The New York Times’ “endorsement ” of John McCain seems eons ago as it continues its almost pathological inability to play his campaign straight. Here’s the latest from the quondam newspaper of record:
“Al Qaeda is there now,” Mr. McCain said in Houston, with a tone of belittlement in his voice. “So to state that somehow if Al Qaeda were there that he would consider going back militarily is really a remarkable comment, and I don’t think displays an understanding of the size of the threat and what’s at stake in Iraq.”
What McCain says, of course, makes logical sense so, rather than contradict it, the Times must find a way to undercut McCain, hence “a tone of belittlement in his voice”. This may seem like a small thing, but as most writers know, even one well-placed word can tilt a story. And with the NYT, it’s hard to find anything in their political coverage that is not tilted.
And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.
Actress Angelina Jolie from her article on WAPO (not the NYT)
http://tinyurl.com/2nwoxm
Perhaps they could have said:
Responding to the remarkably stupid comment made by Senator Barack Obama that the United States could always go back into Iraq……
nahhh, that won’t happen.
That is precious. The haughty NYT accusing someone else of using a “tone of belittlement.” Pot. Kettle. Black.
Summary of the majority of comments at the link: Bush’s war, blah-blah-blah, polls show this and that, blah-blah-blah, yes we can!
A regular Algonquin Round Table.
I think that we are giving the New York Times more credit for credibility than is deserved.
The Times recent attempts at smearing McCain are the result of an internal battle for control of the Times. Pinch Sulzberger will soon be leaving the Times.
We should all ignore anything they say until more responsible shareholders give Pinch the Punch.
I saw a poll at Rasmussen that put approval for the NYT at 24%. Lower than Bush’s. And much lower than McCain’s.
What will the Times claim next–that McCain lost his citizenship because of all the time he spent in North Vietnam?
It isn’t their bias that disgusts me; it’s their claim to objectivity.