Outrageous NYT Response To My Letter

After I read about Bush's outrageous comments to the soldiers and citizens in Afghanistan in an Australian website, I contacted the various television networks along with the major US Newspapers.

One of the newspapers that did not have a word about Bush thinking that war is "Exciting? and "Romantic" was The New York Times.

Take note that the NY Times reply to me included:

 

I would argue that that this is not news. You may see this as absurd, hypocritical fantasy, and as such, if he were a new president about whom we knew little, with many years ahead of him, his words would be worth noting. But this is a lame-duck president with less than a year left in office, who I would guess has said many things that you object to equally (if not more). His statements in
that conference are of no particular significance, they reflect no new policy.

Below is my letter to the NY Times Public Editor along with his reply from "the most trusted newspaper".

To: The NY Times Public Editor

Dear Mr Perez-Pena,

Why hasn't the media been reporting a single word of Bush's astonishing comments to the soldiers in Afghanistan?

The Australian press reported the following back on the 14th of this month.

President Bush spoke of his dream to work on the frontline in Afghanistan during a video conference with US military and civilian personnel in the war-torn country.

 

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said.

  "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

  "It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," President Bush said.

To hear Bush say that war is ROMANTIC and EXCITING and he wishes he were young enough, after
he went awol in Vietnam, is a slap in the face of the soldiers who have served.

VoteVets.org has comments by retired soldiers that are in no way complementary of the president's comments. And yet, the networks and newspapers in this county continue to mute these comments on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War.

I suggest you do a search of various MSM internet sites and major newspapers with the search parameters of: Bush Afghanistan Romantic Exciting and you will not get any hits, including the New York Times.

Tom Wieliczka

The NY Times Reply

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: http://www.news.com.au/...

Mr. Wieliczka,

I wasn't aware of this episode until I saw your message. And I don't know the thinking of the editors here or elsewhere in not reporting it. But I would offer a few observations.

It seems that only one reporter was allowed to observe this event and had any direct knowledge of what was said - a reporter from the Reuters news service.

Bush wasn't just speaking to soldiers, and apparently, he wasn't referring to combat. Here is the text of the first few paragraphs of the Reuters article:

     U.S. President George W. Bush got an earful on Thursday about problems and progress in Afghanistan where a war has dragged on for more than six years but been largely eclipsed by Iraq.

     In a videoconference, Bush heard from U.S. military and civilian personnel about the challenges ranging from fighting local government and police corruption to persuading farmers to abandon a lucrative poppy drug trade for other crops.

     Bush heard tales of all-night tea drinking sessions to coax local residents into cooperating, and of tribesmen crossing mountains to attend government meetings seen as building blocks for the country's democracy-in-the-making.

     "I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

I would argue that that this is not news. You may see this as absurd, hypocritical fantasy, and as such, if he were a new president about whom we knew little, with many years ahead of him, his words would be worth noting. But this is a lame-duck president with less than a year left in office, who I would guess has said many things that you object to equally (if not more). His statements in
that conference are of no particular significance, they reflect no new policy.

The media are generally not paying a lot of attention to Bush, focusing instead on the people who are competing to succeed him.

It is possible that a lot of editors, perusing the wires that day, would not have noticed this particular Reuters story. Also note that the words "exciting" and "romantic" don't appear until well into the story. Even those editors who noted the story could easily have missed that part.

  - Richard Perez-Pena