LA Times Converts On Iraq, Goes From Bashing ‘Gen. Pelosi’ To Calling For ‘Bring Them Home’
LA Times Converts On Iraq, Goes From Bashing ‘Gen. Pelosi’ To Calling For ‘Bring Them Home’
On March 12, 2007, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial entitled, “Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?” Employing harsh rhetoric, the Times condemned efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to craft an Iraq redeployment bill:
House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.
[...]
It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.
In just 55 days, the LA Times has undergone a full conversion on redeployment. In an op-ed Sunday, the Times wrote that, now, the “the time has come to leave“:
After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
[...]
The U.S. should immediately declare its intention to begin a gradual troop drawdown, starting no later than the fall. The pace of the withdrawal must be flexible, to reflect progress or requests by the Iraqis and the military’s commanders.The precise date for completing the withdrawal need not be announced, but the assumption should be that combat troops would depart by the end of 2009.
The LAT is one of a number of papers that have recently gone from supporting the war to backing a pullout. E&P notes a few others. These papers reflect an unmistakable trend: Public opinion is solidifying behind a withdrawal, proponents of the war are breaking ranks, and Bush is becoming more isolated in his position over time.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Who cares about the LAT? Should news papers dictate policy?
ROTFL
May 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pmWho cares. The LA Times lost all credibility when it fired Robert Scheer. To have a disgraceful loser like Goldberg there in place of Scheer says it all about the LAT.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThe LA Times was against bringing the troops home before they were for it.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThe LA Times is obviously ran by a bunch on terrorist sympathizers!!!
May 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pmsurging must be bad for business
May 7th, 2007 at 1:35 pmWhy does the LA Times hate our freedom?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:35 pmBesides, papers like the LA Times no longer lead public opinion. They follow it, far, far behind.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pmbringing them home is an absolute must. This war is unconstitutional, immoral, murderous and financially ruinous.
The right thing to do is not debate about future non-binding withdrawal dates/maybe’s….or giving billions more to continue the killing.
The right thing to do is end these wars now.
A good read on a “plan”:
“We just marched in, so we can just march out”
May 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/we_just_marched_in_so_we_can_just_march_out
America wants to leave Iraq
America cannot leave Iraq
America will leave Iraq
This is what turns desert into blood
Just leave – the Iraqis dont want you there as time goes on the hatred builds more
May 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pmBut the Iraqi’s have yet to ratify the thievery of their oil, that is priority number one and why are troops have died to begin with.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pmWasn’t the LAT sold recently, or going to be?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pmOf all the insulting right-wing talkingpoint vocabulary, “micromanaging the war” is to me one of the most obnoxious. It has no realtionship to reality, and it’s designed to simply marginalize any attempt at oversight by belittling it without actually addressing with a valid argument.
In that, it’s exactly like all the rest of the right-wing talking points.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pmThough President Bush seems psychologically incapable of the act, it is time for everyone else in the United States to recognize the inevitable: The occupation of Iraq is an utter, irredeemable failure. We cannot win there militarily or politically.
Further expenditure of blood, lives, and treasure will gain the United States nothing. Nor will it gain anything for the Iraqi people, who have seen only chaos and bloodshed from this intervention.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pmBush Blunder: One Is Slightly Amused
The Queen has spoken of the special relationship between the US and Britain as she met President George Bush at the White House.
But it was Mr Bush who had everyone laughing as he blundered his way through his speech – and then bailed his way out with a sharp one-liner.
He gave the wrong date for the American bicentenary.
The crowd began to laugh and the President delivered a quip about the Queen’s reaction.
“You helped our nation to celebrate its bicentennial in 17….1976,” the leader said.
He paused, turned to the Queen and added: “You gave me a look that only a mother could give a child.”
MAN HES SUCH AN IDIOT
May 7th, 2007 at 1:40 pmLooks like reality has a well-known liberal bias…
May 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pmSo what. Who reads the bloody LA Times anyway?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pmIt’s time to get on board the Freedom Train… It’s pulling out of the station and no one wants to be left behind. The Freedom from Bush and the Freedom from Cheney Train. And what a little beauty this Train of Freedom is…
Roll out the Bush crime family, we’ll have a barrel of fun… Roll ‘em out and put ‘em all in jail, that is.. for lies, election thefts, war, war-mongering, corruption, onstruction of justice, failure to uphold our Constitution, torture and treason and a general lack of reason…
May 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pmGood for the LA Times editorial board for printing this article.
I don’t really care at this point that they are following the people who are against Bush’s Iraq Use of Military Force.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThe LAT I am sure has noted that more and more of us public citizens have stopped subscribing to their papers because of their rabid attacks on populists, centrists which means the Democrats. We cancelled our subscription after their fired Robert Scheer and replaced him with a right wing conservative. Free speech in the LAT? rare, rare. I take this opportunity to suggest to readers to stop their TIME magazine subscriptions as well. They hired Bill Kristol, a very conservative fellow, and had Newt Gingrich write the synopsis about Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of their top 100 people. Shockingly rude. Did they think the readers wouldn’t notice? TIME has become more and more conservative.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#14…And the Queen was thinking, “I gave you a look that only a mother could give a child because you are one.â€
May 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pmAfter four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation.
Bush’s Folly was obvious from the beginning. If anyone continues to believe that cheney/rove/bush ever possessed any intention of making America safer they need to enlist in the military and head directly to Iraq, thus putting the body where their loyalty resides. It’s time for Americans to remove cheney/rove/bush and give America back to the citizens. Corporate wars only enrich the rich and that’s that this is all about.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pmhttp://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1264407,00.html
on the right of the above page you can see a video of bushes Blunder ha ha
May 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm“In an op-ed Sunday, the Times wrote..”
Technically, this is an editorial, not an op-ed. Op-eds are usually penned by outside contributors not affiliated with the newspaper.
Just a little lesson in jounalistic terminology for ya….
May 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pmPeople get fed up with a paper’s bullshit, they will drop its subscription.
LA Times seems to have learned the hard way…
May 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pmRunning out of nits to pick, eh, Exley?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pmStill waiting for a thread on the crushing defeat of that socialist femme fatale in the French election this weekend. Between that and Pelosi’s gaffe in foreign policy, Dems gotta be worried about their prospects in the next election.
It’s one thing to be against an administration, to pick up congressional seats, it is another to be for something, and win the presidency.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pmHere’s what I hate about this whole mess. Yes, the war will end for the US. No, it will not end for the Iraqis, and we’ll see a wave of ethnic cleansing, ultimately ended by the rise of another Iraqi military dictator after much more bloody conflict. Then, we will be blamed for blowing up the country and be pressured to pay for the damage we’ve done. On top of that, the real Al Queda problem hasn’t changed and it will eventually remind us how stupid we are.
Imo, get ready for the second coming of American isolationism. Conservatives can’t function without labels and boxes, and if they can’t deal with separating things inside the box, they’ll just change the size of the box to accommodate their thinking – and abandon US global responsibility. Add in the Reagan-era ‘all politics are local’ and you have a “domestic dominance” agenda.
my 2c from out here on the rural fringe, where i can see the nascar wanabes out the kitchen window
May 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pmcombat troops would depart by the end of 2009.
Wow! How daring for the LA Times to call for withdrawal of troops from Iraq only 969 days from today!
At current casualty rates (100 in April alone), this would roughly double the number of troops killed in Iraq, and at current spending rates, it would mean at least another $270 billion spent in direct costs (not including interest costs and the cost of providing a lifetime of medical care to the war’s casualties).
In other words, the bold editorial writers at the LA Times are saying to our government: “You can take the lives of another 3,000 of our citizens, and 300 billion of our dollars, but that’s all!”
May 7th, 2007 at 2:03 pmRunning out of nits to pick, eh, Exley?
Comment by Raven
He’s like my bro-in-law. If my sis says they got home at 9:30, in the background I hear, “9:32.”
Geezz….
May 7th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThat’s all fine-well-and-good, but Bush will never let us leave. People need to come to grips with that. That he should is meaningless. It’s always been so.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:06 pmPetraeus ‘concerned’ by ethics report
NEW YORK – The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday he was “greatly concerned” by a recent survey that concluded many combat troops in Iraq would not report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.
Speaking to the annual meeting of The Associated Press, Gen. David Petraeus called for a “redoubling of our education efforts” to identify potential abuses among soldiers and anticipate problems related to combat stress.
“We can never sink to the level of the enemy,” Petraeus said by video link from Baghdad. ”
should read lets hope our enemies dont sink to the level our troops have
May 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pmThe timeworn bus — many riders since tossed under — nanoseconds before reality ending re-entry, lurches violently to the left, averting gravities swift judgement past canyons edge…..
May 7th, 2007 at 2:13 pmExcerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
Prophetic, no?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:13 pmHere Exley:
.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pmSteveB, good point that I overlooked.
I now say, good for the LA Times to say let’s get out, bad for them to say by the end of 2009.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pmHe’s like my bro-in-law. If my sis says they got home at 9:30, in the background I hear, “9:32.â€
Geezz….Comment by Zooey
Heh. I think we all have those. Family or office.
Makes me wanna paint a Ness Nessman office around them so they won’t ’see or hear’ anyone else. =)
May 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pmSomeone influential at the LA Times either has a child entering the military or has recently become a father and has realized the insanity that they’re espousing.
I don’t credit them for any profound soul-searched revelation. There’s some self-serving aspect to this somewhere. Somewhere in this is a personal stake that they’ve suddenly become afraid to risk. A family member, an investment, monetary support from somewhere.
Bet on it! War cheerleaders are nothing if not hypocritical cowards, and they don’t change, they just re-evaluate things against their own personal losses and inconveniences.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm#33 – Spudge
Heh.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pmHeh. I think we all have those. Family or office.
Makes me wanna paint a Ness Nessman office around them so they won’t ’see or hear’ anyone else. =)
Comment by Tau
The dude drives me nuts — and really that’s not a drive, it’s a short putt — so you know how bad it is. :D
May 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pmBad news for Jake. Didn’t he recently decide the LA Times was genius?
I say, better late than never. Not great, but better. Be much much better if they acknowledged their previous editorial(s) were wrong-headed but sincere admissions like that are nonexistent among the kewl kids, wherever they may be.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhat is it with all the cries for editorial consistency from newspapers. Unsigned editorials should represent the shop, but they are not necessarily a collaborative statement from a hive mind. Right?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThe dude drives me nuts — and really that’s not a drive, it’s a short putt — so you know how bad it is. :D
Comment by Zooey
Yeh, I have a cousin whos boyfriend is a philosopher ( a professional student (37yrs of age)) and knows everything…except how to get out of college or do some real work.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIt’s too bad that our political leaders and opinion makers wait until the large majority of Americans believe something to act. They’re followers, not leaders.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWhat is it with all the cries for editorial consistency from newspapers. Unsigned editorials should represent the shop, but they are not necessarily a collaborative statement from a hive mind. Right?
Comment by Darg
I ask the same thing about TV, why do all those damn commercials come on at the same time on every channel?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI will admit that this is a good move on the part of the LAT, but remember they are a Tribune (ultra-conservtive) entity.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pmIt wasn’t that long ago they were pro-Bush and anti-Democrat.
I think I will not count them as having had an epiphany of insight until some time has passed and they continue to say the same.
A few influential newspapers turning on Bush and the war will eventually have an effect; it would mean their editors and owners are coming around – not just their token op-ed writers.
When business heads come to recognize public opinion, it will have an effect – even on the bonehead in the White House.
I suspect that the LA Times editors has finally started realizing that advocating blind subservience to an incompetent leader is a untenable position that their readers just aren’t going to buy anymore, literally.
I think people are tired of propaganda pushing idiots trying to tell them that 1+1=3 and are turning away. Who wants to pay to read factually challenged garbage from a newspaper that apparently thinks that their readers are fools?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe LA Times:
They were against withdrawing from Iraq before they were for it.
FLIP-FLOP!!
May 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pmComment by Exley — May 7, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Thanks for pointing that out.
Now there is really no doubt the LA Times has called for a withdrawal from Iraq.
/sarc on
The LA Times is now giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Who would have thunk it!?
/sarc off
May 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pmI don’t buy newspapers anymore (haven’t for years now) nor do I read them exactly because almost all of them one way or another are controlled by neo-con swine. They can flip-flop like a fish on the dock for all I care.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm“Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.” –Prophetic, no?–Dagny Taggart
Yeah, in 1933, the year Hitler achieved state power, Smedley thinks the right thing to do is pull back to the shoreline, and let Hitler take Europe.
AMAZING that you think such a line of reasoning is pertinent to a FOR-PROFIT installation of four major airbases in a dismantled country, with 130,000 MERCENARIES killing everyone in sight (and out of sight) in order to create the civil war genocide that will allow those bases to stay.
My entire Band of Uncles went to fight Hitler in Europe or ‘Tojo’ in the Pacific. NONE of them thought it was the wrong decision, and history shows it wasn’t. It should have, in fact, been EARLIER, in which case it would have saved tens of millions of lives.
There is no comparison between the overt warcrimes of Bushco and our innately necessary foreign policy. Back when I protested Hussein in 1989 the need to disarm that dictator was clear. Instead, Bushco forces supported his illegal war with Iran.
We did not invade Europe and fight in the Pacific to steal oil. Republican Isolationists now want, basically, to blame Neoconned Iraq on Eisenhower– bizarre. Calvin Coolidge was NOT right, and neither was Smedley Butler.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pmThey are businessmen first and foremost — newspaper readership is down. I’d like to think it is because people are fed up with their pro-war, cheerleqding for Bush&Co., but I suspect readership is less because people are on the ‘net and watching TV. (Or they simply don’t have time, what with working two jobs.)
May 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmNewspapers are trying to woo people away from electronic news, but if they don’t change their message, it won’t work.
I find it curious also, that papers are all requiring registration to read them on line, and even more so, papers like the NYT make you pay an annual fee of $50 just to read their op/ed pages on line.
Flip-floppers!
May 7th, 2007 at 3:27 pmMay I say…
About F*CKING time.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pmOH SHIT
Sunni demand could unravel Iraqi government
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Iraq’s top Sunni official has set a deadline of next week for pulling his entire bloc out of the government — a potentially devastating blow to reconciliation efforts within Iraq. He also said he turned down an offer by President Bush to visit Washington until he can count more fully on U.S. help.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi made his comments in an interview with CNN. He said if key amendments to the Iraq Constitution are not made by May 15, he will step down and pull his 44 Sunni politicians out of the 275-member Iraqi parliament.
“If the constitution is not subject to major changes, definitely, I will tell my constituency frankly that I have made the mistake of my life when I put my endorsement to that national accord,” he said.
Specifically, he wants guarantees in the constitution that the country won’t be split into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish federal states that he says will disadvantage Sunnis.
He added, “I would like to see the identity of my country, in fact, restored back.”
May 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pmWow, people are jumping ship, go figure.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pmThere’s more people out there supporting Ron Paul than the two party duopoly or the popular media would like to admit.
Personally, I’ve never considered the more time consuming activities in support of a particular candidate or party. But this is different. I’ve purchased 1000 libertarian door hangers and printed an equal number of Ron Paul flyers. I’m looking forward to meeting quite a few of my neighbors in the next few weeks.
From what you read here at the Times and elsewhere you might feel comfortable in dismissing Ron Paul as a second tier oddball. But if you take a look at myspace, youtube, and other online sources, you’ll find a grass roots campaign in the making.
Join Us…
May 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm#40 Comment by Darg — May 7, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
What is it with all the cries for editorial consistency from newspapers. Unsigned editorials should represent the shop, but they are not necessarily a collaborative statement from a hive mind. Right?
In the case of the LA Times they have said that it is a committee deecision that determines what they state as their editorial position. It is not a family owned paper as it once was. Under Otis Chandler it became a truly great paper. That changed after he left and dramatically so after the Tribune took over.
Not only is Sheer gone, but Conrad as well. At least Max Boot is not heard from all the time, although Goldberg is at least as bad.
One other thought. As much as I would like to believe that the Times’ loss of readers is what has made them “come around” I can’t. The loss comes from other influences like the internet. Their change on the war is very tentative at best. Not a real position to me, but better than openly cheering Bush on. They are not whacko like the WSJ or the Moonie rag that will go unamed.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pm# 55 Comment by bob — May 7, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
From what you read here at the Times and elsewhere you might feel comfortable in dismissing Ron Paul as a second tier oddball. But if you take a look at myspace, youtube, and other online sources, you’ll find a grass roots campaign in the making.
Join Us…
May 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmPlease correct me if I am wrong here.
No thank you! I will remain a progressive. Although Ron Paul is right on the war the libertarian party is essentially for business having a free hand without any controls to hinder its wishes. This issue will arise, big time, when we have taken care of this debacle in the ME. I don’t reject him because he is 2nd tier but for the philosophy he holds.
What kind of ’shrooms is this guy doing over there?
“Anticipate problems related to combat stress”? “Identify potential abuses”? You can anticipate the problems all you want. It won’t change anything. And ‘abuses’ occur because you’re taking ordinary people and placing them in a situation beyond anything most people can imagine, and then demand they don’t break?
You live in fortified enclosures. There are IED’s and car bombs and snipers — and that’s in the cities. You patrol and reconnoiter and operate road blocks; and every moment, the chewy lizard center of your brain is in control, trying to see around corners and anticipate potential hazard because other human beings are seriously trying to fuck with your existance. And you’re wired up in this peculiar way almost 24 X 7.
To the wingnuts who say (with no experience), “But this is combat! This is the sacrifice for freedom against islamofascism, etc., etc.!”, I say, bullshit.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I also stand with General Butler: If you’re going to ask men and women to endure this month after month, year after year — if you’re going to promote a Verdun or Stalingrad mentality and ask for tours of fifteen months — then it ought to be for far better reasons than to save face for lil’ Boots r make more monet for his pals. Because that’s the only reason we went in, and it’s the only reason we’re still there.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pmJust to be clear, I’m not asking any loyal progressive democrat to vote for Ron Paul in the general election. I’m just suggesting that there’s an opportunity to make some noise and shake some sense into the republican base.
If nothing else, making noise over Ron Paul will expose the neocons for what they really are.
Join Us…
May 7th, 2007 at 5:28 pmOf course General Smedley Butler was right. Read the quote again.
There was that little incident at Pearl Harbor, remember? That’s why we went to war against Japan — and we went to war against Nazi Germany because, as allies of Japan, they declared war on us. It was right for us to respond the way we did.
Prior to that, we had neither good reasons nor domestic backing for going to war in Europe, and even less for warring against Japan in Asia, though long before Pearl Harbor it sure looked like we probably would end up doing both (that’s why we were ready to gin up our war machine in short order).
As the cliche goes, we should not be the world’s policeman, rushing in to stop the “bad guys” (evildoers?) whenever trouble rears its head (which it does, of course, on a daily basis somewhere). Neither should we try (as the neocons lately have suckered us in) to impose some globe-straddling Pax Americana. Blowback is a bitch, you know. The real reasons for us attempting to play these roles are as Smedley Butler said.
Call me cynical, and not idealistic, about America’s use of force.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pmMaybe you chumps should start rioting like the fools in France.
Liberals tend to resort to violence to squelch the opposition.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:34 amGee…all it took was 4 years and 3300 US soldiers to change their minds. Shameless.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pmA Great Flyer Printing Is Your Business’ Great Start: Here’s How
Starting a business is often considered the most difficult phase for every entrepreneur. You have to be hands-on to ensure that everything is working according to what you have planned. At the same time, you exert every effort in promoting the product …
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 am