|
| |
Is
The New York Times Sorry
for Trampling President Bush’s Azaleas?
EDITORIAL
Frank Salvato
July 19, 2004 |
Imaging my surprise when I
sat down Sunday morning in front of my computer, cup of coffee in hand, only
to find a headline in the New York Times that read, "New Reports Again
Question Whether Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger.” My blood pressure started to
rise anticipating another article devoid of facts and based in innuendo. But
as I started to read I realized the article was in effect a prominently
placed but masked retraction. My jaw dropped at the notion…as did my coffee.
It will take some time to get that stain out – no Clinton pun intended.
After months of front page articles that essentially called President Bush a
liar for those infamous "16 words” the New York Times is admitting – albeit
underhandedly – that…well, he could have been right.
"Were those infamous 16 words correct after all?” is the way that the column
started.
As I read into the article the only impression I could get from the tone of
the piece was that the Times had positioned itself much like a young child
who was told to go over to the neighbor’s house and apologize for trampling
Mrs. Neighbor’s azaleas. The difference here is that what was being trampled
was the truth, not azaleas and it was President Bush’s reputation that was
violated not the property of Mrs. Neighbor.
Just like that little boy, the boy who knew he had done wrong, the Times
stood – rhetorically of course – eyes fixed down at the ground, one foot
over the other as they said everything they could possibly say to rectify
the situation without actually issuing a statement saying they were sorry
for doing something they knew was wrong. Just like that little boy, who
wanted to get out of trouble but didn’t really want to admit he did
something "bad,” the Times did not offer an apology for all of the smear
they provided on this issue. They simply stated facts they previously chose
to ignore.
While
I am pleased to see a shred of journalistic integrity coming from the New
York Times, I have to admit, it would have been much more impressive to see
a front page headline admitting that they had done something unscrupulous.
For months the Times lionized Joseph Wilson as some sort of champion for the
American people. Now the Times use Wilson’s middle initial and generational
numerals when they refer to him. This designation is usually reserved for
mass murderers and dead heads of state. The Times’ loosening embrace of
Wilson comes with the release of two reports, a report by a British
commission reviewing the intelligence used by Prime Minister Tony Blair in
making the case for war and the US Senate Intelligence Report. Both reports
proved "Joseph C. Wilson IV” an absolute liar.
But what of the Times contribution to the slander of President Bush? After
all, they were the ones screaming Wilson’s claims from the rooftops. They
are the ones that empowered the Liberal-Left, the Bush-haters and the seldom
original in thought Kerry campaign with the wherewithal to call President
Bush a liar and demand an apology. Yet no apology is forth coming from the
Times for doing something unsavory to the president and his administration.
Herein lies a perfect example of the duplicity of the Left in this country.
They are very quick to leap to conclusions, and do so without any research
into the facts, when they can call an opponent a liar. But when the Left is
confronted with facts that disprove their basis for calling someone a liar –
in this case President Bush – they stand in Mrs. Neighbor’s doorway doing
everything they can to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. The
entitlement they reap from the political correctness movement has allowed
them to get away with verbally – and sometimes professionally – lynching
someone for something they simply want to believe as true, most often
regardless of whether it is true or not. Another case in point is The
Patriot Act but that is another column altogether.
The New York Times, the Bush-haters, the Liberal-Left and the Kerry campaign
owe President Bush an apology for calling him a liar when it comes to those
"16 words.” They were quick to demand an apology from him and they should be
responsible enough to issue an apology when one is warranted. Of course that
takes a measure of integrity and, as has been demonstrated so often in the
last three-plus years, that is a commodity of which they have little.
To the New York Times, the Bush-haters, the Liberal-Left and the Kerry
campaign, get over to President Bush’s house and apologize for trampling on
his azaleas. If you don’t, then go to your room.
 |
|
