November 14, 2003
The New York Times ignores itself
From BOTW:
Breaking News From Nine Months Ago
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27
"The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq."--editorial, New York Times, Nov. 13
Technorati Tags:
Has anyone heard of this site:
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm
(I couldn't insert a hyperlink, sorry)
I found it to be very informative on the stance of politicians and it has a little grid on the bottom to see where they "stand". I guess we no longer have just one line from left to right.....
Let me know if anyone has any comments about it, specifically if you think it's biased one way or the other. Thanks
Posted by: Judah Maccabee at November 14, 2003 10:53 AMMaybe I'm missing something, but under the "foreign policy" section for GW, there was nothing about the Middle East. It was all about the Far East and Latin America.
Posted by: Peter at November 14, 2003 01:41 PMin Fairness I think the subject matter of "last nights" speech from the feb 27th editiorial should be taken into account.
Posted by: PAUL at November 14, 2003 04:20 PMI was actually using it to look at how the Senators voted. I'm not sure why the Bush page came up in the link.
If you scroll further down, there is a section on War and Peace. Talks about Israel, Middle East and Balkans
(I see you didn't get very far, back to the CD's!)
Posted by: Judah Maccabee at November 17, 2003 03:22 PM
