NYT covers Bush's ass
LouPaulsen at comcast.net
Fri Sep 26 01:51:09 MDT 2003
Sorry for the vulgar subject line, but does this lead editorial deserve any
The Failure to Find Iraqi Weapons
Published: September 26, 2003
"This page did not support the war in Iraq, but it never quarreled with one
of its basic premises. Like President Bush, we believed that Saddam Hussein
was hiding potentially large quantities of chemical and biological weapons
and aggressively pursuing nuclear arms. Like the president, we thought those
weapons posed a grave danger to the United States and the rest of the world.
Now it appears that premise was wrong. We cannot in hindsight blame the
administration for its original conclusions. They were based on the best
intelligence available, which had led the Clinton administration before it
and the governments of allied nations to reach the same conclusion. But even
the best intelligence can turn out to be mistaken ... "
"It remains remotely possible, of course, that something will be found. But
Mr. Kay's draft suggests that the weapons are simply not there. Why Mr.
Hussein did not prove that when the United Nations demanded an explanation
remains a puzzle. His failure to come clean strengthened the conviction that
he had a great deal to hide. His history as a vicious tyrant who had used
chemical weapons in war and against his own people lent credence to the fear
that he could not be trusted with whatever he was holding and would pose a
So, now the NYT knows what the president believed and thought. It knows
what the Clinton administration believed and thought. It knows that their
beliefs and thoughts were honorable if erroneous. It can't BLAME the
president. It agrees that the WMD charges were based on "the best
intelligence available", rather than the useful lies of the Chalabi group,
for example, as was charged in a story from the UPI back in February and
re-charged in the LA Times a couple weeks ago.
It agrees that the charges that Bush and Powell (and Clinton before them)
made about this 'weapons plant' and the 'Winnebagoes of death" and every
other fancy were "the best intelligence" despite the fact that over a period
of months every charge was refuted in detail by reports by the UN inspectors
and the Iraqi government.
The NYT editors blame the Iraqis for unaccountably not PROVING that they
didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, forgetting (a) that they were
cooperating with Hans Blix and el-Baradei, and (b) (first and foremost) that
not even a message from God Almighty delivered from Mt. Sinai would have
been taken by the Bush administration as PROOF that Iraq had no weapons of
mass destruction, because they were determined to go to war and thrice
determined to dismiss anything that contradicted their cover story. They
blame Iraq for "failing to come clean" forgetting that they had nothing to
"come clean" about, and that all of their TRUTHFUL statements that they had
no WMDs were held up as proofs of what liars they supposedly were.
The NYT comes to the aid of the Bush administration, trying to spare them
embarrassment and infamy, saying, "Yes, they were mistaken, but we were
mistaken too, anyone could have been fooled about such a matter." What
rubbish. Commentators around the world, writers on this list, and
leaflet-writers everywhere were busy for months exposing the shallow lies of
Bush's WMD propaganda. Anyone as well-informed as the Times editors are who
claims now to have believed it is confessing (a) to being a fool, or (b) to
a disgusting and slavish faith in any statement made by any US government
official. Yet the editors of the NYT, supposedly "the" newspaper of record,
are willing to go to the lengths of smearing themselves as fools and dupes
in order to rescue the Bush administration.
The problem is that nobody can believe that the NYT editors, or the
officials of the Bush administration with the possible exception of Bush
himself, are that stupid. It is not credible that Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice,
et al., believed their own propaganda. They were liars. The war on Iraq
was not manslaughter, based on mistakes; it was premeditated mass murder.
In attempting to exonerate the murderers and swear to their good intentions
and pure hearts, the NYT editors are also liars and accomplices to mass
murder after the fact.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism