The New York Times continues its Twilight Zone reporting on President Bush and the Iraq War.
In its Memorial Day editorial the NYT insists the Iraq War is unwinnable:
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.The New York Times obviously does not follow what's happening in the "real world" news.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
** Just this weekend it was announced that the violence in Iraq is at its lowest level in four years.
** The US is safer today than it was 8 years ago.
** And... The US military is looking at its lowest number of fatalities this month than any other month since the war started in March 2003.
The White House immediately countered this outrageous Memorial Day article.
The Hill reported:
The White House on Monday blasted The New York Times for irresponsibly distort[ing] President Bushs strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for Americas service members and their families.More... The White House released this statement today in response to the hateful reporting at The New York Times:
...This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the presidents record of leadership on this issue, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in a statement. She added that the newspapers editorial board doesnt let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.Good for the Bush Administration for standing up against this shameful Memorial Day attack.
In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.
This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.
As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.
There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.
The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.
One wonders though, why the Bush Admin is fighting back NOW. Why weren't they doing this from the beginning of the war on terror. they have allowed the press to create the lens through which the conflict and the events are scene.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the new combative stance is too little to late.
Please include a question mark and "seen"
ReplyDeleteYikes.
I am no longer a young man.
ReplyDeleteThe Middle East Conflict has been present in my consciousness for almost as long as I can remember.
I have witnessed the degradation and coarsening of our popular culture.
I reject the endless stream of media driven inanity poured from mediocre intellects into the collective mind.
Why should I ever accede to a lowest common denominator formula for defending my right to exist on my own terms?
I don't care if the A**holes at the NYT don't get it, they have no right to endanger us all, and it is not my responsibility to educate them.
Wisdom only begins to arrive after we admit to ourselves how little we actually do know.
I am so glad to see the White House issue such an excellent rebuttal in record time. This should have been occuring on a regular basis long before now, but I certainly believe in "better late, than never".
ReplyDeleteWho knows, perhaps the timing is perfect...in time for the lead up to November elections. An aggressive rebuttal strategy for several months may educate the electorate at just the right time to make a positive difference.
++
ReplyDeleteBush has been speaking out all along, only to be silenced by the MSM (and he's not the only one).. it's only now that they cannot stop the good news about Iraq from "leaking" out that president Bush can be heard thanks to the bloggers of all ilk.. unfortunately, that won't stop the NYT et al from sticking to their script written by Soros & his Dhimmi Dems defeatist agenda..
==
++
ReplyDeletei highly recommend reading the following by Greyhawk..
HT : The Mudville Gazette
"GI Bill"
excerpt:
[The Bill contains so many domestic pet project add-ons that no single mainstream media report can even capture them all.
While the President might have passed the larger funding bill with only the education benefits tacked on, a veto now is certain.
[snip]
But it's virtually impossible to distinguish the members of group one from those in two and three - especially when the media coverage won't acknowledge the political posturing of group three that in turn forces the political posturing of group two, a media that instead merely touts the "strong bipartisan support" for the bill.]
==
Anon. I agree! They don't have the right to put my ass and my family's ass on the line for their degenerate foreign policy gambling.
ReplyDeleteAlso 100% in agreement with bg@4:02
I read the NYT editorial on Bush and the GI Bill and one thing in particular makes me angry.
ReplyDelete"He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break."
Not only does this short editorial talk nothing about factual information from the legislation proposed, but goes so far as saying that Bush is "further weakening the military he has done so much to break."
How about finally having enough security gains on the ground to be able to reduce 15 month Army tours to 12 month tours? What about the drastic cuts in out military that happened under the Clinton administration? Clinton and his administration helped to close bases and reduce the size of the standing, active Army. Thanks to Clinton's reductions, as well as his administrations stance (or lack thereof) on terrorist and global conflicts, Bush was left with a dilapidated military force that need to be drastically re-funded and brought into the next century with technology prepared for a new kind of warfare.
The US Military is playing catch up in a HUGE way and Bush has done nothing but go to bat for the military.
I do agree with some comments however, which depict the Bush PR machine as way to slow with no teeth. One of Bush's problems since day one was that his administration was weak in getting their strong brand of leadership across the airwaves and printed pages. So many times we've watched this administration stand on the moral high ground with their intentions and actions, but were silenced by the MSM because they were inept at getting their point across and educating our dim citizenry.
Tony Snow looked good for a few weeks there when he started but he's gone now too.
Good Job! :)
ReplyDelete