TESTING TWO LEADERS: 1. Tony Blair, Vindicated 2. George Bush, in Denial

New York Times ^ | January 29, 2004 | Editorial

[OESY]

The Times shouldn't fret. Voters will vindicate Bush. Instead the Times should worry about it's own brand of highly partisan reporting. Its selective use of facts and unsupported allegations to mislead the public should not stand without the severest condemnation. Below are two particularly outrageously false statements:


1. "Mr. Blair should not let this week's victories blind him to the fact that the British public is still uneasy about the tense occupation of Iraq, troubled by his uncritical support of inept American diplomacy before the war and concerned with the broader intelligence failures that brought a vast overestimation of Iraq's unconventional weapons threat."

2. "....And the answers will almost certainly be the same: Iraq destroyed its weapons and weapons programs long ago under the pressure of the same United Nations inspectors that Mr. Bush and his aides vilified in the months leading up to the war. American intelligence was wrong in concluding that weapons existed, and that robust programs to develop more were continuing."


The Times is itself in denial that "inept" American diplomacy achieved a unanimous 15:0 vote in the UN Security Council to take serious measures against Saddam if he did not comply with UN resolutions.
The Times also conveniently forgets or disregards the stunning and unexpected success of the Bush administration when it achieved near unanimous support in Congress to take whatever actions were necessary to protect the American people. If the Times was not so blinded by its leftist ideology, it would recognize that Dr. Kay testified that in many ways US intelligence underestimated the dangers Iraq posed to the US as rogue scientists sought to sell their WMD secrets. Al Qaeda operatives were willing buyers.

Meanwhile, the Times continues to lead Democrat candidates in insisting that France, a country that was receiving huge payoffs from Saddam and could hardly be impartial, should have been given a veto over US actions. At least the Times acknowledges that Dr. Kay found "no evidence of politically twisted intelligence" i.e., manipulation to justify issuing Saddam an ultimatum to step down or be removed. However valuable lessons learned from an investigation would be, such an exercise would run the risk that Democrat senators like Rockefeller, Levin, Kennedy and Kerry will attempt to use such an investigation not to strengthen our national defense but to serve their own narrow political self-interests.

It would appear the American public stands ready to ratify in November actions taken by the Bush administrations after eight years of neglect, and military and intelligence downsizing, under the prior administration. The Times deserves only contempt.

[Cicero]

Drip, drip, drip. If people hear something said often enough, they may begin to believe it.

The Times and the other liberal media are pushing the envelope very hard, right out to the limits. With lying stories and editorials like this, they risk losing their credibility in the minds of sensible readers. Obviously Pinch Sulzberger has decided that he would rather risk wrecking the reputation of the NY Times than let Bush win the election.

At some point, things will break and the Times will go down the tubes, losing its position is the most important news source and opinion leader in America. Unfortunately, most of its readers are probably happy to read editorials like this. But maybe a few will begin to wake up to what's going on.

[Lysander]

Voters will vindicate Bush.

The ones in the real denial.

[Principled]

Oh and there's that pesky memo indicating that the Democrats intend to use whatever they can find with regard to Iraq against President Bush politically - irrespective of the facts discovered.

How could they ignore such a tactic? Ignore what's best for the US and go after the president??? C'mon NYT.

NYT: "All the liberal editorials that's fit to print"

[ReaganRevolution]

Drip, drip, drip. If people hear something said often enough, they may begin to believe it.

I agree with you on the drip, drip, drip effect. It is a dangerous thing to let this continue without the administration admitting that something is seriously wrong with our intelligence gathering abilities. The American people will and can understand but pushing it aside and ignoring it can make you a one term president.

[70times7]

While I didn't see the whole thing, I did see David Kay answering the questions of both Senators McCain and Kennedy. He seemed unpointed, yet direct and unevasive in stating that this was an intelligence problem rather than an administration problem. I had the “pleasure” of (urp) witnessing Kennedy's long-winded politicized "question" to Kay that was clearly designed to indict Bush. Kay refuted it handily.

Now we have this writer who doesn't seem to have even seen the hearing. The NYT is unbiased - yeah, right. Auntie Pinko over on DU does a better job of presenting balanced analysis than this Clymer.

[CasearianDaoist]

With lying stories and editorials like this, they risk losing their credibility in the minds of sensible readers.

While I do not know about the rest of the country, here in New York City, where the Times is very much thought of as a local paper, "sensible people" stopped reading it about two years ago. The Times is no longer writing for those audiences, they could care less. Locally they are entirely aimed at the various Liberal groups about town (Limo Libs, Artsy Fartsy libs, Yupppie libs, etc>) But really what it is aimed at is in fact not readers but the AP, TV and radio echo chamber that repeats ad infinitum anything that the Gray Lady puts out.

And it is effective - Do not kid yourself, Their lies keep coming back in even the most casual conversation. If the can tip then vote even by 10% They have done their job. Besides, they can control the terms of the debate.

If you add to the mix the Boston globe and the International Herald Tribune then the Times has a very powerful propaganda machine.

As an aside, Europeans look apon the NYT and the IHT has the primary and "legitimate window" into America as far as printed media goes. It is no wonder that they have the opinions of America that they do.

Pinch stopped caring about the broader reputation of the Times years ago, if he did care he would not have hired Raines in the first place and would not have put up with his nonsense for so long. BTW, Raines was canned because of internal politics, not for the damage he did to the "Newspaper of Record."

BTW, I have not one but three acquaintances whose doctors have told them to stop reading the New York Times as doing so is bad for their blood pressure - I kid you not.

[OldFriend]

The facts never get in the way of NYT reporting and/or editorializing.

[LisaFab]

When Kay was on Hardball last night, Matthews closed the interview saying, "You're the kind of guest I hate, you're smarter than me."

Duh Chrissie! Kay blew away his every attempt at getting him to diss the Prez.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

When Kay was on Hardball last night, Matthews closed the interview saying, "You're the kind of guest I hate, you're smarter than me."

Doesn't take much does it?

[blackdog]

Wow are liberals and anti war morons being set up for the biggest haymaker punch in history. They are sticking their jaw so far out there, just so confident they've done something so special for themselves.

Well, somebody stand by with a facial reconstruction surgeon, because when Bush delivers the blow, they'll need to repair that bloody mess which used to be smugness grande'.

[blackdog]

Something tells me that the list of 270 which just happened to be released the same day as Kay's words is causing another war. Those global power brokers and their little toadies who are on that list are playing hardball. They've got every angle on taking Bush down with them if he continues to expose them.

The closer they get to being arrested and put on trial, the more flak the Bush Administration can expect from editorial boards, heads of state, the US State Department, Commerce, The World Bank, and an endless list of similar profiteers.

[Godfollow]

"Americans, however, are still stuck in stage one. President Bush needs to move things forward by starting — or allowing Congress to start — an independent investigation that goes beyond the British inquiry and looks into all aspects of the apparent intelligence failures on Iraq."

One major difference, however... we are in a high profile election year.

With the Clintons doing all to get their man or woman into an electable position, and other democrats willing to unabashedly go along with the lie that Bush lied to the country, it is reasonable for the Bush administration to hold their cards close to the chest.

No one can convince the administration and its supporters that an investigation would be fair. In fact, one Senate committee investigation was shut down last year because memos were discovered showing how the Democrats were going to use the investigation to politically hammer the President, no objectivity there.

With the Democrats, politics isn't just being the loyal opposition, it is poison with which to murder your opponent, and if he should die, all the better.

Bush is no dummy, he'll wait till after the election before allowing the anal exam, sorry...

[George W. Bush]

Weird premise for an article, especially considering the source.

The old Gray Whore loves to get in on this one, seeing that it is a PM vs. media free-for-all where the anti-war BBC lost the fight the a Third Way pol.

NYT is just sickening.

[blackdog]

Countries sold WMD's to Iraq. We know this. It's just a matter of how many world leaders Bush would stomach taking out bringing the evidence forward.

We did not go to war in Iraq to find WMD's. We may have been told that, sure. It may have been a side benefit much like the American civil war and slavery(by Lincoln's own admission).

We went to war in Iraq to kick some worry into Islamic countries who were coddifying terrorists who had proven to have gone beyond our concern, but had launched attacks on our soil. That cannot be tollerated.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-3.html

PRESIDENT KWASNIEWSKI: May I add one thing?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Sure, please.

PRESIDENT KWASNIEWSKI: Because it might be interesting for American journalists. Many months before Iraqi action, I met predecessor of Hans Blix in Warsaw. I invited him to my palace, and we discussed about mass destruction weapons, Iraq and everything. And he told me very important thing, that Saddam has these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons. Because to have such impression that he has mass destruction weapons is a part of his doctrine to keep own power in Iraq and to be strong in the region.

So I think that it's very difficult today to judge how it was when he had -- when he decided to continue this project of mass destruction weapons. But that was information of predecessor of Mr. Blix in Warsaw, that absolutely Iraq is ready to produce if it's necessary, to keep the power of -- and the dictatorship of Saddam and to play such important role in the region.

[Godfollow]

amen to that bro...

[OESY]

Excerpted from BEST OF THE WEB TODAY, January 29, 2004:

"Earlier in the week a New York Times editor "sexed up" the paper's coverage of Kay, leading the paper to publish this embarrassing correction Tuesday:

"'Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay, the C.I.A.'s former weapons inspector, misstated his view of whether the agency's analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was. (His view was correctly reflected in a quotation that followed the error.)'"

[George W. Bush]

Okay. I don't worry much over anything the NYT prints. They're so desperate for readers they've started a lame national TV advertising campaign. A bad sign, given their past eminence.