"And abandoning Iraq to the terrorists promotes human rights how?"
New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. addressed graduates at the State University of New York at New Paltz on Sunday in their commencement ceremonies. During this speech, Mr Sultzberger apologized for various events, and the Daily Freeman carried excerpts:
"I will start with an apology," Sulzberger told the graduates, who wore black gowns and hats with yellow tassels. "When I graduated in 1974, my fellow students and I ended the Vietnam War and ousted President Nixon. OK. OK. That's not quite true. Maybe there were larger forces at play.
"Either way, we entered the real world committed to making it a better, safer, cleaner, more equal place," Sulzberger added. "We were determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We had seen the horror and futility of war and smelled the stench of government corruption. Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, I am sorry."
...The media watch blog Newsbusters carried this story, noting that
"It wasn't supposed to be this way," Sulzberger said. "You weren't supposed to be graduating in an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life, the right of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose."
The Monday Poughkeepsie Journal also has a story on Sulzberger's remarks and Romenesko has posted the text of the prepared address.
Commenters at the site did not throw their hats into the air:
One would think that after numerous quarters of declining ad revenues, subscribers and incresing newsroom scandels, combined with growing shareholder revolts, the publisher would focus on his business model rather than spew leftist talking points to a group of grads who most likely think he's an idiot anyway.Certainly an editor's personal comments do not necessarily indicate a bias or tendency of a newspaper to tilt to one side or another. But this kind of remark, combined with the Times' history and publishing record is another story. Certainly this kind of comment is amazingly presumptive and arrogant in it's assumption of his ideas being the only possible facts. Such an apparent trait is not ideal in an editor, I should think.
Perhaps he should have apologized that there weren't more young people there to graduate? Why didn't he apologise for the millions of abortions that reduced their numbers? Why didn't he apologize for his participation in, and his approval of, the liberal/leftist undeclared war of genocide against the unborn?
-by stonefingers"Sulzberger added the graduates weren't supposed to be let into a world 'where oil still drives policy ..."Not agreeing with him, but what should drive policy? Leftist ideology? That's real useful for heating homes and fueling vehicles. Apparently, Sulzberger would have no problem abandoning those nasty oil reserves in the Middle East to whatever despot wants to take over. After all, poor folks in the U.S. could handle $5.00 a gallon gas, right? Inflation due to high energy prices...no problem. But wait, liberals always complain about high energy costs hitting the poor...geez, it's so confusing trying to figure out these limousine leftists. It's like they don't have any sense!
-by Republic1"stop the Iraq War and to sufficiently promote "fundamental human rights" "And abandoning Iraq to the terrorists promotes human rights how?