(A game-changing moment from the New York Times - promoted by MissLaura)
In an unusually long editorial, the nation's paper of record demands an immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq concluding:
This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.
The editors finally come to the opinion that most members of this community already hold, and have for some time, saying:
It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
It is an editorial worth reading.
This is a necessarily short diary, and I will go back to beating the drum of not funding later, but I am happy to use this space to congratulate the Times for being so direct on an issue so important.
Update [2007-7-7 22:17:24 by andgarden]: : I want to address a point made in the comments: no editorial from the Times will be enough to change the dynamic with DC Republicans against Bush. Democrats in Congress must agree to NOT FUND in order to end the war.
Update [2007-7-8 0:27:52 by andgarden]: I'm going to use this infrequent front page opportunity to pimp a diary I threw together not long ago on defunding. mcjoan also wrote an excellent diary on the subject last night. Many thanks for giving me this opportunity MissLaura. Thanks to all for reading.
Update [2007-7-8 1:14:30 by andgarden]: one final point: It has been noted in the comments that the editorial itself does not use the words "Leave Iraq Now." That is correct. I am going with the headline provided by the web editors. You can see it in the following screen shot.