Democrats & Liberal Media Demand Mass Slaughter!
Quick… What has the Democratic Party or liberal media done to help the US win the War in Iraq?
3… 2… 1… Time’s up!
If you’re following the news this week you’d notice how the media is again escalating the surrender talk.
** For Example: Check out this post at BlackFive– a WashPo writer, Kiki Munshi, paints a doom and gloom picture of the horrible conditions on the ground in Baqubah… while sunning in California!
Sick… In the same breath that the NYT calls for withdrawal, it admits there will be mass slaughter!
From today’s NYT:
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit…
…Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
Here is the most telling line from the NYT’s editorial that proves this news organization has lost its collective ability to understand what’s going on outside their liberal bubble:
It (Iraq) is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists.
Is it any wonder why the NYT is in the financial bind it is in?
Jules has much more on the “genocide preferred” by the editorial staff at the NY Times.
Meanwhile… In contrast to the NYT, Natan Sharansky shows actual concern for the people involved in his article at the Washington Post:
Iraqis call Ali Hassan al-Majeed “Chemical Ali,” and few wept when the notorious former general received five death sentences last month for ordering the use of nerve agents against his government’s Kurdish citizens in the late 1980s. His trial came as a reckoning and a reminder — summoning up the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule even as it underscored the way today’s heated Iraq debates in Washington have left the key issue of human rights on the sidelines. People of goodwill can certainly disagree over how to handle Iraq, but human rights should be part of any responsible calculus. Unfortunately, some leaders continue to play down the gross violations in Iraq under Hussein’s republic of fear and ignore the potential for a human rights catastrophe should the United States withdraw.
As the hideous violence in Iraq continues, it has become increasingly common to hear people argue that the world was better off with Hussein in power and (even more remarkably) that Iraqis were better off under his fist. In his final interview as U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan acknowledged that Iraq “had a dictator who was brutal” but said that Iraqis under the Baathist dictatorship “had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school.”
In a face-to-face national poll of 5,019 people conducted this spring by Opinion Research Business, a British market-research firm, only 27 percent of Iraqis said they believed that “that their country is actually in a state of civil war,” and by nearly 2 to 1 (49 percent to 26 percent), the Iraqis surveyed said they preferred life under their new government to life under the old tyranny. That is why, at a time when many Americans are abandoning the vision of a democratic Iraq, most Iraqis still cling to the hope of a better future.
No one can know for sure whether President Bush’s “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq will succeed. But those who believe that human rights should play a central role in international affairs should be doing everything in their power to maximize the chances that it will. For one of the consequences of failure could well be catastrophe.
Sharansky, as usual, is right on with his assessment.
Hat Tip American Freedom
Don Surber has more on the New York Time’s heartless wishes for Iraq.