~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I O 93 93/93 I O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Photo
Location: LaGrange, Kentucky, United States

The opinions and interests of a husband, analyst and Iraq war veteran.


Monday, March 13, 2006

I guess it's hard to accurately critique what one refuses to understand


The NYT gets it wrong from line one. Hardly a first, but depressing all the same.

A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism

WASHINGTON, March 12 — The president who made pre-emption and going it alone the watchwords of his first term is quietly turning in a new direction, warning at every opportunity of the dangers of turning the nation inward and isolationist, and making the case for international engagement on issues from national security to global economics.

In the interest of accuracy, I'd change that opener to this: "The president whose critics in the media made pre-emption and going it alone the watchwords of his first term ..."

I clearly remember a coalition of dozens of nations entering Iraq. I also remember Bush spelling that out more than once. Bush's rhetoric of, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" has been much repeated these last four years. Funny how this paragraph in that now infamous speech is never quoted:

"We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all."

- September 20, 2001

Yeah. Bush is just now rejecting isolationism, and embracing his newly discovered globalization "on issues from national security to global economics." Sure. Whatever. You can attempt to rewrite history all you want NYT, all it'll do is help speed your tranformation from the international "Paper of Record" back into some provincial, backwater rag.

It's high time we started taking people at their word, folks. The author of this historically inaccurate piece of drivel either 1)knows that it's inaccurate, in which case he's intentionally misrepresenting the words of our popularly elected leadership in an effort to undermine our country's efforts, or 2)he's operating from the assumption of, "Well Bush is a liar, so his word doesn't count. Everybody I know knows that." In which case I ask, who's "living in a bubble"?

(Via: Drudge)

<< Home |