"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Monday, January 22, 2007

The NY Times Relies too Heavily in Propaganda as Fact

According to the New York Times Editorial board:

“President Bush’s refusal to come up with a serious policy on Iraq means that the Democrats will have to goad him toward one. Congress needs to do more than just oppose the latest ill-conceived military escalation.”

So, the “paper of record,” puts it all on Bush, which to a certain degree is accurate in that this has been his project. Where the paper is woefully pathetic is it’s insistence that “congress needs to do more than just oppose….” Yeah, the Democratic Congress needs to not just oppose Bush, but offer “ideas?” The paper should know better than that, but that would require it’s peeking it’s head outside the self imposed bubble of ignorance of the msm. All the Democrats have done since the beginning of Bush is oppose…as they have no ideas, or at least ideas they wish to share due to their lack of popularity. Until poll result come out telling Dems what to do, we can expect more of the same.

This is not to deny imperfection on the part of the president in his efforts in Iraq, but to place blame more liberally. Those in opposition to the Iraq theater in the war on terror have done nothing but offer soundbytes consisting of inaccuracies and lies, even when the truth would have done. They have felt the need to oppose; one for the sake of opposition and two, propagandize against their own country and it’s interests.

Rare is the journalist that asks: “well what do you guys suggest?” and “what might the results/ramifications of a Democratic Party plan be?” Instead, we get predictions regarding what the president is doing in Iraq. To hear them tell it, there are no negative ramifications to “cutting and running,” only a return to the “9/10/01” world.

Regarding the resolution in the works according to the Times:

“Passing this resolution by the widest possible bipartisan margin would be a good first step. It would make clear to the American people (who called for a change last November), to President Bush (who didn’t listen) and to Mr. Maliki (who didn’t seem to notice) that the days of uncritical American support for Shiite misrule are over.”

The Times knows exactly what “we” the voters had on our minds when we voted last November, the Bush doesn’t listen (otherwise, gosh things would be just swell) and the American public’s “uncritical” support for the previous Baath/Sunni misrule prior to our invasion. As in the U.S. minority rules the majority.

The msm and the Democrats, whether they like it or not have much to do with the state of Iraq as it stands. To yell, Vietnam, Quagmire, Pol Pot, Nazi tactics, Ahu ghraib under new management, etc. and to tout/offer nothing of a positive forwarding nature has done much to damage reality and truth.

Were the truth good enough, the Democrats would have used it. Magnifying the view of al jazeera’s and speaking to it as truth only muddied what exactly is going on in our world today.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1513082203662837137


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks