The Old “Grey Lady” just can help Herself

The “Old” Grey Lady- courtesy of The Daily News

The ‘old’ Grey Lady, the New York Times just can’t help itself. There have been at least 3 stories that have been published in their pages that demonstrate that it can’t just report the news and not show bias.

It finally admitted that yes, there were weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq and there may still be some to be found. Despite of years of “Bush lied and people died” and there were no WMD’s in Iraq. it has now decided that there were WMDs and that some may still exist, today.

In a very long article the NYT describes the quantity of WMDs found and relates some instances in which our troops were affected by these weapons. Quoting the article:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials…”

So Bush was right there were WMDs in Iraq and there were well hidden that the UN inspectors were not able to locate them. But that is not what the Grey Lady wants to say, instead they disassemble:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built-in close collaboration with the West.

This is just a play on words and does not negate the fact that despite what was repeatedly said, Hussein had a large cache of WMDs at his disposal. The “active” part is real nice touch yet as Gabriel Malor explains that was never the rationale. Not in the sense that the NYT is implying.

Why would the NYT debunk years of Iraq had not WMDs? Well, here is the answer:

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. With regard to the Michael Brown case: the NYT used the witness and co-conspirator for strong armed robbery as their source to knock down Wilson’s testimony.

    The Crumpster must have some extremely bad brown stains on his undies because this case was meant to net him a large sum of money and now he will get nothing because the forensice evidence supports what has been stated all along… Michael Brown attacked Wilson first.

    As far as that dumb ox is concerned… I do not want to talk about him or I will get an extreme case of tourette’s syndrome.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s