NY Times Endorses Defeat

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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MasterChief said:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060731

Americans put up with precious little dissent against FDR's leadership as commander in chief during another world war in the last century.

Moron; this isn't a world war. We are practicing imperialism.....overthrowing a dictator and occupying a country that has never attacked us. In WW II peal harbor was bombed, in which case retaliation was justified. A bunch of Saudies running airplanes into New York buildings does not justify occupying Iraq for decades.
 
Are there still people who buy this rhetoric?

I don't even think most Republicans give it any weight these days.
 
It is funny how few Dems are standing up for Lieberman the VP canidate just a few years ago. They have no backbone, sticking thier fingers in the air and waiting to see what happens. How sad for the Dem party.
 
toby2 said:
It is funny how few Dems are standing up for Lieberman the VP canidate just a few years ago. They have no backbone, sticking thier fingers in the air and waiting to see what happens. How sad for the Dem party.


no problem though toby with republicans throwing Katherine Harris to the curb and dumping her after she won the 2000 election for bush eh??

at least the dems don't like LIEberman on principal of his support of the Iraq war, they don't like Katherine b/c she doesn't have a shot in winning...

dayum im on my game today.
 
Not nearly the same Dawg. Harris was a state official and nothing more. The Republican party didn't really endorse her running for this office. Lieberman on the other hand in a long term Senator who was the Dem canidate for VP. I don't think you can compare those two positions in any logically manner.
 
toby2 said:
Not nearly the same Dawg. Harris was a state official and nothing more. The Republican party didn't really endorse her running for this office. Lieberman on the other hand in a long term Senator who was the Dem canidate for VP. I don't think you can compare those two positions in any logically manner.


lol nice try toby, but we're talking about backstabbing, it doesn't matter who endorsed who and when they did it... times change, and if you want to bring that up, gore endorced DEAN in the 04 primary. so i don't really see what the big deal is. The republicans are turning on her not on principal b/c she's low in the polls. I think that says a lot.
 
toby2 said:
Not nearly the same Dawg. Harris was a state official and nothing more. The Republican party didn't really endorse her running for this office. Lieberman on the other hand in a long term Senator who was the Dem canidate for VP. I don't think you can compare those two positions in any logically manner.
Blah, blah, blah. Quit flappin' your gums, Tobbes, or people will start offering you Bean-o.

No one's buying your transparent, self-serving rationalizations. The truth is that the Republicans have no loyalty and no honor at all. None, zip, zilch. That's just the way they are, we all know it, so why even try denying it?
 
You guys just don't pay attention, Harris never had the support the Rep party. She was not the Republican VP canidate in the last election.
 
toby2 said:
She was a minor state official not a long term Senator and VP.


she was secretary of the state of Florida... lol and your calling that minor.. no doubt for the secret CIA cover op work you do
 
It is a simple state office Dawg, unlike being a US Senator and VP . Are you saying the are on the same level? LOL
 
toby2 said:
It is a simple state office Dawg, unlike being a US Senator and VP . Are you saying the are on the same level? LOL
yeah i am. not to mention she's RUNNING FOR US SENATE MORON .lol.
 
Back
Top