New York Times vs. the neoconservatives.

Recently the New York Times has come under attack for allegedly misrepresenting Kissinger's position on Iraq. The most recent assault was on Fox News Sunday, where a fat 15 minutes was devoted to the subject. On the show, impartial commentators Paul Gigot, Charles Krauthammer, and William Kristol all agreed that the Times was acting badly. The newspaper declined to send a representative, but Fox was able to find an ex-editor who didn't have much to say one way or another. What did the Times actually say? On August 16, the headline was:

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy

And the relevant lines are:

Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.

Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.

The New York Times said that Kissinger doesn't oppose the goal of toppling Hussein, or even how (military action), but that the planning was unsatisfactory. Thus, he was deemed to have "broken ranks" with Bush over his planning. Which Kissinger has.

Those who accuse the Times of misleading reporting are simply lying. But the important thing to note is that the critics are not out to clarify the Kissinger/Iraq issue. Their goal is to discredit the Times. Pure and simple.
posted by Quiddity at 8/25/2002 11:18:00 AM