The Report That Nails Saddam (NY Times OpEd Supports Bush?!)

The New York Times ^ | October 9, 2004 | David Brooks

[wvobiwan]

With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

[wvobiwan]

As crazy as it sounds, this NYT OpEd clearly justifies The Iraq War even from a WMD point of view. Think we'll still hear Kerry call it the Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time?

[Admin Moderator]

Please include original titles.
Thanks.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

Don't understand where you are going. This was written by David Broder. It's not the NYT's opinion, just Broder's.

[MEG33]

Brooks is a token contributor ..

[areafiftyone]

I wouldn't get too excited about the NY Slimes. They will endorse Kerry as will the WSJ and the NY Daily News. The NY Post will be the only paper endorseing Bush.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

Ooops. Scuse me David Brooks.

[MEG33]

Brooks

[bcoffey]

I read the whole article last night. First, it's from the NY Times Magazine, not the newspaper itself. Second, while it takes a couple of slaps at Kerry, it's basically 70/30 in favor of him in my opinion.

Still, 70/30 is "fair and balanced" for the NYT!

[ErnBatavia]

Think we'll still hear Kerry call it the Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time?

Yep - it's all he's got to hang his hat on now - now that he was finally forced to take a stand on something...

[wvobiwan]

I agree, the NYT is NOT a Bush supporter. It's guess it's that I've never seen a more truthful and unbiased OpEd from that paper, not that I read it that much. Does that happen often?

Might be a good way for the campaign to tweak the NYT as in "Even David Broder of the NYT agrees that Bush was right..." etc. Much as I hate to give them any PR...

[mk2000]

How many people do you think newspaper endorsements sway? I don't think it's much. Thoughts?

[BluH2o]

They will endorse Kerry as will the WSJ and the NY Daily News.

The WSJ endorse Kerry? Obviously you don't spend much time reading this paper ... the WSJ endorsing Kerry is about as probable as the NY Times endorsing Bush.

[wireplay]

The WSJ is very conservative paper. They shouldn't be lumped in with the Times. They will endorse Bush.

[christie]

.
They connected the dots in 1998 but Senator Kerry and MSM can't seem to connect the dots in 2004.

Here is an easy to read chart of what the media was saying pre-911 (and after): Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Lots of facts and quotes about the president-wannabe at the John F. Kerry Timeline.
.

[wvobiwan]

I think urban area are still somewhat influenced by the print media, and rural areas by the broadcast media.

I'm spending more time in cyberspace where I can get unbiased information, but many of these folks still don't.

[MEG33]

David Brooks writes for the NYT...Broder for the Washington Post.

[wvobiwan]

Oops, another poster messed me up. Brooks, of course.

[lyingisbetter]

I need to see the tapes of Saddam doing this.
If I don't hear it from France directly, I only believe my circle of friends!

Sincerely,

John "F"alling fast Kerry

[BigSkyFreeper]

Already posted elsewhere yesterday, but since you didn't use the original title, I'm sure it will be posted several more times today.