Apparently Richard W. Stevenson didn’t get the message regarding idiotic statements in the post-Raines Times:
President Bush opened his African tour today with a forceful denunciation of America’s slave-holding past and a pledge to work more closely with African nations to help them build a prosperous and peaceful future.
But the limitations of his promise of more engagement were on display from the first hours of his visit. After meeting with West African leaders here, the president said that the United States would participate in their efforts to bring stability to war-ravaged Liberia but stopped short of committing American troops to a peacekeeping operation.
As usual, the Times staff knows more than anyone else- clearly they have decided the only option in Liberia is the committment of US Troops. Screw what the UN thinks, to hell with the Pentagon, to hell with the foreign policy advisors in the administration and the State Department. The NY Times says to commit troops- anything short of that should be seen as Bush hedging on his committment to help and work with Africa.
Jerks. These guys will do anything to attack Bush.
*** Update ***
Comapre the Guardian’s coverage of the same visit, in this article titled “Bush May Send U.S. Troops to Liberia.”
Lori
The NY Times is a piece of work isn’t it?
Gary Farber
You may be unsurprised to find me making the argument that the lines quoted are completely defensible as factual statements, rather than “attacks.”
Has Bush thus far revealed “limitations” to his Liberian policy? Of course. Would you argue, seriously, the opposing case, that his policy is, thus far, unlimited? Of course not. Are “limitations” a bad thing? Not implied nor plausible.
Did he stop short of committing troops? Yes, he did. Did he commit troops? No, he did not. Factual statement. Is it implied that this is bad? Only if you have, it seems to me a great willingness to paranoid interpretation (which, mind, is extremely common of people looking to take offense at reportage, whatever their political views, and, of course, which I’m sure you are not engaging in, John).
I read every day how damnedly rightwing the Times is, and how damnedly leftwing it is, and I always marvel at how, as a rule, it’s more of a Rorschach blot than a newspaper. Yeah, I find some bias, in either direct, and other directions, myself, from time to time, but the major bias of the Times has generally been to Generally Accepted Wisdom, and pack journalism, whichever way that may be swaying, In My Not Humble Opinion.
John Cole
Gary- I agree with you that limnitations are not a bad thing- but what struck me was the phrasing- it appears as if the NY Times is calling him a liar.