Once and future Oxblogger David Adesnik, guest-blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy, notes that the Washington Post and the (shocker) New York Times seriously distort the coverage of President Bush at the United Nations.
To begin with, there is a quick laugh to be had by comparing the NYT and WaPo ledes for the UN story. The WaPo informs us thatOh, go ahead and read the rest; you know you want to.President Bush got an earful of complaints from world leaders today but responded with a mild defense of his actions in Iraq and an understated request for U.N. help.In contrast, the NYT reports thatPresident Bush challenged the United Nations today to put aside its sharp differences over Iraq and to help the Iraqi people build a peaceful and democratic country on a timetable that made sense to them."Stout" vs. "mild". An "understated request" vs. a "challenge". In my role as armchair referee, I'm going to call this one a split decision: Bush's defense of the war was absolutely unaplogetic. But his request for help in Iraq was understated.
But he stoutly defended the United States' rationale for the war.