"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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Lesson of N.K., at least the One the Times Learned?

Reading and posting on yesterdays lead editorial in The New York Times, about which Tony Snow referred to as, “what may be the dumbest lead of an editorial I've seen in a long time today,” and concluded myself that, “they have taken very little time considering anything but their own words. The end run for them is that they believe their own supposition.

After reading today’s lead editorial I am convinced that this is a fact; the board gets its news from the very paper they work for.

This morning’s still has the target of President Bush, but the arrow in their quiver is North Korea.

The board wastes no time firing the quiver rather than the arrow itself:

“It is welcome news that North Korea has agreed to move toward dismantling its nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel oil and international acceptance — including the hope of eventual recognition by the United States. When dealing with Pyongyang (and for that matter, the Bush administration), a lot can slip betwixt the cup and the lip. But if all goes as agreed, the world will be safer.”

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The “Agreed Framework,” should be a lesson in the lengths to which naiveté can be stretched and should be recognized as such considering it was brought about by the “stalwart” efforts of “accomplishment free” former president James Earl Carter and former IAEA head honcho Hans Blix. Oh, and it’s utter failure as well.

Today, following a breakthrough in negotiations with North Korea, we may be looking at the very same type of agreement. “The Paper of Record” considers this the appropriate way to do things. For all the numerous and almost daily instances the Times has castigated the Administration for doing the same things over and over only to end up with the same results, one would think the paper might catch on to this very activity within its own walls. Instead, it feels vindicated in this “breakthrough,” rather than noticing the possibility that this “new framework,” is much like the previous. Might the paper take the president to task for possibly making the same mistake the previous administration made? This would serve the public much better than the Times twisting a “gotcha,” out of thin imaginary air.

In order for the media to do a decent job, it needs to remember facts and history (or at least re-read, rather than re-write it); not its wishful thinking that it is omnipotent. If the MSM did not have such sway in the attitudes and education of the American public, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Unfortunately this is not the case. Fortunately though, if the NYT keeps this up, the “old gray lady,” will wither away and be recognized as the tabloid it has become.

I considered writing a parody of this “editorial,” but cannot improve on the original work in question.

Read it and weep: The Lesson of North Korea.”
Trackback for this post:

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls


    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks