Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Times mea culpa (328 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Different "they" (none)
    Mr. Aurelius has been claiming that anyone who believes that the Administration was stupid enough to believe Chalabi are themselves stupid -- or lying. I woulnd't want to swear whehter the Administration believed Chalabi or not (or how much they believed him). But I think there's a plenty good enough case to consider it, and not to assume that the Times is lying becuase they do.

    Support international labor-organizing rights

    by Dvd Avins on Tue May 25, 2004 at 11:14:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  About the administration (none)
      Listen, these are smart guys, expericened guys. They've been around the block. They are hanging Chalabi out to dry because he is no longer an asset to them. No longer useful. That's the key operating word here useful. Read books like the Pentagon Papers (from when the Times was a real paper), or All the President's Men. You will see how these people really think and act.

      They were not duped, they were not stupid. They were dishonest, and they were reckless.

      Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

      by M Aurelius on Tue May 25, 2004 at 11:25:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (none)
        They are reckless. They are dishonest. I think they are also self-deceiving, as Nixon was, too.

        Hanging Chalabi out to dry is something they'd do in a heartbeat. But saying they were duped by him makes them look (to most Americans) even more dangerous to the country than if they were evil masterminds.

        I read All the Presidents' Men when it came out. I read large parts of the Pentagon Papers not too many yearts after.

        Support international labor-organizing rights

        by Dvd Avins on Tue May 25, 2004 at 11:47:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nixon was self-deceiving (none)
          but not about the fact that CREP was doing very illegal things.

          Likewise, the administration is self-deceiving, but they knew they were lying. Remember the 13 words. Why parse it that way if you are saying the truth. That's just one example of many.

          Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

          by M Aurelius on Wed May 26, 2004 at 12:10:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nixon Knew (none)
            Absolutely. And the Administration (though not necessarily Incurious George himslef) was lying about sepcific evidence. And they were lying about the degree which we would have to be concerned about low-grade biological and chemical weapons whose expiry dates had long passed.

            I don't think they were lying at first about beleiving that there were weapons, though, with active programs to develop more of them. I'm talking about late 2001 through Summer 2002.

            Support international labor-organizing rights

            by Dvd Avins on Wed May 26, 2004 at 12:16:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, neither did they care much (none)
              The weapons were never the reason for war. What I'm saying is that they thought they were a valid excuse, rahter than a complete lie. I think they also let Chalabi color their perception of how things would go after the initial combat was over.

              Support international labor-organizing rights

              by Dvd Avins on Wed May 26, 2004 at 12:17:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  How could they have not known? (none)
      I KNEW!!  I am no one.  I have no special access to facts or expert opinion.  I am just someone who knows the difference between conjecture and evidence.  What they kept calling a "smoking gun" as they waited to see if we would find such, I called A TINY SHRED OF EVIDENCE.  The case the admin. built against Iraq on WMD was purely circumstantial... 100%.  Any single argument they made could have been explained.  The idea is that, if enough of these arguments pile up, you start to believe there is something there.  That's fine.  But, given a lack of IMMINENT DANGER, and given that Saddam let the weapons inspectors back in, you really want to hold out for some ACTUAL EVIDENCE before you run off to war... without your allies... flouting the will of the UN Security Council... without enough soldiers, a plan for the aftermath to fighting or an exit strategy.  They knew there was no hard evidence.  They should have demanded some.  I blame the Dems in Congress as well.  And Colin Powell.  But the press also could have demanded more.
      •  Yep (none)
        The alacrity with which they browbeat anyone who demured at their bullshit betrayed the liars they are, administration and war whore media together.

        Scorn. Invective. Slime. They launched an investigation against Hans Blix to find out if he was blackmailable. They jumped on every nuance, every fantisized shred that could conceivably be spun their way. They sabotaged the inspections, over and over. (See Blix's book on this.)

        They are liars and scum, neocons in the admin and in the media, and they know what liars and scum they are, as does everyone with two brain cells to rub together.

        And now, the latest slither. Chalabi hoodwinked the admin and the media. The NYT mea culpa is an insult to every decent human being on this planet, sentient or otherwise. They should have kept their mouth shut because they can't say a word without exuding slime.

        we, along with the administration, were taken in. Yes, you really were.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site