Ever since the war in Iraq began, the New York Times has been insisting there was not, and never had been, any WMD to find in Iraq. According to them, the whole WMD story was a big lie calculated to deceive Americans into supporting the effort to topple Hussein. But recently they published an article detailing the looting of a WMD site just after war started. Is this a position change?
In Slate, Christopher Hitchens does a wonderful job of tearing the grey lady a new one. Read the whole thing! Here's a sample:
My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam's propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq's physicists as "our nuclear mujahideen."
No comments:
Post a Comment