Welcome to the Party, Pal

Manifesto

Wow, not sure if anyone say Friday's New York Times containing a scathing editorial about President Bush and his invocation of 9/11 every time things get a little rough for him. Here's a taste:

As a candidate, Mr. Bush got a lot of mileage out of offering the same simple, positive thoughts over and over. But now the nation doesn't need more specious theories about why the invasion was a good idea and cheery assurances that the original plan is still working. If Mr. Bush still cannot acknowledge the flaws in his policy, how can he fix them?

Americans need clear guidelines for judging how long it makes sense to stay in Iraq. Are our troops helping create a nation, or simply delaying an inevitable civil war? Does a continued American presence help push the Middle East toward peace and democracy, or simply inflame hatred of the United States and serve as a rallying point for Al Qaeda? The fact that the president isn't willing even to raise the questions does not increase confidence in the ultimate outcome.

Given the state of the American adventure in Iraq and the way it has sapped the strength and flexibility of the United States armed forces, it was unnerving to hear Mr. Bush talk so menacingly about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set them in motion.

Wow, thanks for the late update, New York Times' editors. Glad you finally woke up. Seriously, is there anything more troubling than the paper of record writing things such as: "As a candidate, Mr. Bush got a lot of mileage out of offering the same simple, positive thoughts over and over. But now the nation doesn't need more specious theories about why the invasion was a good idea and cheery assurances that the original plan is still working. If Mr. Bush still cannot acknowledge the flaws in his policy, how can he fix them?" Dear NYT, Mr. Bush "got a lot of milage out of" his simplicities because your reporters never question him on them. Moreover, during the entire campaign, your paper never challenged Mr. Bush on the flaws in his policy. Had you, maybe he would have offered more that simple platitudes. Actually, of course President Bush would not have. He has no answers, but he would have been exposed far sooner.

Now the NYT is finally up to the task of being critical of the President. Good for them. But it is troubling and disheartening that they couch the entire editorial as though there was some sort of sea change between last week's speech and Mr. Bush's campaign stump speech. It was exactly the same and the country was in exactly the same place a year ago as it is today. The Times' reliance on Mr. Bush "still refusing" means that the Times still doesn't see anything wrong with his banging the 9/11 drum repeatedly during the campaign and his refusal to offer any solutions during his campaign. If the NYT won't learn from the mistakes of the coverage of the last election, we are simply going to have to live through the same mistakes over and over again. Apparently the media can only be critical of the political establishment during non-election years. Thank god we don't have elections every year.