New York Times Critical of Bush's Speech
New York Times Critical of Bush's Speech
By Marc Schulman, American Future
It’s fisking time again!
Let’s start with the editorial’s first paragraph:
Yesterday, the same day New Yorkers were warned there was a “specific threat” of a bombing on their subways, President Bush delivered what the White House promoted as a major address on terrorism. It seemed, on the surface, like a perfect topic for the moment. But his talk was not about the nation’s current challenges. He delivered a reprise of his Sept. 11 rhetoric that suggested an avoidance of today’s reality that seemed downright frightening.
Duh. Bush’s speech was delivered in the morning; the warning to New Yorkers came in the afternoon. Evidently, the Times has trouble distinquishing between what comes before and what comes after. A reprise of his September 11 rhetoric? Not if you consider his identification of Islamic radicals, instead of terrorists and evil-doers, as our enemy, or his greater than ever before detailing of the Islamists’ intentions, or his description of his administration’s strategy as significant changes. I wonder whether the Times criticized President Roosevelt for endlessly repeating “unconditional surrender” during World War II.
Yesterday, it seemed as if the president was still trying to live in 2001. It was eerie to hear him urge Americans to take terrorism seriously. There wasn’t any reason to worry about that even before subway riders were being told about the threat of a terrorist attack on their commute home.
But Americans haven’t been taking terrorism seriously. To see this, all the Times had to do was look at recent polls showing where terrorism ranks among the public’s worries. Four years without a terrorist attack on American soil is one explanation. So are the statements of the Times‘ favorite politicians — John Kerry included — who think that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. How serious can the terrorist threat be if the police and the courts are capable of handling it? How serious can it be if more column inches are devoted to the mistreatment of prisoners than to any other aspect of the confrontation with terrorists?
Ever since the terrorist attacks, the main thing Americans have wanted from Washington is a sense of safety. That takes more than hyperalertness to suicide bombing threats, important as that is.
How many editorials has the Times run demanding that the administration pursue a more aggressive counter-terrorism policy? How does this compare with the number of editorials arguing that civil liberties are being sacrificed in the name of counter-terrorism? Before Katrina, how worried was the Times about the quality of FEMA’s leadership?
Yesterday was an ideal moment for Mr. Bush to demonstrate that he was really in control of his administration. He could have taken any one of a number of pressing worries and demonstrated that he was on the job, re-examining the problems, working on answers. For instance, he could have addressed the crisis facing the overstretched military due to the endless demands made by Iraq on both the Army and the beleaguered National Guard.
How, exactly, would the Times have had Bush deal with the Army and National Guard? By calling for a draft? Fat chance. By calling for a cut-and-run from Iraq, and damn the consequences?
. . . the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating. For most of us, the memories are fresh and painful. We mourn the people who died on Sept. 11, as we mourn Daniel Pearl and other Americans, not to mention innocents from other countries, who were murdered by terrorists. The administration’s penchant for using them as political cover is offensive.
So Bush should have pretended that the most devastating attack on Americans never happened. Did the Times claim that Roosevelt milked Pearl Harbor?
Millions of people across the world read this rag that basks in its former glory. Its editors are more concerned with taking the President down than in defeating our enemies. There’s nothing — nothing — Bush could say that would change its mind. The Times would always find a reason to pour cold water on his words.
I hope I live long enough to see the Times forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It would be well-deserved.
Posted by Marc Schulman at October 7, 2005 01:20 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/10799
1
.
t
said:
See above "oil" comments!!!!!!!
Posted by: t on October 7, 2005 05:34 AM
2
.
BobW
said:
One comment re "FEMA's leadership";
The former director was "thrown to the wolves" solely as an easy response to public fears. As much as the former director was a political hack and not qualified (which I accept), his discharge absolves too many others who also are political hacks and not qualified for their positions.
Plus, FEMA was being merged into the new Department of Homeland Security. It can take 10-20 years to develop well run institutions. Note the avoidance of the Corps of Engineers from much of the news. The Corps of Engineers for many years has been in the employ of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
FEMA evolved from the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, part of the Defense Department. They were headquartered in Battle Creek, Michigan. There is now a move to have the Defense Department run the civilian aspects of our country. Don't be shocked. The Department of Homeland Security has somewhat of a resembalance to the old Continental Army Command !
I too look forward for the NY Times to leave the scene. They've already left journalism. I want them to lose the business.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on October 7, 2005 06:30 AM
3
.
Ed D
said:
Marc, congratulations for writing this editorial. The sooner the better that this rag disappear. Although the owner and publisher are Jewish, it is in name only. They are some of the most voratious anti-semites anywhere.
Posted by: Ed D on October 7, 2005 04:26 PM
New York Times Critical of Bush's Speech
By Marc Schulman, American Future
It’s fisking time again!
Let’s start with the editorial’s first paragraph:
Duh. Bush’s speech was delivered in the morning; the warning to New Yorkers came in the afternoon. Evidently, the Times has trouble distinquishing between what comes before and what comes after. A reprise of his September 11 rhetoric? Not if you consider his identification of Islamic radicals, instead of terrorists and evil-doers, as our enemy, or his greater than ever before detailing of the Islamists’ intentions, or his description of his administration’s strategy as significant changes. I wonder whether the Times criticized President Roosevelt for endlessly repeating “unconditional surrender” during World War II.But Americans haven’t been taking terrorism seriously. To see this, all the Times had to do was look at recent polls showing where terrorism ranks among the public’s worries. Four years without a terrorist attack on American soil is one explanation. So are the statements of the Times‘ favorite politicians — John Kerry included — who think that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. How serious can the terrorist threat be if the police and the courts are capable of handling it? How serious can it be if more column inches are devoted to the mistreatment of prisoners than to any other aspect of the confrontation with terrorists?
How many editorials has the Times run demanding that the administration pursue a more aggressive counter-terrorism policy? How does this compare with the number of editorials arguing that civil liberties are being sacrificed in the name of counter-terrorism? Before Katrina, how worried was the Times about the quality of FEMA’s leadership?
How, exactly, would the Times have had Bush deal with the Army and National Guard? By calling for a draft? Fat chance. By calling for a cut-and-run from Iraq, and damn the consequences?
So Bush should have pretended that the most devastating attack on Americans never happened. Did the Times claim that Roosevelt milked Pearl Harbor?
Millions of people across the world read this rag that basks in its former glory. Its editors are more concerned with taking the President down than in defeating our enemies. There’s nothing — nothing — Bush could say that would change its mind. The Times would always find a reason to pour cold water on his words.
I hope I live long enough to see the Times forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It would be well-deserved.
Posted by Marc Schulman at October 7, 2005 01:20 AM