Article

2004-04-21 Home Front: Politix

Washington Post criticizes Kerry, Praises Bush in same editorial

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2004-04-21 8:40:29 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Dang ima gonna have to open a ski resort

Posted by Lucifier 2004-04-21 9:39:13 AM|| 2004-04-21 9:39:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Post is and always has been a liberal newspaper, but for the most part it's under adult supervision, and its editorial board wants America to win the war even if its boy doesn't win the election. (NOTE: preceeding sentence does not apply to columnists E.J. Dionne or Richard Cohen.) The same is not true of the once-proud New York Times.

Posted by Mike 2004-04-21 10:08:12 AM|| 2004-04-21 10:08:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Yet on goals Mr. Bush is right

On GOALS. WaPo still criticizes Bush on methods. But they want a democratic Iraq, and much of their discomfort with Bush is that it often seems he isnt really commited to this. They have hit the nail on the head wrt to Kerry - not that Kerry talks of cutting and running - Kerry has wisely made clear he understands that we cant afford to lose Iraq to Al Qaeeda - but Kerry has NOT outlined whether he really wants to achieve a WIN in Iraq, whether he sees a democracy in Iraq as possible, and whether he is commited to seeing it through - important, since the methods, costs and risks of pushing through to Iraqi democracy will be somewhat different than just going for stability. But that would mean conceding some part of the admin case for going to war in the first place, and particularly the neo con case, and so would outrage many of his supporters. Yet failing to do so is a problem for his liberal hawk supporters, like the ed page of the WaPo.

The WaPo, myself, and others continue to wait for Kerry to define himself on this.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-21 10:27:39 AM|| 2004-04-21 10:27:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Only poblem with this is,if he did define himself.
How in the hell would you know if he won't change his mind the next week?

Posted by djohn66 2004-04-21 11:14:23 AM|| 2004-04-21 11:14:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 lh and djohn66

to some extent Kerry has already defined himself on Iraq, unfortunately it is somewhere between "internation man of nuance" and "master of disguising his real intentions"

Posted by mhw 2004-04-21 11:43:43 AM|| 2004-04-21 11:43:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 whoa! What's the catch? I noticed that one headline, yesterday (not positive it was WaPo) said something to the effect of "polls show that American's consider WOT to be of primary importance - both sides agree"

Kinda ticked me off and tipped me off at the same time. Donk's (meaning DNC as represented by their news outlets) realize they've made a horrible mistake on their position on WOT and now are trying to find a way to pretend they've been on board all along.

I wonder if they are planning to dump Kerry, the loser man, and select someone else as their official nominee at the DNC convention. Considering the the sudden shift in the tone from the usual suspects, we should be watching to see somebody else from that party suddenly emerges *cough* hillary *cough* as a big supporter of the war.

Posted by B 2004-04-21 12:45:58 PM|| 2004-04-21 12:45:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Kerry's grand plan for Iraq is to turn it over to UN.If UN refuses?He has no plan if that happens.Based on his past history,as soon as he gets criticism,Kerry will pull troops out.
To a large degree whatever Kerry says his policy on Iraq will be is irrelevant.The people he chooses to staff a Kerry administration will determine what will actually happen.To date Kerry is surrounding himself w/Former Clinton administration members.Anyone believe these people would prosecute a vigorous War on Terror?Or will they slide back into the old,comfortable,head-in-the-sand ways of 1992-2000?This is why Kerry must be defeated in Nov.-if you believe the Islamic Terrorists pose a threat to America.

Posted by Stephen 2004-04-21 3:37:55 PM|| 2004-04-21 3:37:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "The WaPo, myself, and others continue to wait for Kerry to define himself on this."

Why? Doesn't his failure to define his position so far tell you he really doesn't have any? Other than what his political calculations tell him will play well with whoever he needs to impress, of course.

That's the problem: John Kerry is the antithesis of a leader: he is, first and last, a follower, cut from the same flimsy, diaphonous material as Bill Clinton.

Even if John Kerry took a position, what makes you think he'd stick with it? Or even that he really means what he says?

This ex-Dem ain't going to believe him NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS, that's for damn sure.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-04-21 4:06:16 PM|| 2004-04-21 4:06:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 " I wonder if they are planning to dump Kerry, the loser man, and select someone else as their official nominee at the DNC convention. Considering the the sudden shift in the tone from the usual suspects, we should be watching to see somebody else from that party suddenly emerges *cough* hillary *cough* as a big supporter of the war."

Who knows? Hillary, for public consumption anyway, has often talked a lot tougher line on the war than Kerry (among others), and, most definitely unlike Kerry, she's actually visited Iraq and Afghanistan (though it was, of course, for her own political purposes, and of course, she got magnificently upstaged by GWB).

Posted by Joe 2004-04-21 6:11:25 PM|| 2004-04-21 6:11:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "The Post is and always has been a liberal newspaper, but for the most part it's under adult supervision, and its editorial board wants America to win the war even if its boy doesn't win the election. (NOTE: preceeding sentence does not apply to columnists E.J. Dionne or Richard Cohen.) The same is not true of the once-proud New York Times."

You might add William Raspberry to that list, though with an asterisk; when he's not bloviating about what an awful quagmire the war is, Raspberry is actually fairly solid, especially in his willingness to challenge liberal civil-rights shibboleths and his strong support of real education reform (he's black). Howard Kurtz, the Post's media writer, is another OK guy; he's the one who broke the story yesterday where Woodward himself, along with Bandar bin Sultan, demolished the meme that there was any "Saudi oil deal" cut with GWB, and provided the "Larry King" transcript excerpts to prove it. The Post's editorial board seems to be getting increasingly critical of Kerry as the campaign grinds on, and not just on the war; I pretty clearly recall an editorial just the other day where they really took him to the woodshed on some economic-policy matter or other. They _might_ want the Democrats to win in November, yes, but unlike the Times, they're well aware of his faults and more than willing to call him on them.

Posted by Joe 2004-04-21 6:18:50 PM|| 2004-04-21 6:18:50 PM|| Front Page Top

10:19 Yosemite Sam
06:19 Howard UK
06:12 .com
04:46 Neo
04:34 Super Hose
04:21 Super Hose
04:17 Howard UK
04:16 Super Hose
04:14 Super Hose
04:10 Howard UK
03:10 Super Hose
02:58 Super Hose
02:53 Super Hose
02:52 Super Hose
02:51 Zenster
02:47 Super Hose
02:44 Super Hose
23:57 Halfass Pete
23:51 Carl in N.H.
23:46 Mike Sylwester
23:41 ColoradoConservative
23:38 Mike Sylwester
23:35 Gromky
23:32 Gromky