New York Times – Bush Incompetent

Acquiunk wrote:

woiyo wrote:

The Bush administration HAS and agenda and are competant. It just so happens the editorial staff og the NY TIMES does not agree with it.

A valid point. But the NYT as international visibility and its editorial page as an international impact. Which is say it has a very big club. When it lays one right between the eyes as this editorial does, something serious is afoot.

As subscribers and viewers dwindle, Mainstream Media - or should that be "Lame Stream Media" - and its coterie of sycophantic, equally-deluded followers wonders why.

What The Public wants to know is What Happened, not "Here's what we want you to think about what happened".

Commentary and viewpoint are unavoidable. The trick is to see past them, to look at the event or item for what it is, not for how it is portrayed by those with whom you may or may not be in agreement.

I would suggest that you take your own advice Timber, and NOT look at how the war is being portrayed to you, by those that persued it.

See it for what it is.

The main man said that it is "The Mother Of All Battles."

Did he see it for "what it is"?

Is the groundwork being laid for his removal from office?



New York Times editorial
Published: November 8, 2005

After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.

Ha? He can't be, as I understand it, for incompetence ...only for serious offences?

(This is a little odd to those of us with Westminster style governments, as leaders can be removed quite easily if they lose the confidence of the country or party, but there it is.)

This question sounds like a major over reaction to me!


I very much doubt that he will ever be indicted for his lies about Iraq, and will serve out his presidency quite happily. Hey, the public is fickle... a few nice terror warnings and he will likely ride high in the polls again.

hey, big guy

Just FYI, LE, a good bit of my perception of the conduct of the war comes not from those who comment on it, regardless of perspective, but from those who are doing it - in it, on the ground, over there. Some are freinds, some are mere cyber acquaintences, and some are relatives - including my son. When it comes to "seeing it for what it is", I can't imagine a better vantage point than that from which they view it.

blatham wrote:

hey, big guy

Heya, Bernie - howya doin'? Sure glad you seem to be feeling better; I was really taken aback by Glamor Glam's mention of your wake-up call. Been seeing your posts here and there, just haven't been doing much commenting in the threads you're wont to hang out on.

spendius wrote:
The main man said that it is "The Mother Of All Battles."

Did he see it for "what it is"?


That's very funny, spendie.

Ha? He can't be, as I understand it, for incompetence ...only for serious offences?

This question sounds like a major over reaction to me!

Just FYI, LE, a good bit of my perception of the conduct of the war comes not from those who comment on it, regardless of perspective, but from those who are doing it - in it, on the ground, over there. Some are freinds, some are mere cyber acquaintences, and some are relatives - including my son. When it comes to "seeing it for what it is", I can't imagine a better vantage point than that from which they view it.