Friday, June 30, 2006

The War on Terror

Sometimes you find folks that say what you think, but say it better and then have the audacity to add perspectives that never occur to you. I hate those people. I stumbled across the blog of Mark Grimsley, who wrote a book on Sherman's March (Hard Hand of War) many moons ago. He has some thoughtful insights on the War on Terror and Rumsfeld's reign as Secretary of Defense. It's well worth a look and can be found at http://warhistorian.org/blog/, I'm going to add it to my permanent list of links as well.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The New York Times, Bush and Everything

It's a funny thing about the visceral reaction the New York Times gets. If there is no such thing as bad press, the right wing bloggers and Bush have done more for the beleaguered Grey Lady than anything since social security. I can't help but feel there is a certain false passion to the issue, not unlike the gay marriage and flag burning amendments brought up for votes recently. The New York Times is sort of like the weather, everyone likes to talk about it, but nobody does anything. The really interesting part is that three papers went with the story, The LA Times, The Wall Street Journal and the NY Times; granted the NY Times was first.

Why are 95% of the comments on just the NYTs, many will also mention the LA Times, another left leaning rag, but virtually nobody mentions the stately WSJ which is somehow steeled against the storm of protests. I can't help that in this instance folks don't really hate the sin, but the sinner.

Despite all that, you have to wonder why the papers published. The NY Times does seem to have an edge since it swallowed so many fairy tales in the lead up to the Iraq War. In some cases this has led to proper exposure of questionable practices including illegal wire tapping and invasion of privacy. Since the Bush administration has gone back on the Geneva conventions and made use of secret jails and due process for 'illegal combatants' a certain skepticism seems healthy. Certainly the Republican Congress has been a dutiful mushroom, content to wallow in the dark feasting on manure (with apologies to Arlen Specter and John McCain). The Congress was only properly informed when it became clear that the Times had the story, had it a better record of veracity another outcome might have been possible.

But for all that the papers have gone one toke over the line here. While there has been a disturbing pattern of reckless hubris on the part of the President, this program has been productive. The Times may argue that it will still be effective, but certainly it is less likely given the fire-storm of publicity. Certainly tracking financial details was known to be occurring, but the scale and process may prompt them to better cover their tracks. Ultimately the motives for the paper were good, but misguided. The thing that fairly drips with irony is that pretty much sums up Bush's presidency as well; perhaps the reflection of himself is what really angers this President so.