Wow. New York Times gonna New York Times. Here are the three of the first seven paragraphs discussing Iran-Contra:
Mrs. Reagan helped hire and fire the political consultants who ran her husband’s near-miss campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 and his successful campaign for the presidency in 1980. She played a seminal role in the 1987 ouster of the White House chief of staff, Donald T. Regan, whom Mrs. Reagan blamed for ineptness after it was disclosed that Mr. Reagan had secretly approved arms sales to Iran.
Behind the scenes, Mrs. Reagan was the prime mover in Mr. Reagan’s efforts to recover from the scandal, which was known as Iran-contra because some of the proceeds from the sale had been diverted to the contras opposing the leftist government of Nicaragua. While trying to persuade her stubborn husband to apologize for the arms deal, Mrs. Reagan brought political figures into the White House, among them the Democratic power broker Robert S. Strauss, to argue her case to the president.
Mr. Reagan eventually conceded that she was right. On March 4, 1987, the president made a distanced apology for the arms sale in a nationally televised address that dramatically improved his slumping public approval ratings.
Totally unnecessary. Totally classless. Totally what you expect from one of the bastions of liberal journalism.
@ByronYork Hacks will be Hacks after all.
— Tiffini (@wizardsvampsOmy) March 6, 2016
True to form.
@ByronYork @McCormackJohn Hard to believe Iran-contra would be mentioned in her obituary at all. She was Reagan's wife.
— Lynn #CruzCrew (@Linkus717) March 6, 2016
Exactly. What relevance could it have? Perfect example of a liberal rag taking a cheap shot.
@ByronYork @TheVoiceOfPaulR How pathetic, but not unexpected.
— Cindy Gonzalez (@cindya_gonzalez) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork They have no class
— Steve B (@SteveBellow) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork NYT is disreputable and despicable!
— Pamela Eldred (@perpetualpam) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork I would have been surprised if it was anything else. They're predictable. Not accurate, but predictable.
— Stephen Cook (@cookphotoworks) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork @MissCandio @nytimes That's a disgrace
— steph (@shook_stephanie) March 6, 2016
‘Once again with the man she loved’: Former First Lady Nancy Reagan dies at 94
To change your comments display name, click here.