Chicago Tribune shilling for Bush's war.

[greatauntoftriplets]

I bet that none of the editorial board's sons or daughters are off serving in this quagmire.

chicagotribune.com >> Editorials
EDITORIALS
The case, then and now
Before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials made nine arguments for toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. Now, as Democrats accuse the White House of having lied to Americans, the president rebukes his critics for rewriting history. Beginning today, the Chicago Tribune Editorial Page attempts to set the record straight.

Published November 20, 2005

Did George W. Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit the president and his policies?

Today the Tribune begins an attempt to help readers resolve those questions. This re-examination of the administration's rationale for war offers doses of discomfort for the self-assured—those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, the ongoing war in Iraq.

We begin with the premise that the passage of three years has obscured much of what actually was said in 2002 and early 2003 as this nation debated whether to invade Iraq and oust its dictator. Also obscured by the passage of time, and by often vicious (and mutual) political partisanship: what subsequent investigations and other evidence suggest about the emptiness, or accuracy, of the administration's reasons for war.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-g9t23chdd.1nov20,1,2349026.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "Saddam HAS reconstituted nuclear weapons" - cheney March 2003

case closed, don't bother with an editorial.

[Burried News]

2. So many people want to help us do our thinking.

"Today the Tribune begins an attempt to help readers resolve those questions."
http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/lyrics/thewall.html
"I don't need no arms around me
I don't need no drugs to calm me
I have seen the writing on the wall
Don't think I need anything at all
No don't think I'll need anything at all
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall
All in all you were just bricks in the wall "

[NanceGreggs]

3. I am continually amazed ...

... that so many news/media people and politicians ARE SEEMINGLY UNAWARE of TiVO, VCRs, etc., websites, to whit:

"We begin with the premise that the passage of three years has obscured much of what actually was said in 2002 and early 2003 ..."

The 'passage of time' has not 'obscured' every word that was said, every statement that was made, every argument put forward. And the entire country has access to it all.

It's like when Cheney responded to Gloria Borgia DIRECTLY QUOTING what he had said just a few days before her interview with him -- and he sat there, straight-faced, and said, "I NEVER said any such thing."
(Of course, TDS, along with others, played the two interviews back-to-back, proving that she had quoted him exactly).

Someone should tell The Chicago Tribune, as well as this administration, that we all KNOW what was said, by whom, and when -- and the passage of time will not obscure a single word of it.

[Benhurst]

4. The Chicago Tribune gives tabloid journalism a bad name. NT