Twisted into pretzels
The attack poodles at The Seattle Times foul their kennel with a bizarre piece of Democrat-bashing in this editorial.
If The Seattle Times actually wants the war to end, why was it necessary to be so condescending to the party that could get that accomplished? And what's up with being irked by "snappy quotes?" Weird.
This isn't 2003. If the staff of the Times wants to tell someone what to do, they can go back and read everything written by Judith Miller in 2002-2003 and then look in the mirror for a while. Maybe they can reflect upon how this war might not have happened, or not happened the way it did, if the press didn't roll over and become a bunch of jingoistic, flag-waving puppets themselves.
Looking past the snide tone of the editorial for a moment, consider it in context. First, the Times endorsed Dave Reichert, who narrowly won re-election over Darcy Burner, thanks mostly to the underhanded endorsement by the newspaper. And what did Reichert have to say about Bush's escalation?
And speaking of stunts and gimmicks, how can we forget this brilliant little episode from the Time's chosen U.S. Senate candidate?
At a certain point, publications destroy their own credibility with their transparent bias, and dare we say it, partisanship. I'm not quite certain where this leaves The Seattle Times, besides twisted into pretzels most of the time.
Political arm-waving and high-profile votes on nonbinding resolutions and other artfully worded parliamentary expressions of opposition are worthless. They do not inform the public about the nature of the president's military escalations, and more importantly they do nothing to turn off the flow of dollars that keep the administration's disastrous mission alive.That's rich. That stupid Constitution and all, you know. And I wonder who would be the first to excoriate Democrats should they field a resolution that doesn't pass Constitutional muster?
---snip---
Democrats were elected to confront the president's grievous war. They are not allowed a news cycle of snappy quotes only to plead legislative complexity in confronting the financial mechanisms that extend the war.
If The Seattle Times actually wants the war to end, why was it necessary to be so condescending to the party that could get that accomplished? And what's up with being irked by "snappy quotes?" Weird.
This isn't 2003. If the staff of the Times wants to tell someone what to do, they can go back and read everything written by Judith Miller in 2002-2003 and then look in the mirror for a while. Maybe they can reflect upon how this war might not have happened, or not happened the way it did, if the press didn't roll over and become a bunch of jingoistic, flag-waving puppets themselves.
Looking past the snide tone of the editorial for a moment, consider it in context. First, the Times endorsed Dave Reichert, who narrowly won re-election over Darcy Burner, thanks mostly to the underhanded endorsement by the newspaper. And what did Reichert have to say about Bush's escalation?
chirp chirp chirpThat took real guts, didn't it? Good thing he didn't resort to "snappy quotes." Or any quotes, actually.
And speaking of stunts and gimmicks, how can we forget this brilliant little episode from the Time's chosen U.S. Senate candidate?
Although McGavick’s press release invoked Warner and Hagel’s names in the subject line and heavily implied his proposal was warmly received by the GOP Senators, both felt the need to clarify that McGavick’s statements did not represent their views on the course forward in Iraq. And even though McGavick used the word “we” when articulating his position on Secretary Rumsfeld, both Senators felt the need to clarify that neither spoke to McGavick about Rumsfeld.This is Bush's war. The Times knows that, and they endorsed Reichert and McGavick anyhow.
At a certain point, publications destroy their own credibility with their transparent bias, and dare we say it, partisanship. I'm not quite certain where this leaves The Seattle Times, besides twisted into pretzels most of the time.
