The difference between a lead ballon and making
nice at the United Nations may be the distance between the East Coast and
the West Coast. Some might even think it’s the difference between smart and stupid.
In the opinion of The New York Times, “Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign
speech” yesterday at the U.N. His “tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of
alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon.” In the opinion of the Los
Angeles Times, “Bush on Tuesday dispensed with the red-meat phrases beloved by his supporters
on the campaign trail. … Instead, the president was conciliatory, intent to show that he can play
We looked online for editorials about the speech in The
Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe,
the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Atlanta Constitution and the Miami Herald.
There were none. Most were still stuck on the CBS flap.
editorial was less of an opinion than a news analysis with a pussyfoot
headline: “President’s rosy view of region’s fate is belied by government reports.”
The writer must have had Super Sugar Crisp cereal for breakfast: “Bush
reiterated that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power and that Iraq was on its
way to becoming a democracy.” Gee whillikens, imagine that.
Did I forget to mention the Washington Times? Nah, here’s their worthless opinion: The “president forcefully rebutted
assertions that the United States had rushed to war last year in order to remove Saddam Hussein
And then there was the New York Post. No milquetoast pussyfooting for Murdoch’s minions.
The headline “DUBYA IN THE DESPOT’S DEN” came up short of “HEADLESS BODY IN
TOPLESS BAR.” But their
opinion was that “Bush, for his part, got it exactly right at the United Nations
yesterday.” We all know the New York Post exists in a parallel universe, don’t we?