They also slime the general in their articles...
Today's NY Times editorial said this today about the honorable General Petraeus and his testimony yesterday:
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.Of course, General Petraeus made it clear yesterday that he had written the report on the conditions in Iraq, himself (Video HERE):
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.
"I wrote it (the House testimony)... It was my assessment and part of MY recommendations. They were mine not the White House's assessment..."Just because this was an editorial at the NY Times does that mean that they can spew any falsehood that they please?
Are there any standards at this newspaper?
It sure doesn't look like it!
Listening to the General in the capitol, It showed how far more intelligent he is than the congress morons.
ReplyDeleteAre there any standards at this newspaper?
ReplyDeleteYes, they have standards. Their goal is the same as their Islamofascist allies goals.
Yes nahanni they sort of have have standards, they erect strawman arguments then attack them. That's all the second paragraph is. Bush said none of that. Those are all their snarky Bill Mahr mode of clever little quips hoping to be lauded by an audience of trained barking seals clapping approvingly at the mere mention of the name Bush in a negative light.
ReplyDeletesurely you jest when you suggest there is any honor at the NY Times they are as traiterous as little man Dennis the Menace was today in voting against a sense of the congress for today being a day of remembrance for 9-11 and our soldiers. I keep peace within myself knowing that there is a special place in hell for these evil people.
ReplyDeleteWell according to the New York Times: General Petraeus has his own credibility problems. He overstepped in 2004 when he published an op-ed article in The Washington Post six weeks before the election. The general — then in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces — rhapsodized about “tangible progress” and how the Iraqi forces were “developing steadily,” an assessment that may have swayed some voters but has long since proved to be untrue....
ReplyDeleteIn the New York Times editorial Jim linked to you all probably noticed this asinine line: "We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing."...
Yet Clay Waters writting for Times Watch noted the following: Speaking of not being fooled by silver stars, the Times was certainly dazzled by John Kerry's questionable medals during the 2004 presidential campaign ...
So I ask, who's the one really attempting to do the fooling?
The nyt has leaped to the left as far as they can go They have jumped in bed with the radical left Moveon org. They not only published the slanderous Gen Petraeus ad, but gave them over a 100,000$ discount on the ad.Disgusting!
ReplyDelete