NY Times changes it's tune on Bush ??

Could it be that the staunch anti-Bush NY Times is wrong, ohhh say it isn't so...

"This has so far been a year of heartening surprises — each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power."

The Times pointed to recent developments in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the coming state of Palestine as evidence that freedom may finally be on the march in the Middle East.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Could it be that all you anti-Bu#es and anti-Americans are wrong as well ?

**Mods I did a search didn't find anything on this, so lock it if necessary...**

Well I guess it's hard for the NY Times editorial board to completely deny reality for much longer...plus since it's not an election year, they get a break from having to be shills for the Democratic party and can actually write something nice about the President once in a while.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Could it be that the staunch anti-Bush NY Times is wrong, ohhh say it isn't so...

"This has so far been a year of heartening surprises — each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power."

The Times pointed to recent developments in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the coming state of Palestine as evidence that freedom may finally be on the march in the Middle East.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Could it be that all you anti-Bu#es and anti-Americans are wrong as well ?

**Mods I did a search didn't find anything on this, so lock it if necessary...**

It means there is no objective media left in the US, all are owned by rightwing/NWO or what you wanna call it.
Its the propaganda machine in full swing.......sad sad sad.

only a few mice steps away from a real totillitarian regime with your holyness dubya as your godsent dictator.

congrats yanks..

I was wandering when someone was going to pull the NWO card...

So...you're saying the NY Times was pressured into changing their tune ?


I don't think so...their just waking up to reality...

Last year the Times admitted it did not even look into claims the government asserted concerning the WMD in Iraq. Basically proving they are merely stoogies for whatever government policy is required at the time.

link

I see no reason to think that this has changed in less than a year's time. People will believe the hype fed to them from whatever news source they read it from, including one allegedly liberal and anti-bush and take it as the gospel truth despite other realities showing through media cracks daily.

Last year the Times admitted it did not even look into claims the government asserted concerning the WMD in Iraq. Basically proving they are merely stoogies for whatever government policy is required at the time.

Or what ever they deem the public is interested in, ie: what ever makes the most money, or rateings...

People will believe the hype fed to them from whatever news source they read it from, including one allegedly liberal and anti-bush and take it as the gospel truth despite other realities showing through media cracks daily.

On this I 100% agree with, people will agree with whatever fits their agenda...

But...I do find it funny that a staunch anti-Bush rag, changes it's tune to give credit to the administration, but they also forgot to give credit to the troops...

It's their lives, and sweat that's making this possible...

Wow! This has to rank right up there with the sun rising in the west. Quick! Someone U2U this link to soficrow and his Greek chorus of Bushopobes. Surely, O'Reilly will have plenty to say about this.

Walid Jumblatt, one of the most vociferous anti-Americans in the Arab world was quoted recently by David Ignatius of the "Washington Post."

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."

hurryupharry.bloghouse.net...

www.nytimes.com...

www.fortliberty.org...

For those who really do love freedom and whose minds are not permanently poisoned by left-wing propaganda, there seems to have been a significant sea change.


[edit on 05/3/6 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Or what ever they deem the public is interested in, ie: what ever makes the most money, or rateings...

Then you agree that the New York Times is not the least bit credible, yes? So what would it matter if the New York Times thinks Bush is now right. Without credibility, their opinion holds no water.

The issue of newfound potential avenues of freedom in the Middle East have come from deaths and killings and reaction to it. If people are of the opinion that the ends justify the means to bring about such freedoms, then I cannot hold claim as to being correct. Those that think killing others to initiate their version of freedom are free to think that whereas I never will.

So far the only nonviolent death that has led to any potential avenue of freedom is for the Palestinians with the death of Arafat. All the rest has been a direct result of western military violence or nebulous terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Could it be that the staunch anti-Bush NY Times is wrong, ohhh say it isn't so...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Well, let's see... this isn't a news article, it's a comment from their sections. And it's not a link to the Times article. When you finally get to the Times article, you find out that it's not all caving in and whoopsie-dooing for Bush.

In fact, it starts out with a reminder of how bad things are. After mentioning the parts you cite, the article goes on to talk about other issues that Bush did NOT have a significant part in. Like Lebanon.

Could it be that all you anti-Bu#es and anti-Americans are wrong as well ?

That he started a useless war over a lie that there were WMDs there? That his invasion has killed over 1500 US troops and is responsible for the deaths of more than 30,000 Iraquis? That he's a fool and a liar?

Nope.

If you read the article and your history books carefully, you'll see that economics and communication have done more to change the world than Bush has. And you're being a bit bold saying that he's going to take down all those governments.

No, we anti-Bushers haven't changed our tune. We still love America and that idiot is driving us into the dust with his outrageous spending and his dreadful foreign and domestic policies.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Last year the Times admitted it did not even look into claims the government asserted concerning the WMD in Iraq. Basically proving they are merely stoogies for whatever government policy is required at the time.

Or what ever they deem the public is interested in, ie: what ever makes the most money, or rateings...

People will believe the hype fed to them from whatever news source they read it from, including one allegedly liberal and anti-bush and take it as the gospel truth despite other realities showing through media cracks daily.

On this I 100% agree with, people will agree with whatever fits their agenda...

But...I do find it funny that a staunch anti-Bush rag, changes it's tune to give credit to the administration, but they also forgot to give credit to the troops...

It's their lives, and sweat that's making this possible...

The soldiers are mere despendable pawns in this conquest to hold on to their power and influence in the world.The US goverment dont give a ratsass about their soldiers or their own people for that matter.

Why is so hard to see for most americans??

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Could it be that the staunch anti-Bush NY Times is wrong, ohhh say it isn't so...

So when the NYT's criticizes Bush, they are some left-wing rag? And when they say Bush did something ok, they are suddenly right?
Could it be possible, that maybe, just maybe, that sometimes what Bush does turns out ok, and maybe, just maybe, sometimes what Bush does is bad?


Or is any reporting that criticises Bush automatically wrong, and any praise is automatically right?

The New York Times earned it's shabby reputation as a left wing bastion, so it is all the more surprising that they might admit that Bush might have done anything right, much less that the Iraq war might have a happy ending.

I might ask you, curme, So, when the NYT is bashing Bush it's a righteous organ, but if it compliments Bush, it's rag?

The Times is what it is. That it might drops it's leftist tune for one editorial hardly constitutes a sea change, although, it would be nice if it would.

Cmon NY Times! Dont let me down! Soylent Bush is PEEEOOOPPLLEEE! Bleaaaaaaaegh! Hes Peeeeooppplllee!! SoS