Whoa, The NYT Editorial Page gives a huge scolding to Pres. Bush

[La_Serpiente]

I don't think I have read something so critical -- but yet so right.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Campaigning in Wartime
NYT Editorial Page

If there was ever any doubt that President Bush would run for re-election as the commander in chief of the war on terror, it will end when the Republican Party begins broadcasting its first campaign commercial on Mr. Bush's behalf. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," says the ad, as it shows film of Mr. Bush warning of the potential dangers ahead.

It was inevitable that Sept. 11 was going to wind up in the messy center of presidential politics. The war against terror is by its very nature a war with no conclusion, and Democrats who lined up behind the president after the World Trade Center was destroyed cannot be expected to give him a free pass into a second term. The Republicans, meanwhile, are bound to base their campaign on the public's natural reluctance to change chief executives in dangerous times.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23SUN1.html

[BuckeFushe]

1. It's about time they noticed

Are we the only group in America who has seen this, and been ignored until the day's news needed a boost? Are we the only group in America that notices a pattern to the shenanigans behind the scenes by the Squatter and his minions from hell? Are we the only group in America who gets 'poo pooed' for our opinion, and yet when that opinion appears on the pages where all the news is not necessarily in print, it's Gospel?

I think the NYT needs to read the pages of DU, and then think about the ramifications the Squatter's re-election will have.

[Rooktoven]

23. You are dead on except--

I object to the term "re-election".

[Spazito]

2. Excellent editorial

Thanks for the link. Bush's treatment of the dead soldiers and their families is beyond dispicable, imo.

[kentuck]

3. He has done more than they say...

He has told them to "get screwed" in no uncertain terms. No, he won't turn over the 9/11 documents. He will continue hide what should be public information from the people and from the press, including the NYTimes.

"If he wants to run for re-election as the leader in a time of war, he needs to behave like a president, not a politician."

I do agree with above quote but he doesn't know how to be a "president" - he only knows how to be a "politician".

[aquart]

4. Am I supposed to be impressed with this?

Here's the NYTimes warning candidates not to challenge the myth of the great 9/11 leader. Americans have a cherished delusion which must not be disturbed. What he did following 9/11 was criminal and opportunistic and we're never supposed to say so?

But George is supposed to impress us by sacrificing a fundraiser to attend a funeral?

I may be sick.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. It was a warning to Bush that he must act Presidential...

next year or risk loosing the minimal amount of trust he has left!

[Eric J in MN]

6. Good point. Democrats should criticize Bush's character.

From NY TIMES editorial:
"The Democrats need to find ways to attack Mr. Bush's stewardship without attacking his character; most Americans remember the president's firm resolve after 9/11 with admiration and do not want those memories challenged."

The Democrats should say that he's been dishonest in shifting the focus to Iraq.

Walter Mondale tried to avoid criticizing Reagan's character and lost in an electoral landslide.

[Devoir]

11. Isn't that what they've been doing for a year now?

That's all the nine Dem candidates do now.

[Skittles]

12. well

it's about f***ing time

[Devoir]

13. You may respond to my post.

You may NOT use vulgarity. Thanks.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

16. That was uncalled for

and homophobic to boot. Do you think that reflects well on our candidate? I sure wouldn't be rushing to join his bandwagon if that post was my first exposure to one of his supporters.

[Jim Sagle]

27. Hey, lighten up. I'm not about to be lectured by some guy w/10 posts.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Devoir!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Absolutely

At every turn, we're reminded how he "returned honor and integrity to the White House". It's a boilerplate quote that never gets challenged. It MUST be challenged: if he is not personally tarred as greedy, dishonest, abusive, deluded and incompetent, then any mistake can be fobbed off as "unfortunate" or "bad advice". If the premise that he's good and has our interest at heart is allowed to stick, then he is essentially undefeatable.

It can be done with finesse, saying that he's "out of touch" or has only the interest of certain groups at heart, but it has to be done.

It needs to be personal. The issue of his personal gain should be stated very carefully; that's something the rabble can understand: Junior got a personal tax savings of $111,000.00 in the first year of the 2001 tax cut. (The number is approximate, but if calculated better, added with the second year of the same cut and an estimate of the dividend tax cut, it's a whopper and can be used very effectively.) Add in an estimation of George Herbert Walker Warbucks' net worth and the savings of the "estate tax" repeal, and we can make him look like the selfish hog he is.

This is nothing compared to all of the other larceny of this mob, but it's the kind of thing that sticks: "he gave himself a 100 Million Dollar tax cut while repealing time and a half overtime". Let 'em squeal, let 'em quibble, but the very act of doing so will reveal the true ugliness; if they don't respond, repeat endlessly.

[Tatiana]

9. Agreed.

Bush's character deserves to be attacked. To make the decisions he has... which the NY Times listed: irresponsible tax cuts, ramming legislation down our throats in the dead of night, submitting polarizing judicial nominees to be confirmed, sending our troops to die under false pretenses, and most disgustingly not even having the decency to attend any funerals or receive the bodies of our fallen soldiers; these are prime illustrations of Bush's LACK OF CHARACTER. He deserves to be attacked.

The time has long passed for us to turn the other cheek. It's time to start slapping back.

[La_Serpiente]

7. I think the main impression

that I got out of the editorial is that Bush is someone that you cannot trust. That is the "overall" picture it paints. He is also someone that doesn't know the meaning of respect for allies and is in fact isolating America from the world.

[UTUSN]

8. Good Editorial for STARTERS. But Tougher,

we need it WAY tougher.

[cosmicdot]

10. aside from dividing us with the cultural-economic wars: I expect to see

something of a redux of LBJ's daisy girl ad - contain 'them' (fact or fiction) over there vs. Iowa

even with the Diebold voting machines and mega-millions of dollars, PR, control control control, and fog and mirrors ... I don't think they can turn George into anything more than what we see ... he's a 50 something rich frat boy ... the spit and polish should have started at a much earlier age ...

[shance]

15. What is Bush's (or Ashcrofts) definition of a terrorist??

Congress could (and should) be hammering him on that vague, but very convenient term.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Anybody that opposes the NeoCons.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. "attack Mr. Bush's stewardship without attacking his character" wtf?

Bullshit. His character is his most vulnerable spot. He already has a reputation as a liar because of the SOTU. We need to keep hammering.

[susu369]

26. Totally agree: his character is his most vulnerble spot.

Media tells us bu$h* is "brave" and "godly" - waiting for Karma to kick in and blow that false picture out of the water.

Patience is a virtue. Patience is a virtue......

[wabeewoman]

18. I think we need to attack the patriot act

as bush's response to terror. Because any one of us could be arrested for being a terrorist and this is one issue all people understand-including repugs. And there is already a grass roots movement to over turn it. bush's idea to protect america is the patriot act. Do you feel safer now???

[DeepModem Mom]

21. Isn't Bush's hiding the war dead a matter of character?

Consider even Berlusconi in Italy, where there is considerable anti-war feeling -- I was there during their national day of mourning for their Iraq dead, and saw on television Berlusconi walk with nineteen families behind nineteen flag-draped coffins at a state funeral. I wish we could show in the coming campaign that W's "successful" stewardship of national security and foreign policy, which the Republicans tout as his strength, is as phony as his flight-suit, which now appears in OUR ads.

[tom_paine]

24. Bush IS NOT pResident!

He is Emperor. I and many other find it offensive if you call this lickspittle dictatorial appointee "pResident".

[Malva Zebrina]

25. thanks for posting the editorial

I find it mild--almost complimentary, even though it does make suggestions, they seem to be made tentatively and gently--I did not see, for instance, the president with "firm" resolve after 9-11. In fact, what I saw, and what the truth is that the president fled from the battleground and went on the lam, while his people were in hysterics, he was flying around in AF1--and I bet there were no shortages of accompanying fighter jets to see to it that AF1 was safe. They sure must have been activated then. He later said that he was "getting out of harm's way" not the action of a courageous president who would want to take charge and help his own frightened people. I saw play acting and photo ops-I saw the obscene and disgusting usage of the disaster for his own gain, when posed pictures of him peering out of AF1 pretending to be in charge sold for $150-the requesting of a badge from the mother of a fireman and pretending she gave it to him voluntarily and all that kind of shit. These are the things that were never reported--

NYT, by omission, is just as complicit in fostering Bush's fascism, as the rest of the media. It's just bigger.

I think it is time to stop stroking Bush with a feather for fear of reprisal. What I would like to see is a layout of all his crimes and a call for a war crimes tribunal against him and the rest of the warmnongers, and a call for impeachment on the grounds that he lied to his own people and attacked Iraq , killing thousands of innocents.

What I would like to see in the NYT Sunday magazine section are pictures of the innocent Iraqi children who were killed or maimed by Bush's bombs because he lied to us about Saddam.




She has no feet because of Bush's lies. She may even be dead.