I Think They Might Need to Review What the Word "Protect" Means

| November 6, 2008 | 3 Replies

You know you’re in trouble when the New York Times begins an editorial like this:

This is one of those moments in history when it is worth pausing to reflect on the basic facts:

Here is the most basic of the Times’ “basic facts”. You can see just how far into Bizarro World the paper is when it can print something like this and not burst immediately into flame.

His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens.

So…did I miss a terrorist attack somewhere? Did the Islamists knock down another skyscraper or kill another couple thousand people?

Ohhhh….we’re not protected because some of us don’t have health care insurance and an even smaller number of us might lose their homes because they willingly signed on to mortagages they couldn’t afford.

In other words, our government didn’t protect us from ourselves.

It did, however, do a bang-up job of protecting us from Islamists over the past eight years. It’s pretty small of the Times not to acknowledge that considerable accomplishment. Barack Obama will become President of a country that is eight years removed from the worst mass murder ever committed in its history. That eight years could have been three, or two, of six months. The New York Times should be thankful that economic news is the worst thing it can gripe about.

We could be mourning tens of thousands of dead friends and family members today but we’re not thanks to George Bush.

Tags: , , , , ,

Category: Oh, THAT liberal media., President Barack Obama, President George Bush, The Long War Here At Home

About the Author ()