MORE ON THE NEW YORK TIMES' REVISIONISM (That Iraq was only
about "stockpules" of WMD's & absolutely nothing else)
Instapundit.com
At The Mudville Gazette.
mudvillegazette.com
UPDATE: Tom Maguire emails:
The Times was pummeled in Nov 2003 for this revisionism -
Andrew Sullivan (the old Andrew) had two timely posts.
andrewsullivan.com
andrewsullivan.com
EJ Dionne, *not* a Righty, criticized Bush after the 2003
SOTU for offering *three* rationales for war, and asked him to pick one.
workingforchange.com
Finally, here is the speech Feb 26, 2003 speech to which the
NY Times referred.
whitehouse.gov
Really, the Times -- and those others who are trying to rewrite history here -- ought to be ashamed. No one denies, of course, that Bush talked about WMD, but what's inexcusable is the way the critics are now trying to deny that he talked about anything else.
Roger Simon adds this observation:
<<<
T]he Times' own executive editor wrote a long, positive profile in their magazine (before the war) of Paul Wolfowitz, in which the Deputy Defense Secretary speaks ad infinitum about the democracy argument. What I think is really going on here is liberal embarrassment. They have been caught on the wrong side of history. Worse, the anti-idealistic side.
>>>
Good point.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Tom didn't say he posted on this, but he did. Read the whole thing, which goes beyond the comments above, but this point is worth quoting:
<<<
Years later, the Times may be imagining that, since disarmament was the only reason that liberals wanted to hear, it must have been the only reason Bush offered.
Well, they knew better at one time, and perhaps they will again.
>>>
Especially if we keep reminding them!
instapundit.com
rogerlsimon.com
justoneminute.typepad.com |
