home

The WaPo Editorial Board In a Nutshell

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:15:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a almost completely inane editorial, the Washington Post Editorial Board demonstrated how useless it is in this passage:

Meanwhile, Democrats in both chambers chose to spend countless hours mired in a fruitless effort to compel an "end" to the war in Iraq.

Devoting "countless hours" to the most important issue the country faces is worthy of ridicule for the Washington Post Editorial Board. Forget what your view is on the issue, how is it possible that devoting countless hours to it could be a bad thing? Only in the twisted mind of a Fred Hiatt could the efforts spent on Iraq be something to criticize.

< Netroots: Where Do We Go From Here? | Chris Dodd on the FISA Capitulation >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The WaPo Editorial Board In a Nutshell | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "tiwsted mind" (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    seems a bit mild for Hiatt.

    Seems to me... (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    ... that the complaint has more to do with the hours' fruitlessness than with their countlessness.  That's fair game for criticism.

    Not when you oppose (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    what was attempted, as the WaPo did.

    NOT fair criticism at all.

    Parent

    Snarky Air Quotes (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    around "end" as well.  And they wonder why the American public hates the MSM?  Idiots.

    Parent
    About that "end" (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    Do you think the major Dem plan constitutes an actual end to the war, or just a change in mission and manpower?  From what I've read, it's more the latter.  So calling it an end without some qualification, like snarky "air quotes", is just spreading misinformation.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    Since the Democrats never called it an "ending" the WaPo's snark is  ESPECIALLY misplaced.

    You bury them even more.

    Roy, you continue to imporve my critique of it. I thank you.

    Parent

    Let's ask Congress about that (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    AFAICT, the Dems never called a particular plan an "ending" to the war, but at least some of the biggest players claim to have the goal of ending the war with Congressional action:

    Nancy Pelosi, about recent activities: "a month of action in Congress to end the war"

    Harry Reid, on Levin-Reed: "The Iraqi people and their leader say they are ready for us to end our combat operation.  It's time we listen to them." and "Those of us [Senators] who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people."

    Hillary Clinton, about a vote in May: "It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible".

    John Edwards on the not-funding option, in May: "The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that."

    These quotes aren't necessarily dishonest on their face, because in context some (especially Reid) describe things in enough detail that it's clear the plan at hand isn't intended to directly end the war.  They do, however, seem constitute claims that these Congressmen are trying to end the war.  

    But that claim isn't credible, and shouldn't be repeated uncritically, if they aren't advancing -- in a big way -- plans that actually end the war.

    Parent

    Context is the thing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    And like WaPo, you have not presented the issue honestly.

    It is ok in a thread like this.

    But NOT ok in an editorial speaking for the newspaper.

    You strengthen the argument yet again.

    Parent

    Which part of my comment... (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    ... was "not when you oppose what was attempted" meant to apply to?  The claim that WaPo was talking mainly about fruitlessness, or the claim that criticising fruitlessness is fair?

    Parent
    crtiicizing fruitlessness (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    when you argued for fruitlessess on that issue.

    Parent
    Of COURSE it is useless! (none / 0) (#5)
    by TomStewart on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:42:06 PM EST
    The Post says so! The freaking Washington Post! This is the paper of Watergate! The paper that once was looked upon as a bastion of integrity, a leader in holding our government accountable!

    The Washington Post!

    Well, that was the paper that was. Now they seem invested in defending their own wrong-headed support of this administration and its criminal war on the constitution. Liek the WSJ, they seem unaware of the reporting going on in their own paper.

    Stop digging that hole, dum@ss! Perk your head up and see what is going on in America today. GET ANGRY! Stop living off your past rep and build a new one of sunlight, balls and hope.

    The WaPo Editorial Board In a Nutshell | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment