A History Lesson

[Kiwon]

A history lesson, indeed....

It's a proud day to be a Democrat. Osama dictates the political policy and the Democrats fall right in line.

The only thing left is to spit on the soldiers and call them, "Baby killers."

[BallHawk]

Ha! I said to my Dad previously that someone in the media would use the term "Betray us."

Times change, but the American media always stays right on schedule.

[Joemailman]

Just to be clear, it was an ad by Moveon.org which ran in the New York Times that rhymed Petraeus with Betray Us. It wasn't an opinion by the Times itself. I don't really consider MoveOn to be media any more than I would consider the Limbaugh show to be media.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

hard to place that face. I see a little Alan Alda. Add a dash of Don Imus. And finally some forehead from Christina Ricci.

[Joemailman]

Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

hard to place that face. I see a little Alan Alda. Add a dash of Don Imus. And finally some forehead from Christina Ricci.

I see Jason Robards

[mraynrand]

Just to be clear, it was an ad by Moveon.org which ran in the New York Times that rhymed Petraeus with Betray Us. It wasn't an opinion by the Times itself. I don't really consider MoveOn to be media any more than I would consider the Limbaugh show to be media.

did you hear that the Slimes gave them 60% off on the cost of the ad?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

[Freak Out]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

[hoosier]

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I think what you're calling lefty bias is really just their collective guilty consciences trying to compensate for having been duped by Wolfowitz and company way back when. The NYT will never live that down. But move.on, it is not, unless anything to the left of Colin Powell sounds the same to you.

[mraynrand]

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I think what you're calling lefty bias is really just their collective guilty consciences trying to compensate for having been duped by Wolfowitz and company way back when. The NYT will never live that down. But move.on, it is not, unless anything to the left of Colin Powell sounds the same to you.

I think you're deluding yourself - or you just may have no perspective on the Times. They ran Abu Ghraib stories on the front page for 31 consecutive days (If you don't think that's biased, consider that Abu Ghraib brings up about 2.1 mil hits on google and Osama bin laden brings up 6.4 mil - Abu was a one week mistreatment of PRISONERS versus a multiple mass murdering terrorist. Zarqawi who beheaded at least 100 innocents, gets but 2.8 mil hits. Much of that skewed perspective is due to the constant pushing of what was a relatively MINOR incident in the overall war. ) the TIMES also reported on confidential surveillance, and practices and methods of our CIA. Time and time again, the TIMES will put left-wing stuff on page one (like Joe Wilson newstories critical of the administration) and when it's discovered that Joe Wilson lied through his teeth, that goes on A16.
Try reading the Times along with the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. Also, for somewhat lefty balance, add in the Washington post.

BTW, if the times has to live down what they reported prior to the war, so do the security services of Britain, Russia, etc. And for that matter, so do those working under Saddam who continually told him he had more capability than he actually had. A lot of people believed the same things prior to the war, and it wasn't because the were 'duped' by the U.S. government - perhaps there was some contribution, but not as much as the TIMES would have you believe. Try some other sources. Read the book by Ken Pollack (The Gathering Storm) Even the Washington Post fully discredited Joe Wilson.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

[Merlin]

Nothing was more embarrassing with the Petraeus report to the Senate then our own Senator Feingold asking a question of the general, then asking another one, then another on, then another one, then answering his own question himself without ever letting the general answer any of them. Feingold is an embarrassment to the State of Wisconsin. He has no clue what the hell he is doing. He is up for re-election and if you vote for him you are definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal. It took a lot for him to come out politically. He didn't start out writing that way.