Mr. Bookworm and I watched Obsession, the Movie Tonight, something that ought to be required viewing for all Democrats and, especially, for all members of the MSM (assuming any difference between the two groups). At the end, Mr. Bookworm acknowledged that, of course, radical Islam is a threat, but that my “beloved President Bush” (his words, not mine), is making the situation much worse. I should have held my tongue, but I didn’t.
Me: Well, the Surge is working.
Mr. BW: No, it isn’t. The NYT says so.
Mr. BW: No, they’re not. The NYT says so. If you want evidence, what about that Times article by the seven soldiers?
Me, to Mr. BW: I followed up on that. It turns out those guys are serving in one narrow sector that hasn’t yet seen the benefit of the Sur….
Mr. BW: You don’t know what you’re talking about. The NYT says the Surge isn’t working.
I have to admit that, at this point, I flounced off after having told him that, as long as he read and acknowledged only the Times, I didn’t see much point in discussing the matter. In 20/20 hindsight, I should never have taken the bait. After all, if you get between a man and his Gospel, you’re likely to end up on the hot end of the auto de fe.
UPDATE: In a comment, DQ asked how one tells if the surge is working. I bumbled on for a while in an attempt at a responsive comment, only to start my morning reading by discovering a couple of articles that are much better on that point than anything I could come up with. Joseph Klein writes about the on-the-ground benefits of the surge, and the need to give the Surge more time to produce political benefits. Deroy Murdock compiles a list of those Democrats who have honestly conceded that the Surge is changing the situation on the ground, although they are (for obvious reasons) less sanguine about its having any political ramifications.Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “The Gospel according to the New York Times”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.