MasterChief
Junior Member
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060731
An Endorsement Of Defeat
Posted 7/31/2006
Media: In undermining our war effort, the New York Times is never at a loss. Just weeks after exposing a program to track terrorist financing, it endorses the primary opponent of the Senate's most laudable Democrat.
The "Newspaper of Record" would have us believe its endorsement of Sen. Joseph Lieberman's unknown rival in this month's Connecticut Democratic Senate primary is all about saving the Constitution from President Bush.
"The United States is at a critical point in its history," the Sunday Times' editorial says — with no argument from us on that — "and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play."
Now just why should it be controversial to do what Lieberman does, which is simply support a president of the opposing party in his war strategy?
Americans put up with precious little dissent against FDR's leadership as commander in chief during another world war in the last century.
To Democratic leaders in Congress the sad fact is that it is controversial to go all out to prevent terrorist operations that could kill thousands — or even far more.
Howard Dean and his minions would have the public believe that the National Security Agency's wiretapping program is comparable to Richard Nixon's Oval Office tape recorder. But Nixon was after his political enemies; the NSA is trying to catch and stop the enemies of civilization.
It's in that context that The New York Times has joined the mob that wants to teach Lieberman — plus any other elected Democrat who's thinking about placing the global war on terror before politics — a good, hard lesson.
Destroying Lieberman would be a reminder in no uncertain terms that priority one is embarrassing President Bush, and Democrats who forget that will pay a heavy price.
A particularly bizarre complaint from the Times concerns Lieberman's response in 2004 to those carping about mistreatment of suspected terrorists at Abu Ghraib prison. Lieberman was glad that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apologized for the mistreatment, but pointed out that "those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized."
The New York Times inscrutably charges that Lieberman's statement insults our troops.
"To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous," according to their editorial.
<...snip>....
The rest of the story is at the link...
An Endorsement Of Defeat
Posted 7/31/2006
Media: In undermining our war effort, the New York Times is never at a loss. Just weeks after exposing a program to track terrorist financing, it endorses the primary opponent of the Senate's most laudable Democrat.
The "Newspaper of Record" would have us believe its endorsement of Sen. Joseph Lieberman's unknown rival in this month's Connecticut Democratic Senate primary is all about saving the Constitution from President Bush.
"The United States is at a critical point in its history," the Sunday Times' editorial says — with no argument from us on that — "and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play."
Now just why should it be controversial to do what Lieberman does, which is simply support a president of the opposing party in his war strategy?
Americans put up with precious little dissent against FDR's leadership as commander in chief during another world war in the last century.
To Democratic leaders in Congress the sad fact is that it is controversial to go all out to prevent terrorist operations that could kill thousands — or even far more.
Howard Dean and his minions would have the public believe that the National Security Agency's wiretapping program is comparable to Richard Nixon's Oval Office tape recorder. But Nixon was after his political enemies; the NSA is trying to catch and stop the enemies of civilization.
It's in that context that The New York Times has joined the mob that wants to teach Lieberman — plus any other elected Democrat who's thinking about placing the global war on terror before politics — a good, hard lesson.
Destroying Lieberman would be a reminder in no uncertain terms that priority one is embarrassing President Bush, and Democrats who forget that will pay a heavy price.
A particularly bizarre complaint from the Times concerns Lieberman's response in 2004 to those carping about mistreatment of suspected terrorists at Abu Ghraib prison. Lieberman was glad that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apologized for the mistreatment, but pointed out that "those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized."
The New York Times inscrutably charges that Lieberman's statement insults our troops.
"To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous," according to their editorial.
<...snip>....
The rest of the story is at the link...
Last edited by a moderator:
