OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today
Breaking News From Nine Months Ago
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27
"The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the
embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an
exemplary democracy in Iraq."--editorial, New York Times, Nov. 13
Hmm... the links don't seem to work in my local copy, so I'm taking them out. Go to "Opinion Journal" to see where the links go, if you like. My point is simply to note the way the NY Times seemed surprised, back in February, that Bush was talking about bringing democracy to Iraq instead of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, and now even says that Bush is shifting away from WMD and towards democracy. Looks like an example of the confirmation bias -- the editors had already decided what the story would be, and continue to run with it.
Aha, good catch.
Sorry about the rudeness. The angry left has rubbed off on me. But it does make my jaw drop when this is 'more proof that Bush lied.'
Jan. 20 Best of the Web points out another flip by the NYT editorial for Bush's recess appointment of Pickering.
While Porkchopjim is unnecessarily rude about it, he does get the point I was trying to make. Whether you agree or disagree with Bush's stand on the war, the White House has been consistent in its message that the purpose of the war is to bring democracy to Iraq. Thus, accusing him of waffling on this issue is a distraction.
No, you blind twit.
This is not witness to the fact that Bush was lying. In fact, it is the exact opposite...you just can't stand to see it.
The point is the NYT has been trying to push the WMD/imminent threat issue the entire time, when it is plainly stated by them in February that Bush was not. He was pushing liberation and Democracy. The NYT seems to have forgotten that, much to their disappointment and embarrassment now.
So, instead of saying that regardless of what the NYT thinks the story should be that the White house has stayed on message, the NYT now accuses the White house of flip-flopping.
This is an attempt to rewrite history and you fell for it. Is this what the media is meant to do? Sway public opinions through obvious lies (which you are so quick to accuse Bush of)...which the above clearly shows? Who is flip-flopping? Whose opinion is based on lies?
Your comparison is awesome...and very sad at the same time. This seems like all kinds of bias in that it shows that a paper with as much influence and respect as the Times is avoiding the real story.
This, as much as any other evidence, stands witness to the fact that Bush was lying in February. I hope more people are paying as much attention as you are, because this is an example of the media doing what its meant to do. It's playing its role in the system of checks and balances and calling attention to important issues, even if it's being done inadvertently.