May 17th Editorial
A few years back I did a study, looking at the sixty days before and after the start of the current war in Iraq and what The Oklahoman had to say about the situation. Of all the editorials I looked at, not a single one had anything negative to say about the prospects or the actuality of the war (once it started), and some of the editorials said disgraceful things about individuals who were not for the war.
In the Sunday editorial "Guantanamo, other issues show leadership dilemma" the author points out that Obama has "flip-flopped" on the issues of closing Guantanamo and releasing torture photos (true), and asked "Why weren’t things more thoroughly thought out before policy declarations were made?"
The editorial goes on to quote Debra Burlingame, sister of 9-11 victim Charles "Chic” Burlingame III who stated "We’d been had,” when Binyam Mohamed was released and repatriated to Britain. This suggested that she'd been lied to by Obama who said he wouldn't let any "potential Jihadists" go.
While I do not disagree with The Oklahoman at all that we should hold Obama to his promises, and demand that he be the person he claims to be (appointing Summers, Rubin, Pritzker etc..??? What is this man thinking?!??!) I do think it would have been good if they'd held the previous administration to similar standards. I mentioned the Iraq War at the beginning, because I think "Why weren’t things more thoroughly thought out before policy declarations were made?" is something they could have asked in at least one of those radically pro-war 120 days I looked at, but weren't because the paper refused to be critical of Bush.
I also mention Debra Burlingame and The papers synthetic compassion for her, because I think if you compare it to what they write about people like Cindy Sheehan or Andrew Rice, you will discover that their sympathy for people who have lost loved ones is quite conditional.