The New York Times’s “liberal” argument for colonial occupation

[Steven_S]

In the run-up to the Bush administration’s war against Iraq, the New York Times staked out a position that only confirmed the putrefaction of American liberalism. It promoted the case for a US invasion, while sanctimoniously chiding the administration for failing to make sufficient efforts to secure a United Nations mandate for its aggression.
The newspaper played a leading role in disseminating the lie that served as the principal justification for the US military action—that Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” posed an imminent threat to the American people.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/nyt-o17.shtml


As always, an insightful analysis.

[KG]

1. anyone still seriously consider the NYT a liberal paper?

:eyes:

[The Zanti Regent]

6. the SCREW YORK TIMES is 99% GOP propaganda

and 1% truth (Paul Krugman)

Don't worry, he'll soon be fired!

[teryang]

2. Just about everyone seems to have been taken in

Or are they all hoping for a piece of the action? What a bunch of short sighted venal idiots.

I absolutely don't follow the logic that we must stay. It is a complete non sequitor based on further hubris. It is as if this international crime was some kind of moral obligation for the good of the Iraqis.

The repukes have sucked in the democratic reps with social engineering bullcrap. We're gonna build a democracy. They don't won't democracy here, why would they want it in Iraq?

Our government is so far gone only the most profound wave of popular revulsion has a chance of getting it back. Of course replacing the hundreds of billions of dollars used to finance this war of lies and its larcenous backers will cripple the economy and government policy options for decades.

[Steven_S]

3. It looks like we are going to have to re-learn the lesson

regarding colonial occupations. In order to reach that level of popular revulsion we are going to have to pay a terrible price in blood and treasure.

It seems we must go all the way through this sickness before we can begin to heal; to become well again.

[newyorkdork]

4. they're all knuckleheads!

[eauclaireliberal]

5. Of course the NYT is liberal

Why? Because mAnn Coulter says it is. It must be true, because s/he seems to have a seething hate for the NYT. Which is interesting when you think about the fact that the Times is her/his only source of "research"

That's biting the hand that feeds you.