Published on May 30, 2006 By Island Dog In Politics
NY Times, al-qaeda's daily read.


In a bizarre college commencement speech on May 21, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. urged protection for his reporters and photographers "in war-torn Iraq" so they can bring back stories about a "misbegotten war" and help undermine the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Strangely, he quoted Winston Churchill as saying, "never give in," but Sulzberger urged the U.S. to raise the white flag in Iraq and suggested that George Bush be kicked out of office in the same way Richard Nixon was forced to resign. Sulzberger, who also serves as chairman of the Times company, defended the paper's disclosure of national security information that makes it easier for the terrorists to target and kill Americans. And this from a publisher based in New York City, site of Ground Zero on 9/11.

While Sulzberger had no words of praise for the U.S. Armed Forces, he did express concern about losing "our reporters and photographers in war-torn areas such as Iraq…" He called Iraq "a misbegotten war in a foreign land." So, apparently, he wants his personnel protected just so they can help undermine the war effort and force an American withdrawal.

The address, which sounded like something out of the mouth of left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore, comes at a time when major investors are questioning Sulzberger's ability to lead the company into the new media age. Those investors made headlines when they withheld their votes for a slate of Sulzberger-approved directors at the April 18 annual meeting.

In the speech, delivered to the State University of New York at New Palz, where he was honored with a Doctorate of Humane Letters, Sulzberger argued that students should do the right thing when it comes to "small decisions," such as picking up an overturned trash can or helping a stranded motorist. But he said, in effect, that on big matters such as peace, freedom and security for our nation, the U.S. should throw in the towel. He suggested abandoning the war on terrorism and concentrating on more important things like adopting special rights for homosexuals and illegal aliens.


http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4604_0_3_0_C/

Comments
on May 30, 2006
Here's more from the NYT.

The New York Times Saturday offered a disgustingly sympathetic portrait of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (hat tip: Dinocrat). While the article acknowledges (in the words of an anonymous political science professor in Tehran) that “being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part” of Ahmadinejad’s political identity, the focus of the article is on Ahmadinejad’s “speed and aggression” in accumulating power and in “reshaping” the nature of Iran’s government.

For what ends? Here the article is curiously silent about Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel and Iran’s support for international Islamic terrorism.

While the New York Times cannot quite bring itself to call Ahmadinejad a “reformer,” that is clearly the thrust of the article. For example, the article repeatedly trumpets that Ahmadinejad is “a proponent of women’s rights,” has “challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women,” and has “defended women in a way that put him outside the mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse.” Of course, the “mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse” takes a rather dim view of “women’s rights”—certainly as westerners have understood that term for the past several hundred years. Moreover, the only specific example of Ahmadinejad’s alleged support for women was his proposal to allow women into sports stadiums—which was promptly rejected by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei. So much for Ahmadinejad as Iran’s Susan B. Anthony.

Another aspect of Ahmadinejad’s leadership style that appeals to the New York Times is his economic populism. The article quotes Ahmadinejad as saying that “parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials,” who “should not have influence over senior officials” and who “should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people.” As for the poor people, Ahmadinejad “promises to improve the lives of the poor” by forcing banks to lower interest rates, offering inexpensive housing loans, promoting “development projects” throughout the country, and trying to inject oil revenue into the economy.

Although the Times acknowledges that the Iranian economy is “almost entirely in the hands of the government” and that Ahmadinejad lacks “a strong grasp of economics,” nowhere does it suggest that greater freedom and deregulation might be the keys to a stronger economy.

Ah, freedom. Something the New York Times interprets most expansively at home (e.g., the alleged First Amendment right to expose national security secrets), but cares rather little about abroad, at least in countries not allied with the United States. Hence, the article on Ahmadinejad offers little disapprobation for his “political arrests,” which the Times brightly reports “are down”; or for his “pressure” on newspapers “to be silent on certain topics, like opposition to the nuclear program”; or for his “punishment” of officials running the nation’s cell phone system, which people were using to circulate jokes about Ahmadinejad’s poor personal hygiene.

This sounds like a joke itself, but totalitarianism is no laughing matter. Plainly, the Times downplays the tyranny and brutality of Ahmadinejad’s regime because it does not fit into the “reformer” mold into which the article tries to squeeze him. Apparently, Islamic tyrants are now going to be accorded the same white glove treatment that the Left has always shown Communist tyrants.
on May 30, 2006
Heh, duh. You expected the person in charge of that paper to be a Republican? The school in question had to know what they'd get, and probably asked for him for that reason. The NYT isn't covertly anti-Bush, anti-Republican. They are openly antagonistic editorially.

There isn't a hard-Right pundit that doesn't rant about them once a week. I doubt anyone was really surprised by this.