still at a loss of how he managed to fit himself into that small urn.

  5. Mike435 says:


    One question, one word – Darfor. Is this now no longer important as well?


  6. Terrye says:

    I saw over at Beitbart some article in the NYT, about the president having to explain tothe American people how he will get the troops out after “unleashing” this bloodbath and the one to follow. So the explanation is clear, it does not matter how many Iraqis die…so long as we can blame the deaths on Bush it is all good.

  7. Dc says:

    It makes perfect sense really. The worst case of genocide in modern history (Riwanda) took place under Clinton’s nose. He says…in retrospect..(if there even IS such a thing for a democrat)…that this was his one regreat —ie., not intervening uniltaterally in Riwanda (given the UN was not going to agree to do anything).

    The “lefties”, mostly use “intellect” they are so proud of, to remove all context from everything..until there is only intellectual argument..and no morality left.

    In that regard…the persons who commit crimes…are thought of as having “rights”..whereas ..the persons defending themsevles against such crimes..are thought of as criminals. (in a DNC mindset).

    To them, a person who breaks into your home, rapes your daughter and kills her….is not different than the homeowner who shoots an intruder in their house. They both have killed. And the guy with the BMW and an innocent daughter is probably the better target.

    The way they look at it..is to remove all moral or any other context (including if a crime was committed) and say..that both people killed someone. And of cousre..if “anybody” should have rights under such circumstances..it should be the criminals (or accused), less fortunate, or they will simply decide based on racial or other factors who the disenfranchised should be…and assign a kill for free card.

    They do the same with every argument they make. Of course, if you remove any context….Osama kills people…we have killed people in the context of this war…therefore..we = same thing. WRONG. There fore..Bush..is the worlds greatest terrorist.

    It’s quite simple (so long as you remove any and all context).