Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Altro che Pravda...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3317
The New York Times offered a look back at the Iraq War in its March 16
"Week In Review" section that leaned heavily towards pro-war voices.
(L'articolo di cui si parla:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16intro.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
)
The Times explained to readers:
"To mark this week's fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the Op-
Ed page asked nine experts on military and foreign affairs to reflect
on their attitudes in the spring of 2003 and to comment on the one
aspect of the war that most surprised them or that they wished they
had considered in the prewar debate."
The "experts" who were asked to weigh in all more or less supporters
of the Iraq War, most of whom evinced no regret about their errors.
The neoconservative American Enterprise Institute provided three
columnists: Richard Perle, Fred Kagan and Danielle Pletka, all of them
among the strongest advocates for the invasion. The Times also gave
space to the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack, another strong
supporter of the invasion.
Featured as well were former Iraq envoy L. Paul Bremer and Paul D.
Eaton, a retired general who served as a trainer of the Iraqi military
early in the war. Former Marine Nathaniel Fick of the Center for a New
American Security, who took part in the invasion of Iraq as a platoon
leader, also weighed in.
Another columnist was Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, who served as an on-air defense analyst for
ABC News. Cordesman often warned of planning or logistics problems
with the invasion, but nonetheless suuported the Iraq War: "I endorse
this war, but I do so with reluctance and considerable uncertainty,"
Cordesman declared in testimony prepared for the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (2/12/03).
The other columnist was Anne-Marie Slaughter of Princeton's Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, generally
considered a "liberal hawk." Like Cordesman, Slaughter was less
supportive of the Iraq War than other hawks. But in a column for the
New York Times just prior to the invasion ("Good Reasons for Going
Around the U.N.," 3/18/03), Slaughter argued that the Bush
administration's decision to bypass a Security Council vote could work
out once weapons of mass destruction were found, and the Iraqi people
rallied behind the U.S.-led intervention.
None of the commentators selected by the Times to look back on the
fifth anniversary of the war had been actual opponents of the
invasion. And none of them conclude that the United States ought to
stop occupying Iraq. Pletka's piece begins, "The mantra of the antiwar
left--'Bush lied, people died'--so dominates the debate about the run-
up to the Iraq war that it has obscured real issues that deserve
examination." But the "debate" in the New York Times completely
excludes the antiwar perspective, left-wing or otherwise.
In a separate piece for the Times, reporter John Burns wrote that
"only the most prescient could have guessed...that the toll would
include tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, as well nearly
4,000 American troops; or that America's financial costs, by some
recent estimates, would rise above $650 billion by 2008, on their way
to perhaps $2 trillion if the commitment continues for another five
years."
Actually, one did not have to be unusually prescient to think that the
Iraq War would be costly and would likely kill many thousands of
civilians and combatants; millions of people around the world marched
against the invasion to call attention to these very dangers. But by
focusing the post-war debate so squarely on what pro-war "experts"
think these days, one could certainly get the impression that no one
knew better.
New York Times op-ed page editor David Shipley (7/31/05) has described
the op-ed page as "a venue for people with a wide range of
perspectives, experiences and talents," writing that he aims for "a
lively page of clashing opinions, one where as many people as possible
have the opportunity to make the best arguments they can." It's hard
to see how Shipley can argue that his assembly of pro-war voices for
the war's fifth anniversary merits that description.
ACTION:
Contact the New York Times and ask them why their March 16 Week in
Review op-ed section excluded antiwar voices.
CONTACT:
New York Times public editor
Clark Hoyt
pub...@nytimes.com
(212) 556-7652
New York Times editorial page
edit...@nytimes.com

 
(212) 556-7652
Cos'è una specie di copia sbiadita di informazionecorretta?
Ma LOL
Tb
-- 
E' una grande mitzvah essere sempre felici (R. Nachman di Breslavia)