NYT STILL taking orders from WH? Even in "Leak Case Renews Questions...

[Brotherjohn]

... on War's Rationale"? (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/politics/23strategy.html?ex=1287720000&en=2efc715c4c477499&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

You'd think "Okay. Promising title. Maybe they're finally opening the can of worms that rotted on the shelf for years. They're using the discrediting of Judy as an opportunity to perhaps finally redeem themselves somewhat."

There's talk of Powell throwing out "whole reams of paper" from Cheney's office given to him as "evidence" for his speech to the U.N.

Then there's:
"Mr. Libby was the main author of a lengthy document making the administration's case for war to the United Nations Security Council. But in meetings at the Central Intelligence Agency in early February, Secretary Powell and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, rejected virtually all of Mr. Libby's draft as exaggerated and not supported by intelligence."

These are some revealing tidbits here... but also ones that should've been on the front-page in 2002. And they're already news... from the Powell aide speech and Bob Woodward's book. The Times is hardly breaking anything here.

But not even 10 paragraphs into the article, there's this:
"The administration has acknowledged the failures of pre-war intelligence, though its supporters have pointed out that many Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, and the intelligence services of other countries were also convinced that Saddam Hussein had caches of banned weapons. But the White House's insistence that there were many other compelling reasons for deposing Saddam Hussein have only inflamed critics of the war."

Well, for starters, NO. What has most inflamed critics of the war is that the MAIN reason they gave for the war was known to be bull! The WMD reason. NOT that "other reasons" were given.

But besides that, the whole thrust of this article with a promising title appears to be: "Well, we were all wrong, and it was mainly Libby's fault." It seems to be the Times is trying to throw Libby (the easy target since he'll probably be indicted this week) under the bus, and slink away without further addressing the subject of the article... whether the administration mislead us into war (with no small amount of help from the NYT).

"No, see, the ADMINISTRATION didn't do anything wrong. The NEW YORK TIMES didn't do anything wrong. It was SCOOTER LIBBY. He misled us all! Shame! Shame! But he's indicted, so... move along, nothing to see."

I also wouldn't be surprised if this "blame Libby" tactic came straight from the office of Karl Rove to that of Arthur Sulzberger.

Well, NYT, we were not all wrong. Libby was wrong. YOU were wrong. Cheney was wrong. The whole damn White House was wrong. And they KNEW they were wrong.

And if you, the New York Times, had an ounce of journalistic scruples, you'd have known your WH sources were wrong, too (and even that they knew they were wrong, i.e. that they were LYING). Perhaps you would have delved into the whole debate between Powell and Cheney BEFORE the war (it was known). Perhaps you wouldn't be saying things like "former President Bill Clinton, and the intelligence services of other countries were also convinced that Saddam Hussein had caches of banned weapons" and instead would be saying things like "although many believed Hussein MAY have had some banned weapons, most favored continuation of inspections to determine whether or not that is the case."

But don't try to pawn it all off on Libby. He's one tip of the iceberg (as is the NYT) that's made up of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumslfeld's Department of Defense, the White House Iraq Group, the Office of Special Plans, and their whole warped plan to lie America into an unnecessary war.

[Just Me]

1. There in the freakin' news business for crying out loud!!!!

If you and I and millions of other people KNEW the WMD propaganda was pure and utter bullshit, there is no way in hell that reporters didn't know as well.

That's why I am so pissed with the CM!!! They CHOSE to cooperate with the deception, which is a repugnant betrayal of their role in a democracy.

[Gyre]

2. NYT can't be trusted.

They no longer deserve "flagship" status as this nation's MSM source.

[wtmusic]

3. In all fairness

this article is truthful. It's on the edge of truth--the edge which Judith Miller slipped from--so it has a certain CYA ring to it.

And I don't see where they're saying the buck stops at Libby. Cheney is no dummy. He told Libby what to write and Libby wrote it--that's White House CYA. Possibly when indictments come down we'll get some light shed on Cheney involvement.

These criminals wouldn't be so successful if they weren't good.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Clinton Did Believe There Were Weapons

I tend to see a bit of revisionism from some people regarding how many Democrats, including Liberals and Progressives felt about the WMD issue prior to the invasion and now.

There was a question about Hussein's true weapons program. He'd played cat and mouse with UNSCOM for years so that it wasn't certain that all his nuclear and chemical programs had been destroyed. A lot of us felt there could be weapons, but even so, there would be a diminished number and of no real threat...something a full U.N. inspection (which is what that war resolution was really about) required and was never fulfilled. The deal is, Democats were blatantly lied to. The American people were.

Scott Ritter and Sy Hersch gave a great forum on what happened in Iraq over the years and there were mistakes and games played by Clinton that helped bolster neo-con demands for regime change. The problem was Clinton thought the neo-cons were just a bunch of blowhards who'd never follow through with their agenda. In retrospect, looking back to 1998, looking at the Iraq resolution that the right wing uses as their justification for all this mess...seemed quite benign and rhetorical. But that's for another investigation and another time.

The NYT has a real problem here...now do you get back to covering a story where you're fully conflicted and still haven't come clean?

[Brotherjohn]

5. Pretty much agree. But there's a difference between "believed" & "knew".

There's a difference between "thought possible or even probable" and "stating it as fact and saying it's an imminent threat".

That difference is the difference between peace and war.

My point is that the NYT saying things the way they say them only bolsters the White House defense, and avoids the real issue. I think they're still having a hard time coming clean, too.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Democrats Have To Really Define This

Kerry messed it all up...I voted for, but I voted against. He never explained what the vote for was for and what the vote against was against. Many other Democrats have and are still conflicted this way. Many voted to push for the U.N. inspectors and were fed bogus intel and lies that influenced their votes. This shackle has to be freed for many to start speaking out...if they dare to do so.

Yes, the meme is that since Clinton and Democrats "thought" they were there, that equates that imminent threat. We know it doesn't. We had that country under two no fly zones, severe economic sanctions and monitoring any signal emitted. The unknown was nowhere near the doom and gloom and Chenney inspired "mushroom clouds".

One day there will be a full accounting of the run-up to this war. It may be done in Washington, the Hague or in the history books. When it is written, the NYT will be viewed in the exact opposite light as it was during Vietnam.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Yes, agree mostly. But you make the same error Bill Maher did the other..

... night.

The "voted for / voted against" was regarding the $87 Billion in funding after the war, not the IWR before the war.

You're right, though, in that Kerry never clearly explained that (something about the first bill he voted for, a DIFFERENT bill, said Iraq needed to pay back the money...?). In my mind, he should have NEVER "apologized" for mis-stating his support, saying something like he was guilty of perhaps poor wording, or something like that. He should have said: "I couldn't have been more clear. I voted FOR the first version of the bill, which said there would be some accountability as to where the money would be spent, and AGAINST the second version of the bill, a DIFFERENT BILL, which said there would be no accountability. Republicans all, to a number, voted AGAINST the first bill funding the troops!"

But in general, yes, perhaps Dems haven't been forceful enough. But that's partially the media's fault. Kerry released a very clear statement on why he voted for the IWR (sorry, i don't have the link), and if the media ever covered it and stuck with it, they would have been saying before the war that Bush himself violated the IWR. He didn't, as the IWR mandated, pursue all diplomatic options to their conclusion and use war only as a last resort. Dems put to much trust in him that he would not violate the resolution, but he still violated the resolution.

[blm]

8. But, would Clinton have NOT followed the guidelines in the IWR on weapon

inspections being given first priority to work along with sincere diplomatic measures?

No Democratic president, not Clinton, Gore or Kerry, would have invaded Iraq AFTER weapons inspections were proving military force was unnecessary.