The New York Times' Dishonesty

Paul "The Worm" Krugman


As I and many conservatives have long  stated, the New York Times has gone from being the flagship newspaper of the United States to being little more than an arm of the Democratic Party. They are arguably the most liberal major newspaper in the country. What is much worse, however, is the fact that the paper is so obviously dishonest. As public opinion is turning decidedly against the notion that conservative rhetoric led to the shooting in Tucson, the Times is calling taking the position that they were not involved in blaming the incident on the Right. The below article, via Hotair,  has the story. Note how the Times, in denying responsibility, proceeds to take more swipes at the Limbaughs and the Palins.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/business/media/17media.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


Well, if the above is true, then Paul "The Worm"  Krugman must have paid a ton of money to take out a full-page ad in the Times. Actually, he wrote an op-ed piece for which he was paid. Word is that he scratched it out within a couple of hours after he heard of the shooting. Krugman, of course, is a blatant liberal propagandadist, who doesn't have a thoughtful or fair bone in his body. Here is the editorial he wrote for the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html

Krugman is so pathetic that former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell called him the A-word.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/14/former-carter-pollster-pat-caddell-krugman-a-flat-out-asshole/

Then there is the equally dishonest left-wing propagandist Frank Rich, also a Times columnist. Here is what he "contributed" to the analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/opinion/16rich.html?src=me&ref=general

But those are just two op-ed writers. (Another liberal writer, Charles Blow), took the opposite tone admitting that the left is being disingenous in blaming the attack on conservative rhetoric.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15blow.html

But let's go to the statement of the Times' editorial staff itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html

Finally, we should compare the Times reaction to Tucson with that of Ft Hood, where the paper advised us not to rush to judgement.

11-08-09 Ft.HOOD


"In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East.

President Obama was right when he told Americans, “we don’t know all the answers yet” and cautioned everyone against “jumping to conclusions.”

Unverified reports, some from his family members, suggest that Major Hasan complained of harassment by fellow soldiers for being a Muslim, that he hoped to get out of a deployment to Afghanistan, that he sought a discharge from the Army and that he opposed the American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were reports that some soldiers said they had heard him shout “God is Great” in Arabic before he started firing. But until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.

There may never be an explanation. And, certainly, there can never be a justification."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would venture a guess that the Times, while still thinking there may never be an explanation for Ft Hood, has rushed to judgement in Tucson.