Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Tom K]

>"Why exactly would the Times or the Post or NPR have "red faces" for their coverage of the war?"

I didn't say the would. I said "how will they cover the red-faces (of the appeasers), meaning will they really press Blix and the UN on their silly assertions of 'just two more months' or long term containment.

>For every paper like the Times or the Post there are many like the Chicago Tribune or Sun-times or LA Times or (of course) the WSJ that lean right, sometimes far to the right, much farther than the Times or the Post leans left.

The LA Times leans right? The WSJ editorial page in clearly right-wing, however the WSJ has a sizable contingent of liberals on their reporting staff over the years: Jeffery Birnbaum, Jane Mayer, Jill Abramson, Alan Murray, etc.

>But there will be blowback from this for sure.

Agreed, but who ever said post-war would be a picnic? The problem I have with they nay-sayers on the left is that there doesn't seem to no weighing of ALL the pros and cons of this conflict. Just one example: have you underestimated the intelligence gains from Ansar al-Islam? How many American lives will be saved as a result?