 |
  |
| Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
NYT: Where it's 9/10/01 all the time.
Posted on 09/11/2006 3:53:07 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
September 11, 2006 - 06:43
The New York Times's 9/11 editorial is no less despicable for being thoroughly predictable.
On a day when we should be coming together, the Times does its best to tear us apart. On a day when the focus should be on the terrorists who threaten us and the brave people who have defended us against them, the Times trains all its bile on the Bush administration.
Annotated excerpts:
"Without ever having asked to be exempt from the demands of this new post-9/11 war, we were cut out. Everything would be paid for with the blood of other people’s children."
Other people's children? Perhaps the children of the people who run and largely read the New York Times don't tend to enter the military and fight and die for their country. But why would that be the fault of George Bush?
"That pinched view of our responsibility as citizens got us tax cuts we didn’t need and an invasion that never would have occurred if every voter’s sons and daughters were eligible for the draft."
Even on 9/11, the Times finds a way to argue for higher taxes. And is the Times really advocating the reinstitution of the draft? Wasn't it the Times's friends in the Democratic party - led by the Times's home-town congressman Charles Rangel - who scare-mongered the draft as a Bush plot just before the 2004 election?
"When we measure the possibilities created by 9/11 against what we have actually accomplished, it is clear that we have found one way after another to compound the tragedy. Listing the sins of the Bush administration may help to clarify how we got here, but it will not get us out. The country still hungers for something better, for evidence that our leaders also believe in ideas larger than their own political advancement."
But of course that doesn't stop the Times from carefully cataloguing precisely what it sees as those sins. Leaders who believe "in ideas larger than their own political advancement": you mean like those titans of statesmanship and vision, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
"It would be miraculous if the best of our leaders did something larger — expressed grief and responsibility for the bad path down which we’ve gone, and promised to work together to turn us in a better direction. If that kind of coming together happened today, we could look back on Sept. 11, 2006, as more than a day for recalling bad memories and lost chances."
Not one word to remind us of the threat that faces us. Not one word of thanks for those who on 9/11 and thereafter have laid down their lives to fight that threat. For the New York Times, the real enemy isn't radical Islam, it's George W. Bush.
NY Times/NewsBusters tawdry-Times 9/11 ping to Today show list.
What did you expect?
It's the NY Times.
See opening line.
Thanks as always for glgb.
Here is my response to this swill from an earlier thread:
"How remarkable is the liberal view of life. They can't figure out for themselves what might be done, should be done. The "call" must come from elsewhere, from government, from the top down, from some daddy figure telling them what to do. It must allow them to posture in public, to engage in self-congratulation, but it must not be too difficult...oh, and there must be awards ceremonies, so we can identify who is doing the most. "Journalists" will figure prominently.
Well, thank you to all those in our armed forces, the firefighters, the police, to those who will remain unseen as they work every day to get the bad guys before they get their fellow citizens. And to the President who does all he can to defend this country, while they work tirelessly to destroy him. The NYT can't figure it out, but you have."
Whoa, Nelly, whoa! That's our money! If the government doesn't need it, they shouldn't tax it. I'm sure they want those tax dollars to spread some pork around, but I want to pay some bills, and I made that money. Don't tell me I don't need my own money.
and an invasion that never would have occurred if every voter’s sons and daughters were eligible for the draft."
So call for a draft. It's not like that problem wasn't considered in the 70s, when the draft ended, or at times past that. Why bring it up now?
There's really only three positions regarding the draft:
1 - For it at all times
2 - For it during periods of major national emergencies
3 - Against it
Where does the NYT editorial board sit on that? Are they advocating a draft? Do they think that we're in a period of major national emergency? If so, why leak state secrets like a sieve? I'm really curious as to what their take is.
"All the News That's Spit!"
In "The Path to 9/11," when the terrorists spit on those Americans, I thought of the New York Times. That is exactly their attitude toward President Bush and those who voted for him.
|
|
| Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
NYT: Where it's 9/10/01 all the time.
I am reminded of the quote, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Dems in this country, including their liberal cheerleaders in the press are actively trying to forget the past. The NYT editorial shows they are quite close to achieving their goal.
Contrary to the NYT fantasy, 80 or 90 % of the country supported teh Iraq war at the time it was launched, so it WOULD have occurred if everyone was subject to draft. The notion that Sadaam Hussein wasn't a worthwhile enemy is a post war movement by the left.
Didn't you really mean to have the letter T in there somewhere?
While at a local oil change shop, I glanced through the letters to the editor sections of the major news magazines. The amount of BDS was astounding. It just may be easier to reason with terrorists than with these moonbats.
That captures everything we need to know (and have known) about the NYT.
George W. Bush is the enemy.
That is the sickest thread and the sickest website that I've come across in a long time. I cannot believe those loons are representative of Democrats as a whole. Yikes!
They aren't children and they are all volunteers. Many of them are in their 30s, 40s and 50s and are reservists. Typical Dem tactic, i.e., it is all about the children.
"That pinched view of our responsibility as citizens got us tax cuts we didn’t need and an invasion that never would have occurred if every voter’s sons and daughters were eligible for the draft."
Sure. Also, if we'd passed a law requiring that the war in Iraq be fought by conscripted little old ladies, it would never have occurred. So what is the point here? Everyone who went to Iraq is a volunteer. Are they saying that we need to resurrect the draft?
"The war against terror we meant to fight in Afghanistan is at best stuck in neutral, with the Taliban resurgent and the best economic news involving a bumper crop of opium."
The reason the Taliban is "resurgent" has nothing to do with Bush's policy. The reason is that Pakistan finally kicked them out of Pakistan about 4-1/2 years after we drove them out of Afghanistan. Now they've got no where to go, and we're going to finish them off.
"Listing the sins of the Bush administration may help to clarify how we got here..."
Personally, I think listing the sins of the NYT might be more useful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.