Another thing about that NY Times editorial.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism.

First of all, this is as stupid as saying in February 1944 that World War II had not made the world safe from fascism. What kind of idiots feel they can determine the success of a war in the middle of the war, especially one which was predicted from the beginning to be a long slog? Did this take the Times by surprise? Is any war longer than 3 months a quaqmire? One can even argue that the only reason the war is still going on is becuase the liberal part of us (all of us) doesn't just want to bomb Iraq into the stone age and be done with it. I'm sure if we drove out or killed all the Sunnis the war would be over. Ending the war is easy. Ending it while trying to avoid punishing the local population unnecessarily and fostering hope for the future is, as liberals like to laught at, indeed "hard work".

Second of all, we haven't even had a terorrist pipe bomb go off in the U.S. in the almost 4 years since 9/11. How is that "not safer" in a country that experienced Oklahoma City, the two World Trade Center attacks and several embassy bombings where hundreds died in the decade prior to 9/11?

The Times should just have the guts to say "our soldiers lives have been wasted and their sacrifice means nothing and hasn't helped anybody. In fact they've made things worse."

Finally, and I swear I'll be done with this, I don't care why one thinks we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to totally ignore the brutality of the regimes we have replaced and the flowering democracies there reflects a disgusting "me-first", "who cares about the brown people" Western attitude of the worst kind.