If there’s anything you can count on, it’s that the media is eager to surrender to any sort of threat. And the New York Times (both directly and through its lackeys at the Boston Globe) are reminding us of that this weekend.
Yesterday, the Globe published a column outlining just how readily we can withdraw from Iraq. The short answer: very quickly, if we leave equipment behind; not so quickly and with more casualties, if we take it with us.
The article is purely nuts-and-bolts, and seems fairly accurate within its limited scope: focused purely on the technical aspects, the logistics, the physical capabilities of our forces in getting out of Iraq as efficiently as possible.
What the fine gentlemen from the Center For American Progress. do NOT address is the consequences of such a withdrawal. In the first case, we leave a lot of valuable hardware behind — hardware that will most likely fall into the hands of those who are trying to chase us out. And in the second, we risk inflicting grave harm to our forces’ morale — getting shot at and attacked while retreating, in full knowledge that they cannot fight back to their full capablity.
Meanwhile, over from the Mother Ship, we have a discussion of illegal aliens. Maybe I didn’t pay enough attention to the news this summer, but this just doesn’t seem to match up with my memory of events:
The immigration battle that ended this summer was a victory for the simple, straight-ahead approach. The supporters of comprehensive reform did not have the votes for their exotic blend of tough compassion, of punishing then rewarding illegal immigrants with a nonamnesty that everybody called amnesty. The Republicans’ bill-killing argument was: punish all the lawbreakers and seal the border, just seal it already.
Soon enough President Bush disowned his commitment to comprehensive reform and offered an executive-branch crackdown. States and local governments began whip-cracking. The country has made its bed and will have to sleep in it awhile, but a few developments suggest getting tough may not be as simple as advertised.
I don’t recall the battle ending at all. I recall a bunch of people all pushing hard for a new law that would grant amnesty (or, if you prefer, “lessened penalties”) to those who are breaking our laws, and a great public hue and cry putting the kibosh on it — and, in the process, putting a big old hurting on at least one candidate’s presidential ambitions.
I don’t have the stomach for a full-on Fisking, but here’s the conclusion:
With the Republican minority tacking xenophobic amendments onto every bill in sight, the chances of real, broad immigration reform seem as bleak as ever. Some say it is time to consider throwing out the old arguments. Bruce Morrison, a former Connecticut congressman with an extensive immigration portfolio, makes an interesting pro-immigrant case for ditching comprehensive reform. Fix legal immigration first, he says — get those backlogs down, get a steady supply of nurses, engineers and M.B.A.’s flowing, and impose strict biometric workplace IDs so that all future hiring is legitimate.
Maybe then, he says, you will establish the trust you need to tackle the problem of the 12 million undocumented. Maybe the public mood will be more forgiving. Seems optimistic, but nothing else has worked.
First up, be sure to hang the “bigot/racist/prejudiced” label on the notion of enforcing existing laws. That’s always a favorite tactic. Then, suggest an incredibly stupid notion.
The reason the immigration reform bill failed was not from a lack of trust on the side pushing for easing restrictions on immigration, but those who push for enforcement of existing laws. They are the ones who killed it, and they are the ones who will fight hardest against the idea of easing up immigration rules BEFORE cracking down on lawbreakers.
Some day, the New York Times (and its wholly-owned-and-operated subsidiary, the Boston Globe) might stop spinning, stop pushing their agenda, and actually go back to publishing news and common sense.
But I ain’t holding my breath.