Funny. The new right-wing argument for staying in Iraq is that it is the only compassionate thing to do. Jules Crittenden calls it Genocide Prefered…as in, the New York Times would prefer genocide to what we have now.
Dan Surber puts it this way:
The New York Times today called for U.S. troops to surrender Iraq to the insurgents and al-Qaida in an editorial, “The Road Home,” that was long on words, short on logic, and absent of heart.
In calling for abandoning Iraq, the Times has abandoned the underpinnings of liberal principles: that the government exists to protect the poor, the elderly, the infirm and women.
While I believe that government exists to protect the rights of its citizenry, I respect that contrarian position…
…Africa burns while UN blue helmets look askance and indulge themselves in child porn and petty theft. That is the Times prescription for Iraq.
The chaos would result in zero civil liberties for 25 million Iraqis. The Times clamored for extraconstitutional rights for 500 or so jihadists at Gitmo — men captured on the battlefield. Now the Times is willing to forfeit any civil justice system at all in Iraq.
What the Times proposes may be over-the-top, but it should be remembered for the Times has abandoned its principles.
The earlier talking points were focused on the incarnate evil of Muslims and how they must be killed. Now they criticize us for our lack of compassion.
When there is money to be made, Republicans will say anything.
