Fair and Balanced Priorities

Reading Rupert Murdoch's NY Post this morning-- my bad, I know-- it was clear that their reaction to the President's speech last night had nothing new to offer... just more mind-boggingly off historical parallels, hysterical warnings against leaving, and empty jingoism.

But mostly it offered Fox News-esque distraction from the depressing realities of the war (a White House report out today acknowledges that Iraq is a mess, "a discouraging assessment a day after President Bush announced that progress justifies keeping a large U.S. military presence there," virtually forever). This particularly came in the form of the conservative outrage of the week... a MoveOn ad that affects nothing and no one. The paper featured at least two editorials today on said ad, including an official one, which was a virtual Guiliani campaign ad, and a guest column by Michelle Malkin, herself one of the most extreme figures on the right.

In addition, the paper published 10 letters today-- all on the issue of Gen. Petraeus v. Hillary Clinton-- nine of which were rants against the 'loony left'. The only dissenting letter wasn't substantive at all, merely acknowledging that the NY Post is the last entity that should be lamenting "attack-style politics".

Considering that around 70% of the country opposes this war, this seems an odd selection. Of course, the NY Post has always been clear that it is a paper by and for the 30% or so of this country that still supports this President and his failed war. That other 70% of the country? Traitors and terror-sympathizers, the lot of them.

After throwing aside the Post, I grabbed the NY Daily News next. And while its own editorial was a pro-war piece free of any critical analysis or context, at least the letters section added some balance. Here's a a selection-

Franklin Square, L.I.: The surge was supposed to be a last-ditch effort to justify staying in Iraq, not an excuse to keep our troops there longer. The Government Accountability Office report has stated that violence has escalated and we missed 11 of 18 goals. Let's bring our troops home today, so we have the resources to effectively fight terrorism around the world.

Sgt. Gregory Ciulla, USMC

#2-

Manhattan: Amazing. The person who murdered 3,000 people six years ago is still alive and sending us videotapes, and another person who had nothing to do with it gets hanged.

Patrick O'Donnell

#3-

Brooklyn: Is anyone shocked that Americans do not believe Gen. David Petraeus? We believed Gen. Colin Powell, and look where it got us. I no longer believe what comes out of Washington. We have been lied to for too long.

Anita Brandariz

#4-

Flushing: What a difference between Presidents. Bush leans on Gen. Petraeus to decide on war strategies, while Truman fired Gen. MacArthur for wanting to expand (read: surge) the Korean War.

Charles Taylor

These four people seem to get it a lot more than most of the newspaper columnists have this morning (darn that liberal media!). All of the rhetoric out of Washington DC this week has been a farce, and the reasons the President gives for next year's 'withdrawals' is an outright lie.

Despite this, the beltway consensus is that we have to stay anyway. The Decider has spoken.