The New York Times Strategy:
Assert that Iraq is a disaster.
Assert that there is civil war in Iraq.
Assert that Iraq is hopeless.
Assert there are parallels with Vietnam.
Assert that we are losing in Iraq.
Assert that we must pull out now.
Then write snarky articles about hard it is to pull out and save face at the same time.
In SAVING FACE AND HOW TO SAY FAREWELL, James Glanz says:
"Even in the absence of a sudden and dramatic shift on the battlefield toward a definitive victory, there may still be a slight opening, as narrow as the eye of a needle, for the United States to slip through and leave Iraq in the near future in a way that will not be remembered as a national embarrassment."At the same time Maureen Dowd intones:
"Democracy depends on us. It depends on our ability to be patriots, to fulfill the founding fathers vision of keeping a check on power."(See Tom Maguire's discussion re the latest Maureen Dowd example of arrogance, hubris, and Bush hate.)
Never blog when you're angry--and I'm angry--but I'd still like to know how we can fulfull the founding fathers vision by keeping check on the power of the New York Times.
They decide on the narrative.
They decide what is important and what is fit to print.
They decide what the outcome should be.
They shape public opinion.
They call on the administration to listen to public opinion.
They force the outcome.
Then they report the outcome as news and an embarrassment to the country.