Oh, this just makes me want to BREAK SOMETHING

Gah!

Editorial from the New York Times board:

Remember That Mushroom Cloud?

Published: November 2, 2005

The indictment of Lewis Libby on charges of lying to a grand jury about the outing of Valerie Wilson has focused attention on the lengths to which the Bush administration went in 2003 to try to distract the public from this central fact: American soldiers found a lot of things in Iraq, including a well-armed insurgency their bosses never anticipated, but they did not find weapons of mass destruction.

It's clear from the indictment that Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff formed the command bunker for this misdirection campaign. But there is a much larger issue than the question of what administration officials said about Iraq after the invasion - it's what they said about Iraq before the invasion. Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, may have been grandstanding yesterday when he forced the Senate to hold a closed session on the Iraqi intelligence, but at least he gave the issue a much-needed push.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet, to name a few leading figures, built support for the war by telling the world that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical weapons, feverishly developing germ warfare devices and racing to build a nuclear bomb. Some of them, notably Mr. Cheney, the administration's doomsayer in chief, said Iraq had conspired with Al Qaeda and implied that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.

(snip)

Mr. Reid wrested a commitment from the Senate to have a bipartisan committee report by Nov. 14 on when the investigation will be done. We hope Mr. Roberts now gives this half of the investigation the same urgency he gave the first half and meets his commitment to examine all aspects of this mess, including how the information was used by the administration. Americans are long overdue for an answer to why they were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The rest (free article):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/02weds1.html?hp

God dammit. Why did people think there were WMD in Iraq? To be sure, they thought so because Bush & Co. pushed that line vehemently.

But it never would have gotten the traction it did had the PAPER OF RECORD FOR THE WESTERN WORLD not published front-page articles from Dame Judy Miller stating bluntly that the WMD were all over the place over there.

After the Times said it, everyone else in the media felt comfortable in repeating it, burnishing it, hyping it, spreading it far and wide, thus giving cover to the White House to continue the lie. The fiction became the truth, thanks to the Times.

Yet the editors fail to mention this.

I like the Times, for the most part. They carry the columnists I respect, their writing is generally the best, their newswire is top-notch, and do not forget, it was the Times that carried Joe Wilson's article about Niger that ripped the lid off this whole crazy thing.

But god dammit, these guys have got to come to grips with their own role in this thing. The editors have a lot of blood on their hands. Snarky editorials won't wash that off.

n/t

But for conspiracy, not for failure to comply with a GJ request. She needs to be convicted of deliberately working with criminals in the administration in order to engineer an illegal war. And she needs to get a proportional burdon of the blame for every single death that has occurred as a result.

Methinks they want to wash their hands of the mess they helped create.

"tricked"

syndrome-a feverent refusal to take responsiblity for their actions. Not worth the paper they are printed on. (environmentally newspapers are so ecologically unfriendly anyway) It's time for responsible journalists to demand attention to this matter or leave.

my 2 cents.

still hanging on to the "liberal media" meme.

WMD's too". A lot of people thought that at the time. Why did they think that? Because Saddam had refused to let the U.N. weapons inspectors to do their job. However, when the Hans Blix and his teams were allowed access again, they could have cleared that up. Unfortunately, Bush couldn't allow that to happen so he pushed them out before they had completed their inspections so he could start dropping bombs. The evidence wasn't there, so they just made it up and no one has called them on it in any way that makes them accountable. Give 'em hell, Harry!

Saddam did in fact allow weapons inspectors in prior to the war but Bush pulled them out because they hadn't found anything.

determined that there was nothing to be found.

ignored or fired. The NYT didn't show the 100's of thousands of protestors. Phil Donahue was fired supposidly because of bad ratings. He had the most watched show on that station. The words of * and company were on the front page. The disclaimers when they came out were on the back page. The MSM was the propaganda arm of the government - period. They had enough letters from people against the war that if they really wanted to look into matters they could have. They didn't. Same with congress. * hasn't told the truth since he got into office. How anyone could have missed the crap * was coming out with and not think he had ulterior motives is beyond me. He said if Sadam didn't do 'A' we'd invade. Sadam did 'A'. They * said if Sadam didn't do 'B' we'd invade. Sadam did 'B'. Etc etc etc. And no one noticed?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

But I saw the title before I saw who wrote it, that was funny, I was about to tell you OH NO, don't do that! It sounds just like me, lol. Much appreciation for the shared frustration :) Just break pencils. Sometimes pens.

Okay, now back to the political commentary. On this, I agree, you'd think they wouldn't even bother with trying to spin it anymore. The facts are an interesting enough story all by themselves, heck, just sell the news. Hey Times, quit trying to play politics over it when you've already played a part in treason, war and murder. Enough already.

Remember when they sent us that mass email, telling us there was no story in Ohio? It was from Okrent, the public editor. I still have it somewhere.

Whoever wrote this is dissociative and seems to need medical attention.

Irresponsible bastards.

from my days as a truthout editor. I'd read the Times all day, the wire services, all their stuff. Most of it was top-notch.

After watching what they did to Clinton and how they've whored for the war, I no longer buy a paper. Can't stand to support these neo-con freaks. David Brooks???? Come ON.

I'm wondering when Krugman and the few others worth reading will jump ship

were no WMDs.

Seems to me somebody conferred with Scott Ritter on this thing and it laid out everything that we later found out to be true after the invasion.

Now who the heck was that guy that worked with Scott ritter to get the truth out that the media is only now recognizing as the truth?

:evilgrin:

clearly. ;)

At least they run Paul Krugman.

we would benefit by keeping the grass-roots efforts going here on DU. It is clear that you can get 1000 people here to sign on to one of your works. Now, far be it from me to tell you what to do .... but I would suggest that you keep the ball rolling. Strike while the iron is hot.

Those three vistors approached you for a reason, you know.

send them to the various media oputlets and tell them to read it and keep an eye on the date of publication.

:shrug:

The record of the paper : how the New York Times misreports US foreign policy by Howard Friel and Richard Falk (London; New York : Verso, 2004)

Without facts or law : the US invades Iraq -- The liberal hawks on Iraq : a pretense of sophistication -- Editorial policy and Iraq : a Fortune-500 company positions its product -- A crime against peace : Iraq and the Nuremberg precedent -- The torture overture : human rights, Harvard, and Iraq -- Interventionism and due diligence : overthrowing Venezuela's president -- A dodgy dissent : Nicaragua v. United States at the world court -- The Vietnam syndrome : from the Gulf of Tonkin to Iraq

They brush that off by saying, "Why, EVERYBODY thought there were WMDs. Oops." And there were enough votes for the IWR that they can hang it on Democrats as well.

Even if there WERE WMDs, the invasion wasn't the only course of action, and it was botched from the start.

What BushCo pushed was the urgency to invade, without a real cause, without a plan, without a coalition, and without adequate intelligence. The lies weren't only about WMD, they were also about the IWR. BushCo insisted they had no plans to invade. They only wanted to put muscle in their negotiations at the UN for inspections. Invade? Who, us?

But they got the inspections, they got a UN resolution, they got international pressure on Saddam -- and they ordered up an invasion anyway.

So while I think the WMD lies are crucial -- particularly the Niger claim -- BushCo brushes it aside by pointing to Democrats' complicity. Equally important, if not more so, is what they DID with the IWR and the intel they (supposedly) had.

Given the concerns about North Korea and Iran, it never made any sense to have a lower bar for invading Iraq, as we all know. WMDs or no WMDs.

in Sen. Roberts' reply letter to Sen. Kerry's request for expediting Phase II, Sen. Roberts says *You should be aware that the Committee did not agree to examine the vague notion of "use of intelligence by policymakers".....<snip> (and) *we will determine the form in which the Committee will express its findings and whether it will be possible or prudent to release them publicly* So, WHIG and the marketing of the war is off limits and they may not tell us what they learn.

the flames are getting too high. Roberts is trying to put out the fire with spitballs.

:rofl: and very funny tooo!

Or I'd settle for public floggings. What Miller did is a gross violation of journalistic ethics, and the Times' response has been weak-kneed in the extreme. Time to clean house, or just come out and declare themselves an organ of the RNC.

I recall an apology for failing to be more skeptical of the WMD claims.

Anyway, NYT blew it!!! They allowed themselves to be utilized as a propaganda machine in breach of their duty to report the truth. The evidence that the BushCo/neoconster regime was manufacturing reasons to go to an aggressive war was certainly out there.

I'll even put my real name on it if need be. LET THEM KNOW WE WANT TO BREAK THEM and we aren't going to put up with this lame ass manipulative spin shit any more!

Put a bit more politely, perhaps.

This is just an aside...but does anyone remember the interview that Dan Rather did with Saddam in the weeks running up to the invasion?

I wish they would rerun that interview (fat chance I know)

I'm on it....

I think I looked for the transcript months ago and couldn't find it :(

And probably with a mention that the NYT had refused to run it. They had no choice but to print it.

Don

...editorial policy. It's no skin off their noses. They can look all freedom of speechy, but still propagandize, distort, mislead, give a false emphasis to, put a false headline on, bury, marginalize, ignore, and outright lie in their presentation of the purportedly objective "news," to serve the interests of war profiteers and U.S.-based global corporate predators who own and dictate to them and us.

The NYT didn't just lie to the American people in their day to day reporting on WMDs and Iraq, and didn't just allow one of their reporters to run amok and conspire with the government to endanger and destroy the career of a CIA covert agent, and put the lives of her entire network in jeopardy, and shut down a counterproliferation project that had taken 20 years to put together--an act of treason--they bear responsibility for the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents, the torture of prisoners, the looting of Iraq and of the American people, the destabilization of the Middle East, and a potential nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.

They were critically important to creating the ILLUSION of support for this heinous war and its heinous perpetrators.

They put the stamp of approval of the NYT on every lie.

They promoted the lies of double agent and convicted bank felon Ahmad Chalabi, and permitted their front pages to be used by the Bush junta for an "echo" effect, whereby the gov't pays Chalabi to invent intelligence, Chalabi plants it in the NYT, and then the gov't asserts the lie and quotes the NYT to corroborate it--the most devious propaganda imaginable.

They did this consciously and deliberately to foment an unjust war. It was the POLICY OF THE PAPER to foment an unjust war. It wasn't a "mistake." It wasn't "lazy editors." It was intentional.

The NYT was the U.S. paper of record. It has a long, illustrious history of high quality journalism and editorial courage. Imagine you are the owner of a handwritten copy of Shakespeare's "Hamlet," and then, in a pinch, you decide to use it as toilet paper. That priceless, precious entity--a reputation for truth-telling, a powerful ikon of our most important freedom, the freedom of the press--was used for toilet paper. It was used to wipe the asses of these murderers and thieves and make them presentable in public.

The NYT was the original publisher of "the Pentagon Papers," and went eyeball to eyeball with the gov't over the lies about Vietnam. Why didn't they publish the "Project for a New American Century"? THAT's what they should have been doing! Instead, they deliberately and consciously created a safe climate of lies and deceit in which this cabal of warmongers, liars, and traitors, could operate with impunity!

The only thing to be said for the NYT is that, unlike the Washington Post, which went over to the Dark Side long ago and will never come back, the NYT at least acknowledged that something was wrong and are having an internal squabble about what they did. Some of the journalists at the NYT don't like being disgraced. Those at WaPo couldn't care less.

But until the NYT prints a foot high headline on its front page: "WE LIED TO YOU ABOUT IRAQ!--they can go on being toilet paper, for all I care. The damage is done, and it would take an all out, fervent and meticulous effort of restoration to save it.

---------------


"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? " --Hamlet (II, ii) by William Shakespeare

For Example...

You're a father walking down the street with your kids... there's a pack of dodgy looking youngsters down the street whom you pass. A minute later one of your children crumples to the ground after a rock hits her head. You turn around and run after the kids. If you don't get the right one, it doesn't matter - YOU GOT ONE. And he's going to pay because you're so goddam' mad that you don't care who you hit - as long as you hit one of them.

Immediately after 9-11, I think, collectively, America needed to pound on a country - someone had to take a beating for downing the WTC. And the current administration guided the group angst to Iraq - where they wanted it... for their own polical and economic agenda.

Newspapers ran with it because it was a great story - with all the right ingredients of a blockbuster movie... nukes, evil dictator and torturer, former enemy... etc.

Editors used it because that's what they were fed. And it was much easier to run with it - than to try and disprove something that their own sources were telling them. Sources that were the most important players in the information food chain were tossing precut meat and the pack simply devoured it.

In the heated, rapid world of a daily newspaper - the easiest route is the quickest and they were fed in nicely timed intervals... a trail of data that led the country into an unjustified invasion of a foreign country for nefarious and underlying reasons that had little to do with the official line.

Everyone understands that politicians bend the truth to a certain extent - but who would have ever thought that they would lie so convincingly, so strongly, so adamantly about something so serious?

Does it all come down to money? The Enronization of government? Possibly. I hope that the MSM can point a mirror on themselves and take a good look at their part in the tragedy - because there is seriously something wrong with the way this acted out.

in Iraq!!!

Its a lie repeated over and over and over again!!!

Where and when did this happen?

...as per usual.

When the PAPER OF RECORD FOR THE WESTERN WORLD is caught in such blatant inaccuracies, when they give a reporter free reign with little or no editorial oversight, when she throws her weight around in the office as well as in Iraq, when she continues reporting on Iraq (the oil for food "scandal") even after she was told not to report on Iraq any more, when all of this happens at the PAPER OF RECORD FOR THE WESTERN WORLD -- well you just gotta ask yourself, what is really going on here?

My take, is that we are indeed seeing Operation Mockingbird in action, that the press plants per that operation are all from the dark side of the agency -- the one that works for Papa Bush -- and that we *all* better damn well figure it out, expose it, and crush it. Otherwise we are doomed to be manipulated by this cabal, and the next, and the next ad infinitum. These people think they were born to rule, and have no interest in that old outmoded "We, the People" crap. They will give no quarter in their efforts to crush true democracy.

We need to understand the nature of the struggle and then put shoulder to wheel together to stop the juggernaut.

this war would happen, even when many on this site thought it was all a bluff.
Me personally, I was against going to war thinking it would be a bad idea. I was simutaneously fearful of needlessly losing some of our finest troops to an orgy of chemical weapons launched by wacko Saddam and also pretty convinced that Saddam was totally bluffing because he was afraid his neighbors(Iran) would try to invade and take territory. So either way, war was a dumb idea and I stated then, no good would come of it. Molly Ivins put it alot better"this will be the peace from Hell" and that was in like April 2003.

So here we are stuck in Iraq where leaving=loosing and "winning" is a no win bloodfest.

I got a copy of the NYTimes and pissed on it once. You should try it, get an archived copy with a Judy Miller article, it can be a bit cathertic.

Judith Miller should have been fired, not supported to the tune of millions for her legal team (when real reporters and staff are being laid off).

I've lived with Republican spin treated as front page news for my entire life here in OK, so I recognize it when I see it and the NYTimes is no better. My husband bought me an electronic subscription which I had to cancel because of their lack of accountability for fostering the climate that got us in this debacle.

Until we have true accountability at the White House, from the editors of the major papers, and at the "news" channels, America will not be safe from repeating this type of disaster.

My 2 cents.

1. Orwell was an optimist.
2. Ritter was right.

the terrific response that your letter of support to Reid received yesterday! I suggest that you (and/or other DU authors) write a letter of support to all Democrats in the Senate and House who 'come out' now against the war. Edwards yesterday, and Kerry last week, who knows who else in the future? You can send the letters of DU support to not only the responsible parties, but to all Democratic leaders, in an attempt to push them in that direction. Who knows who will be next? Hillary? Lieberman?

I liked the Lexus and the Olive Tree, but he has lost his mind since 9/11.

At least her heart is in the right place.

Are you guys for real? “Americans are long overdue for an answer to why they were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Ask Judy Miller and her editor. Once upon a time, journalists earned their living by doing a little more than printing administration propaganda as the truth. In the good old days, they did something called investigative journalism, and their editors double checked their facts before sending the stories to the presses.

If the New York Times is going to start sobbing about how the Bush administration lied to its star reporter about WMDs, the New York Times needs to close up shop and let someone with real journalistic credentials take over reporting the news.

The good news is that from your question it appears that you are finally moving from denial to anger. The bad news is that your movement through the stages of mourning is so slow that it will be the year 2010 before you reach acceptance.

and i thought..too late...the blood of 2000 troops are on their hands...then the minnesota paper is now coming out saying they were wrong..well i am glad they are finally saying it..but it is too damn later for all our soldiers dead and wounded...and it is too damn late for all the dead children in iraq...and the dead moms and dads and grand moms and grandps..who had their lives snuffed out because of the liars and incompetents and complicity of the media..they can never wash that blood off their hands , nor should they be allowed to...

they wrote of us who fought against this war as extremists, as conspiracy theorists, they painted us as nut cases...as old hippy's...

well i am none of those..i am a truth seeker..and i am damn proud of that...

i walk with the angels of my lost co-workers of 9/11 in the fight for truth...so they did not die in vain..so someone , someday is held accountable in this adminsitration..i have fought for the truth for those who lost their voice with no help from the so called main stream media , who aided and abetted this murdering administration...

and they will not now nor ever get exoneration from me!

nor will they pacify or get off lightly with me for being accomplices in the murder of so many innocent lives for their filthy lies!!

hold them to the fire..we allmust..because we are the truthseekers...we are the guardians of democracy..the rest can go straight to hell for their part in all of these crimes against humanity!

thanks Will..for being a truth seeker..

....and......

thanks from the bottom of my heart to all of you du'ers..who fought for the truth..against criticism and sacrafice to family and friends..to fight for the truth...

our democracy depends on each and every one of you...and the safety of all Americans depends on you...

fear is a waste of time..but truth is the only way to guarentee freedom and safety for all...

thank you truthseekers!!

fly

editorial.

They always cover that in sidebars on the Op-Ed pages, or in articles by the Public Editor. The Public Editor and the Executive Editor have already done the mea culpa thing for the Times on the Iraq coverage earlier this year. Bill Keller, the executive editor just did one on the Judith Miller issue.

They're not going to keep raising it over and over every time they write an editorial.

And I know you meant Damn Judy Miller. :)

for 15 years, let micheal jackson baby sit it, pull the plug on it, cement it in a steel drum and sink it to the bottom of san francisco bay, just in time to steal christmas while burning a flag in support of terrorism, after which I'll celebrate by hanging out with my NBA buddies eating freedom fries, maybe rape a white girl and then drop her off in the Bermuda triangle with my swift boat... that fatass Michael Moore can film it and we can all blame Clinton while Howard Dean screams.

Message to New York Times: EAT A BOWL OF DICK.

anything better on this site, ever.

Nicely NICELY done.

:)

I peed reading that. Just a bit, but still.

that means a lot. you urinating 'n all...

Really deserves its own thread.

:yourock:

lines up to add their echo.. The media is mostly responsible for our messy war, since only THEY had the tools to enlighten the public, and they chose to spread the propaganda. They wnate dit both way.. Hype the war, and then cover the nasty failure..and in the meantime, their 'reporters' got to suit up and embed with the troops..

The sold us out..pure and simple..

for what?

people buy lots of papers when there's a war..more papers sold=more ad revenue..

it always comes back to the money:(

the one supplying the plans, hardware and materials thru halliburton for N Korea, Pakistan, Libya, and Iran to build reactors and atomic weapons.

In a "Walmart like sale"... the guy that revealed that got a Nobel Peace Prize...

http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf worth the read, click on all the blue words..great links

It was the management's reckless cronyism that aided and comforted the neocons campaign of misdirection and misinformation, leading to the deaths of all of these kids. I still think JUDY was working for the DoD's propaganda wing.

burying any investigation and coverage of grassroots investigation? A lot of damage could have been prevented if the "paper of record" did their job instead of cajoling their treasonous buddies at the WH.

They rely on liberal support. This means if liberals put pressure for them to come clean by threatening cancellation, they either have to or fade into oblivion. The ball is in the liberal court, I suggest using it.

for all their woes.

You are right. The paper should be ashamed and choke on their words.
Time for them to eat some humble pie or shut their pie holes. One or the other.

Do you think Project Mockingbird ever really ended?

(Not excusing * and crew, but those in power have been saying this crap for awhile)

Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says

By Linda D. Kozaryn

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- A month ago, the United States called off its war planes to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate. When he failed to do so, the United States took action.

President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST - - 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said. "Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act now."

Less than an hour after American and British forces launched Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect the national interests of the United States and the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html

---------------------------

GORE REPEATS THAT SADDAM MUST GO.

U.S. Vice President Al Gore told Iraqi opposition leaders that Saddam Husseyn "must be removed from power," AP reported on 26 June. Among his audience at the Washington meeting were representatives of the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraq National Congress (INC), and the Constitutional Monarchist Movement.

London's "Al-Hayat" on 27 June said that the Iraqi participants in the meeting had pressed for a change in the way the U.S. administration now deals with the INC and specifically for the release of funds appropriated by the Congress. The paper added that the INC leadership also called on the United States to change the current rules of engagement given to U.S. forces so that they can strike other targets as well as to continue enforcement of the existing no-fly zones.

The INC representatives also reportedly called on Gore to help them combat the environmental disaster now being caused by the construction of dams that prevent the flow of water into the Al-Ahwar marshes (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 2 June 2000 and 16 June 2000). These marshes are inhabited by supporters of the Shi'ite opposition to Saddam Husseyn. According to the "Mideast Mirror" of 27 June, the opposition urged that U.S warplanes "destroy these dams in order to thwart the Iraqi regimes plans to displace the residents of the southern marshes."

http://www.rferl.org/iraq-report/2000/06/21-300600.html

-------------------------------------------------------------

Clinton rallies domestic support for strike at Iraq
Iraq, International, 2/17/1998

Even while insisting that the US is exhausting diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the current Iraqi crisis, US President Bill Clinton spoke at the Pentagon in an effort to drum up domestic support for possible US military strikes against Iraq.

Clinton said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. While the US would greatly prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis, Clinton reiterated that the US is ready to use force.

"There can be no dilution" of "the essence" of the UN resolutions, which call for unfettered access, Clinton said. He said that a solution must meet a "clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard," which is the "free, full, unfettered access" to disputed "presidential sites" in Iraq, access the US has repeatedly called for. "We seek to finish the job" of the UN weapons inspectors, Clinton said.

Clinton admitted that the potential military strikes, which have met with widespread international opposition, would not destroy Iraq's capacity to create weapons of mass destruction, they would, "seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors." Clinton said the strikes would leave Saddam Hussein "worse off" than he is now.

US Vice-President Al Gore said the US is "working around the clock to pursue a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis," but warned "When it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one."

Clinton said Iraq had repeatedly submitted evaluations of its weapons that were refused by UNSCOM, including six declarations on biological weapons and four on nuclear weapons. He said that when Iraqi reports of weapons capacities were disproven, the Iraqis simply amended the old reports in light of the new evidence. Clinton also said that UNSCOM was effective, although the Iraqis tried to place "debilitating conditions" on their work.

Iraq has called UNSCOM's impartiality and professionalism into question and has proposed an offer -- which the US rejected -- that special teams be formulated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to inspect the presidential sites for a period of two months. The teams could include UNSCOM members.

"Force can never be the first answer, but sometimes it's the only answer," Clinton said.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980217/1998021741.html

WMD's and Iraq was an imminent threat to the Unites States.

We controlled the air space of two thirds of Iraq at that time. How were they an "imminent threat" to us?

Which makes me wonder why the dems sided as they did over time.

Something stinks in all this, just cannot put my finger on it.

Like always.

Thats what they always do when confronted with their bullshit.

1. That Judith Miller believed everything that her source(s) told her, or that she spent much time or effort trying to verify any of it.

2. That anyone on the New York Times Editorial Board spent much time trying to verify that Judith Miller was actually a reporter, let alone trying to verify the crap porridge she sold them to print.

Know anybody who did?
Did the ones who voted for it vote for it
because of what Judith Miller wrote in the New York Times?