Thursday, August 31, 2006

Rumsfeld Speech Gets Usual Non-Comprehending Comment From LAT Editorial

Liberal as the New York Times editorial page is, at least it tries to be fair, which unfortunately the pro-appeasement L.A. Times editorial page is not.

The latest instance of this is the much different NYT editorial this morning, as compared to the LAT editorial, on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments this week.

I'm not a particular admirer of Rumsfeld. Certainly, it would be wise to try new approaches to fighting the war in Iraq than he has been willing to initiate, and I concur in Sen. John McCain's recent criticism of him.

But at least Rumsfeld speaks plainly, and certainly the American people need to hear the frankest views from either side in the ongoing debate over American foreign policy.

The New York Times editorial this morning is willing to see Rumsfeld's comment glass as half-full rather than half-empty.

In commenting on Rumsfeld's words about America's current capability with anti-missiles, the NYT is complimentary.

"In a rare moment of candor this week," the NYT editorial says, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged this week that he's not sure if the United States missile defense system is ready to work. When asked if the shield could protect the United States from a North Korean missile attack, Mr. Rumsfeld said he'd need to see a full test of the system 'end to end' before he could answer."

The NYT editorial concludes, "We're hoping that Mr. Rumsfeld's sudden candor about the program starts to catch on."

While this constructive editorial was appearing, the L.A. Times editorial elects, for what must be the 69th time, to castigate Rumsfeld for being allegedly too "cranky" in his talk to an American Legion convention.

The L.A. Times doesn't like Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq war cut-and-runners in the Democratic party to those Britishers who sought to appease Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and it doesn't like his suggestion that some of these critics like to "blame America first" for the events leading up to the 9-11 terror attack on the U.S.

My view is, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Unfortunately, the John Kerrys, the Ted Kennedys, the Carl Levins and the John Murthas in Congress are all too prone to level their negative comments at the Bush Administration than at the terrorists who continue to outdo themselves, week by week, with barbaric conduct.

Rumsfeld deserves to be complimented, not castigated, for pointing this out.

The L.A. Times editorial page continues to be extremely soft in its approach. I sometimes wonder whether there has to be a terror attack on Los Angeles before these yellow-bellies like editorial page editor Andres Martinez who want to see an American exit from Iraq without paying any attention to the consequences that would flow from it assume a more realistic position.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home