NYT still doesn't get it! Bush lied when he said,"War is our last resort."

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/politics/14downing.html?pagewanted=print

June 14, 2005


A Peephole to the War Room: British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind

By TODD S. PURDUM


WASHINGTON, June 13 - The disclosure of British government memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems, has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because opponents of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see the documents as proof that both men misled their countries into war.

But the documents are not quite so shocking.Three years ago , the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people - chief among them Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state - were also warning in public and private that the Pentagon was ill prepared for prolonged occupation.

What no one knew then for certain (though some lonely voices did predict it) is that American forces would find none of the lethal chemical or biological weapons that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said made Iraq so dangerous, or that the anti-American insurgency would be so durable and deadly. That is why the British memos' foresight - read with the benefit of hindsight - rings so bittersweet for those who tried in vain to avert the war, and remain aghast at its human and material costs.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, plans to hold an informational forum about the memos (without Republican participation) on Thursday. Blogs are awash in discussions of the memos, and full of criticism of the mainstream American media for not paying them more mind.

more...but not a mention, of course, that Bush kept repeating, "War is our last resort." He lied to the American people and ginned up a non-existent WMD threat. These documents make plain this crucial fact--so crucial that the ass-covering media must deliberately ignore it--perhaps because of their complicity in cheerleading this nation to an unnecessary war without end in Iraq.

[JohnyCanuck]

1. The corporate media has no choice but to ignore

and/or whitewash the implications of the DSM

Because they were complicit in selling the Bush/neocon/PNAC lies to the public, if they now admit it was all bullshit they will be admitting they didn't do their job. As Mike Rivero at WhatReallHappened.com likes to point out, bloggers all over the world working with minimal resources correctly called the Bush case for war bullshit, and yet the corporate media with all the resources at their disposal for the most part just regurgitated the White House propaganda and spin.

The DSM just shows to the world that they fully deserve to wear the title MEDIA WHORES. I would be surprised if they did not try to downplay and ignore the implications.

[KoKo]

2. Well Said....and the NYT's in particular is so culpable in pushing for

Invasion of Iraq with Judith Miller's stovepiping of Chalabi's information. NYT's is the worst of the lot. And they are swimming against the tide with all the info coming out.

[leesa]

3. They get it. They are paid to lie.