RSS 2.0 Follow Us!
 

Related Posts

NY Times Lying for Posterity

John on December 8, 2008 at 10:57 am

The Times has seen its own future fluctuate wildly over the last couple weeks. Maybe that explains why they lashed out at Bush one last time yesterday:

After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.

The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction.

I don’t have time to go through this word by word, so a few quick notes will have to suffice. Bush “manipulated” congress by laying out the intelligence he had and asking them to vote for an authorization for the use of force. They did so overwhelmingly, including Clinton and Biden. Somehow, they’re not responsible for their choices, Bush is.

Bush “manipulated” public opinion. He did this by never once indicating that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Not once. Yet, liberals point out that some portion of the public at the time believed that to be the case. Funny that the Times is never concerned about public misinformation when it helps their guy win the Presidency. Then it’s a non-story.

Bush was “chafing” to attack Iraq? Maybe the constant provocation from Saddam, including potshots taken at our pilots who were enforcing the no-fly zone had something to do with that. But no, for the Times and its readers it was all an evil plot to help Blackwater or some such nonsense.

But here’s the key line:

They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty.

The suggestion that they knew is completely irresponsible. What evidence is there that they knew the intelligence was faulty? That they really knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs. They really were not surprised (and dismayed) when the weapons couldn’t be found. How about a link to a Times story establishing all of that.

Omniscience doesn’t fly in the Times religion pages but it does in editorials about Bush.Instead, realizing they’re skating on thin ice the Times adds “or should have known…” Riiiiight. Even if they really didn’t know, they should have. Omniscience doesn’t fly in the Times religion pages but it does in editorials about Bush. In the paper of record’s hallowed pages, failure to know constitutes intent and there is no political theodicy that will suffice to clear Bush’s name.

This is an attempt to solidify the last four years of Truthout/Daily Kos garbage into history. They didn’t have the guts to mention Joe Wilson or his wife, even though that’s where a lot of this comes from. Why not? Because Wilson is a fraud.

It’s the Times that is lying here. Fortunately, it looks like the White House isn’t going to let them get away with it.

Update: NY Times home office for sale.

Post to Twitter

Category: Politics |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.