Complete Bullspit
The NY Times editorial page, of course, is the subject of that headline. Here’s the official reaction of the ‘paper of record’ to last night’s speech:
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.
Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.
Mr. Bush did acknowledge that some of his previous tactics had failed. But even then, the president sounded as if he were an accidental tourist in Iraq. He described the failure of last year’s effort to pacify Baghdad as if the White House and the Pentagon bore no responsibility.
That’s complete and utter garbage, and it goes beyond opinion to falsification. “[A]s if the White House…bore no responsibility?” Here’s a direct quote from the President:
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
There’s no obfuscation there: that’s a direct acceptance of mistakes. It’s one thing to debate the merits of the proposal Bush put forward: are there enough troops in his plan? Will Maliki take on Sadr’s militias or get in the way if we do? It’s quite another thing altogether to pretend that Bush made no proposals, but instead just got in front of the nation and yanked its chain out of pure spite.
There is a disaster right in front of us, alright, and I’m not talking about ‘Mr. Bush’s’ war (another load of garbage – it’s America’s war, and if the Times wants to criticize anyone for ducking responsibility, they can start with the Democrats in Congress who want to forget that they authorized the use of force to begin with – and enough already with the ‘Mr. Bush’ disrespect. He’s the President of the United States, and he should be addressed as President Bush or Mr. President – regardless of who the occupant of the office is). The disaster is the editorial page of the Times, which is increasingly becoming indistinguishable from Mother Jones or The Nation.
Excuse me while I go take a shower; I feel dirty even reading such tripe…
The New York Times seems to be engaged in a purposeful and suicidal undermining of its own credibility. While I am at times loathe to admit it, I am a former Journalism graduate. I remember a time when even a conservative such as I took the NYTimes, and its opinions, seriously–perhaps more seriously when I disagreed with them, but they could muster a substantive and convincing presentation in support of their views. Those days are long gone, and the entire country suffers as a result. This was an essential publication with consequential, if sometimes misguided, people working there. That it has allowed itself to become so frivolous with that legacy is pathetic.
It is disappointing and frustrating. Opeds are not news stories, but that does not absolve the writer, especially the Editor of the Paper of Record, from making their case with as much fact and little emotion as possible. This editorial is just the latest example of the decline of a once major voice in the American national dialogue.
As DBrooks says: we all suffer as a result.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page also refers to the President as Mr. Bush, so I’m not sure you can point to that as illustrative of any malice on the part of the Times. (For his part, Bush refers to the opposition as the “Democrat Party,” knowing full well that this is not its real name).
As for “the responsibility lies with me:” it’s a throw-away line — those ten words are the only ones in the speech which suggest that the administration’s policies were the principal cause of all of the problems in Iraq. I’m not asking Bush to wear sackcloth and ashes, but I think you are making a big deal out of not much.
You haven’t addressed the substance of what the Times says — what about the rest of the editorial?
Well, I noticed that, too, in the Journal – and I’m not happy with it. Regardless of the source, it’s disrespectful – as to the ‘substance’ – the Times has made it abundantly clear that it has waved the white flag and given up Iraq as lost (not to mention their knee-jerk hostility towards any idea floated by the President).
Almost no responsible adult would agree with what the Times appears to want, which is damn near immediate withdrawal.
What’s to address? When they put a grown-up in charge of the editorial page again, I’ll respond.