How To Save The New York Times

I was going to call this entry Reading the Times of India. Then I realized that given the financial straits in which The New York Times currently finds itself, I may have stumbled upon a mechanism for them to lower costs and increase circulation. All they have to do is outsource their Editorial page to India.

To be honest, I clicked a link to the Times of India regarding the regrettable episode involving three protesters in the Senate on Thursday. As they made the point that fundamentalism is "present and shouting in the US too," at first I was going to contrast the death religious fundamentalism has brought to India, as opposed to the lack of it from, at least, Christian fundamentalism in the United States. But I decided to click over to the editorial page instead.

The lede editorial was: Don't Cut And Run The irony is that the editors are not big fans of the US, often calling us unilateralist, etc ... but when it comes to expressing what they feel America must do now vis-a-vis Iraq, they are very clear.

Abandoning Iraq at this stage is not a sign of democratic leadership. Such a retreat from Iraq is not only shirking responsibility but is also shortsighted and harmful to US long-term interests.

Surely, US withdrawal from Iraq at this stage would be against their national interests. It would not only intensify the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq but is also likely to enlarge that conflict over the rest of West Asian-Persian Gulf region. It would increase Iranian influence over Shia regions of Iraq. While US legislators lecture India against dealing with Iran, by advocating a US withdrawal from Iraq they would enhance the stature of Iran. Such contradictions in the US policy towards Iran raise serious problems of credibility.

And the second editorial was even more appreciated: This Is Not Us

'Hamein jis naam se tum jantay ho, woh hum nahien' — the name by which you know us, we are not that — sums up the sentiment and message of a song by a group of Pakistani pop stars that is reportedly a hit among young Pakistanis. Titled 'Yeh hum nahien' , the song and subsequent music video are in response, and in opposition, to the growing radicalisation of youngsters in the name of Islam. The group says it is imperative that those Muslims who do not condone acts of terror borne of ideological goals, or perceived slights to the Muslim world by the West, must speak out loud and clear.

The need for moderate Muslims to stand apart from radical elements is pressing. There must be a countervailing force from within the community to extremists who seek to distort and hijack Islam to suit their perverse interests. This is the rationale that has motivated scores of British Muslims to borrow from the anti-Iraq war movement and launch a campaign that goes by 'Not in our name'. The voluntary movement has issued advertisements in papers condemning the attempted attacks on London and Glasgow and has dissociated itself from those who advocate and perpetrate violence. The crux of the campaign is to emphasise the allegiance of British Muslims to Britain.

Too bad you can't find stuff like this on the editorial page of America's so-called paper of record. It might actually be worth reading once in awhile.

Comments

[indianaredneck]

The New York Times can always turn to Julia Renfro for lies.

[richard]

Great post Dan. But let's display the part you omitted from the first "editorial" (Dan, that's a misnomer - these are op-ed columns, not editorials; big difference). Anyway, here's the part that tells us they're "not big fans of the US."

"The US invasion converted Iraq into a battlefield for international terrorism and Shia-Sunni sectarian strife. The US mismanagement included the dissolution of the defeated Iraqi army, dismissal of all Baathists from government and plunging the country into deliberate chaos. There has not been adequate introspection on the part of US Congress on the grievous errors in decision-making in governance of Iraq under occupation.

"American politicians expected a country not used to democracy, where majority Shias were oppressed and dominated by minority Sunnis, to come up with model standards of democratic governance. They forgot that it took 200 years for the US to extend civil rights to their black population. They completely overlooked the fact that they were dealing with a population largely dominated by a religious faith that is currently in ferment. The Americans did not consult other democracies - European countries, India or Indonesia, which have the largest Muslim populations in the world - before laying down benchmarks for governance in the emerging democratic order in Iraq."

So you see, Dan, this "editorial" you so warmly laud is calling us Americans total morons for the way we invaded and occupied Iraq (a not unfair assessment, considering the catastrophe we are now stuck with). You only link to it because it conforms with your view that we should stick to a course that no one understands or can explain. Are you saying we should believe half of it and disregard the other half? Those grafs above could have been out of Daily Kos or The Nation, yet you are praising the author's intelligence and good judgment. You can't have it both ways. You are trying to praise an article which in its entirety tells us that everything you've written about the war in Iraq in the past was stupid (a fair point, by the way). You just found a golden nugget, and somehow decided to forget all the crap in which the nugget is buried.

[Calder]

Let me quote some more.

"This action would be in line with other disasters that the US brought on itself through its unilateralist moves. The first was the Vietnam war; second, nurturing jehadism during the Afghan war; third, permitting Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan; fourth, ignoring A Q Khan's activities; fifth, supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran and shielding Saddam's use of WMDs against Iran; and sixth, the invasion of Iraq."

Yup, this op-ed is right on the money.

"Unfortunately, the US does not have the experience of engaging partners in dialogue. It is only used to allies who were dependent on it for their security and therefore always went along with it. We saw how when France and Germany gave it sound advice on Iraq not to go to war, Washing-ton resented it. America's power, wealth and dominance were so great that it was able to weather its costly mistakes. But these mistakes were very costly to the rest of the world."

The Times of India gets it right again.

[Dan Riehl]

"So you see, Dan, this "editorial" you so warmly laud is calling us Americans total morons for ..."

Yes, "moron", I understood that. But they can put that opinion aside and still point out the correct course in Iraq. They are likely as Liberal as you dopes, but as they are not shilling for votes, they can still take a stand on the right thing to do now, which, after all, is the only pertinent question at hand.

[charles]

Too bad you idiots and that disaster of a leader lost your silly little war years ago. Morons...

[Fred Beloit]

The NYT and MSM in general don't deserve to be saved. They are simply arms of the Liberal party, not real journalists. Many of the Libs who comment here have used the infamous show-stopper: "Polls show 70% of Americans want out of Iraq now" line because they read it in the headlines. But read this from Rubenfeld's The Big Picture blog for some nuance (not the right word but the Libs love to use it): "But the very next question of the Gallup poll - ignored by most of the MSM - does touch remotely on consequences - and does give a far different result. Again, from the Gallup site:

38. (Asked of a half sample) Which comes closer to your view about U.S. policy toward the situation in Iraq -- [ROTATED: Congress should act now to develop a new policy on Iraq, (or) Congress should not develop a new policy on Iraq until September when General Petraeus reports on the progress of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq]?

BASED ON 509 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B

Act now to develop
new policy on Iraq 40%

Not develop
new policy on Iraq
until September 55%

No
opinion 5%

2007 Jul 6-8

The majority opposes changing policy in Iraq until Petraeus reports. Sure, when asked without regard to consequences, 70% want our troops out. But when asked about what they want to do now, in the real world, where there are consequences - the majority favors maintaining GWB's policies until the September report comes in.

Yet MSM ignored this poll result. Too often, this is how MSM operates - selectively hiding key facts, in an effort to stampede the populace - and successfully stampeding some Congressmen, who should know better."

[Fred Beloit]

Now who is the real moron, or rather sucker, around here, charles?

[chris]

Why do you deadenders make stuff up??

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Losers all around.

[Purple Avenger]

Pinchy boy is certainly trying to make the Times go the way of buggy whips. I really have no problem with that though.

[Fred Beloit]

chris apparently doesn't know how to read, doesn't know how to get to a specific blog, doesn't comprehend English very well or all of the previous.

[chris]

"Do you favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1st of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts?" N=505 adults, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

.
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %

7/6-8/07
71 26 4

I guess 'readin' isn't one of the things that you cons are good at.

Dismissed!

[IslamoLlama]

"The majority opposes changing policy in Iraq until Petraeus reports. Sure, when asked without regard to consequences, 70% want our troops out. But when asked about what they want to do now, in the real world, where there are consequences - the majority favors maintaining GWB's policies until the September report comes in."

Wow. That's an amazingly spooftacular read there, Fred. So people want out of Iraq, but only if there are absolutely no consequences? You don't find your explanations in any way completely divergent from reality? "Act to develop a new policy" sounds suspiciously like "Lets re-surge and turn a few more corners". People don't want new policy on Iraq because they don't want to be in Iraq. The Reid-Levin bill doesn't go into effect for 120 days anyway, so the idea that we need to wait till magical September to make a decision - when we've been staring at this quagmire for the last 4 years - is laughable.

[nowingker]

The wingers appear to think that TWO MORE MONTHS are going to magically turn the Iraq situation around after FOUR YEARS. Let me predict what Petrieus is going to say in September:

'We've made progress, but not as much as we would like, we need more time for the 'surge' to show better results, let's talk again in six more months, and of course the obligatory more violence is a good sign, it means the insurgents are desperate'

The new 'progress' report is laughable, even the Bushies couldn't spin any actual achievements or goals reached, all they could do is point to progress on half of the benchmarks, many of which are pretty nefarious and incalculable to begin with.

I also thought Al Quaeda was defeated and irrelevant, now all of a sudden Al Quaeda is back at pre 9/11 strenght levels.

Could it be, that our government is playing politics with Al Quaeda, and when it was convenient to pooh pooh Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, they were virtually destroyed and now that we need a boogeyman again, they are back front and center.

Or, it could be that our entire military and intelligence aparatus is simply INCOMPETANT, how else to account for six years of the 'war on terror' trillions of dollars spent and Al Queda, is back where it started?

Surge on losers.

[Fred Beloit]

chris is also just plain dumb. The link supplied explains why the Gallop survey question is incomplete and the 70% mostly meaningless.

[Fred Beloit]

As for the other two asshats, they hate Bush and any of his works.

[Phoenix]

Fred,

They're incapable of discernment. Dan's post highlights some good news about moderate Muslims stepping up. He was not 'required' to quote the entire article as it simply repeated stuff we've heard ad nauseum. The point is, moderate Muslims are moving against the radicals.....slowly but surely. Bringing in all this other hoo-ha is nuts, shallow and an obvious desire to discredit Dan - which is more important to them than reading polls with any sense of logic.

100% of Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq. How 'bout that? It's true. But at least 70% have enough discernment to know it would not be wise to pull them out now.

[the original charles]

nowinky

screw you and all your fellow travelers, there's hardly a more disgusting bunch in existence, you make me want to puke

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201619.html