“It is more than just a stretch to say that ‘The New York Times did help cause the war’ simply because a rogue reporter got one aspect of the run-up wrong.”

The NYT gave front-page billing to Miller’s rehashing of Chalabi’s lies. They didn’t do that for critics of the invasion, who were obviously telling the truth.

Miller is a notorious neocon shill like Kristol. They’re not rogues, they get the full backing of the NYT to spread their lies. In Miller’s case, the NYT issued a half-hearted apology years later, after all the U.S. torture and terror, when the damage had been done.

“In fact, the NYT editorial page was consistently against the invasion of Iraq up to and including the invasion itself, and was consistently critical of almost every aspect of the management of the war.”

I don’t know how accurate this statement is since I don’t waste much time reading the warmongering MSM. At Bush’s request, the NYT sat on evidence of Bush’s illegal surveillance of Americans for almost a year, until after the elections. I know the NYT still criticizes the “bad management” of the war, but bad management is a red herring. The problem is the conception of the war, which was/is a crime under the standards set out by the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, and grounds for impeachment. To the best of my knowledge, they have yet to recognize this fundamental truth about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, because their protests against the conduct of the war have up to now been little more than cynical posturing to cloak their own criminal complicity.

The NYT helped suppress evidence of Republican voter fraud in the 2000 presidential elections. They refuse to back impeachment, and just endorsed pro-war candidates for the Republican and Democratic Party nominations. It’s hard to reconcile their actions with any sincere opposition to the on-going U.S. terrorism in Iraq.

A once great paper has been reduced to being a propaganda machine for those manipulative little lobbies, AIPAC, ADL, JINSA, etc.

Judith Miller was hardly alone.  Take Michael Gordon for instance.  As I pointed out, the New York Times helped cause the war.

P.T.:

It is more than just a stretch to say that “The New York Times did help cause the war” simply because a rogue reporter got one aspect of the run-up wrong.

In fact, the NYT editorial page was consistently against the invasion of Iraq up to and including the invasion itself, and was consistently critical of almost every aspect of the management of the war.

Peace.

Sure, Maani:  Judith Miller.

Lilmamzer, being called bigoted by an Olmert supporter is yet more proof, as if any were needed, that you are a true psycho.

” In reality, Mrs. Clinton is chomping at the bit, to go to war with Iran, (or any other country)

LMAO!!!!  In your reality, for sure. But not the one where the laws of nature and physics (i.e. reality) govern.

“Please explain this comment.”

LOL - remember, you’re at <strike>Truth</strike> CrapDig.

Even if most posters here COULD explain their incoherent ramblings and bigoted slurry of offensive verbage, would you really want to hear it?

Good eye here Henri…

In reality, Mrs. Clinton is chomping at the bit, to go to war with Iran, (or any other country) if she isn’t pre-empted by Dick Bush, although I’m thinking she will be.

And, in the same reality, it’s highly unlikely that Obama would, for the same reasons that he’s repeatedly stated in the past…he doesn’t believe in ‘dumb’ wars. And, he’s inclined to actually pay attention to accurate intelligence, such as the latest NIE report, and basic common sense, which would indicate that Iran is not a threat to anyone, including us. Ergo…no reason to wage a war against them, just like there was no reason to wage a war against Iraq, and kill millions of people in the process that has continued to do exactly that.

Not sure why the NYT editorial board has decided to endorse Mrs. Clinton, other than what P.T. mentioned, which was that they DID help circulate the lies that led to the on-going destruction of Iraq, which Mrs. Clinton has consistently and unwaveringly supported. So THAT might be the reason.

And, they HAVE, even in this harangue against Rudy, acknowledged him as some sort of a hero after 9/11, when in reality, he wasn’t. Not even CLOSE. Still too many questions about his own involvement in that attack, and the NYT has never come close to acknowledging it.

So, this is a nice little comfortable position for them to maintain. They can stick with the AIPAC support, and still give Rudy a thorough (and well deserved) tongue lashing.

Most people like me are sick and tired of hearing about your problems.

While you may be a very smart man, emotionally your a wreck.

Don’t think you’ll be around after Tuesday.

Please explain this comment.

“I suspect that Ms Clinton is an even more enthusiastic «free-trader» than Mr Obama, something which resonates well indeed with the interests represented by the NYT.”

Please enlighten us on what exactly those “interests” are.

The above should read:

New York Times Endorses the Most Pro-War of Candidates

The New York Times did help cause the war, after all.

The New York Times did help cause the war, after all.

The first period in my posting immediately above is difficult to understand without the four words in the heading, which was inadvertently (at least from my side) deleted. They were as follows «Leaving aside Mr Giuliani,»...

Henri

as he so richly deserves, let us return to what the New York Times has to say about its reasons for endorsing Ms Clinton. As usual, what is left unsaid is more instructive than what is stated explicitly, and I cannot help but think that the endorsement is best understood with the help of the lamp that Professor Johnson, in his review of Ha-Joon Chang’s Bad Samaritans, has provided us. I suspect that Ms Clinton is an even more enthusiastic «free-trader» than Mr Obama, something which resonates well indeed with the interests represented by the NYT. And besides, Ms Clinton is far likelier to go to war with Iran than Mr Obama - in the event that Messrs Bush and Cheney don’t preempt that policy alternative as well….

Henri

According to the NYT, “Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do.”

Uh, NYT guys, the war in Iraq wasn’t badly managed, it was a war crime in its conception and execution. The U.S. terrorism and torture, the destruction of the Iraqi economy and culture, were all part of the neocon’s strategy of rape and plunder. And the NYT was instrumental in making it all possible.

It’s no surprise that the establishment warmongers at the NYT, newly reinforced by the fascist Bill Kristol, are endorsing the two most blatantly pro-war, pro-business candidates of the lot. Giuliani was an unusually nasty piece of work, perhaps even more corrupt and dangerous than McCain and Clinton. So it’s good news that voters, and NYT editors, have rejected Benito. Maybe we should be counting our blessings.

This campaign has a way of breaking open all those coconuts that have long been pent up and needed to be released to clear the air, and provide a positive pathway for legitimate governance to take place.

That it is capable of doing so is healthy, not bad.

The severity of the remarks are an indication of how much tension resides in the minds of men (or women) and how often it is disguised or cloaked by the intellect - for survival. Could this be the source of the need for psychoanalysis?

It appears to be all about relationships, not guidance.

NOW JUDI CAN START HITTING ON SOMEONE ELSE…...MMMMMM’’ MAYBE A FORMER PRESIDENT ????

Rudy, bye bye, dos vidonya, arrivederci,good bye, au revoir, auf Wiedersehen, aloha, oh, and don’t bother to write.