BlogWood: MT Archives

Kristof smells something fishy, but not quite rotten

In his regular NY Times column, Nicholas Kristof, a supporter of Bush’s war, wonders if he’s had the wool pulled over his eyes, but stops way short of actually attaining a firm grasp on reality:

My guess is that "Saving Private Lynch" was a complex tale vastly oversimplified by officials, partly because of genuine ambiguities and partly because they wanted a good story to build political support for the war

So, the mainstream paper of record is finally implying that the Pentagon may have embellished this story a little bit, but in an apparent abundance of caution, the Times wont come right out and say we were lied to. Nicholas starts this same column with a little joke about WMDs:

I've been roaming Iraq, turning over rocks in my unstinting effort to help the Bush administration find those weapons of mass destruction. No luck yet.

He then goes on to explore a different Iraq related falsehood, writes it off as mere oversimplification, and completely ignores the fact that without WMDs there was no legal justification for an unprovoked attack on another sovereign nation.

Bill Clinton lied about sex and was impeached. Bush has lied (and people have died)
about every justification for invading Iraq, and there is almost no talk whatsoever in the mainstream press about holding him responsible for his actions. Could this be because the press itself was a huge and willing player, accepting Bush’s increasingly incredible assertions without so much as a whimper of truth? Might the press have been blinded by the impending excitement and potential ratings of sleeping with the Pentagon - er - I mean being embedded?

Bush needs to be impeached.