NYTimes editorial: Picking Up the Pieces --trying to put Humpty

[rodeodance]

Dumpty back to gether again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/opinion/14sun1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

January 14, 2007
Editorial

Picking Up the Pieces
It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war. Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the president. They understand that what the country urgently needs is for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind.

The president’s disconnect goes far to explain the harshly critical reaction of Congress and the public to his plan to further bleed America’s overstretched forces by sending some 20,000 additional troops in an attempt to impose peace on Baghdad’s vengeful streets. He proposes to do that without any enforceable commitments from the Iraqi government that it will take the necessary political steps that are the only hope for tamping down a spiraling civil war.

There are no really satisfying answers in Iraq, since all of the remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others, and Mr. Bush has come up with possibly the worst. He would mortgage thousands more American lives and what remains of Washington’s credibility in the region to a destructively sectarian Shiite government that he seems unwilling or unable to influence or restrain.

•

Unlike Mr. Bush’s views on the American military presence in Iraq, our views have evolved as the evident realities on the ground have changed. At the outset, although we opposed Mr. Bush’s invasion, we hoped the United States military could provide enough security to allow an elected government to build the foundations of national unity and eventual democracy.

[watrwefitinfor]

1. Excuse me.

Am I reading this correctly?

At the outset, although we opposed Mr. Bush’s invasion, we hoped the United States military could provide enough security to allow an elected government to build the foundations of national unity and eventual democracy.

Did the New York Times just say they opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset?

And in just what other world did this occur?

Is this utter, raw, unabashed and unashamed revisionism, or am I losing what's left of my mind?

Wat

On edit: Thanks for posting this, Rodeo. :hi: