Skip to main content

View Diary: New York Times Gets it Half-Right on Bush's Lies (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not true... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickMassimo

    things have changed.  From the editorial...

    At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow. [emphasis mine]

    Only now is everyone realizing that chance was blown.  (Of course most people here have said that for years).  Attitudes have changed.  People are slowly but surely dumping support for the war.  Hell, I'm a conservative...I only come to dKos for the rigorous discussions to be had and to broaden my perspective.  dKos is a major reason for dumping support of the war.

    •  Waking up to something ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vesticular

      ... is not the same as "things changing." And the "chance to mitigate the chaos" relied on George W. Bush to subsume his ego and entitlement, listen to some hard, complex truths, make subtle distinctions and come to nuanced decisions that probably would not have produced results in line with his best-case pre-war scenario.

      Uh-huh. Does that all the time.

      Just because they say things changed doesn't mean they did. And they thought a guy who decided to invade Iraq without knowing that there was more than one kind of Muslim was the man to take advantage of the "chance to mitigate the chaos," if in fact that ever existed. So I'm a little skeptical of their assessments in general.

      But I digress. My point is that there's nothing in that op-ed that the 25%ers, the O'Reilly/Hannity/Malkin crowd, haven't already heard (and denounced the speakers thereof as terrorist-lovers). They probably think the NYT already said all that a long time ago. They love to hate the Times, unless Judith Miller or Michael Gordon is telling them what they want to hear of course.

      I'm glad you come to the site, by the way.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site