NYT editorial compares Bush admin to "Soviet Kremlin" (9-11 commis.)

[RichM]

For Wednesday's edition, the lead editorial is unusually angry. The Times, which has supported Bush's lies & coverups every step of the way, really tears into him:

Wrestling for the Truth of 9/11

"The Bush administration, long allergic to the idea of investigating the government's failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terror attacks, is now doing its best to bury the national commission that was created to review Washington's conduct. That was made plain yesterday in a muted way by Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor, and Lee Hamilton, the former congressman, who are directing the inquiry. When these seasoned, mild-mannered men start complaining that the administration is trying to intimidate the commission, the country had better take notice.

In a status report on its work, the commission said various agencies — particularly the Pentagon and the Justice Department — were blocking requests for vital information and resources. Acting more like the Soviet Kremlin than the American government, the administration has insisted that monitors from various agencies attend debriefings of key officials by investigators...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/opinion/09WED1.html

[Beetwasher]

1. And they want their convention in NYC?!!? BRING 'EM ON!!!

Motherfuckers! This is a big editorial.

[Terran]

2. Good Lord!

This is shaping up to be the worst week yet for the Bushies! When the NY Times turns on the junta, you know something ain't right with their world.

[Jacobin]

3. Uhm, this criticism coming from Pravda?

We're surely not in Kansas any more.......

NYT biggest pushers of the war and defender of Smirk now complaining about their glorious leaders methods

[Terwilliger]

4. Incredible!

THIS is one little smidgen of hope after 2 years!

[LibertyorDeath]

5. The media is finaly turning on these LYING SOB's

How Sweet it is !!

[Iverson]

10. not really turning

The NYT in this case only mustered the courage to take one obvious step after others had taken more. I agree that the rhetoric was a welcome retreat from uncritical acceptance, but I expect that it will be trotted out to demonstrate independence and bravery, when needed, rather than it representing an editorial sea change.

The NYT will stay a couple of steps behind mainstream centrists.

[KC21304]

6. So what was all the fuss about when

Iraqi scientists would not be interviewed without their minders ?

Sounds like Bush and company are taking pages out of Saddam's play book.

[punpirate]

7. What I find hilarious in this...

... is that the Bushies want "monitors" in the interviews with investigators. Now, just think back to one of their biggest complaints about the arms inspections before the invasion began--they were practically spluttering in their indignance that there were "minders" present during arms inspectors' interviews of scientists in Iraq.

The Bushies may not understand irony, but that doesn't mean it's not heavy in the air these days....

Cheers.

[berry]

8. If you watched the presentation on C-span tonight

this editorial is even more amazing. Kean and Hamilton were VERY careful in how they spoke. If the NYT wanted to downplay this, they could've. But they picked up on every HINT that the investigation was being thwarted. The bit about the minders was almost the only specific complaint (and I too thought about the Iraqi scientists!). So, :bounce:

The regular article (there's a link from the editorial) is also worth a read--more detail.

[King_Crimson]

12. The article notes that most of the problems...

lie in the Department of Defense..."problems that have arisen do far with the Department of Defense are becoming particularly serious." They noted that the Pentagon had not responded to a series of requests for evidence from several Defense Department agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for guarding American airspace from terrorist attack.

[LibertyorDeath]

9. Kick

[ShaneGR]

11. Uh, what????????????????????????

"which has supported Bush's lies & coverups every step of the way"

Uhhhh, don't think so. Been reading the times every day for a long time. This is definitely not true.

[LondonReign2]

13. Kick

n/t

[RichM]

17. The fact that you take this position says something about the limits of

your understanding of what you read. There is a big difference between taking what the Times says at face value (ie, what they claim to be saying), and seeing what they really are saying.

For example, at face value, they endorsed Gore in 2000. But actually, they lent credibility to Bush, & their coverage of the campaign NEVER touched his real background as a draft-dodger, corrupt businessman & environmentally-challenged governor in Texas, etc. They never questioned the SCOTUS decision. They acted to legitimize Bush from 12/12/00 on. They never defended Gore against the "serial exaggerator" charges & in fact, several of their reporters, like Richard Berke, specialized in bad-mouthing Gore. (After 9-11, Berke wrote a front-page piece saying how "relieved" unnamed leading Democrats were that Bush was president, & not Gore, to handle the nation's defense.)

Do you remember "Whitewater?" On the surface, the Times opposed removing Clinton from office. But actually, they helped to instigate the Whitewater witchhunt, defended Starr repeatedly, & lent essential credibility to the Republicans' efforts to remove an elected president.

As for the war: Only 2 weeks ago, they ran a front-page piece by the noted Bush sycophant David Rosenbaum. Its title asked the question, "Did the president actually lie about the facts in Iraq?" The whole article then proceeded to say that No, of course not, the president didn't lie. He may have exaggerated here & there, like all presidents do, but nothing he said could be called a lie.

Do you know who Judith Miller is? Do you remember her reporting from Iraq in late April? She front-paged a piece which said she saw some Iraqi from 200 yards away, & was told by the US military that that guy was a scientist who had told US officials that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD right before the war. She never even talked to the guy herself, let alone verified any of his information. She is known to be associated with rightwing Washington organizations, & to be friendly with the corrupt Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi.

For a major newspaper to print pure unsubstantiated gossip like this - which just happens to fit perfectly with what the US government wants to hear - is scandalous & indefensible.

Tom Friedman? Their big columnist star? He writes a column saying that finding a skull in a grave in Iraq "justifies" the war for him, because it proves what a meanie Saddam was. He says, "Mr Bush doesn't need to find any WMD, to justify the war for me." Do you find this to be a responsible statement?

There are dozens of examples like this. The Times has whored for the Bush administration, again & again. If you don't know this, it's because you don't really understand what you read.

[hedda_foil]

14. I think the dams have well and truly burst.

The coverage today is no longer drip by drip or trickle by trickle, but an overwhelming flood of damning articles on every front, from the Niger lies to the 911 coverup and beyond.

This NFL-style piling on makes the Watergate coverage look like a polite game of ping pong diplomacy.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. also, the reference to "mild-mannered" Tom Kean

objecting to the stonewalling by the WH leapt out at me.
BTW: Glad to see you enjoying the Times Rich! :)

[RichM]

20. Heh heh! I 'enjoy' an article like this, of course, but -

see post #17 above to see how I really feel!

Basically, when I see the NYT suddenly adopting a sharp attacking tone like this - so out of character with its usual supine position - it makes me think something is up - signalling a possible defection of elite opinion. That's why I notice it. It's NOT, however, that anything the Times does now could ever redeem them in my eyes. They have been in bed with the Busheviks way too long for that.

[jackstraw45]

16. Kremlin comparison....

At least the NYT editorial board shows some guts and criticizes the Bushies unlike the Washingoton Post board which supported the Iraq war and has made babysteps backwards since, trying to cover their own butts.

Their silence on the 9/11 commission stonewalling is deafening.

The evil doers in the White House must GO!

[Q]

18. Hamilton was also protesting the 'minders' from the WH...

...who insisting on being there while witnesses testified. He said this chilled the testimony and intimidated the witnesses.

[jackstraw45]

19. It is chilling...

and inexusable that, apart from the NYT, that Congress isn't up in arms over this.

It reminds me of Iraq wanting monitors in with Iraqi scientists during interviews more than chaperones for inspectors.

[seemslikeadream]

21. Amusing NYT telemarketing story

I was called yesterday by a lovely telemarketer who wanted me to subscribe to the paper. I let her go on for awhile and then said "When I see the headline Impeach Bush on the front page of the Times you can call me back and I'll sign up. She laughed and laughed and I'm sure passed the story on to her fellow workers. It made my day!

[Mandate My Ass]

22. definitely a welcome change

but I still have a problem with the the wording. "The Bush administration, long allergic...

This reminds me of similar puling phrases "if war breaks out" and "deficits are occurring" to name a few. An allergic reaction is something that happens involuntarily, its causes are outside of one's control and cause discomfort. Why not just say they've actively and strenuously opposed every effort to investigate the matter instead of this verbal contortion? Journalists are told to avoid passive construction and yet they use it all the time when talking about the actions of this administration. It's more than just bad form, it's dishonest.

Another phrase that raised a red flag with me is "Washington's conduct," instead of the more accurate "Bush administration's conduct." They're still cutting Bushco a lot of slack here, IMHO.

[leftofthedial]

23. The Beelzedubya Junta's White House acting like the Kremlin?

Well, duh!

They've acted exactly like state capitalists ever since they seized power.

Stalin would be proud.