Libertarian Leanings

The New York Times campaigns for Democrats

This is not new news but it's worth a look anyway if you haven't already had one. Elizabeth Bumiller of the the New York Times is trying to goad Republican presidential candidate John McCain into to show of temper by pestering him on John Kerry's 2004 offer to him of a place on the Democratic ticket. She seems to be following a script, as she asks an obviously unflustered McCain why he is so angry, then abruptly abandons the question.

Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air

Grey Lady in mourning

A senior military investigator's recommendation to drop murder charges against U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, accused of killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha in 2005, has been greeted rather mournfully by the New York Times.

BAGHDAD, Oct. 5 — Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a generation ago.

But on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case. The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and children.

Gateway Pundit marvels that the 'defining atrocity' has to be an American atrocity.

And, isn't it interesting how The New York Times is still searching for an atrocity to define the War in Iraq?

An Al-Qaeda atrocity like the Yazidi bombings, the murder of a brave young Sunni Sheik, torture chamber drawings, or dismembering and booby-trapping dead soldier's bodies just won't do.

It must be an American atrocity.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out just who they are rooting for.

Sorry GP.  Not that hard.

Frustration at the New York Times

Iraq Pundit notes the astonishing fit of pique of the New York Times.

The Times sounds profoundly irritated that the Sunnis tribes have rallied to the Americans. I don't know if the Anbar turnaround surprised U.S. officials or not, but you can be certain that it wouldn't have happened at all if the Sunnis thought that the U.S. was about to pack up and leave. There's nothing "disingenuous" about Petraeus citing Anbar, and it's indescribably picayune for the Times to suggest that Petraeus is somehow out of order for noting an important and successful development that occurred on his watch. The Times may not want the U.S. to claim any sort of success in Iraq, but doesn't the Times want Al Qaeda to fail?

Clearly, the answer to IP's question is a resounding ,"No!"  The Times does not want al Qaeda to fail.  The Times wants George Bush to fail.  Times editors echo rather than disavow the sentiment voiced by MoveOn.org when they complain that the testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is not an honest accounting.

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing. Even if the so-called surge has created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it.

No sign of progress anywhere in Iraq will satisfy the New York Times.  Bush must be defeated at all costs.  Even if it means a de facto alliance with al Qaeda.