Article

2004-10-15 Europe

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 ed 2004-10-15 23:45|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Pretty good read. Maybe the WSJ is just letting its writers write despite MSM expectations, or maybe they don't want to be locked out in the inevitable GWB term 2, who knows. Good article in anycase - glad they published it.

Posted by Beau 2004-10-15 12:57:56 AM|| 2004-10-15 12:57:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Thx, ed - an excellent in-depth coverage of the myth. Timelines. That's the back-breaker for the meme-makers and spin artists. Keep an accurate timeline, assigning motives later, when evidence and research like this make matters clear, and you are never played for a sucker, Internationalist / Socialist / Apologist / MSM / Dhimmidick style.

Freedom has, obviously, many enemies.

Vigilance and fortitude, friends. The fate of our Republic is in the hands of a dwindling few with true journalist ethics, a few polticians who "get it" and have the stones to publicly support freedom, and the Pajamahadeen.

Posted by .com 2004-10-15 1:18:42 AM|| 2004-10-15 1:18:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 WSJ is one of the few that has actual reporters and still "reports" rather than just prints DNC press releases.

This whole handwringing thing is getting so old.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-15 5:27:09 AM|| 2004-10-15 5:27:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Because the WSJ is a business/investment newspaper, the editors understand that wishful thinking is no substitute for facts and analysis. This op/ed is consistent with historical reportage. Remember, they were the ones who printed the letter signed by the eight pro-U.S. European leaders (written by Aznar, signed by Blair, Berlusconi, Vaclav Havel, etc). Check out their editorials at their free site www.opinionjournal.com Daily blog by editor James Taranto is a hoot!

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-15 7:26:52 AM|| 2004-10-15 7:26:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 2b: WSJ is one of the few that has actual reporters and still "reports" rather than just prints DNC press releases.

The Wall Street Journal has separate managements for the news and editorial pages. The news pages are as liberal as the New York Times. But the editorial page is solidly conservative. To counter this, the news pages have editorial sections of their own, positioned among the news pages, but clearly marked as editorials. Gerald Seib and John Harwood are some of the liberal editorialists for the news sections.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-10-15 10:12:05 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-10-15 10:12:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The socialist crapweasels cannot defeat freedom by direct action so they are forced to slander it by projecting their own fatal flaws onto it.

Posted by Craig 2004-10-15 10:33:46 AM|| 2004-10-15 10:33:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Such lapses suggest that the New York Times' reporters lack the requisite linguistic skills or cultural familiarity to report accurately even on a country as generally accessible to Americans as France--a possibility that should give us profound cause to pause concerning the accuracy of their dispatches from more exotic venues. And where real knowledge is lacking, ideological "intuitions" can no doubt be expected to fill the void."

I beleive the NYT was slapped here , very well written!

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-10-15 11:12:14 AM|| 2004-10-15 11:12:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 ..an excellent in-depth coverage of the myth.

I didn't buy into that "myth" the first time someone blurted it out. What we need are people we can trust to stand by us, not people that will feel sorry for us.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-15 11:52:13 AM|| 2004-10-15 11:52:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "It was not the nature of President Bush's policy that provoked the anti-American rage; it was rather the daily dosage of anti-American conditioning in the French and German media that predisposed the more susceptible sections of the public to assume nefarious motives behind a policy whose rationale in light of 12 years of Security Council resolutions on Iraq and in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was reasonably straightforward and obvious. "

Yep. Great article.

Posted by jules 2 2004-10-15 3:23:01 PM|| 2004-10-15 3:23:01 PM|| Front Page Top

21:36 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:12 MikhailLabour628
12:34 .com
12:27 Elmoling Grenter5116
09:35 Frank G
09:12 thundertaker
18:19 2b
18:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
17:56 Jules 187
17:48 .com
17:34 Snoluck Phusing8642
11:48 Bulldog
11:45 Bulldog
11:44 Shemble Whaiger3886
11:37 2b
11:34 Shemble Whaiger3886
11:18 Bulldog
11:16 Jules 187
11:06 Shemble Whaiger3886
10:30 Englishman
10:27 Englishman
10:25 Bulldog
10:25 Sock Puppet of Doom
10:23 Abu Anus