Where Does the New York Times Stand on Iraq?

Filed under: Iraq, Mainstream Media, Media — Marc Schulman on January 4, 2008 @ 7:46 pm CET

It’s hard to tell from this editorial:

All of the Republicans want to continue President Bush’s disaster of a war in Iraq, including Mr. McCain.

    [ . . . ]

The Democrats are united in their opposition to the war, but none have spelled out a persuasive plan for getting American troops home without setting off a wider conflagration.

What course would the NYT follow? The editorial doesn’t say.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

2 Comments »

  1. 1 C Stanley

    January 4, 2008 @ 10:12 pm CET

    Can’t believe the Paulites haven’t jumped on this one yet:

    All of the Republicans want to continue President Bush’s disaster of a war in Iraq, including Mr. McCain.

  2. 2 Chris

    January 5, 2008 @ 12:52 am CET

    Re: Editorial. Is it better to damned by faint praise(Democratic candidates cited) or to be just damned (All republican candidates cited)?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.


Editorial Staff

Editor-in-Chief: Michael van der Galien
Managing Editor: Jason
Assistant Editor: Claudia



 



Listen to PoliGazette Radio on internet talk radio




 

Proud member of Moderate Blog Network, a FeedBurner Network.

Recent Comments

  • Lucrèce: Michael, warning to the boomerang effect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2008...
  • redfish: Michael The video clip I was working with was too short to play for the amount of time I needed, so I...
  • SW_WI-FEMALE: So when I started reading this article, I thought it was satarical, but then quickly realized you it...
  • Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief: redfish i didn’t see this comment till now.nice vid - but...
  • Jay_C: Tough it out?  How can that be?  I’m confused, It’s either they need it (and worry about the...

Partners

 

Your Ad Here