White House rebuts (NY Times) story

Washington Times ^ | 8/19/02 | George Archibald

[kattracks]

CRAWFORD, Texas

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Imagine that. The NY Times let their bias seep so deeply into a story about Kissinger's view on pre-emptive strikes against islamist terrorists that their article was completly false.

"All the News That's Fit to Slant".

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I have a sad feeling inside. Here we have Kissinger, waking up the next morning after he spent hour upon hour formulating his opinion, only to read in the NYT that his conclusions were opposite what they are. And all kinds of media parrots that. What thoughts must have been going through his mind!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The NYT is deep in partizan gamesmanship. They know that if Bush hit before the election, the DNC is toast. They are desperate enough to say just about anything to keep Bush from doing that.

[LiberalBassTurds]

Mr. Kissinger called for "bringing matters to a head with Iraq" and for showing that "a terrorist challenge or a systematic attack on the international order produces catastrophic consequences."

This is a great line. In spite of all the hand wringing and angst from the weak there are clearly some who 'get it.' This is a message terrorists and their supporters will clearly understand. Afghanistan falls, followed by Iraq, followed by whomever. Iran is surrounded by Western backed regimes, the Isrealis have some breathing room, and the Saudis have little choice but to clean house. This is a must do action for us.

[kattracks]

Mr. Kissinger analogized the present situation with the runup to the 1991 Persian Gulf war and argued that strong American leadership brought other nations on board. "President [George H.W.] Bush solved the problem by deploying a massive American force in the region well before he had a coalition. And so if countries wanted to gain any influence over our action, they were almost obliged to join the coalition."

Amazing, isn't it, that the media, and other critics, fail to mention this, insisting that President Bush must have a coalition before any moves on Iraq can be considered.

[SubMareener]

Its is even worse that that! The press says that they must know about the coalition that President Bush has formed before he can do anything!

[LiberalBassTurds]

Hi Kat....sure is amazing. They forget recent history, or selectively filter it out. They also never fail to underestimate the European busy bodies, as that quote reminds us, who won't let anything happen without coat-tail riding. Heaven forbid something good for humanity happen in a way that they can't say they had a hand in it...even if their other hand is holding their nose. Thanks for another great post.

[GBA]

" I have a sad feeling inside. Here we have Kissinger, waking up the next morning after he spent hour upon hour formulating his opinion, only to read in the NYT that his conclusions were opposite what they are. And all kinds of media parrots that. What thoughts must have been going through his mind!"

I'm wondering how often the NYT re-writes what someone says and then publishes the false opinion. If if they do that to someone like Henry Kissinger, then they'll do it to anyone and no reader can depend upon the NYT to be reporting the facts. I've learned to disregard almost everything I read that originates from the NYT due to their bias, but with this FRONT page story they have reached a new (low) level in the manufacture of "news."

[tomkat]

hope there's a good reason the administration is remaining relatively mum;
it's easy to imagine this having a negative effect for us come november ...

[piasa]

They had been doing it routinely with Powell since 9/11, and later with Wolfowitz.

[Donna Lee Nardo]

And my lame local news station -- News 12 Long Island -- repeated the wrong information about Kissinger gleefully and over and over...

[lepton]

I'm wondering how often the NYT re-writes what someone says and then publishes the false opinion.

The first time I found one was when I got the transcripts of Alan Greenspan testifying on Clinton's first budget. Greenspan had repudiated almost everything they said in an article which they described his testimony as supporting Clinton's first budget.

[GBA]

I didn't know that, but am not surprised. Clinton is still saying that Greenspan was in favor of his budgets. That does surprise me.