I Think They Might Need to Review What the Word “Protect” Means
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.
Other Posts of Interest:
- The Washington Post Can’t Imagine Why Democrats Oppose a US/Iraq Alliance
- The Resurgent Milestone
- Mission Accomplished…Again
Category: Oh, THAT liberal media., President Barack Obama, President George Bush, The Long War Here At Home
"We could be mourning tens of thousands of dead friends and family members today but we’re not thanks to George Bush."
This is quite a ridiculous and illogical point. The biggest terrorist attack on US soil was on GW's clock. Every single president BESIDES Bush did a better job of keeping terrorists at bay. It's not like the US was constantly bombarded by attacks and then they stopped because of Bush, either.
Jimmie, I would like to sell you some rocks. They will help keep the terrorists at bay.
People HAVE been mourning thousands of dead family members since 9/11 because of a completely unnecessary war.
What rubbish, mammon. You've obviously not been paying a single bit of attention to the many reports we've had of thwarted terrorist plans thanks to the vigorous prosecution of the war that we're still fighting against the Islamists. You also apparently aren't familiar with al-Qaeda's repeated statements saying how they've been concentrating their dwindling assets in Iraq in an effort to drive us out of there (and see how successful they've been?).
I'm not going to argue the past seven years all over again. The history is well on my side of the argument and what you have left smacks of nothing but sour ungraciousness.
Yeah? And I'll bet you think they started plannnig it the weekend before…while Bush was golfing, right?
Mammon, please tell me if we get attacked by terrorists this time next year, whose fault will it be?? Obama's?