The latest NYTimes scandal involving a front page story and "missing" explosives in Iraq (that were mssing when Bush's troops arrived there on April 10th 2004, according to NBC embeded reporters) has hit a certain 9/11 Democrat hard: Roger L Simon, Hollywood screenwirter and novelist: "Okay, now we get personal. The demise of The New York Times has been an extraordinary shock to me and a kind of benchmark for my own political migration. Like most New York Jewish boys from liberal homes the paper was a replacement religion for me. Many decades ago, when I was twenty-three and published my first novel, finding a short positive review in the Book Review validated me as a writer, enabling me to go on with my risky career. I was published by them several times in the eighties when I was an officer of the left-leaning International Association of Crime Writers. I owe a lot to the Times. I also fear them because they review my books and movies. But I cannot shut up. This kind of biased behavior is unconscionable. Although it is nowhere near as drastic, of course, it makes me think of the days of Walter Duranty, that Timesman who won a Pultizer while white-washing Stalin. How could such things happen, I always wondered. Now I know. They happen when people think they are doing the right thing for the right cause and in their zeal don't stop to consider the reality of what they are saying and writing. Yes, this is worse than Jayson Blair." http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/10/how_duranty_hap.php
NYTimes: worse than voting for Kerry... Captain Ed nails the deciet of the Time's false dilemma, all in support of Kerry's delusion: trust UN bureaucrats! ------------------- http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002864.php If this material [left at Al Qaa Qa] was so damned dangerous, why doesn't the Times' editors ask why UNSCOM and the IAEA allowed it to remain in Saddam's hands? They lead off with this statement [26 October]: "President Bush's misbegotten invasion of Iraq appears to have achieved what Saddam Hussein did not: putting dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists and creating an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq." But the UN allowed Saddam to keep these dangerous weapons, which the Times reported breathlessly on Monday could be used as shape charges for nuclear weapons and one pound of which could bring down an airliner. Why leave such material in the hands of a man who had committed genocide, invaded a neighboring state to corner the market on oil, and had established ties to terrorists? ***The IAEA claimed that Saddam told them he would use it for civilian construction projects, that's why. [And the Time's always believes what the Good People at the UN say is true]*** If we are to follow the Times' logic, the weapons were not dangerous at all and would have never ended up in the hands of a madman while the IAEA allowed Saddam control of the explosives, but removing Saddam's control suddenly made them doomsday weapons and their availability a dire threat. If that makes sense to you, your name is Joe Lockhart or Pinch Sulzberger. Al-Qaqaa demonstrates the ineffectiveness and incompetence of UNSCOM's "inspections" regime. They left highly dangerous explosives in the hands of a genocidal dicatator with ties to terrorists, who took his last opportunity to spread the wealth to God know who before we finally ended the 12-year Iraqi quagmire in March 2003. The Times' late and rather self-serving crocodile tears over the failure of UNSCOM to destroy these high-tech explosives in the twelve years they had before the invasion sound as false as their reporting."
