'Unilateralism, My Ass!'

That's Glenn Reynolds's remark on an open letter from eight European leaders--the prime ministers of Britain, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain and the president of the Czech Republic--announcing that they stand with America and against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. The letter, which appears in today's Wall Street Journal, was also picked up by several European newspapers, including the Times of London. Blogger Donald Luskin says it's an important moment in journalism:

Students of diplomacy will notice that this letter will serve to isolate France and Germany in their opposition to US efforts. But students of media will notice that these European leaders chose the Wall Street Journal to publish their letter--which will serve to isolate the New York Times in its opposition to US efforts.

Twenty years ago--even five years ago--it would have been unthinkable for such a letter to run anywhere but the Times--America's "newspaper of record." But today--well, can you imagine this letter running next to some strident, sophomoric raving from Maureen Dowd or some biased, unprincipled jeremiad from Paul Krugman? Apparently the leaders of eight great European nations couldn't either.

The Times, of course, allied itself firmly with the Franco-German "axis of weasels" in a Sunday editorial declaring that "the world--like the American public--is not yet really convinced that a Hussein-free Middle East is a goal worth fighting a war for." Isn't the news that eight European leaders are firmly behind America "fit to print"? And yet except for a couple of wire-service reports, there's not a word about it on the Times' Web site. As we write, even the wire reports don't merit a link on the Times' special page that it bills as offering "complete coverage" of what the paper, no doubt thinking wishfully, calls the "standoff" with Iraq.

Is the Times just reluctant to pick up a competitor's scoop? Maybe, but in that case how does one explain the extensive page-one coverage it gave to last year's skeptical Wall Street Journal op-ed by Brent Scowcroft?

Meanwhile, we have to love the Reuters spin on this show of solidarity. The "news" service's headline reads: " 'Gang of Eight' Iraq Letter Rubs Salt in EU Wounds." The heart bleeds.

Meanwhile, The Nation's Robert Scheer sneers: "Unless Hussein . . . suddenly unzips his skin to reveal he is actually Bin Laden, we are likely to march to war with the support of an 'international coalition' that amounts to a fig leaf named Tony Blair and a motley collection of nations one can buy on EBay."

"A motley collection of nations one can buy on EBay": This is what Robert Scheer thinks of the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Talk about your ugly Americans.

Did this post get lost on Free Republic for about an hour?

I was going to respond to it and could not find it.

That made me wonder if the vile NY Slimes hacked it out?

The NY Slimes is the epicenter of left wing, socialist, enviralist, communist and Islamofacist evil in America.

They are not only the major PR factor for these ists, but they are the think tank for them.

Basically anything that comes out in the left wing media of America started first at the Slimes or one of their farm squads like the Boston Globe.

Every left wing shrieking head on tv is groomed and told what to say by the anti America NY Slimes.

Then, their chosen rat politicians mouth the same inane remarks on liberal stages each week.

During the last presidential election, a mentor who has recently died noted after 6 decades of monitoring the NY Slimes and the DemonicRats, that the elite owners/publisher/editors of the slimes really controlled the rats. He felt the rats were just their chosen fools to go on the liberal stages to mouth what they were told to say.

He said that when we found out who controlled the elite of the NY Slimes, we would understand a whole lot of what has happened to America since the 1930's.

Some information about Howell Raines...and his financial backers... latest skullduggery comes from a liberal columnist. (The opinions expressed below are, of course, not my own)

Howell Raines, Pussyfooter Why can't the New York Times executive editor come clean about his plans for the International Herald Tribune?

By Jack Shafer Posted Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 2:07 PM PT

There are two Howell Raineses. The clamorous Raines quotes Bear Bryant, compares himself to Ulysses S. Grant, and gases on about how he's raising the "competitive metabolism" of his newspaper, the New York Times. The more tractable Raines appears now and again to mouth the sort of round-edged platitudes one expects to hear from the director of Procter & Gamble's HR department, not the executive editor of the New York Times.

I, of course, prefer Bear Raines, who says what he means, over Pussyfooting Raines, who, alas, surfaces in today's Times story about the completion of the New York Times Co.'s takeover of the International Herald Tribune ("International Herald Tribune Now Run Solely by The Times"). Pussyfooting Raines preposterously claims there are no plans to remake the IHT when the article documents exactly the opposite!

The New York Times Co. consolidated its ownership of the IHT after a rancorous bit of negotiating with its business and editorial partner of 35 years, the Washington Post Co. Sell us your 50 percent of the IHT, the Times Co. reportedly told the Post Co., or we'll start a newspaper to compete against it. The furious Post Co. sold, and the former partners consummated the deal on Jan. 1.

Nobody but a fool ever bought a newspaper with the goal of preserving the status quo—especially after spending $70 million, as the Times Co. did. And nobody would dis a longtime partner, as the Times Co. did the Post Co., for the right to maintain things as they are. So why do Raines and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Times Co. chairman, insist on fibbing so transparently in their own newspaper?

Let's go to the story: Raines, who adds to his duties the role of IHT editorial overseer, tells Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick that a "seamless transition" will maintain the IHT as "an international paper of the highest quality." The Times Co.'s Sulzberger echoes Raines' mealy-mouthing: "We are not jumping into this to change the I.H.T. ... We are jumping into this to understand a marketplace that we don't understand the way we should." Sure, Art, and you're spending the $70 million as part of a learning experience.

The piece all but predicts a complete overhaul of the IHT. Kirkpatrick notes that the Times Co. has removed the top editor from the Post Co., David Ignatius, and replaced him with Walter Wells, a former Times man; the IHT will now draw most of its content directly from New York Times staffers; IHT editors will listen in via telephone on Times editorial conferences; New York Times reporters will be encouraged to file early versions of their stories so they can run in the same-day issues of the IHT (the six-hour time difference makes that difficult today); the Times will add reporters abroad as part of the new effort; IHT editorials will be written by New York Times editorial writers, and some of them will be penned exclusively for the IHT. That sounds like the New York Times International to me, and what's wrong with that?

During a recent visit to Paris, the straight-talking Bear Raines talked to the IHT newsroom for about an hour, telling them how important the success of the IHT was to him personally. He said he has only six more years at the Times before his compulsory retirement, and he knows he'll be judged on how well he shapes the new IHT. If that isn't a declaration of radical change to come, you don't know Howell Raines.

The transformation of the IHT will commence in earnest when the heavy dose of Washington Post copy found in the old IHT vanishes, which is more likely to occur sooner than later. The new IHT will no longer draw Washington Post editorial and news copy directly from the Post, a Times Co. spokesperson confirms. Post copy will now come from the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service. That access is for six months, and the Post Co. can end the agreement after three months with a one-month notice to terminate. It sounds a lot more like shacking up than marriage to me.

The International Herald Tribune is now the Times Co.'s frog. Whether Raines and Sulzberger boil it slowly—thinking that nobody will notice—or flash-fry it in a pyrotechnic display, they're gonna end up cooking the goddamn thing. So why not just say so?

If you like your International Herald Tribune slow-roasted and dappled with a vinegar-based sauce, you're my sort of reader. Place your order at pressbox@hotmail.com.

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.