You would think that the NY Times would be honest in its reporting, but of course it isn’t. Today they are running an article titled, “Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror.” With a title like that, you would expect that Ms. Rice actually said something explicit about past administrations.
However, when you actually read the article, you wonder if the NY Times is making it all up and relying on innuendo instead of substance. For example, there are no quotes where Ms. Rice attacks other Administrations. The best the NY Times can quote is, that Rice said, “‘until Sept. 11, the terrorists faced no sustained, systematic and global response’ from the United States.” This does not necessarily damn other Administrations.
The NY Times later opines:
While never naming Mr. Clinton or other past presidents, she argued that Mr. Bush had no choice but to take a far more muscular approach to American security, given the world he inherited, one in which she said the biggest threats to America were never taken seriously enough.
…
Parts of Ms. Rice’s speech could also be read as being critical of the Reagan administration and the administration of the president’s father, George H. W. Bush, for not connecting the dots on earlier attacks.
Parts of the speech could be read as being critical. With a title like “Rice Faults Past Administrations” the NY Times needs to do a better job than relying on supposed innuendo.
Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the pointer.