RSS
Tolerating Genocide
A year after the New York Times expressed its willingness to tolerate genocide for the sake of a Bush defeat in Iraq, Gateway Pundit and Don Surber hold the Old Grey Lady's feet to the fire.
It's a fair cop.
It's a fair cop.
posted by Spencerblog at
12:53 PM
15 Comments:
The New York Times is the paper of record ...for America's enemies.
They should be shut down.
When free speech crosses to treason and enemy aiding it is no longer protected speech.
And let us not forget that the Supreme Court just recently reaffirmed the death penalty for treason.
This post has been removed by the author.
In it's call for quick retreat, here's what the NYT said:
"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.”
Instead Bush went ahead with the surge that crushed al Qaida in Iraq.
Wrote Surber:
Thank God Congress ignored this endorsement of chaos. Thousands would have been slaughtered had anyone been foolish enough to follow the advice of the New York Times, which was even willing to go along with genocide.
Thank Bush too.
This post has been removed by the author.
One outcome not listed: An American defeat.
The left is still angry Bush denied them that.
This post has been removed by the author.
NY Times is not the paper of record for America's enemies R, you tard. You are such a ridiculous, small minded dumbass. What the hell do you even do thats productive? You seem to spend most of your time on this blog.
dingo, I tend to question the NYT's motives. With some of the stories they put out, you have to wonder if they would ever produce launch codes if they ever got their hands on them.
the true crime of the Bush Administration with Iraq is that they didn't assemble the international backing that his father did during Desert Storm. And they clearly didn't for a reason; the attack in Iraq wasn't the right thing to do. It would be interesting to revisit those satellite photos of WMD sites we saw in 2002-03 that led to the invasion one more time.
Unfortunately, being in favor or against Iraq in 2003 doesn't do us any good in 2008 or 2009.
This post has been removed by the author.
Unfortunately, being in favor or against Iraq in 2003 doesn't do us any good in 2008 or 2009.
And yet the Hurt Feelings Bush haters are still clinging to this all these years later, as if it were last week. Lol...
The Taliban "resurgence" isn't so much in Afghanistan as in south-western Pakistan. Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai is complaining loudly about attacks to his country from there.
It's a thorny problem, given that Pakistan is still a supposed American ally in the war on terrorism.
Obama has talked about unilaterally bombing Pakistan to take out al Qaida strongholds.
A little rash, don't ya think?
Kind of like bombing Iran for attacks it sponsors in Iraq.
Kind of like bombing Iran for attacks it sponsors in Iraq.
Hehehe!
This post has been removed by the author.
I was wondering: What would Bush do if these "insurgents" were hiding out in Russia?
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home