New York Times Attacking President Bush
How deparved can the liberal media be? How despicable? How utterly anti-American?
The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious broadside against President Bush today -- in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country.
Here's some excerpts today from SmarterTimes.com, a media watchdog group:
One sign of the trouble is a mindless ganging up on President Bush. A front-page news article in today's Times complains that the specific and credible threat against the president was not made public in the middle of the threatening situation.
"Neither Mr. Rove or other officials explained why this information was not made public on Tuesday. Partly because it was not, Mr. Bush was criticized for spending the day traveling a zigzag route."
The article goes on to say that "On television, in newspapers and in animated discussions in offices across the country, Mr. Bush's conduct was compared unfavorably with that of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who went to the scene of the attacks in Lower Manhattan; to John F. Kennedy, who stayed in Washington throughout the Cuban missile crisis of 1963, when many feared that nuclear war was imminent, and to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who remained at the Pentagon after it was hit and for a time helped in the evacuation of the dead and wounded."
If Mr. Rove and others haven't "explained" why this wasn't made public Tuesday, it is because no explanation is really necessary.
Does the Times really think that it would have helped the situation if, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon having been hit, Karl Rove had gone on television or called the New York Times and said, "Oh, by the way, we are zig-zagging the president around the country because we have received specific and credible evidence that he is next"?
It might have panicked the population. It also might have compromised intelligence and security sources and methods, as well as the ongoing investigation -- the Pentagon was reportedly furious yesterday when the White House press secretary announced that the president had been targeted, and Secretary Rumsfeld went out and gave a stern speech about the importance of keeping classified information secret.
The reference in the Times news story to the unfavorable comparison with Mayor Giuliani "in newspapers" is particularly choice. Talk about your self-fulfilling prophecies. The Times criticizes Mr. Bush, then writes a front-page news article about how newspapers are criticizing Mr. Bush.
But the front-page article is just the beginning. There's a "Metro Matters" column asking "shouldn't the president have made it his business to plant his feet in New York City by now?"
There's an editorial referring to the "disturbing" fact that the president did not field questions on Tuesday. The nation is under terrorist attack. The president's life is being threatened. The Times editorialists want Mr. Bush to stop during the 12 hours following the attack and hold a press conference?
And there's an entire separate freestanding news article asserting that "Democrats and Republicans began to question why Americans had seen relatively little of the president in the immediate aftermath of the crisis." That article reports only that Mr. Bush "only briefly" mentioned New York in his address to the nation Tuesday and "did not offer any condolences in that speech specifically to New Yorkers.
NewsMax would like to know why the New York Times, busy attacking the President of the United States, hasn't found time to have reporters find out:
What Bill Clinton did during the past eight years to leave us this vulnerable?
Why a CIA and FBI and NSA under Mr. Clinton's stewardship had not laid the groundwork for intelligence abilities to prevent this?
Why the U.S. under Clinton looked the other way as China and Russia helped and supported terrorist nations like Iraq, Iran and Libya?
What the implications are now, after Clinton cut America's military in half?
They won't, because the truth is that the liberal elites like the New York Times, the blame America crowd, supported Clinton. He was one of theirs.
newsmax.com |
