More analysis
Posted by Peter W. Schramm
Here are David Brooks and Victor Davis Hanson thoughts on Bush’s speech. And the New York Times editorial is without value. Surprise.
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Isn’t it interesting how anything that is critical of the President or his elitist policies is "without value"?
Funny how that works...
Not when it comes to the NY Times Editorial page. As someone who has been reading that page for the past two years, it is clear what they think of this President and the administration. Regardless of what he does, the NY Times Ed Board knows better. I am sure that if they could run for President as a collective, they would have done so already.
In as much as they can’t, two months ago I sent a letter saying that they should in fact go ahead and endorse Senator Kerry for president. It’s that obvious.
Paul Oliu
it is clear what they think of this President and the administration
So what? Are they not entitled to have an opinion? Why is it "without value" simply because it conflicts with Schramm’s narrow little impression of the world?
Why does Schramm have a "narrow little impression of the world"? Why don’t you apply your own standards to your own comments?
The New York Times is not valueable because it doesn’t recognize this blunt truth "Iraq was not the genesis, but the crystallization, of their hatred"
"Somehow an American statesman is more likely to be seen apologizing for sexual humiliation in an Iraqi prison than explaining to the world how the Oil for Food scandal robbed thousands of poor and hungry Iraqis of daily sustenance. Halliburton, under public contract and constant scrutiny to rebuild Iraq, is more likely to be the butt of world opprobrium than a Swiss multinational, which with Kojo Anan’s help, robbed the poor to pay Saddam." That is the sad truth!
Victor Davis Hanson gets the nod out of those articles.
So, the NY Times doesn’t think much of George Bush. But neither do most of the other media. And then(according to a post here a few days ago), there’s the great majority of historians who think the Bush admin is a failure. Hell, most of the faculty in univerities throughout the United States think Bush is a failure. These people are, of course, all wrong! Maybe William Rusher was right -we need to cleanse the academies of those who subscribe to "leftist pap." And then there’s people like Peter and David. No wonder Peter likes to avoid Ph.D’s(unless they’re ideologically pure, of course). Gotta give credit where it’s due, though: Peter and David are at least good for laughs.