An Editorial in the NY Times today admitted that the bastion of liberal media violated its own written standards by running the General Betrayus Ad. While the editorial clearly admits that the ad violated written policy, they try and put the error off on some poor sales representative, who made an innocent mistake…

… The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

Sure a mistake… I believe that as much as I would a Jason Blair byline.. The Editorial also fails to mention the identity of or what happened to the advertising sales representative. Did he lose his job, get some other reprimand, or high fives around the office? The Times has zero credibility so forgive me if I want to see something that corroborates this story.

As far as the insulting part of the ad itself, the Times written policy states:

“We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”

But at least one NY Times executive, Steph Jespersen feels that essentially calling a 4 star General with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor a traitor is nothing more than an exercise in free speech. The Times is distraught that the ad gave ” Fresh Ammunition”  to the Bush Administration and it’s allies and diverted media discussion away from perceived failures in Iraq.  In reality the discussion that the ad diverted away from was General Petraeus’s testimony about the progress we have made in Iraq.  Of course the Times likely would not have printed anything that pointed to progress in Iraq.

Like I said earlier, the Times has absolutely zero credibility, and they have a long way to go before they can restore that credibility.  A good first step in that direction would be a full page ad apologizing to General Petraeus. They could send the bill for the ad to, the DNC, and the Political Action Committees of the Senators who refused to vote to condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Update: Here is MSNBC’s take on the story…

Hat Tip to Wizbang for the NY Times article, and to Hang Right Politics for the Senate Vote

Others Blogging: Captains Quarters, Stop The ACLU, Black Five, Hillbillypolitics, Wake up America, Michelle Malkin

  1. kip

    You’re right. Condemning Petraeus in an ad was inexcusable. The General should be court martialled for his part in the Halliburton War for Oil.

  2. Go ahead Kip tell us what exactly you would charge the General with… Failing to spin facts to meet the Liberal point of view?

  3. Arturo Hartnack

    The hatred NYT has for Bush has no bounds.

  4. The minutae of the story is really not that important. The only thing politically important is that the story will not go away and that is bad for the Dems. Everytime there is something new that keeps the story in the front of the news.

  5. Actually, as bad as the ad was, the whole thing’s been a gift to the GOP!

  6. I salute for NYT’s dedicating.Probably you have a disorder in management.Mistaking in deciding a problem maybe occurs every time.Someone didn’t fulfill a written contract or pact becoming a long time error in the forth time.

  7. You have a point, the NYT has no credibility, yet I don’t see the other mainstream media taking him to task on what he said about the ‘success’ of the troop surge in Iraq. It is obvious he wouldn’t tell the truth the disastrous situation in Iraq as that would mean inflaming his paymasters in government. I find it difficult to believe that anything condemning the US for its illegal occupation of Iraq which has now cost close to 1 million Iraqi lives, never receives priority coverage by the mainstream media.

  8. Several comments on this one post that I am Going to try and respond to.


    Absolutely right… The NYT like the the rest of the established lib media’s hatred for every thing Bush has clouded their judgement and eroded what credability they had as objective reporters of world news.

    Mike & Donald: This does fully expose the bias that the Times has, but it also detracts from any discussion on the progress we are having in Iraq. So it is both good and bad politically.

    Karta: I have read your comment 3 or 4 times… still have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.

    Michael: The reduced violence in Iraq is evidence that the surge is working and much progress is being made. You can take a look at another post here: Empty beds, a sign of success as some of the evidence that I am talking about.

  9. Thanks for the link and this should NOT go away. This should follow EVERY DEMOCRATIC politician that did not vote to condemn this attack against the General leading our troops in a time of war, into their next elections.

    It will follow them, it rightly should.

    25 of them in the Senate and every politician in Congress that does not speak out and denounce MoveOn.

  10. Great post, Darrell, and thanks for the link!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: