If President Trump found the cure for cancer, the MSM/Dems/Never-Trumpers would probably attack him for causing a rise in unemployment of oncologists.
What a difference a year can make for The New York Times.
As President Donald Trump announced his decision Wednesday to withdraw the nation’s 2,000 troops from Syria, a bipartisan cadre of opinion-havers attacked him as recklessly abandoning allies in the region and jeopardizing America’s influence over foreign affairs.
One newspaper was particularly harsh: The Times….
“Who will protect America now?” The Times asked….
Yet almost a year ago, on Jan. 19, 2018, that same editorial board raked the president over the coals for even daring to continue America’s policy of military adventurism.
The Times expressed concern that more American troops beyond the 2,000 initially deployed could soon be sent overseas in a mission without any clear goals.
“Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking,” The Times said….
One thing is clear from these two diametrically opposed editorials: The job of The Times isn’t to provide valid criticisms of Trump, but to simply oppose him at all costs.