"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

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

"Iran and the Generic Briefers," by the Blameless Media

Opinion from The New York Times, labeled as such (thanks):

“Before things get any more out of hand, President Bush needs to make his intentions toward Iran clear. And Congress needs to make it clear that this time it will be neither tricked nor bullied into supporting another disastrous war.”

“How little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.”

Had President Bush attended the New York Times re-Education Camp, he may have avoided the wrath of the it and others. To the msm, there is likely nothing more annoying than not being able to convince the entire country that they know.

Having used the entire Bush Presidency working tirelessly to undermine his actions and the actions of the country through him, they have taken very little time considering anything but their own words. The end run for them is that they believe their own supposition.

Adding insult to an unrecognized self inflicted wound, the Times editorial allowed:

“And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.”

The self inflicted wound being further down the “piece (pun always intended)”:

“We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council’s order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq.”

The paper wastes no time getting down to the business of dressing down the president, but spends zero time enlightening themselves. ‘We don’t doubt, although we want conclusiveness from the administration.’ By now they should know “conclusive” is not part of the intelligence community’s vocabulary. But that would require recognizing their failures in order to learn from them. This I find “a constant source of amazement.”

Knowing full well (though maybe not), that they can play with all sorts or rumor as fact and spread it as such, the Times’ finds their “credibility,” is sorely lacking and “shrill accusations and saber rattling,” won’t change that fact.

It’s time for conclusive “intelligence” from The New York Times.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5963389269531271299


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks