Monday, December 8, 2008

New York Times to President Bush: Screw You

The editors at the New York Times are kicking President Bush from behind as he prepares to leave office.

We long ago gave up hope that President Bush would acknowledge his many mistakes, or show he had learned anything from them. Even then we were unprepared for the epic denial that Mr. Bush displayed in his interview with ABC News’s Charles Gibson the other day, which he presumably considered an important valedictory chat with the American public as well ....
A few sentences of indignation, then:

After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.
Bully and lie?

Notice how there's not one word here on all the other intelligence agencies worldwide who independently backed the U.S. position that Saddam Hussein was a threat to international security. Notice how there's no mention that all the postwar reports on Iraq's WMD found Saddam to have been capable to renew a monumental weapons programs in a moment's time, and it will always be the case that the world would never have known the extent of Iraqi disarmament without the U.S. invasion.

To ignore all this to denounce Bush as maliciously dishonest - because he should have magically known the intelligence "to be faulty" - is despicable.

The moral vacuum and political polarization evident on the left today is the real threat to American and international security in the years ahead.

Whatever mistakes this administration made in the last eight years, an absence of moral clarity and granite resolve to see the job through on the ground are not among them.

15 comments:

Norm said...

President Bush has class; and the New York Times has none.

Always remember, and I mean always, that it was the NY Times that has tried its very best to demoralize the American public and military in an effort to lose the war in Iraq. Being the loyal opposition is perfectly acceptable, but the NY Times crossed the line and is the enemy.

Donald Douglas said...

"President Bush has class; and the New York Times has none."

Well said, Norm!

Thanks for visiting.

Jan said...

"After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to.."

If they think this about Bush and Cheney, all I can say is, "they ain't seen nothing, yet."

Are they naive enough to think The One, about to take over the reins of this country has not bullied and lied to get to where he is, right now?

He, and the others of his campaign?

That they will continue to bully and lie, and to manipulate whenever necessary to achieve their agenda?

If not naive, then stupid?

No, neither. They are just a big part of the moral decay which is presently eating away at this country, and they should be ashamed.

But then, it is obvious that they have no shame when it comes to bashing the present administration, isn't it?

No shame for that, but there will be plenty of idolatrous worship of the next one.

That elitist newspaper is totally classless..and that's the nicest thing that could be said about it.

Trish said...

The NYT is the biggest piece of trash, it's not fit to line a bird's cage.
I wish, now that President Bush has nearly completed his 8 years, that liberals could let go of the BDS that has held them so vehemently in it's grasp. But they will continue to find someone to write this drivel, until the NYT has lost all it's readership.
There is a great line from To Kill A Mockingbird where the colored folks up in the gallery of the courtroom tell Scout and Jem to stand up, because "your father is passing".
I feel this way about GW. He got the shaft from the left for 8 years, but did not cave, he stayed his course, and has won the big battle. He may have lost a few skirmishes, battling with the Dems over everything, and surely could have done a few things better. But, he achieved what they said could not be done, to free Iraq and give them the ability to govern themselves democratically. It's a liberal's worst nightmare, and it's his triumph.
I think we should all stand, because the President is passing. Finally, he deserves our respect.

shoprat said...

Had Gore won, he would have probably done the same thing. That Saddam had WMDs was the conventional wisdom of the time and he did nothing to discourage that belief.

The New York Times belongs in the supermarket checkout lanes right next to The National Enquirer.

TRUTH 101 said...

Professor: do you and your "students?" believe that because Bush shows good manners that excuses his errors the last eight years?
And the good news about the War in Iraq Norm is that our Military won that years ago. It's the occupation that Bush and Rumsfeld so masterfully screwed up that is a failure.

I would go away and leave you in your little world of fellow blind and deluded fools Professor Douglas, but I don't need an A on a term paper from you. If you can't stand views that don't agree with your narrow ones then you can always moderate or delete buddy.

Rich Casebolt said...

Professor: do you and your "students?" believe that because Bush shows good manners that excuses his errors the last eight years?

Where are YOUR excuses for the errors made by the Leftists and "realists" over the last forty years ... i.e. the continual opposition to the direct, timely, resolute and decisive use of American military force to remove (instead of ignore, or proxify) evident threats to life and liberty ... instead leaving them for this President to Man Up and start dealing decisively with them after they killed almost 3000 people on our own soil?

And the good news about the War in Iraq Norm is that our Military won that years ago. It's the occupation that Bush and Rumsfeld so masterfully screwed up that is a failure.

And where were YOU with the eventual answer? Or were you just another "liberal" whose answer was "withdraw" ... prefaced by words like "impeach" and "fire"?

Mr. Obama and his allies didn't have it either. If we had listened to them, Iraq would be back on its way to becoming Afghanistan 2.0 by now.

And in the light of history, the errors of this Administration are not out of line for leadership on a war footing.

Grace Explosion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom the Redhunter said...

The New York Times is afflicted with a terminal case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Trish said...

Hey Truth,
You are a full fledged vicitm of BDS, and your comments that the war was won years ago, which your leftist anti-war friends would heartily disagree with, is proof. There is no "occupation" moron, our troops are helping to rebuild, and they are still seeing small pockets of insurgents to do battle with, but the people of Iraq are determined to get a hold of their country and their future, and are taking advantage of our presence to get it done. And could never have done so without us.
Bush's errors of the last 8 years are small by standards, and you sir, are blinded by hatred.
Oh, and if you think we are all the professors students, you are sadly mistaken. Delusional is more like it.

TRUTH 101 said...

Look pupils. You can kiss up to the Professor by trying to twist words and revise history in your minds so Bush doesn't look as bad as he is all you want. But you still after all this time confuse war with occupation. There are two ways to go that have been the choice since the War was won two weeks after the invasion started. If you want to debate that then it ended after Hussein's capture. Either leave because what was a stated goal of ridding Iraq and the world of Hussein was accomplished. Or, institute a draft, raise income taxes to pay for the occupation and send enough Troops and support to do it right. I would have gladly paid some more taxes to do the job right. Bush and Co. never asked for sacrifice from the Nation. Only the Troops. Why you blind right wing fools still defend Bush is really no mystery. You do so because you are blind deuded fools.

JD said...

The New York Times does make some good points. Bush's actions speak for themselves, and not in a good way. Iraq has been a complete disaster for Bush and his accomplices.

Tim said...

NYT? Uh, Judith Miller? Hello!

Miller basically made the case for war herself in the NYT and it went unchecked. THAT is why the NYT is garbage. Not because they simply report what an utter and irretrievable basket case Bushco is.

He has no honor. None. How many military funerals has he been to? How many? You would think that the man who drummed up this emergency war would at least thank the families who sacrificed.

No honor. No where, no how.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Tim,

It's a fabricated outrage, criticizing Bush for not attending military funerals. Traditionally, that's always been the case, with rare exceptions, that presidents do not attend military funerals.

Read this.

Then consider this

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Iraq has been a complete disaster for Bush and his accomplices.

JD,

How exactly has Iraq been "a complete disaster" for Bush? Do you have any previous historical example to compare it to?