Does the Times really care about fighting terrorists, or has it
realized that the Dem candidate can't win in '08 by running on a
platform of unconditional surrender?

I'm gonna go with the latter.

How nice of the Times to take up the issue for the Dems...not only paving the way for them to reverse their stance, but covering themselves for applauding them for doing it.

The dems. Bluster and fuss, FUD, FUD, FUD. (Fear, uncertainity, doubt).

But in reality, they know we gotta do what we gotta do. They know that everyone on earth was pretty sure Saddam had the bad bugs and the chemical juice and probably some kind of nuke stuff that might be revived, sold or otherwise become a threat.

They know that surveillance is necessary in some circumstances to uncover the schemes of those who would bomb us, hijack our planes and murder innocent people.

They know Iran is a serious threat and is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq and in other places.
They know all this.

And they have no problem whatsoever turning all of this around for political rhetoric, compromising our security and giving our enemies cause for hope that plinking away on our troops a few at a time will wear us down.

But hey, it's election season, ain't it?

 new international terrorist front it created in Iraq

Big time back pedaling.  The NYT is trying to create the idea that terrorism has just recently coalesced in Iraq and now we are stuck having to fight it there.  Now Iraq is in the GWOT!  Only the dolts on the far left will gobble that line/lie.  What the NYT is really afraid of is the bloodbath if we pull out, they know they can't ignore it or control the information flow anymore to the public like they and the rest of their buddies in the MSM.  They will be held responsible for all loss of life in Iraq if they were successful in getting the pull out.  Now that the Surge is successful, if they continue to push the pullout they come off as weak leaders. 

Iraq has been the front line of the GWOT and as a result we invaded, just like Afghanistan, no different.  Whether it is the Taliban or Saddam as head of the government, any government that sponsors terrorism is in our cross hairs, Bush warned the world after 911. Saddam foolishly thought the US was going to remain feckless because of Clinton and Carter's demonstrated incompetence in world affairs, he found out the hard way.  If Iran keeps up the nonsense, they're next.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius

   The media and dems pushed hard to get President Bush to retreat on his watch so it would be his defeat.  However he has run the clock out on them and now the next president will have to take responsibility.  They are probably realizing they will have to deal with bigger issues than what kind of oil our french fries are cooked in and whether runway models are too skinny. 

I am also frustrated that the Democrats are getting a pass on this flip-flop from the media, but let's not forget the big picture.

We've been saying for months that it isn't an option to just walk away. Now, the Democrats and the press seem to agree. That's good. A withdrawal would have been disastrous. It's looking more and more like a withdrawal won't happen.

This also means that the Democrats don't think 'bring 'em home now' is the key to the White House. Even they don't believe the 'antiwar sentiment' is that pervasive. And they're trying to win a liberal primary!

More of my thoughts are here.

Reality Check

The first sentence "....from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq."  They are giving the dem candidates an out while still placing the blame for everything that's happening over there on the U.S.  Worthless rag!

"The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq."

Hum - isn't this what neocons and conservatives have pretty much been saying all along? They refer to a "new international terrorist front", isn't that a good thing - to have somewhere where you can confront them? Or is the NYT saying they prefer that we would have allowed them to have sanctuary where we can't fight them and only they can attack us? Is it better to have them lurking unfettered in the background?

The Truth was out for 2 months, before the NYT could bring themselves to Report it. 

Maybe they're going for the Ratings/Subscriptons  ?      

This proves the truth can only be Surpressed for so long, before the New Media's scoup forces the MSM's to join in.  The NYT is a follower....the Bell is Tolling, I hope they can hear it.    

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

With all the recent media mergers and buy-outs, this particular buy-out was somehow overlooked. News headline out here in Kansas this morning: "Al Qaeda Buys NY Times". Did you all miss it? Hmmm. Guess it didn't make the editor cuts in all your Blue State newspapers. According to the article, the DNC is already complaining about the news reporting and op-ed tilt to the right they claim has happened. Their complaints were quickly dismissed out of hand as ridiculous by newly appointed publisher Mohammed "Dust" Bin. The "new NY Times" also issued a press release pledging to "continue our strict policy and stellar record of reporting the complete facts without personal comment or spin. We'll continue to let our readers make up their own minds. We've always treated our intelligent and educated readers with the respect they deserve. That will not change."

The DNC, after counting 29 "hit pieces" on (D) politicians just on page one of yesterday's edition while the only appearance of George Bush was a photo-op session with GW and God hugging and shaking hands on the White House lawn, was having none of it. They immediately pledged their allegiance to Fox News to "bring back balance to our nation's cherished, impartial media".

You all need to add the RSS feeds of Topeka and Wichita newspapers to your computers if you want to keep up!