From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 12:33:19 MDT
On 22 Aug 2002 at 10:41, Mermaid . wrote:
> [Joe Dees]By who? The Times? I heard Henry Kissinger myself on a TV
> talk show recently concerning his position on Iraq, and it is clear to
> anyone with ears that the Times' assertions concerning his position
> were a blatant lie.
>
> [Mermaid]whoops. I forgot you dont read what I send this way.
>
Oh, no; I fully read it, and their willful mischaracterization of Kissinger's
position vis-a-vis Iraq was intended to reinforce their own editorial slant,
which had bled over into supposed 'straight news' stories.
>
> [Mermaid]Even the neo-cons havent suggested that the NYT 'lied'. (I
> have snipped the relevant portions for the political side of the
> argument.) That aside, my point is not about the actual content, but
> about how a group of people have taken it upon themselves to instruct
> independent newspapers about what they should put on their pages. To
> put it politely, its a bunch of troublemakers with an agenda of their
> own. Anyone with half a brain know what it is and those without will
> simply bite the line thrown at them by this group. These are probably
> the same folk who keep Fox News on our television sets. A tragedy.
>
They have every right to propagandize, and others have evey right to
call them on it.
>
> <snip>
> The chief beef is that the Times story prominently included Henry
> Kissinger among the GOP critics. The problem is that the former
> secretary of state had argued in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece
> that there is "an imperative for preemptive action" against Iraq.
>
> The Times highlighted some of the caveats in the Kissinger argument,
> such as that "military intervention should be attempted only if we are
> willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed." The
> paper did note that Kissinger was "far from ruling out military
> intervention." <snip>
>
And where did the Times mention such an 'imperative'? Nowhere, that's
where, because it undercut their position. They highlight the
qualifications and downplay the conclusion. And of course the US
would stay in Iraq long enough to assist in democratic nation-building; it
will be a long time before the US forgets the lesson of post-Soviet-
withdrawal Afghanistan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT