Media Bias, Part XXX

There is no limit to the lengths the New York Times is willing to go to lie to liberals. Consider paragraph 11 of Saturday's "news analysis" about President-elect Obama's cabinet choices:

During the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton went out of their way to point out their foreign policy differences, with Mrs. Clinton portraying herself as a hawkish Democrat and defending her decision to vote in favor of the 2002 resolution that Mr. Bush later considered an authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein. (Later, she said she fully expected Mr. Bush to use diplomacy first -- and was shocked that he did not.)

Plainly, the Times never fact-checked 2002 Resolution (which passed overwhelmingly). Had it, the newspaper might have noticed that the action was titled "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," and that Section 3(a) specified:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

So, was Mr. Bush wrong in "consider[ing]" the Resolution "an authorization" for armed intervention in Iraq? Only to left-wing loonies who never read it. The New York Times apparently qualifies as both.

(via Powerline)