The New York Times has finally issued a correction to an egregious falsehood the "paper of record" published on its front page almost two weeks ago:
In fact, Bush's "coalition of the willing" on Iraq included nearly 50 countries. The only explanation for the error, which is just shockingly ignorant of recent historical events and a disgrace to serious journalism, is that the reporters and editors involved in the story subscribe to a conventional liberal worldview, which holds that mean George W. Bush waged war for oil all by his lonesome like a deranged cowboy, whereas Obama promised to do things differently, even won a Nobel Peace Prize, and has restored America's standing role by rejecting the Bush doctrine. They are completely different. Bush bad, Obama good.
Obama has now bombed seven different Muslim countries, compared to Bush’s four. Liberals are outraged, obviously, at the prospect of innocent Syrian lives being lost in U.S. air strikes, and are beginning to organize anti-war protests and "die-ins" across the country. Oh, right, they're not, because no one gives a sh*t when it's a Democrat doing the warmongering. Plus, they're getting ready to line up behind an even more hawkish nominee (Hillary Clinton) in 2016. ¯\_( ._.)_/¯
