Afghanistan, Obama and The New York Times: The Honeymoon Is Over

In a December 1, 2009 editorial entitled "The Afghanistan Speech", The New York Times was quick to paint Obama's decision to expand U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in rosy colors. The Times praised Obama's "political courage", labeled his strategy "ambitious", and "found the president’s military arguments persuasive" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02wed1.html). Today, however, in an editorial entitled "Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai, Take Two", the Times seems to be rethinking its position:

"Confronting the Afghan leader head-on was not working. We just hope [italics added] that Mr. Obama and his aides have a real plan — beyond lowering the temperature — for getting Mr. Karzai to do what is needed and for building up a minimally effective Afghan government.

. . . .

We hope [italics added] all the hospitality does not leave President Karzai thinking he’s off the hook. We assume [italics added] Mr. Obama was a bit blunter in private. We hope [italics added] Mr. Obama is also having tough discussions with his own team."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/opinion/13thu1.html

That's a lot of "hope" and an enormous "assumption". Is the Times slowly regaining its common sense and questioning Obama's misadventure?

What a difference six months make.