If you ever wondered why people right of center hate the NY Times, read this idiotic editorial and you will understand. While agreeing that the French plan for Iraq made no sense, and that Bush was right to reject turning things over to the governing council immediately, the Times staff still insists on turning things over to the UN. Despite agreeing with Bush that turning things over to the governing council and letting the UN sort things out is a bad idea. But power should be turned over to the governing council, even though the Times says it is bad idea. You get the point, right? Bush will never please the NY Times or the French. Why even bother.
BTW- If I hear the ‘there is no plan’ mantra one more time I am going to explode. There clearly is a plan in place- the left just does not like it. Claiming that the ‘administration is finding almost nothing as easy as it had hoped’ passes for big thinking at the Times.
Also- I have looked high and low for the 87 billion supplemental spending bill and can not find the actual contents anywhere.
My understanding is that the bill is nearly devoid of specifics.
…and what is that “understanding” based on?
I am strangely sure that that fact that there is a rigid wall between the news staff and editorial staff having the slightest interaction will make utterly no difference in the factless belief that, somehow, via cross-dimensional portals, the two communicate and coordinate.
Why let facts interfere with prejudice?
Of course, they’re all NY Jews who live on the Upper West Side, and thus think the same. No differences tolerated. Same milieu, same beliefs. Everyone knows that people of the same type who live near each other think the same.
I am not sure of your point, Gary- my point was that they agree with Bush, yet still manage to trash him- and then say they should do the opposite of what they just agreed with. That was my commentary- had nothing to do about Jews or the Upper West Side or the separation of powers at the NY Times.
anti-Kimmit’s email address made me laugh hard.
It’s easy to perpetuate a stupid idea to fire up controversy…hell, bloggers do it every day. Just keeps readership up, I think.
I apologize; there does not currently appear to be a “bill” as such; instead, some sort of other process is taking place.
There is no plan; there was no plan; there will be no plan. There is no exit strategy; there is no timetable; there are no goddamn cell phones.
Brave men and women will continue to needlessly die to gratify the egos of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld until this Adminstration is replaced.
The bill has not yet hit Congress; the info I got regarding Bush’s discussions with Congress came from Senator Kennedy kvetching, and is therefore hearsay and should probably be ignored until we see the actual legislation.
Are you suggesting that the people who complain about the NYT do so because it’s supposedly staffed by Jews?
In other words, if you hate the NYT, or even disagree w/ it vehemently, it’s because you’ve got a problem with Jews, i.e., you’re anti-Semitic?
If not, I utterly fail to understand exactly what connection your comment has with any aspect of reality.
What is it with the liberal blogging set that apparently EVERYTHING now revolves around Jews?
I didn’t read the editorial in question, but isn’t it possible that while the French plan was silly, maybe putting the UN in charge of reconstruction isn’t? The two positions are not necessarily contradictory.
I’m not taking a position vis-a-vis the UN’s role here, but the argument isn’t quite as black-and-white as you make it sound.
For an editorial staff that has fetishized the need for a ‘plan,’ I find it laughable that the entirety of the NY Times ‘plan’ is a vague assertion that simply turning over legal soveriegnty for Iraq to the UN is a legitimate and workable notion, particularly at this stage of construction/reconstruction.
Still, it’s as detailed as anything OW came up with. You have to give them that. It’s not much, but it’s something.