NYT editorial SLAMS Bush, Petraeus, Crocker AND Chairman Skelton

Empty Calories
Published: September 11, 2007

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing. Even if the so-called surge had created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it....

***

General Petraeus admitted success in Iraq would be neither quick nor easy. Mr. Crocker claimed that success is attainable, but made no guarantee. With that much wiggle room in the prognosis, one would think American leaders would start looking at serious alternative strategies — like the early, prudent withdrawal of troops that we favor. The American people deserve more than what the general and the diplomat offered them yesterday.

For that matter, they deserve more than what was offered by Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. When protesters interrupted the hearing, Mr. Skelton ordered them removed from the room, which is understandable. But then he said that they would be prosecuted. That seemed like an unnecessarily authoritarian response to people who just wanted to be heard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/opinion/11tue1.html

But I do love The Times.

and then there's the judyjdyjdymillers.

show a glaring disconnect not unlike the WSJ but in reverse. In the NYT their front page articles still seem to lean, for the most part, toward cheerleading the WH/bush cabal while their editorials are actually addressing the facts, the truth. If I am not mistaken, the WSJ (before it's takeover) had credible articles but it's editorials were beyond cheerleading and into delusional. Do I have this wrong?

is independent of the Times news operation. The editorial page is almost always "on our side." In the lead-up to Iraq, the NYT editorial page was not perfect, but was, according to an analysis I read, along with the LA Times editorial page, the most anti-war among our leading papers. The news pages have failed us in crucial areas -- their Clinton coverage, Katharine Seelye's coverage of Gore in 2000, Judith Miller. But almost every day there's, IMO, also something of value on page-one. And then there's this interesting duality noted by Editor & Publisher:

In contrast to Saturday pg.1 Michael Gordon article, Sunday NYT pg.1 says "Surge" goals unmet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1767954&mesg_id=1767954

The WSJ news pages are just fine -- and I don't think Murdoch has control of them quite yet.

there certainly seems to be a disconnect between the editorials and the articles published on the front pages. I understand there needs to be distance between the two but the disconnect seems to be much greater than what it should be. There is the lone article on the front pages on occasion that is what I would call actual reporting of the facts but they have become an anomaly as opposed to a expectation. It is both saddening and worrisome, imo.

The New York Times has insulted one of our great military leaders by impugning his honesty! This must stop immediately. We must denounce this mouthpiece for islamofascism.

repugnant! Well done. I have no doubt we will hear something very similar soon from the right-wing shills.

folks here who cannot find anything right in any protest at all.

in a way that won't upset the 'opposition'. I don't agree with them. Protest, protest as if your life and liberties depended on it because, imo, they DO!

I am so glad you are here...

My you remain safe and sound...

I, on the other hand, am so angry, I could spit blood and I lash out...

but I make no apologies to ANYBODY whom I've slammed...

Bravo WS!!

love your post.

their editorial page. ;)

as is the case with most newspapers (good example is the WSJ). Entirely different personnel -- Editorial operates independently.

:patriot:

I think now there's a guy with a DARK secret past, that bush and cheney have the goods on.

owned by corporateshyters.

...now will anyone listen?

Ya Think? Obvious to us but the corporatemediawhores keep propping up the puppets in front of the death squads.