The wise and mighty deciders at the New York Times editorialize on the plight of pro-American Iraqis:
Welcoming Iraqis into the United States as refugees is not cost-free. It draws skilled people out of a country that desperately needs their talents and makes it increasingly likely that they will never return home. Washington, however, has a profound moral obligation, especially to those Iraqis who have risked their lives on America's behalf. If America abandons them now, it will mean even more suffering and more shame for the United States from this shameful and disastrous war.
Washington has a profound moral obligation...to take a few thousand Iraqis back to the United States and abandon the rest to al Qaeda? How do the editors fail to make the obvious connection? Do they care nothing of what comes of all the other Iraqis they would have America abandon? Will it not mean more suffering and more shame for the United States if we leave them at the mercy of our enemies? The editors at the Times have lost all sense of decency if they believe their pleas on behalf of a few thousand insulate them from responsibility for pushing the abandonment of an entire country to the worst brutality imaginable.
