NYT re-writing history....

[Bigmack]

The New York Times just re-wrote history.

Below is an article from FAIR about a Times piece that changed Bush's rationale for war in Iraq. Bolding is mine.
- - - - - -
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2957

New York Times Rewrites Iraq War History
To Bush—and Times—WMDs were not just a 'possibility' 9/8/06

In a New York Times article (9/6/06) on George W. Bush's September 5 speech concerning terrorism and Iraq, reporters David Sanger and John O'Neil included a striking revision of Bush's reasoning for going to war:

"The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop 'weapons of mass destruction' and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq."

Of course, the drive to war rested firmly on Bush's repeated and emphatic claim that Hussein had already developed WMDs, which he possessed and was prepared to use—a bogus claim that the mainstream media, led by the Times' own Judith Miller, largely accepted as an article of faith and bolstered with credulous reports based on faulty information. (See Extra!, 7-8/03.)

Bush's charges that Iraq concealed chemical and biological weapons were unequivocal. "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons," Bush told the U.N. (9/12/02).

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons," Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati (10/7/02). "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said in a March 17, 2003 address to the nation.

[rubberducky]

1. I`m beginning to feel like I`m in the Twilight Zone.

[Straight Shooter]

3. It is becoming totally surreal, isn't it?

I keep waiting and waiting for the lies to collapse of their own weight. I keep waiting ............ and waiting ..............

[tbyg52]

14. Just *beginning*"....? ;) nt

[AZBlue]

2. This is all very misleading. Both your post and FAIR's article.

They took a quote out of context from the NYT article. They aren't stating that Bush's assertion was accurate - just that he made it, which he indeed did. The article then goes on to list the facts put forth by Third Way National Security Project's report, which shows Bush's approach to terrorism to be an abysmal failure. It's entitled "Political Season Opens With Focus on Security" and looks at both the Dems and Reps recent statements on national security - all with a definite slant toward the left. Did you even bother to read the article??

I'm not defending NYT/Judith Miller's actions by any means. But, this type of "reporting" by FAIR is just as biased as JM's was. And so is your post.

[MADem]

6. No they didn't. That quote was IN the article, in a paragraph all alone

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/washington/05cnd-bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

HERE, read the original article. On the first page, it says exactly this: The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop 'weapons of mass destruction' and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq.

That is NOT a "Bush quote." It is a declarative sentence in the article. You are trying to say that their statement that Bush was worried about the POSSIBILITY of Saddam developing WMD in Iraq in 2003 is TRUE?? He and Cheney were all over TV screaming that Saddam had (that's HAD, not was thinking about making) TONS of WMD--they went to the UN and whined about it. They didn't whine about a "possibility."

Look, it doesn't matter what the SLANT of the article is. If you get ONE fact wrong, the whole thing is RUINED. It's a newspaper, not a dream factory. And certainly not a GOP dream factory. Or it SHOULDN'T be.

And FAIR is RIGHT to call them on it.

[sandnsea]

7. No, it wasn't the "prime" reason

This is not at all what Bush said was the "prime" reason for going to war in 2002/2003. The article has completely revised the Bush regime's claims that they HAD the WMD. The report they issues was entitled "Denial and Deception", playing cat and mouse games as they were hiding their WMD operations. Fair is absolutely correct to call the Times on this, they do this kind of subtle revisionism all the time.

"The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop “weapons of mass destruction” and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq."

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

8. Rummie said Iraq was an 'imminent threat' to the U.S.

Apparently he didn't get Rove's memo to avoid using that phrase. Everyone else from * on down was spouting that Saddam posed a "real and gathering danger" to our country (oops, I mean Homeland). When someone reported that the Administration was using the threat of imminent danger as a rationale for going to war, they were quick to claim, "I never said that."

Unfortunately, Rummie's on tape saying just those words on MTP. The truth is a nasty thing for these guys.

[sandnsea]

10. Exactly

The "prime" reason wasn't that Saddam was "going to develop" WMD, it was that he HAD them and not only that he HAD them, but that he had them in sufficient quantity and capacity as to be an imminent threat.

[MADem]

4. What asswipe editor let that get by? Did they promote Jayson Blair?

Sanger and O'Neil need to be SPANKED if they tried to sell that line. And if someone else changed that sentence on them, they should scream bloody murder.

[Kagemusha]

5. The NY Times got the date wrong.

That's the justification he used in 2005 to retroactively argue that even if he was wrong in 2002 and 2003, he was still right to invade anyway, because Saddam might develop WMD's and pass them on to terrorists.

Apparently the NY Times was fooled just as the ridiculous argument was conceived to do.

[EFerrari]

9. They were fooled?

I don't think so.

[Kagemusha]

11. If you want to argue to me that journalists don't tend to be shallow

uh go right ahead, argue it.

I think a lot of them are very shallow thinkers and that their minds don't retain every subtlety of what they're told.

[EFerrari]

12. I agree but I don't think the NYTs was fooled in any way.

We've seen too many cases where they damn well knew better than they reported.

[Kagemusha]

13. I think it's more like being lazy and not caring.

But granted, it could well be more. It's just hard to tell - there's a LOT of lazy writing and editing out there and not enough concern about getting it right. I don't think that's much better at all, either.