Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Good Morning New York Times!
The New York Times cock has risen:
Most Americans believed that their country had invaded Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but we know now that those weapons did not exist. If we had all known then what we know now, the invasion would have been stopped by a popular outcry, no matter what other motives the president and his advisers may have had.
It is also very clear, although the president has done his level best to muddy the picture, that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Mr. Bush's insistence on making that link, over and over, is irresponsible. In fact, it was the American-led invasion that turned Iraq into a haven for Islamist extremists.
Some may wonder why I am so angry at the the New York Times. It's all about timing, people, and their timing to criticise this president is off by more than two years. When we took to the street protesting this war, we all knew what the Times has JUST found out (arrogant folks take longer to convince). Is anybody going to fire Judith Miller? So what if she's in jail. So what if the Times changed editors and issued an apology for being a lousy paper during the buildup to the war. That apology does not give them the right to criticise this country's foreign policy or tell Iraqis that their US sponsored constitution sucks eggs and discriminates against women and reeks of Islamic law.
I will only rest when the Times and the Sulzbergers who own it issue an apology to the Iraqi people for a war they failed to see was based on a lie because of arrogance and bad judgement. And why finally discover the lie now? Could it be they waited until Bush's approval ratings fell to a record low (lower than Nixon's during Watergate)? Does it sell copies now to allow repressed reporters criticise this administration? Are Iraqi lives still so worthless here that publishing an apology to Iraq could hurt circulation?
I am trying very hard not to turn this blog into an Angry Arab type blog.
