Did the NY Times have pro-Clinton impeachment Op-Eds or editorials?

[Dr Fate]

I seem to remember that they did.

Does anyone remember or have a link?

[Jack Rabbit]

1. I don't think so

The New York Times puslished an editorial on February 9, 1999, urging Congress to adopt a censure resolution rather than remove Mr. Clinton from office.

I'm not about to pay $5 read something that ought to be public record; for those who wish, please click here.

[Dr Fate]

2. Actually, that helps. Have they called for a Bush censure?

???

[Jack Rabbit]

3. I don't know.

For my part, I'm not interested. I want the junta removed from power, not censured.

[Dr Fate]

4. I am arguing "Liberal media" with a friend of mine.

He keeps insisting the NY Times is Liberal because some of the facts they publish happen to hurt the GOP on rare occasion.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Searched and found nothing

If your frined is arguing The New York Times is "librul media", then I would come back at him with the fact that while The Times as a newspaper did not support the impeachment or removal of President Clinton, The Times runs op-ed from a variety of points on the US political spectrum; among these are the writings of William Safire, who advocated Clinton's removal. You might well also raise that this is the same New York Timese that in the winter of 2002/03 ran Judy Miller's works of fiction about Saddam's WMDs on the front page.

[Dr Fate]

8. Already hit him with the Judy Miller- thanks. n/t

n/t

[chieftain]

5. I think they were opposed to impeachment, but they along

with the WAPO were big proponents of Whitewater investigations and the appointment of independent counsels to look into the matter. Both of the supposed pillars of the liberal media were actively and wrong headedly suspicious of the Clintons.

[Dr Fate]

9. So they were only against impeachment when it got down to the wire.

In the events leading to the impeachment, they were on-board.

[chieftain]

11. They both were major players in creating a mood that the RW

exploited. If there ever was a liberal media, it had disappeared by the Clinton Administration.

[Rageneau]

7. The NYT "invented" the Whitewater scandal and pursued it relentlessly.

Were it not for the NYT, there would have been no Whitewater 'scandal', hence no special prosecutor, hence no Ken Starr, hence no impeachment. Their flawed, phony, fantastical, feloniously incorrect reporting (by Jeff Gerth) is what gave the right wing the 'case' to go after Clinton in the first place. Long after it had been PROVEN to them that their reporting was bullshit, they continued to beat the Whitewater drum anyway. They also hounded Clinton and supported Starr throughout the whole Monicagate brouhaha. I distictly remember that there were NO NYT editorials supportive of Clinton during this time (and I read it every day to look for one). And, although the Times did occasionally raise an eyebrow at Starr's shennanigans, mst often they took his side.

So whether they published any "pro-impeachment" editorials or not, the NYT editorial policy was definitely pro-impeachment all through Clinton's presidency. They only changed their tune (a little) when it became obvious to them that the drolling yahoos of the right-wing actually intended to take the lies the NYT had spread and use them to remove an otherwise superlative president.

The NYT and the WP (and most of the rest of the media) are the enemies of truth, and thereby the enemies of Democrats.

[Dr Fate]

10. True, true. n/t

n/t