Blogger and composer Richard Einhorn at Tristero is surprised that editorial writers at the New York Times used mild language when saying George W. Bush dissembled about the invasion of Iraq. Understandably, Einhorn would have preferred those nice middle-class men and women at the top of their field be forceful, even bold. He would probably settle for honest.
The New York Times: Bizarro World Edition
Man oh man, the New York Times has truly outdone itself. It seems the editorial staff has decided to go out on a real limb and opine that Bush may have been. . .dishonest about the war rationale. No, he's not a liar. Just, you know. . .dishonest:
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide.No shit, Sherlock.
And what does the Times suggest? Now that countless thousands of Iraqis have died, well over 800 Americans too, and terrorism has increased mightily? Read it and weep, my friends: President Bush should apologize to the American people. . . .
I am not surprised. For all the talk one hears about the liberal media, the media isn't. I don't believe most newspapers have editorialists who are as far to the Right as most of the blogosphere is either. Instead, there is a tendency to hew to a middle-of-the road policy that leans more to the Right than to the Left. Furthermore, this is a situation involving people of power. People who can strike back if displeased with coverage of them. The writers at the NYT slipped on their kid gloves and made sure they fit before they penned the piece. In addition, be prepared for a 'but it doesn't matter' follow-up by at least some of the editorialists now that the admission Bush lied about why Iraq was invaded has been made. After the heeing and hawing, the status quo will be declared not all that wrong.
Article comments