New York Times misrepresents Kissinger on Iraq

Washington Times ^ | 8/19/02

[kattracks]

Last Friday, the New York Times ran a willfully misleading front-page story which mischaracterized Henry Kissinger's critical endorsement of President Bush's Iraq strategy. Combined with the intellectual slovenliness and pack instincts of much of the Washington press corps, the Times article could undermine support for the President's Iraq war aims

[EternalHope]

Bump

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So, The New York Times kidnapped Mr. Kissinger's name and reputation on behalf of their opposition to the President's strategy.

Yep!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Not until over 700 words into the story (and deep in to the jump on Page A9), did they mention that Mr. Kissinger was actually in favor of a prompt war and supported pre-emption.

Am I reading this right? Kissinger was misquoted in the headline, and then later, buried in that very same paper, his actual opinion was mentioned? The paper contradicted itself?

[liberallarry]

Recently an American Human Rights worker complained that the New York Times confused editing with censorship. She was so outraged she published her un-edited and edited pieces side-by-side. The resulting furor caused the U.N. to declare Palestinian suicide bombings as crimes against humanity.

None of this should obscure the fact that there is genuine disagreement on a very serious issue. Scowcroft is as brilliant and informed as Kissinger.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

the bottom line is this. The New York Times is motivated for partizan reasons. They don't want an attack on Iraq until after the elections. They know that the DNC will look like whimps compared to the GOP if Bush does it. And that is exactly what they are.

So, in order to hide truth from the voter, they are so desperate to prevent this war that they twist Kisinger's words around.

[dread78645]

"Kissinger's writing is so confusing"

It's got all those multi-syllable words and their lips get tired.

[The Raven]

I hope the world [outside the Wash Times and the ,a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/735464/posts">WSJ</a>] sees the NY Times as it is.

[Dog Gone]

I had posted the Kissinger article here, and it clearly supported Bush's actions toward Iraq.

The New York Times lied. It's not ambiguous.