NY Times (finally) calls for US to leave Iraq

Better late than never (welcome to the rest of the country; anti-war sentiments already in progress - but we saved you a seat.)

Great editorial, so I suppose its worth the wait.

Not that it will do any good, seeing as contractors outnumber our troops (and of course, it IS about that $$ gravy train, along with the oil bill, right?) Bush has no intention of getting our troops out of Iraq; he will need legions to defend that gigantic palace he is building (I've heard it referred to as the 'Colossus of Baghdad.' Yes, 4 billion dollars of our money into this disaster, and he's building the world's largest embassy - but somehow can't rebuild New Orleans.)

At any rate: Bush doesn't plan to get our army out of Iraq, no siree. The money is great, and that oil bill for ExxonMobile and Chevron isn't yet signed on the dotted line.

(That, and Dick didn't give him permission. Dick still plans to use Iraq as the launching pad for his attack on Iran.)

But lest I seem like I'm complaining - hey, NY Times - nice to have you along. We've been hoping the media would show up eventually.

It was kind of useful to have you guys around during Vietnam and Watergate (which is why I went to journalism school in the first place; I wanted to be one of those 'heroes with a typewriter' that helped change the world and kept democracy safe... once upon a time. Who knew journalism would be dead by the time I graduated?)

So without further ado... I give you... the New York Times Editorial! The Road Home:

Like many Americans, (the 28%?) we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. (Suckers!) When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. (So you noticed that too?) It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

Senator Reid! Apparently, you were right after all - the war is lost!

Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda. (Right next to impeachment; and over 50% of us want that, and it's hardly partisan... but I suppose it will be another 6 months or so before you catch up with us on that one too.)

more...