This article is from the source 'rtcom' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.rt.com/usa/476625-impeachment-facts-new-yorker-editor/

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The New Yorker editor & Iraq war peddler gets called out after lamenting Trump supporters do not believe ‘facts’ about impeachment The New Yorker editor & Iraq war peddler gets called out after lamenting Trump supporters do not believe ‘facts’ about impeachment
(about 7 hours later)
The New Yorker’s editor has said our planet’s future, no less, depends on President Donald Trump’s removal, voicing dismay not everybody is falling for the “facts.” He was swiftly reminded about pushing lies about Iraq, however.The New Yorker’s editor has said our planet’s future, no less, depends on President Donald Trump’s removal, voicing dismay not everybody is falling for the “facts.” He was swiftly reminded about pushing lies about Iraq, however.
Speaking to Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, on Sunday, The New Yorker magazine editor-in-chief David Remnick has argued an apocalypse is imminent unless Americans band together to ouster US President Donald Trump from office through the impeachment process.Speaking to Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, on Sunday, The New Yorker magazine editor-in-chief David Remnick has argued an apocalypse is imminent unless Americans band together to ouster US President Donald Trump from office through the impeachment process.
“The stakes here are immense, it’s not just about the political future of one man – Donald Trump, it’s about the future of democracy and democratic process, and this is a trend throughout the world. It’s about the future of the Earth,” Remnick said, referring to reluctance of some GOP lawmakers to acknowledge climate change.“The stakes here are immense, it’s not just about the political future of one man – Donald Trump, it’s about the future of democracy and democratic process, and this is a trend throughout the world. It’s about the future of the Earth,” Remnick said, referring to reluctance of some GOP lawmakers to acknowledge climate change.
Noting that the American public has become increasingly divided along ideological lines, Remnick said that he and other liberals cannot “somehow” understand why “the evidence of things, while facts don’t penetrate so many of our brothers and sisters,” calling the refusal of conservatives to take the liberal narrative on impeachment saga at face value “a source of great frustration.”Noting that the American public has become increasingly divided along ideological lines, Remnick said that he and other liberals cannot “somehow” understand why “the evidence of things, while facts don’t penetrate so many of our brothers and sisters,” calling the refusal of conservatives to take the liberal narrative on impeachment saga at face value “a source of great frustration.”
However, it was not long until netizens dug up Remnick's old editorial, making a case for the US invasion in Iraq. In the months, leading up to the 2003 military incursion, the New Yorker published series of stories implying links between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and promoting the now debunked claims of Baghdad possessing weapons of mass destruction, citing sources or the Bush administration’s claims on the matter. However, it was not long until netizens dug up Remnick's old editorial, making a case for the US invasion in Iraq. In the months leading up to the 2003 military incursion, the New Yorker published series of stories implying links between the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, and promoting the now debunked claims of Baghdad possessing weapons of mass destruction, citing sources or the Bush administration’s claims on the matter.
Remnick himself penned a pro-war op-ed less than two months before the invasion.Remnick himself penned a pro-war op-ed less than two months before the invasion.
“History will not easily excuse us if, by deciding not to decide, we defer a reckoning with an aggressive totalitarian leader who intends not only to develop weapons of mass destruction but also to use them,” he wrote in January 2003.“History will not easily excuse us if, by deciding not to decide, we defer a reckoning with an aggressive totalitarian leader who intends not only to develop weapons of mass destruction but also to use them,” he wrote in January 2003.
Commenters online did not waste time in rubbing Reminick’s nose into his more than questionable record of staying true to the facts.Commenters online did not waste time in rubbing Reminick’s nose into his more than questionable record of staying true to the facts.
“I wish David would think more about how his & other elites cheerleading the Iraq war helped pollute trust in the ruling class,” a commenter said. “I wish David would think more about how his & other elites cheerleading the Iraq war helped pollute trust in the ruling class,” one Tweeter said.
“It blows my mind that he's never been held accountable for the lies & conspiracy theories he published in order to promote the Iraq war,” another chimed in.“It blows my mind that he's never been held accountable for the lies & conspiracy theories he published in order to promote the Iraq war,” another chimed in.
Earlier this week, The House voted mostly along party lines, except for three Democratic defectors joining the GOP in voting against either of the articles, to impeach Trump on charges “of abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” The commander-in-chief himself has dismissed the allegations as a “pathetic hoax,” accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has not been in hurry to handover the documents to the Republican-controlled Senate, of deliberately dragging her foot on the case to avoid the whole “scam” being exposed during the trial.Earlier this week, The House voted mostly along party lines, except for three Democratic defectors joining the GOP in voting against either of the articles, to impeach Trump on charges “of abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” The commander-in-chief himself has dismissed the allegations as a “pathetic hoax,” accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has not been in hurry to handover the documents to the Republican-controlled Senate, of deliberately dragging her foot on the case to avoid the whole “scam” being exposed during the trial.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!