Why Are We Back In Iraq?

When did the New York Post editors begin composing The New York Times' front page. On Wednesday, December 10th R.W. Apple Junior's "news analysis" is entitled "An Insurgent Gains Status." Is The Times implying that Dr. Howard Dean is involved in the daily attacks on our troops in Iraq? The word appears three times in Mr. Apple's article and is also linked to Eugene McCarthy. Jodi Wilgoren also used the word to refer to Mr. Dean. Interestingly enough, the first letter on that day's reader's letters uses it in regards to the situation in Iraq.

It's bad enough The Times has recently helped knock the Reagan movie off CBS, gotten the running back Maurice Clarett kicked off his college football team, and helped Bush and Co. link Iraq and Al Qaeda (mostly through Judith Miller's unnamed source tomfoolery). But referring to Dr. Dean as a terrorist goes a little too far.

In the fawning front page tribute to the occupation administrator of Iraq, Mr. L. Paul Bremer ("U.S. Occupation Administrator Adjusts Strategy as Turmoil Grows in Iraq," July 13, 2003), The New York Times continues to serve the will of a corrupt and treacherous junta.

On the purloined desk of his purloined study in the purloined presidential palace, Mr. Bremer displays the motto "Success has a thousand fathers" although he leaves out the part about failure. While the longtimee protege of Mr. Realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, may believe that the aphorism conveys 'an admonition for teamwork', it is unconscionable for the Times to allow this perversion.

As any scholar of history knows, President John F. Kennedy, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, prominently uttered the old Jewish saying. The motto's truemeaning is that many want to take credit for successes but no one ever admits failure. The chief executive willingly took blame for his actions without passing the buck on to prior administrations or the CIA.

During the Clinton Administration prominent space (usually on the front page) was provided for countless alleged exposes on the 'Whitewater Scandal', while Bush is the beneficiary of constant whitewashing. How else to explain the ommission of articles on the 9-11 Commission meetings in May which revealed obfuscations and cover-up attempts by officials in the FAA and NORAD, and last week's testimony by the world's most renowned expert on Osama bin Laden, Rohan Gunaratna (in which he revealed that the September 11 attack - 'Holy Tuesday' - was specifically plotted in January 2000 in a meeting monitored by the Malaysian secret police at the request of the CIA)?

It's reprehensible that The New York Times has no ongoing investigation of the 9-11 crimes. When did Dick Cheney become Executive Editor of the 'paper of record'?

In addition, there are far more than 16 words from Bush's State of the Union Address that can be categorized as falsehoods such as "he pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country", "nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons", "US intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwardsof 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents", "our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapon production", "Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview", "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Qaida", and "the dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons."

The most offensive part of the State of the Union address was the disregarding of the Constitutional protections of American citizens when Mr. Bush bragged that "all told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States." This scoundrel is gleeful that 'suspected terrorists' have been murdered without any sort of trial (such as the election day assassination of an American citizen with an Israeli-like operation) and The New York Times allows him to get away with it.

Alessandra Stanley's attack on Oliver Stone ("A Noted Filmmaker in a Tense Land," June 5) continues the Embedded Media's crusade to defend the brutal regimes that control the 'Axis of the Good' - US,Britain and Israel. Any time a lone, brave soul from the left (such as a Sean Penn, Michael Moore or Tim Robbins) raises their voice in dissent he or she is branded with a mark as "famous", "simple" or "foolish."

In one horrifying sentence, Ms. Stanley describes an Israeli soldier shooting at rock-throwing Palestinians as merely "arrogant", but still "innocent." Perhaps she can reapply these descriptions in a future story concerning the NYPD's applications of concussion grenades, plungers and US Post Office uniforms.

While it's true that Ms. Stanley doesn't sink as low as a "Foxified" cheerleader, this piece is as one-sided as her typical 'bipartisan' media critiques. But then this "fair and balanced" television reviewer has also written on the "proliferation of television choices" for frustrated antiwar groups that this reader is never able to find in the TV listings. I'm not surprised by anything the Times prints while still publishing Judith Miller's Pentagon de-briefed WMD deceptions. This despite her violation of the Times' policy that bars its writers from belonging to public political groups, as in her alliance with the recent government hire - the repugnant Daniel Pipes.

Meanwhile, the last open 9-11 Commission hearing provided nothing "fit to print," even though collateral bombshells were dropped in testimonies by the FAA and NORAD. Thank the heavens, at least, for Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman who compose the only liberal unit within the Times' mostly yellow pages.

On The New York Times' Op-ed page of Monday, June 30, Nixon apologist William Safire contends to 'place a high value on personal freedom' ("The Bedroom Door") and like Supreme Court Justice Scalia may not have'nothing against homosexuals', but his column is filled with not-so-cleverly-coded slurs against gays.

Same-sex marriage, when referred to as 's-s-m', is reduced to a sexual practice such as S & M. Although a quick search on Yahoo reveals hundreds of articles and Websites that have employed this term, even some gay sites, it is as offensive as using anti-life instead of pro-choice or anti-troop instead of anti-war. Perhaps, Mr. Safire can enlighten us with a Sunday Magazine weigh-in on the ugly term's genesis.

Mr. Safire also declares that "polls will show a majority of voters are uncomfortable with the notion [of gay marriages]." The use of the word 'will' is incorrect unless Mr. Safire is referring to a phone conversation with Miss Cleo or an unseen volume of the writings of Nostradamus. Years ago, polls reflected majorities against various rights for women, immigrants and African-Americans but slowly crept towards a collective open-mindness.

It's nice to hear that Mr. Safire doesn't still 'fret about same-sex marriages', maybe now he can find the time to fret about his (and The New York Times') propagandistic use of language.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/17/2004 06:35:00 PM