New York Times goodness

Being an editorial writer I know that sometimes you have to tread carefully. Not because what you are writing about is not true, but if you word it wrong it may do more damage than good, both for the paper’s reputation, as well as the argument you are trying to make. Naturally, large papers like the New York Times have to be even more careful and usually do not come out as harsh as papers like the one I work for on a regular basis.

But today the Times nailed it:

“It would have been a pleasure to be able to congratulate President Bush on his openness in agreeing to sit down today with the independent commission on the 9/11 attacks and answer questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush conditioned his cooperation on stipulations that range from the questionable to the ridiculous.”

“If Mr. Bush or any of his successors have the tragic misfortune to be in command at a time when terrorists strike the country, killing thousands of innocent civilians, they should be expected to cooperate with the official investigations, and to do so in a way that puts their statements on the record and into history.” link