Just when I thought the New York Times had the monopoly cornered on anti-American propaganda, I came across Michael Berglin's article on Donald Rumsfeld.
To suggest that Rumsfeld has been shamed into keeping a low profile exposes Berglin's scant understanding and appreciation for the radical, far-left tenor of the U.S. media, not to mention no grasp of America itself.
If Rumsfeld ever even had a high profile in the first place, it was due to the ceaseless hammering of left-wing apperatchniks such as the New York Times, which ran stories of the so-called Abu Ghraib "scandal" on the front page of 48 consecutive editions. Not once were the terrorists' crimes denounced or even discussed on the front page.
I'm curious to know Berglin's sources for the notion that Bush "supposedly" told Rumsfeld he was unhappy with his performance (not to mention the poll that puts Rumsfeld's job approval at 40%).
Was it the New York Times, which created the "Cheney's-leaving-the-ticket" rumor and ran with it as if it were a legitimate story? Or was it the L.A. Times, which published a poll that put Kerry comfortably ahead of Bush, even though the survey sample admittedly was 80% registered democrats?
Either way, Berglin's sorry jab at journalism is as insulting as it's inaccurate. Just another example of hack propaganda that the majority of us here in America are rejecting.
Obviously, Berglin is either too lazy or incompetent to uncover the real sentiment of the U.S. people and chooses to cherry-pick the most shrill indictments of the current U.S. administration, a la Michael Moore, Al Gore, moveon.org, etc.
Of course, because Berglin writes (although his scribble is an insult to writers worldwide) for the chief organ of a corrupt and regressing government, his criticisms of America's war in Iraq must be taken with a grain of salt. Next he'll be telling us that Iranians and North Koreans are good guys. And why not? Russia has been protecting evil governments for decades. Wise up!