The Sunday New York Times Editorial on “Democrats and Iraq” contained significant omisions that were stunning for one of the world’s leading newspapers. It was impossible to let slide, the media has simply gotten too lazy for words. Here’s the piece of my mind I sent them.
The NYT editorial, “Democrats and Iraq” on 11/12 suggests that the Democrats only have slogans for getting out of Iraq, but no real policy. It cites the “most common call” – phased redeployment- as “a euphemism for withdrawal.”
Redeployment is not a euphemism, it is a moderation of withdrawal; which could be any amount of time. There have been more specific plans developed by Sen.John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep Jack Murtha (D-PA). Both were clear that the redeployments should be tied to certain benchmarks and must be flexible for events not anticipated.
Redeploying American troops to some of the large bases would leave them in country but not where they continue to trigger the insurgent response. Should a larger force be needed in a specific area to help the Iraqis contain violence, it could be moved quickly. Some could be sent to Kuwait and other bases in the region.
Given the American troop presence is actually increasing the violence, there have also been suggestions to bring in peace keeping troops from other countries that are exactly that – peace keeping, letting the Iraqi army focus on containing the insurgent and sectarian violence. Kerry has been calling for a Dayton Accord type summit since the ’04 campaign.
Most Democrats are also skeptical of Sen. Joe Biden’s idea to divide Iraq. I know of very little support for it, any chance you could tell me where you found some? Or why you chose to attribute this to ‘some Democrats’ when it originated with Biden?
So much for the slogans. What is your definition of ‘real policy’? Why doesn’t the Real Security Act of 2006 meet it?
Since you forgot, it was sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and was killed on 9/13/06 by an almost straight party-line vote in the Senate. 528 pages of legislation, it offered in the amendment purpose, “to provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror.” (That would include the part about how to get out of Iraq.)
Please do read it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4936:
It is disillusioning to find THE New York Times could base an editorial on so much ignorance.
The editorial continues a theme I find absurd. The election was 435 house races and 33 Senate. Was each of those candidates supposed to come up with a plan for getting out of Iraq? Were the candidates running against incumbents supposed to have enough knowledge of the situation to either have a plan or know whether the previous Democratic plans were something they would endorse during the campaign? It’s not like Iraq has been anything but new developments for years. What’s the point of coming up with a plan in September that is unlikely to be appropriate in January?
Even my 81 year old mother can navigate the Internet enough to research what she wants to. The blogosphere runs on the efforts of volunteers who chase down details over the world wide web and pass them on to other media skeptical information junkies. The question remains as to whether the MSM will start becoming the force we once thought it was any time in the near future. It will most likely depend on a majority of Americans figuring out they are paying for omissions, distortions, misinformation and are just about as ignorant as the illiterate.