We Write Of Missing Persons

The NY Times tells us that big cities, including the greatest city in the world, will get more money in 2005 from the Homeland Security budget.  And well they ought to.

What the NY Times does not do is give credit to any local politican, which is so weird as to be inexplicable.  Surely Chuck Schumer, Hillary!, Mayor Bloomberg, and Presidential hopefuls Pataki and Giuliani were lined up to claim that it was their great relationship with Bush and forceful advocacy for the Apple that turned the tide.

Instead, the only pol mentioned is George Bush.  In all seriousness, there is no way he deserves the sole credit, now is there?

So, is the Times deliberately stiffing Pataki and Giuliani, or is there a greater subtlety to this?  My paranoia is broad, but (on this point, anyway) not deep.

Comments

[David]

The article also credits "repeated calls from big-city mayors..."'

[Spear Shaker]

"Mr. Bush and some members of Congress had wanted to give an even greater share of the money directly to cities using a threat-based formula, instead of a state-by-state system, responding in part to criticism that states like Wyoming now get more per capita in terrorism grants than New York."

- now that Bush is elected, perhaps the NYTimes is simply reinforcing a meme that rural RedStates are somehow compromising the safety of BlueStates through transfer payments as an opening salvo in the '06 elections. . .

link

[Crank]

I think the person who Bush wanted taking the credit was Bernard Kerik, but he's now otherwise occupied.

[Jor]

3 years after 9/11, Republicans get "serious" on the war on terror. Hurray!.

[John Kerry]

I was serious about the war on terror, before I wasn't!

[rgrfhtruyjyyjyuubcvbyjgj]

Wow... you just cant win with a bushy can you.

Report on him for the incompetent he is, and they hate you for it. praise him, and they think theres an ulterior motive.

What a buch of clowns.