Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That was a good read -- thanks for the link.

The ONLY honest person at the New York Times is Paul Krugman.

Everyone else lied about Whitewater and Al Gore.

but he and Krugman are it! Hebert does more local reporting, but he's the one, for example, who wrote the supporter of the Affimative Action lawsuit was a shell for the John Birch Society.

I often say the NYTimes is garbage except Krugman, but Hebert is there, too.

Still, this editorial is pretty harsh for the current incarnation of the NYTimes. a good sign, i think.

They whored for the invasion with editorials like "Just Give War a Chance" and ignored all the obvious failings and idiocy of this administration up until the disasters were too obvious to cover up.

That is strong language! I love it!

DTH

I'm sorry...but I get so sick of people saying he was misled by bad intelligence. That bastard and his cronies were eating bad intelligence with a spoon! Greedily! Two-fisted! They would have gotten down on their hands and knees ot lap bad intelligence out of a puddle if it would help them trump up a case for this stupid fucking invasion!

Whew. I feel better now.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

They would have gotten down on their hands and knees to lap bad intelligence out of a puddle if it would help them trump up a case for this stupid fucking invasion!

What a great line. Thank you for sharing it.

I just get so pissed off. "Oh, he really thought they had WMD's." If that's even true, it's because he was BULLSHITTING himself so fast and furious he could not have recognized a rational misgiving if it had painted itself purple and danced naked on a harpsichord singing "rational misgivings are here again."

The dancing naked on a harpsichord thing isn't mine, it's from Blackadder. Credit where it's due.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

They were WRITING the shit. They're more evil than you're giving them credit for.

Bake

They were not misled and thus they were certainly not innocent blameless bystanders. Nor did they "accidentally" misinterpret the intelligence and thus commit a negligent act. No, as you say, they eagerly lapped up any scrap and shred of justification that they could, from any source no matter how ridiculously compromised and self dealing like Ahmed Chalabi, or they invented it out of whole cloth, because they badly wanted this invasion. Thus their actions were most assuredly intentional and premeditated and worthy of the harshest condemnation. They jumped into this black hole with all deliberate speed and must be held fully responsible for their actions and the death and suffering they have caused.

to me it is just SO OBVIOUS the whole damn thing was made up - there was no MISLEADING. WE WERE F***ING LIED TO. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Funny, ya' don't here any repugs claiming Bill and Hillary got 'bad investment advice' on that Whitewater thingy, now do ya'?

Sorry fucking, hypocritical bastards!

excuse me. he is total piece of shit who hasn t succeeded in anything...he had his thugs strong arm the florida recount with the slimeball scalia putting in the fix! his 'business' deals were handled by his gangster cronies!!

The NYT article treats him as legitimate. This ...

"The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy."

... is the weakest of criticisms, even without reading between the lines for the electoral fraud.

That was by the editors of the NYT, not a columnist. Looks like they were as pissed off at Shrub's speech as the rest of us...

blows fall way under and beside the mark. I would flunk this dishonest mediocre editorial if I was grading it as a schoolchild's composition.

Just to mention one simple example: the very last sentence, which claims "he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices." That's bunk. That's not at all what the problem with Bushler is.

The NYT really doesn't "get it" at all. This is no accident. It CAN'T "get it," because as a newspaper, it's just as corrupt & lousy as Bush is as a president. They both have the exact same defect; that's why the paper can't criticize the phony president on anything like an accurate basis. Both of them are servants of the privileged class; both of them merely PRETEND to be serving "the people" while they are really agents of the top 1%.

Look at this lie here: "He committed the military to war, but he told civilians they deserved big tax cuts." These lying pieces of sh*t use the word "civilians." They mean THE RICH. Why can't they say so? Because they're scared the wealthy wouldn't like it. So they have to hide what they really mean, to make sure it won't step on the toes of anyone important. :puke:

They helped install Bush.
They're the single most damaging newspaper
in the world because they've retained prestige
in spite of their whoring ways.

But they do have some good columnists.
Krugman's the best (duh), but I agree with
the previous poster that Hebert is good.
I also like Frank Rich, tho I haven't read
much by him lately.

Uh, he's still there, right?

I llke the New York Times but don't agree with everything they lay down.

n/t

and I wonder how much of the concern, outrage, etc., we see this week results simply from being told what the bill will be (even though it's understated). Why should this amount shock anyone who has paid any attention at all to the events of the last 6 months? Why haven't those events (such as the complete lack of planning for a completely foreseeable disaster--"how could we have known that after years of sanctions the infrastructure would not be well maintained; how could we know that police who won't get paid because you have just taken out their bosses won't come to work?" etc.-- themselves provoked negative reactions from most people, including editors at the "best" newspapers?

to one of his granddaddy's favorite people...Hitler....great name for Bush!

This isn't a case of bad luck, tough breaks, and a touch of wimpiness in risking political capital. Whistle Ass was hell-bent on this war, the whole world warned him about the risks, he flipped the finger at them, thought his retard-undereducated mind knew better than anyone else, and rolled the fucking dice with thousands of lives and our economy at stake like this was some frat poker game.

I can't wait to pick up my morning paper at Mac's and read that column in print :evilgrin:

and with that, I'm off to breakfast!

and safer place... but nope...as I recall he asked us to get back to work and shop...

As far as I'm concerned there's no statute of limitations; it's never too late to turn against Boosh.

He has been a miserable failure in both arenas, why do they have to pretend otherwise?? Because they voted for the idiot boy and don't want to look like they had no clue who they were voting for?

when he has been much more than that..."

What in the world do they mean? They are trying to say that this miserable sadistic lying little gangster has provided moments of "heroic leadership," at times in these last few years.

Again, this demonstrates that the rot in US society extends far beyond the White House -- it's in the society's flagship newspaper as well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But that's just me. NYT meant to kiss ass - so as not to be labeled communists (which they'll be anyway)

I do however like this line:

"Most of the Bush domestic agenda is a sad deflated
version of its earlier incarnation."

Sad, deflated - it's a good sinonym for bush.