[Joe Dees]By who? The Times? I heard Henry Kissinger myself on a TV talk
show recently concerning his position on Iraq, and it is clear to anyone
with ears that the Times' assertions concerning his position were a blatant
[Mermaid]whoops. I forgot you dont read what I send this way.
[Mermaid]Even the neo-cons havent suggested that the NYT 'lied'. (I have
snipped the relevant portions for the political side of the argument.) That
aside, my point is not about the actual content, but about how a group of
people have taken it upon themselves to instruct independent newspapers
about what they should put on their pages. To put it politely, its a bunch
of troublemakers with an agenda of their own. Anyone with half a brain know
what it is and those without will simply bite the line thrown at them by
this group. These are probably the same folk who keep Fox News on our
television sets. A tragedy.
The chief beef is that the Times story prominently included Henry Kissinger
among the GOP critics. The problem is that the former secretary of state had
argued in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece that there is "an imperative
for preemptive action" against Iraq.
The Times highlighted some of the caveats in the Kissinger argument, such as
that "military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to
sustain such an effort for however long it is needed." The paper did note
that Kissinger was "far from ruling out military intervention."
The Journal editorial page objected not just to the way the Times story
treated Kissinger but also to the way it pounced on a Journal op-ed piece by
Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Bush's father when he
was president. Although Scowcroft clearly opposes an administration attack
on Hussein, the Journal says the Times was "trumpeting our story to advance
a tendentious theme."
"We're not running a campaign against the Times coverage of Iraq," Gigot
says. "But when they take something we do and spin it into some big deal
that seems untrue, you're obliged to say something in response." (The Times
also cited statements of concern about Iraq policy by House Majority Leader
Dick Armey [R-Tex.], Sen. Chuck Hagel [R-Neb.] and former secretary of state
Liberal columnist Joshua Micah Marshall, who writes the Web site
TalkingPointsMemo.com, says that "conservatives have always seen the New
York Times as a bete noire." But he says the "echo chamber" on the right is
"just wrong" about Kissinger's stance, because "if you look at what he said,
it was not in favor of the administration's position."
Critics cite a spate of other stories in arguing that the Times is beating
the antiwar drums:
On July 30, a front-page Times story said a war against Iraq "could
profoundly affect the American economy."
On Aug. 1, the Times headline on a Senate hearing declared: "Experts Warn of
High Risk for American Invasion of Iraq."
On Aug. 3, a series of man-on-the-street interviews was headlined: "Backing
Bush All the Way, Up to but Not Into Iraq."
On Friday, the same day as the "Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq
Strategy" piece, the Times editorial page also cited GOP dissenters in
arguing that a war on Iraq "carries great potential to produce unintended
and injurious consequences if handled rashly by Mr. Bush." The news pages
that day did not mention Condoleezza Rice's attack on Hussein as "evil,"
although the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post carried front-page
stories on the national security adviser's remarks.
On Saturday, the Times reported: "President Notes Dissent on Iraq, Vowing to
Dissent, of course, is part of the story. Marshall, who describes himself as
"pretty hawkish on Iraq," says the Times is "running articles that point out
the downside" of a U.S. invasion. But, he says, "it seems appropriate
because this is a mass investment of money and lives on the country's part.
They're pretty much doing what a newspaper should be doing."
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT