Gay Patriot Header Image

Even at NY Times, Wishing Doesn’t Make It So

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:25 pm - April 7, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Media Bias

Over at Just One Minute, Tom Maguire (who accused me elsewhere of “hammering” Andrew Sullivan!) takes the New York Times editors to task for a disingenuous editorial this morning on the latest revelations in the investigation of former Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Be sure to read the whole thing because Tom does a great job of showing the paper’s ignorance (or perhaps I should say misrepresentation) of this whole kerfuffle.

Something else struck me about the editorial. Times’ editors write:

A year ago, Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called it “a monumental waste of time” to consider whether the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, the evidence has steadily mounted that President Bush and his team not only did that before the war, but kept right on doing it after the invasion.

If your sources are left-wing blogs and Bush-hating politicians, you might accumulate a number of sources contending that the President “and his team” manipulated intelligence, but if you study the facts of the matter — and the various reports which have been issued, you will find that no such evidence exists. To be sure, investigations are ongoing, but those that have been completed have not provided any evidence to buttress the Times’ claim.

It is an article of faith among Bush-haters that he’s a dishonest, deceitful man out to smear his critics and push his policies in order to benefit himself and his cronies. It’s unfortunate that a once-respectable newspaper is peddling (at least part of) this mean-spirited (& false) dogma.

No wonder many who once read the paper (like yours truly) are becoming increasingly skeptical of its content. A good editorial page should make its case such that those who disagree at least acknowledge the merits of it the paper’s arguments. I, for one, simply cannot take seriously a paper which issues innuendo in its editorials and misrepresents the story on which it is commenting.

We need a serious debate in this country. Democrats and their allies in the MSM have every right to criticize the president (and his policies). But, when they do so, the should stick to the facts as they are and not as they want them to be. A number of panels and individuals (including a special prosecutor) have investigated this matter. Even though they have reached conclusions which differ from those the Times‘ editors and others on the Left anticipated, those conclusions are no less newsworthy. So convinced are they of president’s perniciousnes that they ignore conclusions which contradict their convictions.

More and more it seems, New York Times editors (and writers) like many on the unhinged left, seem to be living in a fantasy world where every accusation against the president is true because they want it to be so.

I mean, the MSM still takes seriously a Bush critic who has long since been discredited by a bipartisan Senate panel.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):



  1. And speaking of the very Mr. Wilson, the fraud / liar discredited by that Senate panel…

    Have any of you big libs noticed his recent gay-baiting?

    Joe Wilson, via The Plank, via Right Side of the Rainbow:

    “You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. “He’s had 3 wives, he’s a womanizer, he’s done drugs.” But then they realized they couldn’t use those because I’ve never actually denied them. I mean I’m the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women.”

    OK libs… Let the rationalizing commence! (NOTE: I actually don’t care about the above; it’s his lying on Iraq that bugged me. But if you are honest and consistent about your victim status, YOU ought to care about the above.)

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 10:42 pm - April 7, 2006

  2. Calarato, no rationalization. It shows that he is a bad apple, just like everyone else involved in this mess.

    Comment by Pat — April 8, 2006 @ 12:12 am - April 8, 2006

  3. Yours truly simply cannot wait to wake up tomorrow morning, two hours behind Chicago, to read what the myriad imbeciles post here, disguised as “comments.” And you know what I’m talkin’ about! 😉

    Idiotarians, you hereby have my permission to unload whatever diarrhetic drivel (sorry, Calarato) you feel best impersonates an intelligent thought.

    However, I reserve the right to remind you that no matter how pathetic your lives may be, none of your lame-assed bullshit even comes close to reality. Hence, like it or not, you’re still gonna spend your lunch hour making my double-with-cheese value meal.

    Incidentally, if you serve me cold french fries again, rest assured you’ll be spending spring break stocking shelves at the .99 cent store.

    Moonbats, you’ve been duly warned. Proceed, therefore, accordingly.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 8, 2006 @ 12:46 am - April 8, 2006

  4. Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 10:42 pm – April 7, 2006

    “You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. “He’s had 3 wives, he’s a womanizer, he’s done drugs.”…

    It apparently didn’t bother Georgie’s dad or St. Reagan, both of whom appointed Wilson to foreign service posts.

    Of course, we all know that Republicans are quite randy. Apart from Bob Barr and Bob Dull–uh, Dole–there really are quite a number of Republican perverts.

    Comment by raj — April 8, 2006 @ 5:17 am - April 8, 2006

  5. #2 – Thanks Pat.

    #3 – Thanks Eric 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — April 8, 2006 @ 10:24 am - April 8, 2006

  6. What about how the DNC tried to discredit Nader during the 2000 race? Remember how one operative told the press, “well, with Nader, you know that he’s single and not married. Who do you think will be spending the nights with him in the White House?”

    Translation: This guy may be a faggot. Do you want a faggot as president?

    This from the party of “diversity” and “tolerance.”

    Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites!

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 8, 2006 @ 11:32 am - April 8, 2006

  7. #4: “Apart from Bob Barr”

    Actually, wasn’t it Barr who licked whipped cream off a stripper a few years back? Anyway, I suspect Bob Barr is now considered a moonbat by the “conservatives” who post here.

    As for the Bush’s verbal “declassification”, there are still some interesting questions to be asked. For example, if the President really declassified it, why all the cloak and dagger games in the disclosing it to Judith Miller? Why all the coy Bush statements about trying to find out who the leaker was when he could have just called a press conference and said he declassified it? And even though Bush appears to have the authority to declassify most things, there is a standard procedure to follow in doing so. Was it followed? A big question, of course, is just what was said – or left unsaid – in the President’s lengthy meeting with Fitzgerald. After all, it hardly seems likely that Fitz would have proceeded with his investigation as far as he did, if the President had simply stated to Fitz that he had authorized the declassification of any information in question. Anyway, the SCLM seems to have figured out that this is a big political story so let’s hope they keep asking the questions so we can watch all the Rubber Stamp Republicans dancing and twisting in their efforts to answer.

    Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - April 8, 2006

  8. In addition to the gay baiting, Joe Wilson, Class Act calls Bob Novak a “douchebag,” and Bill Kristol a “drunk.” No wonder the NYT and the KosKid left loves him, he’s as big on name-calling as they are.

    Comment by V the K — April 8, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - April 8, 2006

  9. Ian, the length of FItzgerald’s meeting likely shows how scrupulous a prosecutor he is. That he filed charges on perjury, but not the issue he was hired to investigate, just shows how thorough he is. And that he did not file charges on the underlying offense makes very clear that no one in the White House was guilty of the underlying offense. If such a zealous prosecutor couldn’t find anything on which to file charges, it is clear that there are no charges to be filed.

    Fitzgerald appears to have left no stone unturned and found no crimes hidden under any of them.

    So, let me summarize–Fitz proceeded as far as he did because he saw it as his job to do so. And found nothing. It’s only those on the Left who are convinced that the president committed a crime who continue to believe this no matter how much evidence has come out proven that these accusations (like those of Mr. Wilson) have little (if any) basis in fact.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 8, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - April 8, 2006

  10. fitzgerald’s still actively pursuing additional charges via the latest 18 month grand investigation. if you believe this is about nothing, then i’ll be delighted to check back momentarily.

    Comment by rightiswrong — April 9, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - April 9, 2006

  11. Yes indeedy. It’s about nothing. Good luck!

    Comment by Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - April 9, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.