BY A SWELTERING DEAN BARNETT
This New York Times article makes it clear why we should all be very thankful that Bush the Younger is now running things and not Bush the Elder. It also makes it clear that we should be incredibly relieved that Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Heller don’t run anything besides their own troubled enterprise.
Picking up on another golden oldie of the media’s wartime narrative, the paper points out that Bush 43’s wartime policies differ from those of his father. With cutting edge analyses of that sort, is it not a miracle that the Times’ fortunes are in the dumpster?
The article seems to pine for the good old days of appeasement and not-so-peaceful co-existence with homicidal lunatics. “In allying himself so closely with Israel, he has departed not just from his father’s approach but also from those of all his recent predecessors, who saw themselves first and foremost as brokers in the region.”
Yes, wouldn’t it be nice if we once again had moral obtuseness in the Oval Office of the sort that couldn’t distinguish between a free and open democracy and a terrorist outfit sponsored by the world’s greatest threat to peace and freedom? If only America would just be an impartial broker, surely all the world’s troubles would melt away.
The article also suggests that the President supports Israel partly because he’s a religious loon, hitting yet another recurring theme in the media’s tedious war time coverage:
Others say Mr. Bush cannot help looking at Israel through the prism of his Christian faith. “There is a religiously inspired connection to Israel in which he feels, as president, a responsibility for Israel’s survival,” said Martin S. Indyk, who was President Clinton’s ambassador to Israel and kept that post for several months under President Bush. He also suggested that Republican politics were at work, saying Mr. Bush came into office determined to “build his Christian base.”
To paraphrase Professor Reynolds, don’t read the whole thing. I did