MRC Times Watch man and NB blogger Clay Waters appeared again Thursday on Fox's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on the subject of the constant and ongoing New York Times wailing and lamenting the botched execution of Saddam Hussein. Clay was joined in the Cavuto segment by James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. Waters offered this take:
“Everyone of course has some misgivings about how it was, especially with the leaked videotape. But what struck me was the tone of the coverage. It could not give him Bush or the U.S. a single positive thing out of it. Even Slate, which is no one’s idea of a right-wing rag, they said ‘a distinct strain of grudging admiration’ that ran through the Times coverage of Hussein's trip to the gallows.” And if Slate says it, there must be something fairly obvious about the Times.” Video Clip: Real (2.39 MB) or Windows (2 MB) Plus MP3 (948 KB)
Clay's article on this subject over at Times Watch is here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Saddam
January 4, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Jerry MackIf the pictures had not been made, the same people would be saying that Saddam was still alive. They were purposely made.
The execution was botched. T
January 4, 2007 - 18:07 ET by mattmThe execution was botched. They should have slowly tortured him to death. Hanging was much too merciful.
The NYT wants to cause as muc
January 4, 2007 - 18:41 ET by Ten7sThe NYT wants to cause as much trouble for the USA as possible, and thereby feed the malignant narcissism that has become the cornerstone of the NYT's corporate culture. So, its no surprise that the NYT, like an Islamist or Sunni insurgent, takes a position that damages the emerging Iraqi republic and our chances of success in Iraq. But its the video that gives the story its staying power. And likewise, its video of the Halabja Massacre that is shown to justify the hanging, rather than the fact that Hussein was convicted and sentenced to hang in a duly constituted court of law. This doesn't bode well for the sober democratic rule of republicanism, and its particularly damaging to the Iraqi polity.
feined outrage
January 4, 2007 - 22:54 ET by iveseenitallThis is feigned moral outrage by the NYT. Their "jounalists" don't have the soul or conscience for moral outrage. They are modern liberals who put ideology ahead of all else. If it makes the President or America appear to have "messed up", they go with the story. I don't believe that if this execution had been done in the most repectful manner possible, the outcry from the left would have been any different. The NYTimes hopes for failure in Iraq and will seize upon any opportunity to make it happen.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I don't remember any stories
January 5, 2007 - 00:31 ET by SvenI don't remember any stories from the NYT's where they displayed outrage at the tortures and murders committed by Saddam?
Libs will always take the side of the murderer, sex offender and / or ruthless dictator.
Arab killing Arab
January 5, 2007 - 00:37 ET by misterbillArab killing Arab means nothing to them. If they printed bad storeies about them they would not give a hoot. We do, but we shouldn't.
I"m ready for an uprising! I would like to violate the First Amendment and shut down the Gray Lady's presses.
The Gray Lady is a promiscuous whore.
misterbill,Give these ultra-l
January 5, 2007 - 01:05 ET by Svenmisterbill,
Give these ultra-libs time. They're destroying themselves!
I hope, I hope!
January 5, 2007 - 01:07 ET by misterbillI hope, I hope