She's accused by the right of being the defacto Don of the "liberal media elite" mob. Still The New York Times has never called for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. On the contrary. During the lead up to the war the Old Gray Lady looked more like the breast-baring Goddess of Liberty leading the charge of the French Revolution.? (Or was that just Judy Miller in drag?)
Anyway, even the Times has finally come around, calling in its Sunday editorial for a quick withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It's a stand that may become a problem for the paper's home-state presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. Back when even the NY Times was beating the war drum, Hillary went with the flow -- as she always does -- and voted to give George W. Bush the power to take our nation to war. Then the flow began reversing and she's spent much of the last two years running from ladies room to ladies room trying to wash the blood from her hands -- without much luck. ("Out damn spot... out!")
Stubborn spots those blood stains. There's really only one product that can even begin to dull them -- genuine penance. Public penance.
But, like the man she would replace in the White House, the term "I'm sorry," is not in Hillary's political lexicon. Being Hillary means never having to say you're sorry -- or wrong -- just "misunderstood."
Unfortunately for both George and Hillary, future historians will be in charge of historical understanding. And, since all George and Hillary's spin-doctors will be long dead, historians will come to their own understanding of these events, and record them so for all time.
The New York Times, being the self-appointed "paper of record," for our time, apparently decided it was time to re-shape its own history while it still could. Which explains the editorial below. Not to say I don't appreciate the effort -- I do. Just that it comes buckets of blood too late.
