New York Times: All The Lies That’s Fit To Print
It’s pretty sad when the source one can use to refute a New York Times piece is… the New York Times (Hat tip: Glenn).
The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.
Claiming that Bush changed his rationale “after his claims… turned out to be fictitous” sounds an aweful lot like the language of choice of a left-wing moron. To say nothing of the fact that it’s a flat out lie.
For proof, here’s a February 27, 2003 New York Times Editorial:
President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a “free and peaceful Iraq” that would…
That was February 27, 2003. Twenty days before the war even began.
