26/07: Namby-Pamby Post Editorial
Category: Campaign 2008.13
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am a big fan of the Washington Post, which will not make me popular among my conservative brethren. Nevertheless, the Post is clearly the one great national paper that consistently places the best interest of America over ideology.
An even more damning confession: I continue to be a big fan of National Public Radio. NPR received an avalanche of criticism for reporting almost nothing but the bad news from Iraq (back when we were failing miserably). But did anyone on the Right side of the blogosphere notice that among the left-leaning journalist elite, NPR led the way in reporting the Anbar Awakening and the success of the Surge, eventually shaming the more-watched mainstream media into acknowledging the obvious--eventually.
Back to the Post, their editorial today criticizes John McCain for a "lack of civility."
The offensive McCain quote:
"Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
While admitting McCain is absolutely correct, the Post assails him for "falling short of [his own] standards...of respect and courtesy in the heat of political battle."
Hooey!
Barack Obama was absolutely and vociferously adamant that the Surge was abject folly (back when that line was politically advantageous for him). Now that it is obvious to any objective observer that his former position proved incorrect, Obama will not admit his error (when such an admission might well injure him politically).
As no one knows what lurks in the hearts of men, I will not speak to his motivations, but Mr. Obama's current obstinate denial is not the behavior of a statesman, sir; that is the conduct of a calculating poltroon.
How was that? More civil? It is definitely more nineteenth century.
Here it is bluntly: the Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq (that is a right-wing talk radio line--but it is right on). Harry Reid said the war was lost (I hope, I hope, I hope). Let's face some facts: the successful surge is very politically inconvenient for 2008 Democrats. David Petraeus is a colossal pain in the backside for Obama boosters.
Call me crude, but I have said on numerous occasions for months and months, the key question for the future of America is this: will Democratic politicians sacrifice their political advantage over Iraq to help save the nation?
McCain merely said what we all can see.
Was it blunt? Was it a bit indelicate?
Yes--but if you don't scream it out at the top of your lungs in this current climate--who is going to hear? That is, if you don't spell it out for (and past) the Obama-adoring press corps--is anyone likely to notice this glaring inconsistency and disturbing character flaw?
Stand down Washington Post.
An even more damning confession: I continue to be a big fan of National Public Radio. NPR received an avalanche of criticism for reporting almost nothing but the bad news from Iraq (back when we were failing miserably). But did anyone on the Right side of the blogosphere notice that among the left-leaning journalist elite, NPR led the way in reporting the Anbar Awakening and the success of the Surge, eventually shaming the more-watched mainstream media into acknowledging the obvious--eventually.
Back to the Post, their editorial today criticizes John McCain for a "lack of civility."
The offensive McCain quote:
"Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
While admitting McCain is absolutely correct, the Post assails him for "falling short of [his own] standards...of respect and courtesy in the heat of political battle."
Hooey!
Barack Obama was absolutely and vociferously adamant that the Surge was abject folly (back when that line was politically advantageous for him). Now that it is obvious to any objective observer that his former position proved incorrect, Obama will not admit his error (when such an admission might well injure him politically).
As no one knows what lurks in the hearts of men, I will not speak to his motivations, but Mr. Obama's current obstinate denial is not the behavior of a statesman, sir; that is the conduct of a calculating poltroon.
How was that? More civil? It is definitely more nineteenth century.
Here it is bluntly: the Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq (that is a right-wing talk radio line--but it is right on). Harry Reid said the war was lost (I hope, I hope, I hope). Let's face some facts: the successful surge is very politically inconvenient for 2008 Democrats. David Petraeus is a colossal pain in the backside for Obama boosters.
Call me crude, but I have said on numerous occasions for months and months, the key question for the future of America is this: will Democratic politicians sacrifice their political advantage over Iraq to help save the nation?
McCain merely said what we all can see.
Was it blunt? Was it a bit indelicate?
Yes--but if you don't scream it out at the top of your lungs in this current climate--who is going to hear? That is, if you don't spell it out for (and past) the Obama-adoring press corps--is anyone likely to notice this glaring inconsistency and disturbing character flaw?
Stand down Washington Post.
