Replies

11-30-01

New York Times Chairman/Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. admits to Brian Lamb:

"Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots"
Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man" [i.e., by failing to connect the dots!]

by Mia T, November 30, 2001

Malpractice and/or malfeasance by "compartmentalization" redux...

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes. Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath ?

(Note, by the way, the irony of Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements, pointing to clinton "policies," not achievements, (perhaps understanding, at last, that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real--perhaps understanding, at last, that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all).).

If we assume that the clintons were the proximate cause of 9-11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it then follows that The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath.

The New York Times clinton Endorsements: Then and Now

by Mia T, October 22, 2000

The New York Times' endorsement today of hillary rodham clinton is nothing more or less than a reprise of its shameless endorsement of her husband four years ago. Like the 4-year-old disgrace, this endorsement reveals more about The Times than it does about the candidate.

The Times' endorsements of the clintons are not merely intellectually dishonest--they are laughably, shamelessly so. An obscene disregard for the truth, a blithe jettisoning of logic, a haughty contempt for the electorate, a reckless neglect of Constitution and country, they are willful fourth-estate malfeasance.

Inadvertently, ineptly, ironically, these endorsements become the metaphor for the corrupt, duplicitious, dangerous subjects they attempt to ennoble. The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the national aberration that is clintonism and for all the devastation that has flowed and will continue to flow therefrom.

I have included both endorsements below. One has only to re-read the 1996 apologia today, in 2000, after eight long years of clinton depravity and destruction, to confirm how spurious its arguments were, how ludicrously revisionist its premises were, how wrong its conclusions were, how damaging its deceits were.

The Lieberman Paradigm

I have dubbed the Times' convoluted, corrupt, pernicious reasoning, (unfortunately now an all-too-familiar Democratic scheme), "The Lieberman Paradigm," in honor of the Connecticut senator and his sharply bifurcated, logically absurd, unrepentantly Faustian, post-Monica ménage-à-troika transaction shamelessly consummated on the floor of the Senate that swapped his soul for clinton's a$$.

Reduced to its essence, the argument is this:

clinton is an unfit president;
therefore, clinton must remain president.

(You will recall that Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .)

Nomenclature notwithstanding, (nomenklatura, too), it was not the Lieberman speech but rather the 1996 Times endorsement that institutionalized this Orwellian, left-wing ploy to protect and extend a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and as is increasingly obvious-- dangerous -- Democratic regime.

"A Tiger Doesn't Change its Spots"

Reprising its 1996 model, The Times cures this clinton's ineptitude and failure with a delusional revisionism and cures her corruption and dysfunction with a character lobe brain transplant.

But revisionism and brain surgery didn't work in 1996, and revisionism and brain surgery won't work today.

...prior attempts at presidential brain surgery
have proven less than brilliant.
You will recall that, as recently as 1996,
The New York Times insisted that
Bill Clinton undergo the surgical procedure;
its endorsement of Clinton was predicated
on Clinton undergoing a partial brain transplant:
specifically of the Character Lobe.

Clinton assured us immediately (if tacitly)
that this would be done post haste (or was it post chaste?),
that whatever crimes he never did, he would never do again.

If brain surgery was ever performed on Clinton,
it has produced no discernible improvement.

Perhaps our approach to the problem
of deficient presidential brains
is itself wrong-headed;
that the problem is really
a problem of deficient electorate brains.

Voters would be wise to heed
the old roadside ad:

Don't lose Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.
--Mia T, Pushme-Pullyou

I like your posts. Believe it or not, this is art.

"It was amazing they were able to make such a big deal of the homeland security bill,"

Remember though, the Republicans had some help in keeping the Homeland Security Bill before the public consciousness. The continued horrific suicide bombings against innocent Israelis, the sniper spree by admitted Islamic John Muhammed, and the unending public threats against Americans by Al Qaeda were constant reminders to the people of the utter failure of blow job bill and the RAT pack to protect the citizens of this nation!

And the public finally began to understand that to the RATS, homeland security has never been "such a big deal." Their only purpose in life is to obtain power over others by "any means necessary" and to use "any means necessary" to hold on to that power. Stinking, dirty, diseased RATS!

This op ed should have been titled, "The Man from 'You've Been Had'."

bttt

Bump