How Duranty Happened [White Washing of Stalin & False Explosives Article @ NYT]

It is through Wretchard, whom I have come to trust greatly, that I found confirmation for what I already suspected - that the New York Times report of 380 tons of escaped explosives published this morning was so much progandistic drivel timed to encourage the defeat of a sitting president in favor of a candidate, I am almost certain, the paper's publisher and editors do not even care for in the first place. How pathetic is that! How deeply reactionary! This kind of distortion during an election is a worse disgrace than the Jayson Blair affair.

The Belmont Club informs us that NBC reporters (no neocon stooges they!) embedded with troops at the beginning of the war found no evidence of those explosives when they arrived at the now ironically named Al Qaqaa. As Wretchard points out:

The account above shows that the RDX explosive was already gone by the time US forces arrived. Although one may retrospectively find some fault with OIF order of battle, most of the damage had already been inflicted by the dilatory tactics of America's allies which allowed Saddam the time and space -- nearly half a year and undisturbed access to Syria -- necessary to prepare his resistance, transfer money abroad and disperse explosives (as confirmed first hand by reporters). Although it is both desirable and necessary to criticize the mistakes attendant to OIF, much of the really "criminal" neglect may be laid on the diplomatic failure which gave the wily enemy this invaluable opportunity. The price of passing the "Global Test" was very high; and having been gypped once, we now show ourselves eager to be taken to the cleaners again.

This seems self-evident. But will the Times report that? Of course not, because it is not part of their narrative, not part of the way they see "the truth."

Fade out: Okay, now we get personal. The demise of The New York Times has been an extraordinary shock to me and a kind of benchmark for my own political migration. Like most New York Jewish boys from liberal homes the paper was a replacement religion for me. Many decades ago, when I was twenty-three and published my first novel, finding a short positive review in the Book Review validated me as a writer, enabling me to go on with my risky career. I was published by them several times in the eighties when I was an officer of the left-leaning International Association of Crime Writers. I owe a lot to the Times. I also fear them because they review my books and movies. But I cannot shut up. This kind of biased behavior is unconscionable. Although it is nowhere near as drastic, of course, it makes me think of the days of Walter Duranty, that Timesman who won a Pultizer while white-washing Stalin. How could such things happen, I always wondered. Now I know. They happen when people think they are doing the right thing for the right cause and in their zeal don't stop to consider the reality of what they are saying and writing. Yes, this is worse than Jayson Blair.

Like I said before, many in the Democratic party are running
off the fumes of the FDR Democratic party. What was once a
party which stood in principle (if not always in action)
for collective voluntary efforts helping support the
underpinnings of our general society (i.e. workers, and the
"little" guy), seems now to only support so-called minority
opinions and needs.

When I think of the Democrats now, I don't see FDR type leadership
at all. They need a total revamping of their focus before they can
ever attract me. All I see from them is name-calling,
arrogance, violence (yeah, them), fault-finding, lack of
true vision (pipe-dreams don't count), demand for government
(read "our") monies for many unproven social programs.

The only time I heard any one Democrat praise Bush during his
initial handling of the war was when Kerry, said that Bushs'
leadership was good during the first few days after the
9/11 attacks(this was said during the 3rd debate. Contrast
that with Michael Moore thinking and promulgating the idea that
Bush only cared about his Saudi Friends. Kerry also forgot to praise
Bush for handling Afghanistan, which came a bit longer than
a few days after 9/11 (Kerry has admitted that he felt that
Afghanistan was an appropriate war) ...these are just a few of the
Democrats hypocrisies, but your mention of this politically timed announcement,
which was actually known months before is fairly typical of
them.

One thing I have noticed, if the Democrats are going to do
something nefarious, they will first accuse their enemies
of doing that thing first. That way, any attack against them
will be construed as "tit-for-tat". As an example, when
they were howling that Bush would use the events of 9/11 for
political gain, they went full bore and tried to blame him
for it, or say he mishandled it, or that he was plotting
something with his Saudi Friends.The Democrats fully utilized
the events of 9/11 for political gain..but if Bush went after
them for their parties very weak attacks against Al-Qaeda
they could say that the Bush reply was just a sad defense
against their(the Democrats) attacks...another example is the
recent trashings of Republican party local headquarters.
If the Repubs go after the people who trashed their headquarters,
the cry would go out that the Repubs were trying to
deprive people of their right to vote, by putting those
perpertrators in jail.

I think if you watch the way the Democrats do this, you will
see a distinct pattern. It's something I was taught to do
when playing football...You would foul your opponent,
then tell the referee you think your opponent is committing
a foul, then you would aggravate(come close to fouling) the opponent,
he would respond, and the ref would call a foul against your
opponent, since he was now watching both of you.
This kind of thing is done every day in many areas of life.
I believe the Democrats and their "friends" use this
technique many times.

I think if you watch the way the Democrats do this, you will see a distinct pattern. It's something I was taught to do when playing football...You would foul your opponent, then tell the referee you think your opponent is committing a foul, then you would aggravate(come close to fouling) the opponent, he would respond, and the ref would call a foul against your opponent, since he was now watching both of you. This kind of thing is done every day in many areas of life. I believe the Democrats and their "friends" use this technique many times.

What a great analogy! I hope you won't mind if I steal it....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.