HARSH Editorial from NYT on "One Year Later"

[nostamj]

One Year Later
<snip>
It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation.

<snip>

In the short run, the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of its leader have done virtually nothing to stop terrorism.

<snip>

The innocent Iraqi casualties of Mr. Bush's war are literally countless because the Pentagon refuses to estimate their number.


more

[Teddy_Salad]

1. The lazy New York Times

"The so-called surgical bombing did indeed limit damage to Iraq's civilian areas..."

Oh yeah, try telling that to the 10,000 plus murdered in those "surgical bombings".

Maybe if the New York Times got their reporters off their lazy butts to do some actual "investigative reporting", Bush and his handlers may have had to at least of thought twice before starting a completely unnecessary war that killed innocent Iraqi civilians.

[Jacobin]

2. Typical New York Slime article

They shamelessly whore for the invasion, publishing articles like Tom "Dingbat" Friedmans piece "Just Give War a Chance", then on the very eve of the invasion, their official position is sort of against the invasion, and now of course they think it was really just a muddle headed thing to do.

These people are beyond disgust.