Rewriting the past
The NYT comments on how the new cabinet is shaping up, and starts rewriting Senator Clinton’s, President Bush’s, and its own past along the way:
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton went out of their way to point out their foreign policy differences, with Mrs. Clinton portraying herself as a hawkish Democrat and defending her decision to vote in favor of the 2002 resolution that Mr. Bush later considered an authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein. (Later, she said she fully expected Mr. Bush to use diplomacy first — and was shocked that he did not.)
What is this “later considered” nonsense? As we wrote a few years ago, the NYT editorial board once clearly understood the meaning of the 2002 debate. Back then, the NYT understood that “a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq” (to quote the New York Times itself) was just that. Why are so many players so intent on rewriting the past? HT: Powerline
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
“Dean Rusk as secretary of state, Robert S. McNamara as secretary of defense and C. Douglas Dillon, a Republican, as secretary of the Treasury. They helped him navigate the Cuban missile crisis, but also got him bogged down in Vietnam.” Rubbish! The word quagmire hadn’t been written yet by Halberstam. McNamara was an ignoramus when it came to the Vietnam insurgency but bogged down they weren’t. Only advisers in those days. Halberstam’s nifty tippy tappy typing fingers did have a hand in Diem’s unnecessary demise thanks to JFK and his new frontiersmen. Indeed, JFK was assassinated 20 days later. Timely reminder, too.