Under the guise of a 'military analysis,' the New York Times this morning publishes a front-page opinion piece that is sharply critical of President Bush's speech on missile defense.
Some choice excerpts: "But Mr. Bush not only failed to answer these questions in today's address. He also did not even acknowledge them."
And: "But the debate over antimissile systems is not an all-or-nothing proposition as Mr. Bush implied today."
And -- this tops it -- "Even with the end of the cold war, the United States has a stake in maintaining a good working relationship with Russia to safeguard its nuclear arsenal, fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction and avoid an arms race." Unpack that one: It seems to take as a given, for one thing, that America had a stake in maintaining "a good working relationship" with Russia and avoiding an arms race even before the end of the Cold War. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that the American interest -- and certainly the interests of the Russian citizens and others trapped under the boot of the totalitarian Soviet Communist regime -- was best served by America entering and winning an arms race with the Soviet Union and by placing the desire to maintain a "good working relationship" behind the desire to spread freedom and democracy. For another thing, the "good working relationship" that America maintained with Russia during the Clinton administration consisted primarily of the American taxpayers funneling billions of dollars to Moscow, which was then looted by corrupt Russian officials -- while Russia helped Iran build a nuclear reactor and missiles to deliver nuclear payloads. And finally, the idea that America needs to "avoid an arms race" with Russia now is laughable. The Russians can't afford an arms race with America, and if they tried to enter such a race, America would win. The United States doesn't have a stake in avoiding such an arms race; Russia does.
In any case, if dovish think-tank analysts or European ambassadors or Democratic congressmen want to make these arguments criticizing Mr. Bush's missile defense plan, the Times should by all means report on them. And if the Times wants to make these arguments in its editorials, that's another thing. But slapping the label "military analysis" on the opinions and then sticking them on the newspaper's front page just confirms the views of those who think the Times has not been playing the missile defense story straight. The "military analysis" doesn't quote a single critic of Mr. Bush's plans or even name a critic -- it just offers the opinions of the newspaper's own correspondent, or his editors.
'1947 War': A dispatch from Jerusalem in the international section of today's New York Times is about a retired Israeli general who "commanded an important company during the 1947 war." While violence broke out in Palestine after the U.N. announced partition in November of 1947, Israel's war for independence took place in 1948. The reference to "the 1947 war" is bound to baffle readers familiar with Israel's history.
Conservative Grumbling: A headline in the national section of today's New York Times says, "Senate Takes on Bush's Education Bill as Some Conservatives Grumble." A search of the Times archives since 1996 shows the phrase "conservatives grumble" appeared nine times, while the phrase "liberals grumble" appeared three times. "Grumble" is slightly pejorative for a news headline; it suggests the complaints are somehow grumpy or unwarranted. But maybe that is just conservative grumbling.