While I'm on the NYT, an editorial yesterday, entitled "Are We Stingy? Yes" bashes Bush because America is not spending enough on the tsunami disaster:
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid.
The editorial ignored that when the president announced the 35 mil figure - the day before the NYT's editorial - he expressly stated that the amount would be increased. "'I assure those leaders that this is just only the beginning of our help,' he said." Sure enough, the amount of aid was increased to 350 mil today (and almost certainly not because of anything that was said at the UN or the New York Times). So the editorial was purposely misleading, in order to score political points. (The editorial was also misleading because it didn't factor in the military and private help that Americans were providing).
At any rate, John Podhoretz calls out the NYT, for being so quick out of the blocks to attempt to make political hay out of a tragedy of this magnitude:
Even as tears spring into the most hard-hearted person's eyes at both the unimaginable scope of the tragedy and at the wrenching individual stories of loss, opinion leaders just can't help themselves.
They are using this cataclysm as little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the United States, its president and its citizens.
Unfortunately, as Jonah Goldberg at the Corner points out, I wouldn't count on Podhoretz succeeding in his attempt to shame the NYT.