Posted on 11/04/2006 5:49:42 AM PST by Alissa
November 4, 2006 -- Yesterday's front-page story in The New York Times about the U.S. Web archive of captured documents detailing Saddam Hussein's quest for nuclear weapons raises a lot of serious questions - certainly more serious than the one the paper itself was trying to highlight.
The point of the Times story, coming just four days before the critical midterm congressional elections, was clear: The Bush administration messed up big-time by posting on the Web a collection of documents on Iraqi WMD programs that "could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms."
-snip-
The world is safer for it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So when does Saddam's verdict come down? And will they cover it or just smirk and brush it aside?
Could the Lamestream press be declining because of their active and blatant campaigning against Bush and everything GOP? Is the NYT's BDR going to sink them?
Karl Rove got the NYT to publish that story. I don't know how he did it, but there is no other explanation. The NYT reveals that Hussein had extensive ties to terrorist groups and was well on his way to developing a nuclear weapon. They can't have wanted us to know that.
When a newspaper lets its politics get in front of the truth,it falls into the Democrat cesspool.
The Times isn't a business anymore, it's a hobby for bitter middle-aged elite liberals... Hey guys, can you say, A I R A M E R I C A?
Just how helpful is open to debate; the paper's own experts don't seem to agree. And at least one of them seems to have a vested interest in embarrassing the White House: He's been a longtime repeat contributor to the Democratic National Committee and to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
The NY Times story is a two edged sword. It was designed to embarrass the Bush administration a few short days before the mid-term elections ... but ended up reinforcing the fact that Saddam was hiding a nuclear weapons development program that was well along in development. I fault the Bush administration for not making a much stronger case by being more assertive in proving Bush didn't lie ... they had (have) the evidence; use it.
A lot of local papers across the U.S. use the New York Times as a source. Some of their stuff is re-written by the newspaper's own reporters, but to those of us who see the Times spin on the net, it is obviously the same.
One wonders if they all hang out together at some bar and get their talking points in sync.
They are dying, but not fast enough.
The Times posted that story for one reason. They believe that the RATS are going to win on Tuesday. It is a way for them to get on the Iraq bandwagon so when the RATS start demanding things from the President, they can say, "See, we knew Saddam was bad all along."
This is the Saddam had WMD before he didn't before he did play. If the RATS lose, then on Wednesday it becomes just another Bush hit piece.
In other words, George W. Bush didn't lie the country into war.
This is what absolutely drives me crazy about the Bush administration. They are terrible at defending the war. Bush didn't lie of course but they let the anti war crowd repeat their lies ad infinitum without nary a rebuttal.
They also suck at touting the good economy. For the last 3 or 4 years I've listened to people complaining about the economy. Some think we're in a recession. Some think the economy is only benefiting the rich. They're idiots of course but they vote.
I utterly loathe the NYT...
The only facts in the NYT and the Boston Globe are the ball scores, the rest is opinion masquerading as reporting!!
The Times did look stupid running with the story. It practically vindicated Bush's call to topple Saddam's regime because it posed a threat to the civilized world, and made Joe Wilson look like the liar he is.
Saddam's nuke program touted by the NYT is evidence of WMDs, and evidence that our President was correct in taking out the Saddam regime.
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen this story splashed all over the news. I think everyone has figured out that although it can be skewed to attack Bush (as the NYT did), there is too much of a second story that would vindicate the entire Iraq war, and show that the President should be held up as a defender of our country and the world.
The MSM doesn't want Republicans to make that case, therefore they have spiked the story to the embarrassment of the NYT.
You actually watch that drivel. I swore off that crap yeas ago. I was in the Atlanta airport last Sunday morning and they had on CNN (naturally) and on was Late Edition(?).
They were talking about Limbaugh and M.J. Fox. Several people tried to drag me into a conversation about what was on the show. I politely declined, and said I haven't watched that crap in years because I was sick of it ruining my Sunday afternoon. I said that I stopped watching the Dog $h!t Media because they had chosen (political) sides and it wasn't my side that they were representing. I also told them that I know more about what's going from Free Republic, and I knew it sooner than I would ever get from the Communist News Network
I then got up and walked away. One woman looked at me as though I had lost my mind, but deep down she knew I was right.
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.