About That Troop Drawdown in Iraq in '06

[Ralph]

This is a pretty balanced report (which, of course, we expect from the nation's greatest newspaper)

From The New York Times:

May 19, 2005
Generals Offer Sober Outlook on Iraqi War
By JOHN F. BURNS and ERIC SCHMITT

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 18 - American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.

In interviews and briefings on Wednesday, the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, including some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One senior officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi paramilitary police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting. President Bush, in a speech on Wednesday evening in Washington, called for patience in assessing Iraq's progress toward democracy.

General Abizaid, who speaks with President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld regularly, was in Washington this week for a meeting of regional commanders.

In Baghdad, a senior officer said Wednesday in a background briefing that the 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month almost matched the total of 25 in all of last year.

Against this, he said, there has been a lull in insurgents' activity in Baghdad in recent days after months of some of the bloodiest attacks, a trend that suggested that American pressure, including the capture of key bomb makers, had left the insurgents incapable of mounting protracted offensives.

But the officer said that despite Americans' recent successes in disrupting insurgent cells, which have resulted in the arrest of 1,100 suspects in Baghdad alone in the past 80 days, the success of American goals in Iraq was not assured.

"I think that this could still fail," the officer said at the briefing, referring to the American enterprise in Iraq. "It's much more likely to succeed, but it could still fail."

The officer said much depended on the new government's success in bolstering public confidence among Iraqis. He said recent polls conducted by Baghdad University had shown confidence flagging sharply, to 45 percent, down from an 85 percent rating immediately after the election. "For the insurgency to be successful, people have to believe the government can't survive," he said. "When you're in the middle of a conflict, you're trying to find pillars of strength to lean on."

Another problem cited by the senior officer in Baghdad was the new government's ban on raids on mosques, announced on Monday, which the American officer said he expected to be revised after high-level discussions on Wednesday between American commanders and Iraqi officials.

The officer said the ban appeared to have been announced by the new defense minister, Sadoun al-Dulaimi, without wider government approval, and would be replaced by a "more moderate" policy.

To raise the level of public confidence, the officer said, the new government would need success in cutting insurgent attacks and meeting popular impatience for improvements in public services like electricity that are worse, for many Iraqis, than they were last year. But he emphasized the need for caution - and the time it may take to complete the American mission here - notes that recur often in the private conversations of American officers in Iraq.

"I think it's going to succeed in the long run, even if it takes years, many years," he said. On a personal note, he added that he, like many American soldiers, had spent long periods of duty related to Iraq, and he said: "We believe in the mission that we've got. We believe in it because we're in it, and if we let go of the insurgency and take our foot off its throat, then this country could fail and go back into civil war and chaos."

Only weeks ago, in the aftermath of the elections, American generals offered a more upbeat view, one that was tied to a surge of Iraqi confidence that one commander in Baghdad now describes as euphoria. But on Wednesday, five high-ranking officers, speaking separately at the Pentagon and in Baghdad, and through an e-mail exchange from Baghdad with a reporter in Washington, ranged with unusual candor and detail over problems now confronting the war effort.

By insisting that they not be identified, the three officers based in Baghdad were following a Pentagon policy requiring American commanders in Baghdad to put "an Iraqi face" on the war, meaning that Iraqi commanders should be the ones talking to reporters, not Americans. That policy has been questioned recently by senior Americans in Iraq, who say Iraqi commanders have failed to step forward, leaving a news vacuum that has allowed the insurgents' successful attacks, not their failures, to dominate news coverage.

The generals' remarks, emphasizing the insurgency's resilience but also American and Iraqi successes in disrupting them, suggested that American commanders may have seen an opportunity after Secretary Rice's trip to inject their own note of realism into public debate. In talks with Iraq's new Shiite leaders, she urged a more convincing effort to reach out to the dispossessed Sunni Arab minority, warning that success in the war required a political strategy that encouraged at least some Sunni insurgent groups to turn toward peace.

The generals said the buildup of Iraqi forces had been more disappointing than previously acknowledged, contributing to the absence of any Iraqi forces when a 1,000-member Marine battle group mounted an offensive last week against insurgent strongholds in the northwestern desert, along the border with Syria.

American officers said that 125 insurgents had been killed, with the loss of about 14 Americans, but acknowledged that lack of sufficient troops might have helped many insurgents to flee across the border or back into the interior of Iraq. The border offensive was wrapped up over the weekend, with an air of disappointment that some of wider goals had not been achieved - possibly including the capture of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Islamic militant who is the American forces' most-wanted man in Iraq.

General Abizaid, whose Central Command headquarters exercises oversight of the war, said the Iraqi police - accounting for 65,000 of the 160,000 Iraqis now trained and equipped in the $5.7 billion American effort to build up security forces - are "behind" in their ability to shoulder a major part of the war effort. He blamed a tendency among Iraqi policemen to operate as individuals rather than in cohesive, military-style units, and said this made them more vulnerable to insurgents' intimidation.

Another American officer, in an e-mail message from Baghdad, suggested a wider problem in preparing Iraqi forces capable of taking over much of the fighting, which was the Pentagon's goal when it ordered a top-to-bottom shakeout last year in the retraining effort. He said the numbers of Iraqi troops and police officers graduating from training were only one measure of success.

"Everyone looks at the number of Iraqi forces and scratches their heads, but it is more complex than that," he said. "We certainly don't want to put forces into the fight before they can stand up, as in Falluja," the battle last November that gave American commanders their first experience of Iraqi units, mostly highly trained special forces' units, that could contribute significantly to an American offensive.

One of starkest revelations by the commanders involved the surge in car bombings, the principal insurgent weapon in attacks over the past three weeks that have killed nearly 500 people across central and northern Iraq, about half of them Iraqi soldiers, police officers and recruits.

The senior officer who met with reporters in Baghdad said there had been 21 car bombings in the capital in May, and 126 in the past 80 days. In all of last year, the officer said, there were only about 25 car bombings in Baghdad.

The officer said that American military intelligence had information that the car-bombing offensive had been ordered by a high-level meeting of insurgents in Syria within the past 30 days, and that reports indicated that one of those at the meeting might have been Mr. Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born militant who was named by Osama bin Laden earlier this year as Al Qaeda's chief in Iraq. In statements on Islamic Web sites, groups loyal to Mr. Zarqawi have claimed responsibility for many of the car bombings.

The officer said that in two of the recent Baghdad bombings, investigators had found indications that the men driving the cars had been bound with duct tape before the attacks. He said the foot of one of the attackers, in a marketplace bombing last week that killed 22 people in south Baghdad, had been found taped to his vehicle's accelerator. In another case, the officer said, the attacker's hands were taped to the vehicle's wheel.

The implication was that those planning the attacks wanted to be sure that the vehicles would continue to their targets even if the drivers were killed by American or Iraqi gunfire as they approached.

Arriving at a lunch with reporters from a meeting with Iraqi cabinet ministers and military commanders, the officer said he expected the government to make an early move to revise the defense minister's announcement of a ban on raids on mosques and religious schools. The revised policy, the American officer implied, would allow Iraqi forces, backed by Americans, to raid mosques when they are used as insurgent strongholds.

"We will not place soldiers at undue risk, so when there is a problem, we'll go to them and say, 'Here's what we need to do to operate effectively,' " he said.

John F. Burns reported from Baghdad for this article and Eric Schmitt from Washington. Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad.

[Corlyss_D]

John Burns? {Where's that barfing emoticon?} I wonder which journalist in the bar he intereviewed to get this "story?"

Rarely, if ever, has a war been covered by reporters in so distant and restricted a way. The New York Times correspondents live in Baghdad behind a massive stockade with four watchtowers, protected by locally hired, rifle-toting security men, complete with NYT T-shirts. America's NBC television chain are holed up in a hotel with an iron grille over their door, forbidden by their security advisers to visit the swimming pool or the restaurant "let alone the rest of Baghdad" lest they be attacked. Several Western journalists do not leave their rooms while on station in Baghdad.

John Burns is a joke.

[Werner]

And who is the source of that scurrilous, unattributed statement you quoted? Where was the author? At the Fox bar, in the Roger Ailes headquarters?

[rwetmore]

I continue to be amazed that anyone can still take the NY Times editorials about Iraq seriously. Prior the initial elections, they had virtually the entire situation nearly 180 degrees from reality.

For me, the NY Times editorial is the libral's equivalent of the conservative's Limbaugh letter, except the Limbaugh letter is far more credible (lately), IMO .

[Werner]

I think you want to draw a better line of distinction betwen editorials and reports.

This was an extensive report, not a statement of editorial opinion. Do our right-minded friends know the difference?

[Ralph]

I continue to be amazed that anyone can still take the NY Times editorials about Iraq seriously. Prior the initial elections, they had virtually the entire situation nearly 180 degrees from reality.

For me, the NY Times editorial is the libral's equivalent of the conservative's Limbaugh letter, except the Limbaugh letter is far more credible, IMO .

*****

What made you think this was an editorial?

[rwetmore]

What made you think this was an editorial?

OK, fair enough - It technically is a report. To me it is essentially an editorial disguised as a report.

[rwetmore]

I think you want to draw a better line of distinction betwen editorials and reports.

This was an extensive report, not a statement of editorial opinion. Do our right-minded friends know the difference?

Maybe. Obviously I'm very cynical in regards to politics in general.

What bothers me the most is that the NY Times won't admit they are liberals. I guess that is my main objection.

[Werner]

Perhaps you should be less concerned with labels and pay some attentuion to facts.

[Ralph]

I think you want to draw a better line of distinction betwen editorials and reports.

This was an extensive report, not a statement of editorial opinion. Do our right-minded friends know the difference?

Maybe. Obviously I'm very cynical in regards to politics in general.

What bothers me the most is that the NY Times won't admit they are liberals. I guess that is my main objection.

*****

The New York Times takes many editorial stands, some on issues of no interest to non-Gothamites. Their editorials are invariably well-written and they often reflect what many consider to be a liberal agenda. What's wrong with that? The New York Post and the New York Daily News both have fairly conservative editorial postures but all three newspapers largely report the news without a slant in my view. The only difference is that the Times is written at a far higher level of English and its articles go into greater depth and cover far more issues.

[rwetmore]

Perhaps you should be less concerned with labels and pay some attentuion to facts.

Yes - the problem is trying to find reliable sources that reasonably try to present all or most of the facts relevant to the issue in question.

It seems all too often, we get only facts that support a particular agenda or political ideology.

[Werner]

....or is it that you do't get the "facts" that would square with your preferences?

[rwetmore]

The New York Times takes many editorial stands, some on issues of no interest to non-Gothamites. Their editorials are invariably well-written and they often reflect what many consider to be a liberal agenda.

Except the "many" don't include the writers themselves.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. All points of view are encouraged...the more the better.

[JackC]

The New York Times takes many editorial stands, some on issues of no interest to non-Gothamites. Their editorials are invariably well-written and they often reflect what many consider to be a liberal agenda. What's wrong with that?

The problem is that the NYT's liberal agenda is NOT confined to the editorial page. That is not to say that everything they print is wrong, or that it isn't at a higher level than other papers.

Bias is reflected in the stories you choose to report, the peoples' views who you choose to communicate, how the context of a story is communciated, the assumptions that underlie reporting. etc

Here's a nice piece by Hitchins on the Times' reporting and on its worldview on the "insurgency" in Iraq.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118820/

[rwetmore]

The New York Times takes many editorial stands, some on issues of no interest to non-Gothamites. Their editorials are invariably well-written and they often reflect what many consider to be a liberal agenda. What's wrong with that?

The problem is that the NYT's liberal agenda is NOT confined to the editorial page. That is not to say that everything they print is wrong, or that it isn't at a higher level than other papers.

Bias is reflected in the stories you choose to report, the peoples' views who you choose to communicate, how the context of a story is communciated, the assumptions that underlie reporting. etc

Precisely. It is not the bias or agenda itselt that is the problem (for me, at least). It is the paper's refusal to admit or disclose it to their readers.

[Barry]

Precisely. It is not the bias or agenda itselt that is the problem (for me, at least). It is the paper's refusal to admit or disclose it to their readers.

I've mentioned before that I think people are often under the wrong impression as to how newspapers work.

The New York Times is no different than virtually any other daily newspaper in a major city in not overtly pronouncing itself liberal or conservative. The only ethical duty I think a paper has is to provide ample space on its Op-Ed pages for contrary view points. The Times, the paper I work for (Philadelphia Inquirer), and probably every other major paper (with the possible exception of some blatant taploid rags) in the U.S. does that. The positions of the Editorial Board are all voted on. The members of the Editorial Board are generally people who were reporters, then editors and have been around for a long time. Some papers (undoubtedly, The Times and Phila Inquirer among them) have more liberals than conservatives on their Editorial Board, and others (W.S. Journal, Washington Times for example) have more conservatives on the Board.

At least in the northeast corridor, there are probably more liberals than conservatives in general in journalism. But in ten years in the business, I've never heard of anyone not being hired or not getting a promotion because of their political slant.

How do you expect the Times to "admit or disclose" their political slant, Randall? I think most of us can figure out for ourselves which political slant a paper has on our own.

I sometimes think the right's real problem with the Times is that so many people read it.

[rwetmore]

How do you expect the Times to "admit or disclose" their political slant, Randall? I think most of us can figure out for ourselves which political slant a paper has on our own.

Excellent question. I certainly wouldn't expect them say anything like "we are liberals, and generally only present facts and stories that support our viewpoints and ideologies." That would be dumb.

Perhaps the editorial writers and reporters should be required to choose to identify their general world/political views based on some general criteria provided by and disclosed by the paper. Perhaps someing similar to a D or R for Democrat or Republican used on the cable news network shows, for example. Maybe something like L, L/I, I, C/I, and C for Liberal, Liberal/Independent, Independent, Conservative/Independent, Conservative or something like this.

I sometimes think the right's real problem with the Times is that so many people read it.

For sure, that's part of it, but I believe they would be taken much more seriously and read by a larger number of people if they would be more honest about who they are. Just my opinion.

[Ralph]

No newspaper does what you suggest and to single out the Timnes is puerile. Do you believe that readers are so dense, so uninformed, so semi-literate that they can't read an editorial or an Op-Ed piece without comprehending the perspective expressed?

What you propose, for any newspaper from the great if sometimes flawed Times to the Philistine New York Post, is massive dumbing down. I can't believe you want THAT. Right?

[Werner]

I hate to say it, Ralph, but I think that's the trend. People seem unwilling or unable to think for themselves but need the guidance of a Pat Robertson, a George Bush, a whatever-you-pick genuine or presumed authority figure to confirm their attitudes. And instead of knowing what they're talking about they go by convenient labels.

With this mental standard, watch our leadership leak to the likes of Bangladesh, Bangalore, Singapore, or rural China.

[rwetmore]

No newspaper does what you suggest and to single out the Timnes is puerile. Do you believe that readers are so dense, so uninformed, so semi-literate that they can't read an editorial or an Op-Ed piece without comprehending the perspective expressed?

The Times was the subject, but I'm not singling them out. I would support something like what I suggested for all newspapers in general.

And no, I do not think the Times readers are dumb or uninformed, nor do think most of them are 100% naive of the leftward slant of the stories and editorials.

I do feel like such disclosure would force the Times and other publications to provide more genuinely balanced stories, reports, and editorials. I think this would better serve the public, attract more readers, give them more credibility, and ultimately make them more money.

What you propose, for any newspaper from the great if sometimes flawed Times to the Philistine New York Post, is massive dumbing down. I can't believe you want THAT. Right?

Sorry, I don't see it at all as a "dumbing down," but rather a cleaning up.

The biggest problem of all maybe that many of the Times writers and reporters don't see themselves as liberal...they just feel their way of thinking is the natural, objective order of things.

[rwetmore]

I hate to say it, Ralph, but I think that's the trend. People seem unwilling or unable to think for themselves but need the guidance of a Pat Robertson, a George Bush, a whatever-you-pick genuine or presumed authority figure to confirm their attitudes. And instead of knowing what they're talking about they go by convenient labels.

Perhaps the problem is that too many people don't have enough reliable sources of information that present things in a way that lets their readers decide for themselves? Maybe people are lazy as well. It's probably a bit of both, but an abundence of unslanted, "you decide for yourself" information is not something very many people get exposure to, especially these days. And yes, this includes myself .

[Brendan]

Perhaps Journalists could provide education, awards and other background material on-line. For instance, in Australia I know the University of Queensland gives out an award for journalism or, as they put it, an award for Communication and Social Change - and the criteria for being selected for the award are hilariously PC. I like to know if the journo's and opinionators I read have won a CSC or not. The UofC is famous for its journalism school here and teaching that standards of objective reporting is, in fact, Western cultural imperialism. Admittedly, they seem to have backed away from the radicalism of their previous courses shown on their website since a conservative government has been elected.

Journos insist on the public's right to know all the initmate details of every public figure, yet the journalists are the ones presenting and interpreting material to the public and we seemingly have no right to know about them, the opinion-makers and shapers.

[Barry]

Honestly, I find the suggestion that reporters should be identified as Democrats or Republicans at the top of their stories a bit bizarre.

Reporters (and op-ed writers) at most major papers now provide their e-mail address and in many cases (my paper being one of them) their phone numbers as well. It's policy at the Inquirer that they be responsive to readers (and I would imagine the same is true at the Times). Anyone who is curious about a writer or wants to question them need only write an email or pick up the phone.

But again, people can decide for themselves if they think a paper's stories are slanted, and read another paper if they come to that conclusion. That's the way the free-market system works. I just don't understand the obsession so many have with the Times.

[Donald Isler]

I also don't think op-ed people should have to identify their politics. That would only be necessary for people who are too lazy to pay attention. For example, despite it's generally liberal tendencies the NY Times always has at least one Republican-leaning op-ed writer. Also, Friedman is quite un-orthodox, at one time or another getting just about everyone mad at him, though he's probably the most brilliant and perceptive writer among them, from my perspective.

[Brendan]

Whilst I don't think a Scarlet Letter need be applied, a little background readily available doesn't seem unreasonable. Perhaps our opinion columnists and such are a little different than in the USA, but the number of times journos here have turned out to have an agenda or vested interests in a story - let alone basic fact-checking and such - is a little disturbing to me. But mainly in the sense that it forces me to read further and wider to find alternate opinion and research. If a jounalist comes from a school where objective standards were considered cultural imperialism, I like to know that as it provides context for their work, including the many that reject their schooling once in the field.

From a distance, I expect the obsession with the Times is because of its heritage status and claims to the highest possible standards. Set yourself up as a paragon of virtue and you'd better make sure you live up to it or the sharks will be merciless when blood is in the water.

[Ralph]

I hate to say it, Ralph, but I think that's the trend. People seem unwilling or unable to think for themselves but need the guidance of a Pat Robertson, a George Bush, a whatever-you-pick genuine or presumed authority figure to confirm their attitudes. And instead of knowing what they're talking about they go by convenient labels.

With this mental standard, watch our leadership leak to the likes of Bangladesh, Bangalore, Singapore, or rural China.

*****

I think that's been a complaint every generation. In the days of The Yellow Press, there wasn't the slightest attempt to present news as unbiased and, in fact, most newspapers tracked contemporary bigotry. That's why there was, in much of the 20th Century, a New York newsman's mantra that "White Woman Murdered South of 96th Street" meant there was a live story.

We can forget just how many newspapers and magazines there are in this country and how many of them cater to either largely local or generally specialized subjects.

Is the Daily News more dumbed down than it was decades ago? Actually, it's become a better written, more responsive, more quality conscious paper.

[Ralph]

No newspaper does what you suggest and to single out the Timnes is puerile. Do you believe that readers are so dense, so uninformed, so semi-literate that they can't read an editorial or an Op-Ed piece without comprehending the perspective expressed?

The Times was the subject, but I'm not singling them out. I would support something like what I suggested for all newspapers in general.

And no, I do not think the Times readers are dumb or uninformed, nor do think most of them are 100% naive of the leftward slant of the stories and editorials.

I do feel like such disclosure would force the Times and other publications to provide more genuinely balanced stories, reports, and editorials. I think this would better serve the public, attract more readers, give them more credibility, and ultimately make them more money.

What you propose, for any newspaper from the great if sometimes flawed Times to the Philistine New York Post, is massive dumbing down. I can't believe you want THAT. Right?

Sorry, I don't see it at all as a "dumbing down," but rather a cleaning up.

The biggest problem of all maybe that many of the Times writers and reporters don't see themselves as liberal...they just feel their way of thinking is the natural, objective order of things.

*****

I wonder if you actually and thoroughly read the Times regularly. I see no left slant to news coverage and while some here claim that they again and again resort to quoting from Op-Ed pieces and editorials, not news stories.

The Times covers far more than international events and national politics. It's probably the most thorough paper in the country in terms of economics, science, nature, technology, book reviews, etc. There's a reason why it's now available each day in scores of major cities - technology has made it possible but demand made it a reality.

I see people reading the Post and the news on the subway and if they're happy with those papers, fine. But the folks who read the Times are likely to be those with a solid education and, often, positions of influence and not infrequently affluence. And many of them are political conservatives.

[Ralph]

Whilst I don't think a Scarlet Letter need be applied, a little background readily available doesn't seem unreasonable. Perhaps our opinion columnists and such are a little different than in the USA, but the number of times journos here have turned out to have an agenda or vested interests in a story - let alone basic fact-checking and such - is a little disturbing to me. But mainly in the sense that it forces me to read further and wider to find alternate opinion and research. If a jounalist comes from a school where objective standards were considered cultural imperialism, I like to know that as it provides context for their work, including the many that reject their schooling once in the field.

From a distance, I expect the obsession with the Times is because of its heritage status and claims to the highest possible standards. Set yourself up as a paragon of virtue and you'd better make sure you live up to it or the sharks will be merciless when blood is in the water.

*****

Well I certainly agree with Brendan's last paragraph.

[Ralph]

Honestly, I find the suggestion that reporters should be identified as Democrats or Republicans at the top of their stories a bit bizarre.

Reporters (and op-ed writers) at most major papers now provide their e-mail address and in many cases (my paper being one of them) their phone numbers as well. It's policy at the Inquirer that they be responsive to readers (and I would imagine the same is true at the Times). Anyone who is curious about a writer or wants to question them need only write an email or pick up the phone.

But again, people can decide for themselves if they think a paper's stories are slanted, and read another paper if they come to that conclusion. That's the way the free-market system works. I just don't understand the obsession so many have with the Times.

*****

I have e-mailed New York Times reporters on occasion and received fairly prompt and usually responsive answers.

I also am a frequent news source for the Times, especially with regard to legal issues and cases and problems in the northern suburbs of New York City. Some of the cases involve highly partisan charges of malfeasance and corruption, more than a few of a serious criminal nature. I've never sensed that a reporter interviewing me had a political agenda and their stories never reflected that.

[rwetmore]

I wonder if you actually and thoroughly read the Times regularly. I see no left slant to news coverage and while some here claim that they again and again resort to quoting from Op-Ed pieces and editorials, not news stories.

I rarely read anything in the NY Times, and have a hard time taking them seriously on any politically related issues, especially on Iraq, terrorism or Bush. You obviously disagree, which is fine.

The Times covers far more than international events and national politics. It's probably the most thorough paper in the country in terms of economics, science, nature, technology, book reviews, etc. There's a reason why it's now available each day in scores of major cities - technology has made it possible but demand made it a reality.

I see people reading the Post and the news on the subway and if they're happy with those papers, fine. But the folks who read the Times are likely to be those with a solid education and, often, positions of influence and not infrequently affluence. And many of them are political conservatives.

I'm sure. I would expect the vast majority of those who regularly read newspapers to generally be the more intelligent and informed among us.

[Werner]

Randall, I see your statement that you rarely read anything in the New York Times, and you have a hard time taking them seriously, and then you mention Iraq, terrorism, and Bush.

I wonder whether I'm missing something here, and wish you'd clear it up for me. As I read it, you don't read them but you have an opinion. How can you arrive at that opinion if you don't read the paper?

[rwetmore]

Randall, I see your statement that you rarely read anything in the New York Times, and you have a hard time taking them seriously, and then you mention Iraq, terrorism, and Bush.

I wonder whether I'm missing something here, and wish you'd clear it up for me. As I read it, you don't read them but you have an opinion. How can you arrive at that opinion if you don't read the paper?

Let's just say that during the Iraq war, up to the time of the initial elections, I had access to links that took me to many articles and editorials of the Times.

I have seen enough to know that, for me, they are not a credible source of fair and trustworthy journalism. Anything to hang defeat in Iraq on Bush was worth it. It was ridiculous, IMO; and call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing it can be attributed to genuine journalistic misjudgement. I truly believe their coverage would have differed a full 180 degrees if Clinton, not hated Bush, was the one going into the Iraq.

[Werner]

Of course, I'm inclined to think that Clinton would never have committed the foolishness Bush did - that's the "hated" Clinton, of course, by the lights of the right wing.

The more I read on this thread the more I'm confirmed in the value of the Times. Of course, the neocone, Star War fanatics, and other residents of the right edge are entitled to their votes, and it seems for the present they've sold the electorate a bloated bill of goods. And I've always said that any society has the right to commit suicide by democratic means. For the sake of those who'll be here after me, I hope they'll see the light in time.

[Barry]

Werner,
There certainly is a rabid right that sells a whole heap-load of crap on outlets like Fox in this country, but I wouldn't lump all those who favor programs like "Star Wars" among them.

I'm still a Democrat and I think our party is right on many domestic issues (most importantly, the kind of culture we should have.........you know how I feel about the right on cultural issues), but it needs to wake up on issues like Star Wars and how to deal with the situation in the Middle East in my view. Not only may Star Wars be of value at some point in terms of stopping a nuclear attack, but it's that kind of technology that may eventually have to be used to save the planet from something like an incoming meteorite.

I'm afraid we'll eventually regret it in a big way if we don't pursue that kind of technology.

[rwetmore]

Of course, I'm inclined to think that Clinton would never have committed the foolishness Bush did - that's the "hated" Clinton, of course, by the lights of the right wing.

I agree; however, unlike the NY Times, I doubt any of the terrorists see Bush's actions as being foolish. How the terrorists view Clinton's actions (or should I say non actions) on the other hand......

The more I read on this thread the more I'm confirmed in the value of the Times. Of course, the neocone, Star War fanatics, and other residents of the right edge are entitled to their votes, and it seems for the present they've sold the electorate a bloated bill of goods. And I've always said that any society has the right to commit suicide by democratic means. For the sake of those who'll be here after me, I hope they'll see the light in time.

I have precisely the opposite view, and trust that on balance, the majority of the voting people in this country make the right decisions for its long term success and security. The media threw every single thing possible at Bush, and gave Kerry a free ride all the way to the elections despite contradicting himself all over the map, and he still lost. Hmmmmm...perhaps history will clearly show why. Only time will tell.

[rwetmore]

Werner,
There certainly is a rabid right that sells a whole heap-load of crap on outlets like Fox in this country, but I wouldn't lump all those who favor programs like "Star Wars" among them.

I'm still a Democrat and I think our party is right on many domestic issues (most importantly, the kind of culture we should have.........you know how I feel about the right on cultural issues), but it needs to wake up on issues like Star Wars and how to deal with the situation in the Middle East in my view. Not only may Star Wars be of value at some point in terms of stopping a nuclear attack, but it's that kind of technology that may eventually have to be used to save the planet from something like an incoming meteorite.

I'm afraid we'll eventually regret it in a big way if we don't pursue that kind of technology.

I couldn't agree more, Barry.

[Barry]

Media studies also showed that the press gave a harder time to Gore than they did to Bush in 2000.

It's simply a falsehood to say the press goes after Republican candidates with gusto, while treating the Democrats with kid gloves.

They were like sharks with Clinton.

[Ralph]

Actually, the press has an unhealthy interest, by and large, in the private lives of politicians of all stripes and creeds.

[Dennis Spath]

It would not be proper for me to comment about the editorial or reportorial slant of the New York Times, since I don't read it, but based upon the level of criiticism leveled at them in this Thread one would hope they could at least aspire to the Fair and Balanced Standards of FOX News!

[Ralph]

It would not be proper for me to comment about the editorial or reportorial slant of the New York Times, since I don't read it, but based upon the level of criiticism leveled at them in this Thread one would hope they could at least aspire to the Fair and Balanced Standards of FOX News!

*****

And it's great to see you here, Dennis!

[karlhenning]

Geo McGovern writes an op-ed piece