The New York Times Supports Toatalitarian Genocide

Don Surber absolutely nails the New York Times with his post today. I cannot possibly say it better than he has.

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.

The Times would leave that principle on the battlefield in its bizarre call to flee at once — “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”

The Times argument is the war is unpopular so we should. That is childish. Was the war right because it was popular at the time? Should we execute criminals because that is popular? The Times has too long a history of unpopular things that it supports to make the “applause-o-meter argument.”

He lays the Times out for this childish line of reasoning. The Times even admits that a bloodbath "could" ensue. Absolutely will is the correct term. Go read the rest of what Don wrote. Giving up liberal principle to support totalitarian genocide is a frightening thing. The Times is wrong here.