E&P: When the 'Surge' Might Have Been Stopped -- Editorial Pages Punted

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor&Publisher: When the 'Surge' Might Have Been Stopped -- Editorial Pages Punted
Six weeks ago, when the Iraq escalation might have been deterred, newspapers failed to take a stand. Now many oppose it, when it's way too late.
By Greg Mitchell

(February 17, 2007) -- For the past five weeks, since President Bush announced his surge (or escalation, if you will) plan for Iraq, most of the nation's newspapers have regularly covered the debate it sparked. Many have, since that time, editorialized against the idea.

Too late. The surge/escalation is now well underway in Iraq and the U.S. Senate just voted on Saturday not to vote on a tame resolution expressing opposition. But where were the concerned editorial writers in late December and early January when they might have made a difference?

Nowhere. Following a general pattern since the start of the war, they punted.

At this sad stage, it is worth recalling that as this critical turning point in America’s role in the nearly four-year-old Iraq war neared, and with fair warning of what was coming, the editorial pages of the largest U.S. newspapers were surprisingly, even, appallingly, silent -- pro or con -- on President Bush’s decision to send thousands of more troops to Baghdad.

It followed a long pattern, however, of the editorial pages strongly criticizing the conduct of the war without advocating a major change in direction. This happened, even though the president signaled his intention and Democrats in Congress, overcoming their own timidity on the issue, had finally emerged with opposition to the buildup -- setting up a possible battle royal....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003547275

[MasonJar]

1. E & P nails it again. n/t