Lamest.NYT.Attack.Ever.

They devoted plenty of pages criticizing how Republicans were launching harsh attacks on Barack Obama in the days, weeks, and months leading up to the election. What are they doing now? Taking shots at Republicans for … being gracious after Obama’s win on Tuesday.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

10 Responses to "Lamest.NYT.Attack.Ever."

Trish says:

November 9, 2008 at 12:10 am

Expletive deleted.
arcman says:

November 9, 2008 at 8:21 am

Funny, they get mad at us when we don’t act like those on the Left. I am not happy about a President Obama, and think that this is going to be an unmitigated disaster. I also hope that I am wrong. Yet there is nothing in his past that has been revealed, and there is a lot that we don’t know about him that leads me to believe that he is up to the challenge. see following video from Tom Brokaw.
LINK
Dishman says:

November 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Controvery sells.
The NYT is displeased because we’re not contributing to their marketing plan.
Helen says:

November 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I think you should be pleased, ST. You guys are managing to annoy the New York Times by doing nothing very much and doing very well, indeed.
Great White Rat says:

November 9, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Also found in the NYT is this little item: Jihadi Leader Says Radicals Share Obama Victory .

The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.

The statement, which experts said was part of the psychological duel with the United States, was included in a 25-minute audiotaped speech by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization that claims ties to Al Qaeda.

No big surprise there. AQ did give Obama a backhanded endorsement late in the campaign. Every terrorist and anti-American despot on earth has been euphoric since Tuesday night.

But here’s the line that caught my eye:

But two intelligence officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of their work said that they were concerned that any step that could be perceived as a victory for Al Qaeda, like pulling troops out of Iraq right away, would only strengthen its ability to recruit.

One of the left’s favorite nostrums over the last five years has been that our liberation of Iraq has mobilized the Arab street to flock to the jihadis – that as long as our soldiers stayed in Iraq, AQ would grow stronger. This is obviously some new definition of “stronger”, since AQ was losing operatives and public support and getting their butts kicked on an hourly basis since the start of the surge.

But now we’re told that if we leave quickly, as the left wants, that also helps AQ recruit. Looks like no matter what we do, the enemy will be able to build up. Of course, that’s just common sense, but really, how often have you seen the NYT guilty of publishing common sense?

Well, in two months it’ll be Obama’s problem, and his dilemma will be largely of his own making. He will either have to disappoint his strongest supporters (the MoveOn, Kos types) by adopting a sensible course or risk revitializing the jihadis. My guess is he will try to steer a middle course, but probably closer to what the far left wants.
Trish says:

November 10, 2008 at 1:03 am

Oh, Ratty, you just haven’t been paying attention. Obama has no dilemma. He has publicly said that he’ll side with the Arabs.
Great White Rat says:

November 10, 2008 at 8:00 am

Trish, he’s said everything, depending on who his audience is. It’s the campaigning equivalent of voting ‘present’. And that comment was in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli question, not Iraq and AQ. He’s never said he supports AQ against our own troops, even if AQ does support him. It’s a different situation.

He’s going to find out quickly that in the Oval Office, you can’t vote ‘present’.
Leslie says:

November 10, 2008 at 10:52 am

I note that the link is to Times reportage, not opinion, and that it is quoting the opinions of others. Whatevs . . .

Anyway, I agree with El Raton, for the most part.

He will either have to disappoint his strongest supporters (the MoveOn, Kos types) by adopting a sensible course or risk revitializing the jihadis. My guess is he will try to steer a middle course, but probably closer to what the far left wants.

I slightly disagree with His Whiteness to this extent: I think he will soon learn that the far left is insatiable, and after a few tussles with them will drift back toward the center.
Sister Toldjah says:

November 10, 2008 at 11:36 am

Leslie, in the message board you and I post at, I responded to your comments about this NYT piece and look fwd to your response there (or here). In a nutshell, it’s not just quoting the opinions of others. It spends the first few paragraphs setting the narrative, and then quotes the opinions of others that agree with that narrative. IMO, this is a classic example of the NYT creating news, not reporting it. It’s really a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Imagine what the piece would have looked like had the GOP not been gracious in their congrats.
Great White Rat says:

November 10, 2008 at 11:43 am

Leslie, I see little in his career or campaign that validates the idea that he will move to the center, but I’ll be very happy if you’re right and I’m wrong. We may have a better clue when we see what his appointed foreign policy team looks like. And before anyone brings it up, I don’t mean the famous 300 from the campaign; I mean his final choices for the most important spots.

Comments are closed.