"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

Friday, March 09, 2007

NY Times, Washington Post - Seeing the Same Thing Differently

Is mass confusion a Democrat plan for retaining a majority?

According to the New York Times, Senator Mitch McConnell remarked on Democrat plans:

“Democrats in the Senate have, at latest count, had 16 versions of various proposals to interfere with the president’s ability and General Petraeus’s ability to conduct this mission successfully.”
The Dems do not appear to be united in any real sense of the word, at least as far as they were last June when:
"Democratic leaders voted against a plan supported by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts calling for a similar withdrawal."
Well one has to take this with a grain of salt as it was prior to the November elections. For added flavor the Times adds:
"Democratic strategists say that support for a timetable has steadily grown because of the conditions in Iraq, what they perceive as Mr. Bush’s resistance to change and the widespread support among the public for a clear-cut end to the war."
Might the "resistance to change" be more properly attributed to claims by Democrats regarding the president. It is after all the Democrats that have trumpeted the "surge" as the third one while excluding the fact that previous "surges" were for election purposes in Iraq with the numbers going back down afterward. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

Beyond the reader just being confused in general by anything out of the Democratic Leaderships mouths; two major newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post display further layers to confusion with business as usual.

The Times entitled this "factual" news with, "Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08" while the Post sees it as "Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq
Plan." Headlines alone have the power to sway, especially to those that do not take the time to actually read any with the exception of the time spent perusing them while waiting in line at the check out.

The Times didn't really see anything to indicate the lack of a "rally" behind a pullout (should be redeployment to the only possible place in the M.E., Betwixt), yet the Post said it was anything but and would require more coaxing and editing.

Where do you get your news? I think I know where these papers get theirs....

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls


    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks