Posted on 12/31/2006 11:34:14 AM PST by NCjim
NEWSWEEK's editor has decided to place President Ford on the cover of next week's issue -- over the execution of Saddam.
Even before news came of the hanging, there was debate at the magazine about whether Ford's death merited a cover story; some dismissed him as a "transitional" president, explains the magazine's Jon Meacham.
"I felt differently. There is much to learn from Ford's legacy-one that we explain and explore in detail-and his brief, 29-month presidency shapes us still. This is not to say that Saddam is an unimportant historical figure: we have twice gone to war against him, and many American soldiers have died fighting him and his regime. But his death in 2006 matters less than his removal in 2003 does. America faces a terrible predicament in Iraq, and that predicament is the same today as it was on the day before Saddam was hanged."
He continues: "There could be no greater contrast than that between Gerald Ford and Saddam Hussein, and word of Saddam's death illuminated Ford's grace and generosity even more."
NEWSWEEK's January 8, 2007 issue streets Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
these MSM guys are really complete, utter idiots!
If this is true, why are the DemocRATS always whining about the urgent need to capture Osama? Even if we capture bin Laden's corpse, the "predicament" we call the War on Terror will "remain the same." The "intellectuals" who work at Newsweak don't seem to be very smart (or consistant in their thinking).
If they showed Saddam's execution on their cover, all of their liberal/Democrat readers would complain and cancel their subscriptions.
These liberals are so sour on life.
Nothing brings happiness to these screwed up
creatures.
Totally negative on life.
I disagree. 9/11 and those people jumping from the Twin Towers brought happiness to every liberal.
They could have put them both on the cover.
Who would really care besides the visitors in doctor & office waiting rooms? Newsweek is a joke. The magazine is about half the size of what it used to be 10 years ago. Most of their cover stories have to do with celebrities or healthcare instead of hard news stories.
I don't condone what Nixon did, but man enough is enough.
Ford was an ok President. He just stayed the course that Nixon had already started in domestics and foreign policy. I think Watergate was way overblown compared to the scandals of Carter and the Clintons.
with the execution of Saddam we may see more people coming forward with accounts of the real Saddam.
This may make the liberals very un-happy!
Unfortunately I agree that 9/11 was a watershed for self loathing liberals.
I cannot believe this. I DO think liberals rejoice at our difficulty in bringing democracy to Iraq, as it represents a trial for the Bush administration. But I think that even liberals were horrified by the events of 9/11 and the images of people choosing to jump rather than die in flame.
I don't. I live in NY and heard many liberals at my college say it was justified for allowing Israel to "steal" "Palestine."
Oh, but they were quite upset when the first images of John Walker Lindh were shown "Poor guy! I feel so sorry for him."
I'm truly surprised Newsweek did not choose Saddam.
To chose the death of a republican president is truly remarkable.
"Newsweek? Not in THIS house."
- Hank Hill
But will those accounts ever be aired anyplace beyond talk radio, the conservative blogs, and FR?
LOL. I love Hank Hill.
What, no James Brown cover?
I see it in the liberal media every day.
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.