Over at American Future, Marc Shulman has a fascinating and highly recommended post that looks, hard, at The New York Times. Politicians aren't the only ones with public records (vid. Rep. "cut and run" Murtha over Mogadishu), after all - one must also question the media's records in similar terms. As Marc notes:
"...the newspaper's stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003.... This post, which covers the eight years of the Clinton administration, is the first of three that employ the Times' editorials to trace and analyze the evolution of the newspaper's position on Iraq. The second [post in the series] will cover the pre-invasion Bush administration, while the third will deal with the period from the fall of Baghdad to the present.
This initial installment is organized into four sections: editorials on inspections, sanctions, and WMD; editorials on the use of force; editorials on the U.N. Security Council and its members; and editorials on Clinton administration policies."
[Update: Corrected Joe's "oops" in name of cited blog...A.L.]
The transformation began in 2003 when the dims realized they were headed to oblivion on the fast track. They couldn't let a President with resolve fight and win a war against terrorist -- permanent mainority status. So the only thing left is to turn into a Democrap hack newspaper.
Unclear if the NYTimes will still be in business at the end of Bush's term. I know I won't buy a thing of theirs nor visit any of their loony web sites, like "about.com".
Message to NYTimes, as abusiness pissing off half your customers is not the way to success.
This was an interesting analysis, to say the least. It appears the NYT transformation over ten years was anything but gradual; it happened almost overnight, coinciding with Bush entering the White House.
How in the world can so many people place any stock in the "reporting" and opinions expressed within the pages of the NYT? Only a complete disregard of reasoning and facts, not to mention a large dose of short term memory loss, could enable anyone to believe its content.
It's “American Future”, Joe.
Time for my Casablanca cop impersonation -
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find the New York Times flip-flopping on an issue such as this.
I love the way you smart ass chicken punks wave the flag and dis real American heros like Murtha.
What nerve you have when your hiding behind your desks armed with key boards.
You believe so much in this cause of yours. You believe so much that we are locked in a struggle to the death with islamists (or whatever gay ass name you're assigning today to people of a different faith that don't want to go along with everything you want them to).
You believe so much that the United States should use this unique period in history to exercise its hegemony and military might unilaterally...blah....blah...blah....you believe so much in not taking any chances and launching pre-emptive wars; just in case you know...
When your pre-emptive wars aren't going as swimmingly as planned you simply advocate throwing more lives and treasure into the fray.
But not one of you sorry cowardly pukes has the balls to put actually get into the fray and fight for all these beliefs of yours. Not one.
Yet you will attack the character of men who have gone into harms way.
You make me sick.
And that you don't care an iota about, I know.
Fortunately, your stink is curling the noses of the American people, generally. Your ilk is going to collapse under the weight of your own hypocrisy and moral weakness.