Two years later from NYT

[passy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/opinion/18fri1.html?
For those who are members here is some quotes.
BTW I haven't read the Times online for a while is this common?
Do they publish many articles that sound like this or is this a one off?

"The Bush administration was famously flexible in explaining why it invaded Iraq, and the most important reason, in the minds of Americans and in the arguments made by American diplomats, turned out to be wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction to destroy. Worse, the specialized machinery and highly lethal conventional weaponry that Saddam Hussein did control was looted during the invasion and is now very likely in the hands of terrorists."

"If there is such a thing as the European street, anti-American feeling is strong and universal.
Things are even worse on the Arab street. While hope for change may be rising, opinion about the United States has never been as profoundly negative. Even under the best circumstances, it would have been hard for the proud people of the Middle East to acknowledge any benefit from an armed intervention by a Western power. And the occupying forces have made themselves easy to hate with maddening human-rights disasters. When the average Egyptian or Palestinian or Saudi thinks about the Americans in Iraq, the image is not voters' purple-stained fingers but the naked Iraqi prisoner at the other end of Pfc. Lynndie England's leash."

"Under constant fire from Sunni insurgents, the soldiers are seldom free to provide the good-will services that many would undoubtedly like to do. Instead they stand behind barricades, terrified that the next vehicle will be driven by a suicide bomber. The inevitable consequence is what happened to the Italian journalist and her protectors whose car was riddled with bullets en route to the airport. Far more often, the people inside the cars are Iraqis. "

"Like a great many Americans and most Europeans, this page opposed the invasion of Iraq. Our reasons seem as good now as they did then. Most important is our belief that the United States cannot work in isolation from the rest of the world. There are too many problems, from global warming to nuclear proliferation, which can be solved only if the major powers collaborate. Americans need both the counsel and restraint of other world leaders. The White House has almost unthinkable power, and the rest of the globe has the right to take a profound interest in making sure it is exercised wisely."

[yorkiemommie1]

1. good editorial

thanks for posting it.

peace.

[teryang]

2. Prior consistent statement?

Did they really oppose the invasion? It certainly seemed to me that their columnists were deeply committed to the propaganda effort of stirring up war hysteria.

The worm seems to be turning when the prospect of complete policy failure is becoming so palpable that institutions are lining up to avoid being counted in the blame game for the diastrous results of the worst American policies since Vietnam. Given the critical strategic importance, our blunders in the mid east may actually be far greater in import than those of the Vietnam debacle.

This follows Palasts acceptance of the apologia/myth for the oil industry captains: Don't look at us, we didn't support the neo-con plan.

Yeah, right.

[passy]

4. Is this the beginning of the MSM turning their coat?

I was thinking that it will happen sooner or later as these people can usually smell when the shit that's on its way to the fan.
And as you say they do not want to be seen as been complicit with the administration.
Is it the beginning of the end?

[eridani]

3. Point of information

Sgrena's car was not "riddled with bullets." It had very carefully targeted shots at the tires, the driver, and the back seat.

[passy]

5. kick for today