The NYTimes is beyond despicable

The fact that this rag is considered to be a pillar of journalism is a joke only a few seem to get.

Count Michelle Malkin amongst those attempting to let the world know.

Comments

[Zossima]

Yes, indeed, they are despicable. They are despicable for letting Republican media shill Judith Miller make the case for war with Iraq. They are despicable for not holding her to basic standards of journalistic accountability. They are despicable for not firing her. They are despicable for not apologizing for being the official paper of Dick Cheney's office instead of being the 'paper of record'.

[Rick]

Zos, I know that you have a history of initially posting a rather flaming (and more than exagerated) comment and then following things up with something more thoughtful.

I'll await your thoughtful post before commenting seriously.

:)

[Zossima]

Rick, I don't mean this to sound like a flame. I'm serious. The NYT isn't liberal or conservative. It's lazy and disreputable. And so is Miller. The paper trail on this is pretty much out in the open.

[Rick]

Zos,

Reynolds, I believe, speaks to your allegations and claims:

ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE NOTICED in the Judy Miller / Scooter Libby coverage is the development of a new history that's very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that:

1. We only went to war because of WMDs -- that was the only reason ever given.

2. Bush lied about those.

3. He told his lies to Judy Miller, who acted like a stenographer and reported them.

4. Everyone else gullibly went along.

Read it all... then let me hear what you think.

[Zossima]

Rick, I like Reynolds a lot, though I don't always agree with him. He has integrity, though like all of us, can be blinded by his own beliefs and opinions.

What Glenn is specifically addressing here is a revisionism (that does exist) that says that the case for war was made *solely* on false evidence for WMDs. I am not saying that.

Reynolds spends all his energy on his point #1. That has nothing to do with the point that I am making, which concerns his points 2-4. The paper trail is clear: Judy Miller had very high access to White House officials who fed her what is now known to be false information (and what is reasonably suspected to be manufactured information). She ran with it, and her editors did not check her sources.

Yes, other rationales were given for the war. It was, for instance, overtly and (knowingly) falsely claimed by the White House that Iraq/Hussein were connected to 9-11. They talked about the value of establishing a democracy there, too.

But WMDs were absolutely the primary rationale for war. Colin Powell didn't spend the bulk of his UN speech talking about democracy. Bush didn't spend the bulk of time he devoted in his state of the union address to making the case for war to talking about the case for Iraqi democracy. Neither did anyone else in the administration. Neither did any other administration official. They sold the war to the American people with the idea that Hussein had WMDs and was an 'imminent threat' to the US.

Glenn's argument is a non sequitur. If it was the *main* argument, then it really doesn't matter if liberals are focusing on it as the *only* argument.

It is more than fair to say that the American people would not have supported war on Iraq if the main reason for doing so was to institute democracy there.

Finally, the idea that there is a democracy being created there can easily be questioned. But that's a post for another day ; )

[Rick]

Rick, I like Reynolds a lot, though I don't always agree with him. He has integrity, though like all of us, can be blinded by his own beliefs and opinions.

Hey Zos... as long as you're standing up and being counted amongst the "all of us", we'll get somewhere.

What Glenn is specifically addressing here is a revisionism (that does exist) that says that the case for war was made *solely* on false evidence for WMDs. I am not saying that. Reynolds spends all his energy on his point #1. That has nothing to do with the point that I am making, which concerns his points 2-4. The paper trail is clear: Judy Miller had very high access to White House officials who fed her what is now known to be false information (and what is reasonably suspected to be manufactured information).

Zos... got links? Especially on the manufactured stuff?

She ran with it, and her editors did not check her sources.

I'm no longer sure what editors at the New York Times (and other large newspapers) do anymore. Checking sources doesn't seem to top any evidentiary lists.

Yes, other rationales were given for the war. It was, for instance, overtly and (knowingly) falsely claimed by the White House that Iraq/Hussein were connected to 9-11.

Zos... got links?

They talked about the value of establishing a democracy there, too.

But WMDs were absolutely the primary rationale for war. Colin Powell didn't spend the bulk of his UN speech talking about democracy.

No he didn't, but it remains a compelling speech.

Bush didn't spend the bulk of time he devoted in his state of the union address to making the case for war to talking about the case for Iraqi democracy.

The bulk? You're correct. But he did say this:

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Zos goes on:

Neither did anyone else in the administration. Neither did any other administration official. They sold the war to the American people with the idea that Hussein had WMDs and was an 'imminent threat' to the US.

Zos... the "imminent threat" argument is... shall we say... rather lame.

Glenn's argument is a non sequitur. If it was the *main* argument, then it really doesn't matter if liberals are focusing on it as the *only* argument.

It is more than fair to say that the American people would not have supported war on Iraq if the main reason for doing so was to institute democracy there.

But isn't that argument a non sequiter? No one has said that was the case...

Finally, the idea that there is a democracy being created there can easily be questioned. But that's a post for another day ; )

It's being birthed Zos... there can be no denial of it...

[Zossima]

Rick, do I really have to provide links to statements made by the adminstration about the links between Iraq and 9-11? Isn't this common knowledge? I'm serious.

Do I have to provide links to suggest that it is quite reasonable to conclude that evidence for war was manufactured by this administration? Haven't you seen all of that? (You'd just dismiss it out of hand anyway, I suspect.) Isn't that kind of what underlies the Fitzgerald investigation?

Hey, if you want me to provide it I will. I don't make those statements casually. To accuse people of lying is serious business.

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." ---President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." ---President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." ---President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." ---Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." ---Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

Rick, please don't engage in Clintonian dictionary shenanigans regarding the phrase "imminent threat". Maybe Bush never uttered those exact words. Clearly, the administration's public statements were designed to convince the public that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

It is more than fair to say that the American people would not have supported war on Iraq if the main reason for doing so was to institute democracy there.

Okay, I'll withdraw that. You're right. It's a non sequiter. But withdrawing it does nothing to diminish my point that Miller got the inside scoop on what is false information and was not checked by her editors.

If you remove what is factually false from Powell's or Bush's speeches, they aren't very compelling.

The bulk? You're correct. But he did say this:

Yup, I've acknowledged that. But it doesn't matter. The main reason stated over and over and over and over again by the administration for going to war against Iraq was WMDs. Period.

I can easily deny that democracy is being birthed in Iraq. It's not obvious. There have been two fairly successful votes. That's great. But that does not make a democracy. Only time will tell. The civil war may have already begun. And the existence of a democracy (if it ever does exist) does not ex post facto justify a war undertaken because Iraq supposedly had WMDs and was an imminent threat.