The New York Times Calls For Iraq Withdrawal

One scenario could be,

1. Between now and a year two (more or less) simultaneous events

(1.a) a catastrophic emergency; one or more major attacks at U.S soil (dirty bomb, chemical wmd, etc.) by Al Qaeda

(1.b) a serious offensive move by Iran against the US or US interests / allies (launching missiles in the direction of Israel, Europe, or even the US and / or attacking the US fleet in the Persian Gulf)

(1.c) and as an extra wildcard: a third party (North Korea, Venezuela, or Russia does something nasty to make the situation even more dire for the US

2. President Bush invokes National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and as the uncontested ' decider', decides to attack Iran with possible nuclear weapons.

3. No US Presidential elections in 2008

What color is the sky in your world?

For Bill Harrison: The Low Sky

OK, another one than, let's call it the Dick Cheney end-game

It is more or less the same as the first one but with a few minor changes.

1. Between now and a year two (more or less) simultaneous events

(1.a) a very specific catastrophic emergency; President Bush is assasinated by Al Qaeda or ... (Conspiracy Theorists are allowed to fill in the dots}

(1.b) a serious offensive move by Iran against the US or US interests / allies (launching missiles in the direction of Israel, Europe, or even the US and / or attacking the US fleet in the Persian Gulf)

(1.c) and as an extra wildcard: a third party (North Korea, Venezuela, or Russia does something nasty to make the situation even more dire for the US

2. VP Dick Cheney becomes POTUS

3. The first act of President Cheney is to nvoke the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and as the uncontested ' decider', decides to attack Iran with possible nuclear weapons.

4. No US Presidential elections in 2008

The NYT got out front early to derail the Iraq war with the Joe Wilson, um, article. Yes, that's the word I was searching for.

Yeah, the Times was ever so helpful in helping to track possible terrorist cash transfers. Put me in mind of the patriotism of the late Timesman, Walter Duranty.

I also remember how the Times didn't have to write that mea culpa for its shoddy reportage supporting the most outrageous and scare-mongering claims of Iraq armed to the teeth with WMDs, much of it spoon-fed by the neo-cons to Ahmed Chalabi, who regurgitated it to Judith Miller, who then smeared her excrement all over the front page of the paper. Yep, they sure were on the bandwagon against the war early!

I think you've got it the other way round. Chalabi was doing the spoon-feeding because the CIA was so incompetent they didn't have any new intel with which to discredit it. Bob Baer pretty well laid it all out. But if you want more:

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet and his chief deputy, John E. McLaughlin, furiously denied that they had been told not to trust Curveball, an Iraqi refugee in Germany who ultimately was proved a fraud.

"But the CIA's former operations chief and one of his top lieutenants insisted in interviews that debates had raged inside the CIA about Curveball's credibility, even as then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell vouched for the defector's claims in a crucial address to the United Nations Security Council on the eve of war. "The fact is there was yelling and screaming about this guy," said James L. Pavitt, deputy director of operations and head of the clandestine service until he retired last summer. "My people were saying: 'We think he's a stinker,' " Pavitt said. But CIA bioweapons analysts, he said, "were saying: 'We still think he's worthwhile.' " Pavitt said he didn't convey his own doubts to Tenet because he didn't know until after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that Curveball was "of such import" in prewar CIA assessments provided to the president, Congress and the public."

Oh, you're absolutely right, Bill. That's why I didn't bring the CIA into it. Chalabi was owned by the neo-cons who thought that after Saddam's fall, he'd just parachute in and become president by universal acclimation, signing over all rights to Iraqi oil in perpetuity to the US just moments after his ticker-tape parade down the streets of Baghdad, the city he hadn't set foot in for decades. They fed him crap and ate the crap he fed them and passed it off through Feith's Office of Special Plans and Judith Miller's Office of Special Newspaper Coverage as the finest caviar anywhere to be found, and even let Colin Powell share the leftovers with the UN.

It's good to know that you agree that the CIA served not only the president but the American people very poorly not only before 9/11 but in the runup to the Iraq war. The place needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.

Did you even bother to read the piece I linked to? It most prominently points out that despite the misgivings of some analysts at CIA and DIA, the leadership at Langley did not give the president the full story on "Curveball" and its bioweapons analysts were still putting credibility in him. And nowhere in the October 2002 NIE prepared for the president and the Congress is any mention made of these dissents.

Dr Danny also says you missed the sarcasm, luckydog.

I can't really say I've seen anything in any of those newspapers that's done anything other than toe the Democrat line...or set the Democrat agenda for them. Have you seen anything different?

Reporting the news is different to reporting some of the news so that it supports your agenda. You're right, just as newspapers don't always give you what you want (and as I said, I don't think I've ever seen anything in the NYT remotely conservative) nor do politicians. While for the most part I will defend a Bush presidency, I too understand that there have been failings. However, a few failings shouldn't overshadow predominent good. Being new to newsvine, perhaps ignorantly, I didn't expect the partisanship to be so strong. But I guess it's fuelled from where the masses get their information.

Actually, the Post hasn't been nearly as harsh on the administration in its editorial positions as one would think at first glance. In fact, they were pretty much on-board on the war (the Brit Sebastian Mallaby wrote the pro-war editorials) and have conspicuously not written an editorial on the Libby pardon.

Not being as harsh to the Bush administration doesn't make it conservative. Some people will suggest the White House takes very non-conservative positions on some issues, immigration for one.

and have conspicuously not written an editorial on the Libby pardon.

They have written an editorial:

We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr Bush did - to probation and a large fine - is not defensible... (I'd say that's kinda harsh on the administration myself)

The probation office, as the president noted, recommended less time - 15 to 21 months. But Mr Bush, while claiming to "respect the jury's verdict," failed to explain why he moved from "excessive" to zero.

It's true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury.

To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offence.

Link to the BBC reporting their editorial