Could The New York Times Please Define Murky?

A New York Times Editorial appears to be something of a non-CIA rendered intelligence report on what the GOP has in mind for the Fall. I say non-CIA, because it's scary to be sure.

The last thing this country needs as it heads into this election season is another attempt to push the intelligence agencies to hype their conclusions about the threat from a Middle Eastern state.

That’s what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush’s policy.

In what would be ironic, were this not the NY Times, they have no problem delivering up scary assessments of the deep dark inner workings of the malevolent GOP, they simply don't want anyone doing it for our enemies, as well.

But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran.

Fortunately, if perhaps unintentionally, they are just honest enough to refute their own editorial.

It’s obvious that Iran wants nuclear weapons, has lied about its program and views America as an enemy.... But the reason American intelligence is not certain when Iran might have a nuclear bomb is because the situation is so murky — not because the agencies are too wimpy to tell the scary truth.

Let's leave aside, as the Times does, that Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map - they state that Iran is our enemy, has lied to the world about their on going nuclear endeavors ... and our intelligence is murky, at best. And the Times answer to that? Be Not afraid!

Interesting that to the Times a lying, terrorist-supporting enemy nation with a hidden nuclear program isn't really such a big deal. It's those dangerous democratically elected Republicans America has to fear.

As the Iran issue plays out, perhaps what America really needs is a somewhat scarier assessment of the danger in the NY Times, particularly its Editorial Staff.

Comments

[old trooper]

The NYT and Reuters rank below Al Jazeera on my list.
At least Al Jazeera is honest about their their bias.

[Carol Herman]

The New York Times will never get the story right.

From my own perspective, this summer War with Lebanon, actually let steam out of the threats, ahead. In other words, nasrallah had an arsenal of missiles that were pointed at Israel. And, this, alone, kept Israel OFF going after the iranian nuke program. Because what the iranians were gonna do is use those missiles, IF her nuke stations got attacked. That edge, for iran, has been lost.

Israel can now evaluate the missile damage. And, know that lebanon isn't in a position to throw more of them. Not now. While the nuke issue is heating up, enough. It's just a question of time before some of the sites are destroyed. And, the Mideast is still more of a problem for the Saudis, than anyone else. Syria's got it's assad playing games with lebanon; cutting off electricity (because his grid's malfunctioning. And, syria is in the business of supplying electricity to its puppet regime.)

Bush tends to play his cards slowly. I don't think we'll see much before November 7th. Just to give the elections a chance to play out. Without getting confusing reports that the GOP wins on "current events" that come out of White House maneuvers.

Instead? Let's see how things line up on November 8th?

The moves, which should happen, should take place around Christmas. In that the November elections might change some seats in Congress. And, the new congress that gets seated in January 2007, WON'T HAVE DR. FRIST sitting in the Majority Chair.

What would I like? Isn't that the way most of us draw conclusions? I'd like to see Joe Lieberman win. And, not sit as an Independent, but actually think of joining the GOP. Which could use a BOOST in the MODERATE department. That's one way for the GOP to reach MAINSTREAM STATUS.

I know the grass roots don't feel that way. But after Ned Lamont showed ya what grass roots can do to perfectly good seats in the senate; there may open up ideas that "grass rooters" in the Internet age aren't the "base" they thought they were? Who needs envelope lickers demanding control of platforms?

And, yes. The New Yuk Times won't be where people go in the future to find out what was moving and shaking Americans. Today, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is promoting Blackfive's new book. A collection of blog articles on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Wall-to-wall propaganda doesn't have the same shelf live. Or Goebells would'a been on the winning team.

There will be lots of insights drawn by history. But history tends to overlook the day-by-day games, anyway. Nothing fades like stars whose time has past. To give you an example, my mom used to say Valentino was a heart throb in her "yoot." Couldn't even tell ya what he wore. Or if he carried a rose in his lips. Or not. He wasn't even a real sheik, either. Times really do move on. And, more changes than just hemlines.