Orkent has ruled that his NYT's editorial columnists are self-checking and under no obligation to be anything other than persuasive. If they can seem plausible by using facts, fine. If they can seem plausible by creating fictions, that's also fine.

What happens when they lose their plausibility? I dunno. Go off and write a book about the experience, I guess.

The US Constitution was about 4 months from the Committees first meeting to the Signing, and the NYT is whining about the Iraqis taking 3 months so far at this stage?

i see reynolds' defense and quotes to various speeches, but to me at the time, it was obvious that the primary rationale for the war was the threat of WMDs. and i was fine with it. i don't doubt that the spread of democracy was also mentioned often, but face it, when you are sitting just a year or so after 9-11, and someone tells you iraq has WMDs, i didn't give a flying crap about democracy in iraq. i wanted them gone before i was.

so, the times is wrong if it suggests that democracy was a 'new' rationale after the wmds could not be located. i don't think its wrong to suggest that the focus shifted towards it, though. just like a good lawyer, when one argument doesn't fly, you gotta shift your focus to another one for the jury, new or not, or you're dead. you cannot make all your arguments with equal force at the outset, you need to have themes because a jury (or the public here) cannot focus on more than one or two themes. the good professor should know that.

Back before the war I cringed whenever the administration even used the WMD term. The only thing that truly sounds capable of "mass destruction" is a nuke. Ricin or gas or biowarfare doesn't have the same implications. I wish Bush had NEVER used the term WMD, because it set the bar so high to begin with. So when they didn't find them right away you just knew the whole prowar rationale had fallen apart at least on a prima facie level. Seemed like everyone seemed to sag right then. (Of course I was reading Andrew Sullivan a lot at the time too.)

Following Iraq for 10+ years prior to the run-up to the war, I think that the WMD argument was VERY strong. Read Kenneth Pollack's "the Threatening Storm."

It just seems dicey it wasn't in retrospect to a lot of people, IMO.

It's becoming more and more clear why the Democrats won all those elections during the Fairness Doctrine era.

You know, the other day I was reading Malkin's rant about how left-leaning Repubs are called "mavericks," and something struck me. We've been pointing out this bias for some time now, and really nothing has changed. Yeah, a few of most egregious offenders (Rather, Eason Jordan) have been booted, but overall the MSM is still the propaganda/campaign arm of the DNC. And frankly, I don't think it will ever change. The whole thing is too hegemonic, entrenched and pervasive.

We're just going to have to face the fact most journalists get into journalism because they have a liberal axe to grind. The best we can hope for is to create a Socratic dialogue in which competing viewpoints vie for public acceptance.

The Times shows that it has lapsed into Political Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (PDHD).

Yeah, but what does Hawkins think about it? Inquiring minds want to know.

Soon the STIFFs (Shun The Internet Fiber Folk) will be dead and people will wonder what the fuss about the passing of the MSM was all about. After all, people did not HAVE to read or watch them, did they?

Here's another gem, courtesy Bill Johnson, Rocky Mountain News .

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3732513,00.html

And here is the thing: The reason America invaded Iraq changes like the leaves of trees in fall. We are first told of weapons of mass destruction and imminent danger to the homeland. Somewhere down the line comes this fostering the spread of democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

Wait! It gets better!

"How come no one reports on the good things America is doing in Iraq - the building of schools and infrastructure?" I have heard this question more times than I want to count.

The simple answer, certainly in the patches of Iraq where I have trod, is it isn't happening. I have wondered, too, walking those patches, why it isn't happening. I have witnessed desperate, sickening poverty, the likes of which you, it is to be hoped, will never know.

I sent him Chrenkoff's list and suggested the simpler answer was he wasn't looking very hard.

The reality TallDave is that Johnson is the token moron at the Rocky. His columns are designed to make Molly Ivins look coherent.

And they don't always succeed.

Malkin's "maverick" complaint ran the same day as a wire story appeared in 1,000,099,042 newspapers calling Zell Miller a maverick Democrat. I also dug up prior examples. And that was 3 minutes of Google; her research resources are more numerous than mine. Typical Malkin hyper-reaction. How do I tell when Malkin is full of shit? When she posts.

There are plenty of examples of media bias. That wasn't one of them.

Cassandra,
Technical point about WMD. They are defined as chemical, biological and nuclear. That’s why WMD rather than nuke.
The US (claims) to have only one of the three types. It has been, for a number of years, the US’s stated position that if WMD are used on Americans, then WMDs will be used back.

The net effect is that if someone uses biological or chemical weapons on the US, the response will be nuclear.

We don’t actually have to like that position (I’m not sure I do) but that is the stated position, and exactly why "WMD" is used as a defining phrase.

Joe,

Well, that example probably would have benefitted some some statistical Lexis-ing if true. I generally find Malkin pretty good though, and she's probably right, though I thought a much better example was the general description of centrists as "moderate" Republicans and "conservative" Democrats.

You still don't hear much about "moderate" Democrats, because of course that would imply some Democrats are crazy radicals, which description we know can only apply to Republicans. Don't hear much about "liberal" Republicans, for that matter.

Bill,

Yeah, there's a hell of a lot of revision of historyn going on.

This link still drives revisionist leftists crazy:

http://www.joelcomm.com/what_democrats_said_about_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html

The Meme That Will Not Die

Iraq is seen as Exhibit A of the new imperialism. President Bush ordered the invasion of the country, claiming a need to remove weapons of mass destruction. When no WMDs were found, the proclaimed purpose evolved into removing a dictatorship and establishing a democracy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/p17s01-cogn.html

I forget who said this, but it's as good a description of the Times as I've seen.

The NY Times works at too low a level of facts to be useful anymore.

The Wash Post is following.