The New York Times isn’t even pretending to be balanced anymore. Today their editorial board is singing the praises of a Supreme Court gone liberal (except where it effects them) and prints an op-ed penned by John Flip-flop Kerry, but doesn’t allow for a rebuttal from the administration. In fact when was the last time the Times printed anything penned by someone on the right like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, David and Rush Limbaugh, or Hugh Hewitt?

As far as Kerry’s op-ed? It’s all sour grapes. In it I hear an angry man, a child gone off the deep end because he was picked last to play dodge-ball.

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

“Ignored the advice of others….” translated you didn’t do what I and the rest of the fringe left told you to do. “Went in largely alone….” translated you went in without France, Germany, and Russia — the same ones that were profiting from unscam. “A little humility would go a long way….” Gee, your right John, a little humility would go a long way. Why don’t you stop and take your own advice for once. Take a couple of deep breaths and recognize some of the good things that are going on in Iraq like free and fair elections, or the fact that they are well on their way to holding a constitutional convention. If you find yourself wanting to know a few more, you don’t have to go far. There are plenty of mil-bloggers out there that are either in-country or have been in-country that can give you more examples.

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

Who among us really believe that our presence is permanent. I mean the President has already said many times that we will come home when the Iraqi’s are able to defend themselves. Of course, let’s be honest, you just want what you’ve asked for time and time again, and that’s a timetable for withdrawl. Your. not. going. to. get. one. In fact, it’s the possibility that our presence will indefinite that will allow us to continue to make progress in Iraq. If we announce a timetable the insurgency will know they only have to hold on that long before they can retake the country and turn it into the Islamic hell on earth that was Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

This doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. If you use these different ethnic militias you will have competing interests and it would likely through the country into more chaos. Keeping this in mind, it seems that a national army is the best way to go.

The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors and countries like India.

If sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council blah… blah… blah… blah. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; why do we care what the UN says and how are we going to get countries who weren’t interested in the initial invasion to participate in border security?

But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process. [Emphasis mine — TR]

What the left really wants is for America to support the Palestinians and by doing so turn it’s back on Israel. For proof of this assertion just look at the major suck up job Bill Clinton did on Yasser Arafat.

The next months are critical to Iraq’s future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

Mr. Bush? What about a little respect there Mr. Kerry. His title is President Bush. Then again, why should we expect a leftist paper or wanna be President to respect the greatest war time leadership we’ve had since FDR?