It’s not just in their cheap ads that The New York Times slanders General Petraeus.
They also slime the general in their articles…
Today’s NY Times editorial said this today about the honorable General Petraeus and his testimony yesterday:
For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.
It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation.
Of course, General Petraeus made it clear yesterday that he had written the report on the conditions in Iraq, himself (Video HERE):
“I wrote it (the House testimony)… It was my assessment and part of MY recommendations. They were mine not the White House’s assessment…”
Just because this was an editorial at the NY Times does that mean that they can spew any falsehood that they please?
Are there any standards at this newspaper?
It sure doesn’t look like it!
