I think I have figured out why The New York Times was such a big supporter of John Kerry in 2004 (and still is based on the totally uncritical front page article they published on May 28, 2006, about the efforts of a group of Kerry supporters to refute the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) and what they have in common.
As Jeff Jacoby noted in his column in the Boston Globe yesterday, less than two weeks after September 11, the Times said the following in an editorial:
"Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists. The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity. ... Much more is needed, including ... greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security, and financial regulatory agencies. … If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one."
Now, however, it appears the Times has switched sides, disclosing (and lessening the effectiveness of) the very kind of program they were telling Bush to implement in September of 2001.
Similarly, after Robert Novak identified Joe Wilson’s wife as a CIA "operative" in his now infamous column in July of 2003, the Times demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate what they viewed as a breach of national security and violation of law. A couple of years later, when it finally dawned on the Times how the special prosecutor was going to try to find out who said what to whom and when (probably, about the time Judith Miller got Patrick Fitzgerald’s subpoena), the Times switched sides and began talking about freedom of the press and protecting journalists’ sources. In other words, when they saw a chance to get a conservative reporter, they were gung ho for an investigation. When they realized that they and their reporters were the logical people from whom the investigators would try to get information, their view changed.
As I said, now I realize why the Times supported Kerry and what John Kerry and the Times have in common: They were both for it before they were against it.
Comments