[conservative in nyc]

We all know where this is going. The Slimes apologized for their allegedly bad WMD coverage. Their next question will be why President Bush hasn't apologized, like they have?

Of course, there's no mention of the sarin weapons found in Iraq and no mention of Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger. But the truth has never gotten in the way of the Slimes agenda before. Why start now?

[Destro]

The NYT were for the war before they were against it.

[zarf]

No mention that Iraq is merely a stepping stone to Iran's door step. If Bush wins, it's an Iranian showdown.

[MJY1288]

Yup, Lets see how the NYT's can explain away the reason why Saddam Hussein and his Regime was trying to purchase "Yellow Cake" Uranium Oxide on the black market??????

What will be their excuse?....... Saddam was manufacturing a better toothpaste? Was he trying to cure cancer? or was he trying all he could to resume his NBC programs as soon as he could?

Saddam Hussein had his chance to become a member of the civilized world and he chose not to. He called George W. Bush's bluff and lost big. The world is better off and one less murderous dictator is out of power....... When will the NYT's accept this reality?????

[Southack]

"Congress would never have given President Bush a blank check for military action if it had known that there was no real evidence that Iraq was likely to provide aid to terrorists..."

That's a poor argument. Congress, the New York Times, and President Bush knew as did we all that Saddam Hussein was paying $10,000, $15,000, and $20,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's aid to terrorists.

Likewise, it was common knowledge that Abu Nidal was in a Baghdad hospital, that Ansar al-Islam was in Northern Iraq, and that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq...among others.

Libya has also pointed out that Iraq was participating in its WMD programs (plural).

The NY Times can apologize all day long, but that's a poor substitute for being right in the first place, as was President Bush.

11 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[hobson]

Not so fast. The Reality of Saddam’s Threat The U.S. could not have delayed dealing with Saddam Hussein.

This is a long but excellent read.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Here the Slimes goes again.

Nice excuse -- their plagiarizing left wing "journalists" were too busy slamming Bush on the politically expedient DNC talking point of the day about international consensus to do an in depth investigative report about the WMD.

Now they are adopting the talking points that Bush should admit there are no WMD in Iraq and should apologize. Maybe they should stop listening to McAwful and his shrill buddies over at the DNC and should launch an investigation into the Iraq-Niger uranium connection or do a two month front page expose "Abu Garib-style" on the Iraq-Lybia-Al Qeada nuclear weapons development connection. But we know they won't because McAwful didn't tell them to do so.

[piasa]

Get a load of the mint tea flavored Kool Aid the Times is trying to serve up now.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Congress would never have given President Bush a blank check for military action if it had known that there was no real evidence that Iraq was likely to provide aid to terrorists or was capable of inflicting grave damage on our country or our allies. Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. And even though this page came down against the invasion, we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions.

<sigh> In their apology, they completely ignore the fact that going into Iraq because of WMD was only one of several justifications. And not necessarily the most important one either. I believe that the justification most often used by the U.S. was the fact that Iraq refused to obey U.N. resolutions.

So, once again, the NYT is lying by omitting pertinant information.

[Tamzee]

But they did not find any evidence of new weapons programs or stocks of prohibited old ones.

No stocks of prohibited weapons? What about the Al Samoud missiles? The world watched as the inspecters forced Saddam to destroy them...

[KeyWest]

Where is their apology for saying that Bush lied in the State of the Union address on Niger? That is certainly WMD.

[CGVet58]

Read the article more closely; this is not an apology, it is sophistry. At every point within the above where the slimes does a supposed "mea culpa" the phrase is immediately mitigated by (either a...) slimethink castigating the administration for a greater error (thus minimizing/denying the just-admitted sanctimony of the slimes error) or countered with the usual spewing about "violating the CONSENSUS" mantra.

Reminds me of questions during an interview - when asked by a prospective employer what your weaknesses are, you say something that though at first impression might be a response showing your weakness but in reality demonstrates a strength, ie: "...I believe I can always improve my people skills because I'm so results oriented that I tend to expect alot from those around me, as well".

The slimes continues to hang their hat on:

1) Bush made mistakes;
2) Bush lied;
3) Bush should fess up to the American people;
4) Bush invaded despite wide intl opposition.

Now, the left will present "more nuanced" counters...

5) "we're not blaming ourselves for failing to understand the thought process of an unpredictable dictator" - we on the Right have understood that the nature of the enemy and our vulnerability contributed to our taking-the-offensive-before-threat-is-imminent. We know that "imminent threat" - like "smoking gun" - is a leftist oxymoron... but mark my words, CIN, with the above quote, the slimes now gives guidance to the left that it's ok for them to take action based on their failure to understand Saddam, but not ok for us to proactively deal with him.

6) Other "equally brutal and potentially more dangerous dictators"... so now it seems - per the slimes judgement - it's ok to make war on other dictators, just not Saddam. As if that were the only criteria. This is a smokescreen, just another spin on the recent leftist rant which falls along the line of "if we attack A because of X threat, then SURELY we must attack B because of XX threat".

7) The rest is the usual batch of lies by the slimes, "thoroughness we directed at the Iraq-AQ link"... "if we had known there were probably no WMD" (notice the two passives almost cancel each other out as only two negatives can - it was saddams responsibility to completely disclose everything and prove he'd gotten rid of it)... "unprovoked attack" (one of the UN resolutions in '94, iirc, essentially reinstated the conditions of war that the ceasefire predicated on Saddams cooperation had paused -- there was no 'unprovoked attack' - we were at war)... or my favorite, "Saddam and his army... no threat to the US" - again, the slimes moves away from the threat of WMD in a bottle coupled with our vulnerability.

No sir, the slimes hasn't apologized; nor do I expect them to. They are, after all, the enemy within.

CGVet58

[Mr. Jeeves]

And even though this page came down against the invasion, we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions.

"We're sorry we let the president get away with it." What kind of apology is that? It's like the Flintstones:

Fred: "You're stupid."

Barney: "You'd better say you're sorry, Fred!"

Fred: "OK, I'm sorry you're stupid."

Does the times (I'll use lowercase, since they did for "president") really think they are fooling anyone?

[Billthedrill]

UN resolution 1441 (and the dozen or so others) did constitute a "broad international consensus." It wasn't that the UN and its member states didn't recognize the problem, it was that they didn't intend to do anything about it. We now know some of the motivations of certain key member states, notably France, Germany, and Russia, and they are self-serving and sordid.

This has consistently been presented as some sort of international trial by jury in which there is presumption of innocence except in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and every political motivation both international and domestic to ensure that no such evidence would ever reach that level, whether to effect a lack of overt military activity that is quite incorrectly labeled "peace," or to tear down a political foe. Those are not particularly sound bases for foreign policy, or for real world peace either.

One sign of the sort of revisionism needed to make the Times's policy less obviously contradictory is the astonishing statement that Saddam, who had gassed both Iranians and Kurds, stacked up bodies by the hundred thousand, and invaded both Iran and Kuwait and threatened to do so to Saudi Arabia, was "no threat to his neighbors," or more derivatively, "no threat to the United States." A fellow who makes every effort to appear threatening, is so. Whether he has the wherewithal to follow through is irrelevant.

[Ditto]

During the run-up to the war, The Times ran dozens of editorials on Iraq, and our insistence that any invasion be backed by "broad international support" became a kind of mantra. It was the administration's failure to get that kind of consensus that ultimately led us to oppose the war.

But we agreed with the president on one critical point: that Saddam Hussein was concealing a large weapons program that could pose a threat to the United States or its allies. We repeatedly urged the United Nations Security Council to join with Mr. Bush and force Iraq to disarm.

If I read this correctly, The Times seems to be of the opinion that even when they feel threatened, they would take no actions to defend themselves unless some third party gave them premission.

I don't know what you call that thinking, but it surely isn't logical.