Skip to comments.
This Is Opposition? [WSJ Editorial on the NYTimes]
Wall St. Journal ^
| Aug 19, 2002
| Editorial
Posted on 08/19/2002 2:07:45 AM PDT by The Raven
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
We're pleased, we guess, that the New York Times thought our article on Iraq by Brent Scowcroft last Thursday was important enough to lead its front page two days in a row. We'd be more pleased, though, if instead of trumpeting our story to advance a tendentious theme, the Times kept its opinions on its editorial page.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; scowcroft; times
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
1
posted on
08/19/2002 2:07:45 AM PDT
by
The Raven
To: The Raven
2
posted on
08/19/2002 2:32:32 AM PDT
by
The Raven
To: The Raven
3
posted on
08/19/2002 2:57:09 AM PDT
by
The Raven
To: The Raven
4
posted on
08/19/2002 3:08:42 AM PDT
by
The Raven
To: The Raven
This is without a doubt the best thing I've read all day. Big ol' bump to the top!
To: Singapore_Yank
You're the only one !!
6
posted on
08/19/2002 3:25:12 PM PDT
by
The Raven
To: The Raven
We'll fix that!
To: Singapore_Yank
Let me hit this with a big ol' bump too........
To: bert; Peacerose; calypgin; ForGod'sSake
Don't you love it when the NY Times gets slapped around, especially when it's done by a big name such as the Wall Street Journal?
To: The Raven
Big Bump!
10
posted on
08/19/2002 3:47:56 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: The Raven
BTTT
11
posted on
08/19/2002 3:50:28 PM PDT
by
facedown
To: Singapore_Yank; The Raven
Excellent article. I do not expect all Republicans to march along and agree all the same. President Bush will listen to many opinions, but he is the one who gets to decided what to do.
To: Utah Girl
Ah, you came. I just realized that I didn't include your name just now when I tried to ping a few people.
To: Singapore_Yank
No worries. I'd read the article a while ago, but didn't comment on it. The Times just sees healthy discussion amongst President Bush's advisors as something bad. I see it as a good thing, a lot of times healthy discussion that has an end to it promotes ideas, and building upon others views. OTOH, Clinton and his minions would discuss an idea or policy to death, never come to any sort of decision, and just kind of let stuff happen by default.
To: Singapore_Yank; The Raven
Great post, Raven. SY, thanks for the heads up. Bumping for the evening crowd's comments.
15
posted on
08/19/2002 3:57:43 PM PDT
by
Lorena
To: Utah Girl
Well, the main point here seems to be that while there has been a healthy discussion of policy, there's far, far less opposition than what the Times would have us believe. Anytime a little-known Republican congressman wants to make front page news, all he has to do is express opposition to President Bush and he'll be the darling of the week.
To: Singapore_Yank
I heard Rush talking about this today. I forget his exact description of the "once great" NY Times - but it was great and not complimentary!
To: A Citizen Reporter; ABG(anybody but Gore); acnielsen guy; Angelwood; arazitjh; b4its2late; ...
Super Pingeroonie.
18
posted on
08/19/2002 4:49:56 PM PDT
by
Neets
To: OneidaM; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; MeeknMing; HiJinx; SAMWolf; JohnHuang2
Thank you for the ping OneidaM.
BUMP!!!!!!
To: OneidaM
Hi Nita. Thanks for the ping. This high level controversy is becoming more muddled by the day.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson