The Instapundit has the scoop on a particularly egregious case of revisionist history. I've said in many prior posts that I believe we should have relied more on the moral case for removing Saddam and less on the threat of WMDs. However, to pretend that the moral case was not being made (and, 'neocon' conspiracy buffs, being made WAY before George W. Bush became president), is to ignore the plentiful evidence to the contrary.
I agree with Glenn: one should expect more from the NY Times, though standards are clearly declining. For all the flaws of the Howell Raines era, the quality of the journalism was, to this reader, higher under his reign. Witness yet another editorial today in the long string of recent opinion pieces decrying the current influence of religion on politics. I don't recall similar outrage over, say, the huge amounts of trial lawyer money influencing Patrick Leahy and the Democrats.
Time to take off the blinders; interest group politics have been the meat and potatoes of the Democratic Party for years...why are things so different when the interest group is religious people? The editorial board of the Times has adopted this cause as their own, and are as guilty of stoking the flames of the culture wars as those on the right who have reached too far in their zeal.
UPDATE 2:20 p.m. central: Shortly after posting this, I came across this editorial expressing many of the same sentiments. Exactly...