The Times and Iraq (NYT "Apology")

[oldhat]

http://nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/...

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Fuck you, you revisionist fucks...

Eat shit and die. You enabled this war for profit. You cheerleaded this whole thing while we screamed bloody murder. You laughed while we protested....you told us to shut up when we opposed this crooked war.

Fuck you, you piece of shit enablers.

Am I angry?...YOU BET!

[Rebellious Republican]

10. I second that emotion!

I guess all the big boys must done raping the American people, they have stolen all our money, and made fat profits from the war. It must be time to give the country back to the Dems for a little while because they have no one to buy there products now. Let the Dems help the little man recoup so we can make some more money to spend on what ever they are selling. FUCK ALL OF THEM, UNPATRIOTIC GREEDY BASTARDS!

[ElectroPrincess]

27. Agreed!

Perhaps better late than never ... but too little - too late.

Way back when I was active duty, we pulled KP (Kitchen Police) or had specialists/troops who were assigned to provide food (mess halls) for our troops. It's IMO critical that DE-privatize the military as a top priority subsequent to BushCo.

I don't want any more of my tax dollars going to line the pockets of Haliburton and the Contract-Mercinaries at the expense of our Active Duty soldiers.

Bring in a large honest (not war profiteering) multilateral presence that will put the average Iraqi to work to rebuild their country with guidance OR ELSE = let's get the hell out of there.

BTW the print media here (USA ... NYT, WP, LAT etc.) is tolerable, but the TV/Cable media (save for CSPAN and PBS) will forever more consist of info-tainment, not genuine investigative reports.

[GaryL]

16. Yee Haw!

Don't hold back now.

[IndianaGreen]

46. "Eat shit and die!"

My sentiments exactly! I will also include people like Tom Friedman and that other piece of shit, the Washington Post.

[Voltaire99]

56. Agreed! Where is Judith Miller's pink slip?

When the Times fires that gullible, government-fellating war cheerleader, it'll gain some much-needed credibility.

[w4rma]

62. Doubly agreed. I don't see the NYT firing anyone. (nt)

[lostnfound]

68. Triple here. nt

[The Zanti Regent]

65. If they REALLY meant what they said, they'd fire Miller and Seelye!

But they won't.

My my my how the once-mighty New York TImes has fallen to be nothing more than a pale carbon of its' former self. What once was "All the News Fit to Print" is now "ALL THE LIES APPROVED BY ROVE!"

[llmart]

72. Right on!

They don't have the right to even call themselves "journalists". They just jumped right on the bandwagon like Tony Blair did and now the bandwagon is sinking into an abyss and they want to jump off? The Times has lost the high regard I once had for them.

[saigon68]

76. THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES

A number of us Vets called this IRAQ-NAM in Feb 2003. I told the people here last August after Colonel West did his war crime interrogation that certain troops were BUMS AND BULLIES.

Now look at them apologizing

THEY ARE USELESS

[tjwash]

92. I third it...

[Newsjock]

2. Quick! Look over there! Still terror!!

Holy crap, and this must be the other big story we're not supposed to pay attention to tonight.

No wonder the thugs went into all-out panic-the-public mode this afternoon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Add to your piece of evidence

the fact that the big four did not carry Her Fuehrer's speech
yesterday.

Yep, LOOK OVER THERE, TERRA, TERRA, TERRA

I think we are witnessing a full fledged media revolt, as the
fourth estate flexes whatever remains of its muscle.

[frank frankly]

3. they didn't mention JUDITH MILLER by name

not enough, NYTimes.

I am glad to see this, but it is only a start.

NYTimes has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

[librechik]

26. "some have focused their criticism on individual reporters"

but it was more complicated than that...Judy should be fired. among others, some of whom are already gone.

Yeah! The whole paper was a shill for the warhawks and stopped checking facts on 9/12, 01! (if not earlier!)

Why the slick and shameless avoidance of POLITICAL PRESSURE!!! Why don't they come clean??!!! WHY did these "regrettable mistakes" (oh, which were so very tiny when you take into account this and that) pass through the fact checker without a murmur?? Everybody has one, they didn't all get phased out when news became newsertainment.


This article is missing something. The actual explanation for the "mistakes"

Shameful! Pitiful.

[calimary]

32. Damn straight!

Maybe next time the Good Guys state a war protest, the NYTimes will be good enough to report accurately on its numbers - instead of lowballing the figures so it doesn't look like that big a deal. AND burying it on page 23 or some other no-man's-land like they have in the past.

[salin]

41. Nope - and I for one - will not even read a story that she writes. Ever.

Saw some title tonight sounds... serious - but you know - not going to read it until someone else writes about the same story - someone who verifies information and whose editors don't give a blank check. Someone who isn't so blatantly slanted that they, as the embedded reporter with a military unit searching for (nonexisting) WMDs who decides to call off the fruitless effort who (the reporter) who threatens to interfere (and go straight to rumsfeld) if the officer doesn't change his mind and continue on with the hunt.

I doubt that SHE will ever admit to herself culpability. We see in this article the rationale she is likely already using (it was verified by {carefully selected} government sources {and refuted by others but she didn't bother to hear the dissent that other papers found and carried}.)

This is a weak, almost pathetic mea culpa - and it doesn't come off as terribly reassuring that if the Admin started pushing for an action against say Syria or North Korea tomorrow that the paper wouldn't again work as a propoganda arm (carrying desired stories - without verifying thus just answering Rove or Rummy's request.)

[IndianaGreen]

47. To mention Judith Miller is to mention Chalabi

Chalabi was Miller's primary source on WMDs. This is not something that the NY Times wants to brag about!

[TahitiNut]

63. Judith Miller is merely a byline.

The entrenched corruption in the media isn't with the frontline journalists, even though they may be compliant and complicit, it's with the ownership and editorial staff. Remember all the casual quotes from the various Busholinis? "I scan the headlines." Well, the headlines, as we've seen over and over again, are written by the editors to please the corporate masters. Leads are buried. Adjectives are modified. "Sources" are checked and accepted (or not) by the editorial staff.

The recent Pew Research survey that characterized the political leanings of the individual journalists was shocking to the extent that an entire industry wholly dependent on the First Amendment isn't 100% "liberal." Moreover, it's the corporate/neofascist ideologies of the editorial staff and ownership of the corporate-owned media that determines how "facts" are selected and spun.

[harper]

4. Blah, blah, blah

Never mentioned Judith Miller's name. I think if they really want to show contrition for their piss-poor reporting they ought to fire Ms. Miller for incompetence.

[tabasco]

15. RIGHT !

Actions speak louder than words. The words of this editorial ring hollow unless the newspapaer terminates the incompetent and partisan reporters.

[DEMVET-USMC]

6. The N.Y.Times has the integrity to admit mistakes when they make them

Boy George and his fellow CHICKENHAWKS do not. ...Oscar

[sasquatch]

9. As much as I love to stomp on media whores

I believe this is good thing the NYTimes did and I accept their apology. Now go apoligize to all the kin of the war dead and see if they accept it.

[Rebellious Republican]

24. Actually DEMVET-USMC, I believe the Corporations have given

the green light to the media whores to dump Bush. They are done pillaging and plundering America for now. They probably realize that they have squeezed all the money out of the little guys that they can. Its simply a matter of economics, the majority of Americans have no money to buy there goods, there for they are starting to lose money. So they have given there blessing to the media to start trashing this admin in order to get another in that will help put money back into Americans pockets. Thereby increasing our disposable incomes to spend on there products and creating more profits for them. They have down sized and cut costs to the point that there is no more down sizing and cost cutting left to do. People can not spend what they do not have. This is not a flame by the way, just how I see it.

[DEMVET-USMC]

39. I hope you are right about the corporations giving the green light to

dumping Bushco. I have often wondered that these Corp. types have seem to have forgotten that to have customers the people have to make enough money to be one.Good to meet you fellow Vet for Kerry. ...Oscar

[Rebellious Republican]

79. Me too! Good to meet you as well, hey do you want to use

the Veteran for Kerry JPEG? Its easy, just move your cursor over the image, right click your mouse, A box will come up and you'll see properties on the bottom, click on that and you'll see a url address in it... Copy that url and then simply paste it in the your post... easy stuff...





On Edit: If you want to save it for continued use, jsut copy it into a word file and save it under documents or something. That way you will always have for use here at DU.

[KDLarsen]

90. Wouldn't it be easier to add it his sig line?

It would seem so - though I don't know if you're allowed to use images or not.

[Spazito]

7. We have had non-denial denials, now we have...

non-apology apologies. I was hoping for a more honest undertaking from them, I know, I'm sometimes naive.

[xray s]

8. Gee...here I thought they aspired to be the Washington Times!

Guess carrying water for the BFEE got too heavy.

Wimps.

[Miss Authoritiva]

11. We're sorry if you believed us.

We're sorry that we thought single-source statements and allegations did not need to be scrutinized. In the future, we will apply the same rigor we apply to chasing down misspelled surnames in the "Bold-Face Names" column of our paper to analyzing causa belli. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

[grytpype]

12. Finally.

Another domino falls!

[fishnfla]

13. a few bad apples in the bunch huh?

well gee thats ok then.....

[UpInArms]

14. where the hell is the apology for not

declaring Gore the clear and undisputed winner of the 2000 election - information that was gleaned from the NORC and withheld in the aftermath of 9/11?

You (NYT) are guilty of manipulating the facts and obscuring the truth.

You (NYT) are a rag and not fit to line my birdcage (except for Paul Krugman).

On you, NYT, I spit.

[gristy]

17. well, will you look at that

But like gsh999 said, "Actions speak louder than words. The words of this editorial ring hollow unless the newspapaer terminates the incompetent and partisan reporters."

Heads MUST roll. If Miller is not fired, apology is absolutely NOT accepted.

[indie_voter]

18. Boo Hoo. Too little too late. n/t

.

[zydeco]

19. "not as rigorous as it should have been"?

It was spoon fed to their no account butts. If they want to make a serious attempt at apologizing then let's see an editorial calling for the immediate impeachment of * and criminal charges for Cheney et al.

[shockingelk]

20. So are they going to have this on page 1?

They say past corrections should have been on page 1. Seems this should make page 1.

[dweller]

21. ...damned

librul media.


dp

[MGKrebs]

22. Repeating #1 above because it deserves it.

Fuck you, you revisionist fucks...

Eat shit and die. You enabled this war for profit. You cheerleaded this whole thing while we screamed bloody murder. You laughed while we protested....you told us to shut up when we opposed this crooked war.

Fuck you, you piece of shit enablers.

...It's too late to apologize.. They are already dead.

[union_maid]

23. This is a fantastic development

It's a declaration that the NYT intends to start practicing journalism, something it was once very good at. If it happens, it could be a trend. If it becomes a trend, that could be the best thing to happen to this country in what seems like a very long time.

[KissMyAsscroft]

31. Yeah...start reporting on Kerry...

Now that it looks like Kerry will win, they are starting to set the stage for the "hard hitting journalism" that they will attack Kerry with non-stop when he wins.

Fuck these corporate fucks. Whores. They will write anything for a dollar.

[displacedvermoter]

33. Thank You for Noticing How Big This Very Well Could Be

Its not an abject apology, and Miller hasn't been canned (yet), but this is very big. They have made a shambles of their journalistic reputation, and perhaps they want it back.

I'm frankly surprised (shocked) they went this far, and I view it as a major blow to Bushco.

[Rebellious Republican]

35. Alice's Restaurant .....

You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

With feeling. So we'll wait for it to come around on the guitar, here and
sing it when it does. Here it comes.

By Arlo Guthrie

[The White Tree]

60. OOooh

That gave me a chill and a tear in my eye and I caught myself singing,

"You can get anything you want at Alices Restaurant...."

Thanks.

[Jacobin]

61. "Excepting Alice".......

you can get anything you want....

[Dover]

50. Oh you mean like Dan Rather's apology? Yeah that meant alot.

NOT! They must really think we're total idiots. Well maybe we are....we DID buy the pretzel story afterall.

[NNN0LHI]

25. If Judith Miller is still on the NYT payroll this rings hollow

Fire that lying piece of crap and I may start to believe they are sincere. Until then this is just more bull shit.

Don

[Merlin]

28. I'm torn between tears of relief and unquencheable fury!

God almighty, how could they have not seen what seemed to be so obvious at the time?

I'd normally say "better late than never" but look what they have done!

[Lorien]

29. What a total load of crap

just about everyone on these boards could see through the glaring LIES we were fed during the propaganda storm before the war. We marched, we wrote, we shouted...but only those parroting the official WH lies were listened to. NO real questions were asked-they STILL are short on those same questions. The NYT willingly chose to be blind.

[leesa]

30. Not good enough...they were accomplices in crimes against humanity

Off to the Hague with the leaders in the mainstream media. If Goebbels can be tried, then so can they.

[Poiuyt]

34. Don't apologize to us

Apologize to the 800 dead soldiers, and the thousands that are maimed for life, and the 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis that have been killed.

[WilliamPitt]

36. AND HERE IS THE OPENING, FOLKS

Get the email addy for the editor, the ombudsman, everyone. Blast them on stories of import. Send them the link to this story with everything you transmit. Move the pile.

[salin]

43. Good suggestion.

Another (esp since they won't name the major culprit) send them copies of her stories and request more reporting from other (validated) sources when the story (as one tonight does) looks to be important. Let them know we want the story but that we also want it from a credible journalist.

[TryingToWarnYou]

37. Well, thanks for nothing!!

Day late and a dollar short, Captain Obvious

[Snazzy]

38. They link to 9 of her articles

As a sample of questionable coverage. In fact, my thumbnail count has it as 9 of 14 they are saying are examples of lacking judgment. Just wish they had the balls (does she have them by the balls?) to come out and name her, instead of being slightly subtle.

The recent E&P piece may have something to do with timing here:

Raid on Chalabi Puts 'NYT' Even More on the Spot

5/21

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/search/article_display.j...

"In fairness, the very tone of Sanger's reporting, and the editorial, strongly suggest that some at the paper recognize that Judith Miller's WMD tales represent a dark chapter in the Times' coverage of the war in Iraq."

and esp.:

New Revelations Highlight Miller Ink Stain at 'NY Times'

5/19

"An industrious star reporter holding onto her job is one thing. But just what is the problem that keeps executive editor Keller from ordering a lengthy editors' note correcting what she wrote based on tainted sources in the pages of the Times? She was up to her eyeballs in hyping disinformation resulting from a highly suspect intelligence operation run by a foreign exile group, which had penetrated the office of Cheney, and which actively suborned the entry of the United States into a misguided, and destructive, invasion of Iraq."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/search/article_display.j...

(DU's spellcheck suggests changing 'NYT' to 'NUT'--clearly Grovelbot has been following this story)

(edit--add dates)

[Dover]

48. This isn't about ONE reporter. The depth and bredth of the NYTime's

outright deceipt...either by omission, buried stories, or unquestioned information...goes well beyond the front line of reporters. It's the owner, editorial staff, etc., Etc. ETC. and goes well beyond this one media outlet. The dim light they turn on themselves is as fuzzy and phoney as the Berg video (yet another uninvestigated story).

What an insult to our intelligence. And still we don't have the real or full story about what's really going on behind the scenes.

So who do these media outlets REALLY serve? Certainly not the People.

[Snazzy]

54. The editorial decision to run with her, pg1, is just as suspect

But she was, to my opinion, the #1 cheerleader for Chalabi.

Through Miller 'the paper of record' (and supposedly the liberal opposition paper, which is, of course, a crock) conferred legitimacy on the entire WMD's in Iraq case for war. Her articles were brandished, literally, by the admin and congress in going to war.

In war, she apparently got to command actual troops seeking out WMDs (and reported bogus confirming findings).

She's not your usual reporter shill, and NYT is not a light weight paper.

No, she's CIA or something similar. Has to be, must be. Her stories got published, page one, top of fold, at exactly the right time to deceive the public and congress into war. From a Bush admin. PR perspective, she couldn't have been used better.

Somehow there's more to the story, which is why I made the comment she might have somebody by the balls. Of course you are right that others at NYT are complicit, and the rest of the media sucks even harder. But this wasn't a mistake or accident, the NYT wasn't duped. This was a plan.

(I noticed recently that she co-authored a book with Laurie Mylroie. Have some fun with Google and that one, if you haven't already. Another cheerleader, although that one missed the class on subtlety.)

[gristy]

40. Here's my letter to the Times

[e-mail]

Editor,

I am dismayed by your editorial, "The Times and Iraq," in which you review how, in the run-up to war, the Times was guilty of repeatedly publishing unsubstantiated information about Iraq's WMDs which ultimately turned out to be false, and corrections, when published at all, were too often buried deep within the newspaper. My question for you is this: Will you take specific actions and will you fire guilty reporters and editors so as to both demonstrate your convictions and to discourage such malfeasance in the future? Or will you take President Bush's "I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you" approach to crime and injustice (e.g., the White House Plame leak, supposed "flawed" intelligence from Tenet, Rumsfeld's overrule of the Geneva Conventions) by publicly stating your full support for all your reporters and editors?

I submit you do not have a choice. Policies must change. Heads must roll.

[baby_bear]

42. My opinion is that this is huge

We have to look to the ultimate future goal of getting an illegitimate president out of the Oval Office. We can settle our differences later. Let's focus for now on the larger picture. And this helps, perhaps immensely, if we don't throw it in their faces as too little too late. We can't afford that, nor should we try to assume that high ground. We will lose if we try to do that.

Bush must be voted out of office, period. Let us all remember that as our objective. Then we can put on the gloves. Not now.

s_m

[librechik]

51. right you are! This = the Pentagon Papers!

I hope they follow up on this small fraction of the iunfo about the scale of their complicity! And the news nets better cover this too!

[PeaceProgProsp]

44. Did they get a memo from the White House saying, "OK to apologize"?

There's something that stinks about this.

They violated a public trust, and it's not even clear what caused them to have a change of heart.

[Dover]

52. Breaking News...Now NYTimes for Dummies has a new revised edition!

Apologies for Dummies! Get it now while supplies last.

Their Motto: Breaking Faux News, Breaking Trust - We ARE Sorry.

[Dover]

45. It's remarkable how far down the scale of reliability the NYTimes has gone

in their slide toward total irrelevance as a propaganda arm of the government. It will take a great deal of REAL independent journalism to recover their integrity...if that's even possible. Their research/investigative skills have atrophied from lack of use.

And many of the problems were editorial. The reporters were reporting but their stories were either cut or hidden so deep that one had to have great fortitude to wade through the propaganda to find them. This told me that the decisions made at the top had a specific agenda.

NYTimes...do you REALLY want to come clean? Try giving us a real and indepth investigative story of what really went down inside the NYTimes over the past three years. What agreements did the NYTimes make with Bushco or their corporate sponsors. It was obvious that a curtain was pulled down over critical analysis of the administration...particularly in the first few months after 9/11, but which has continued to a large extent.

Still wondering about the NYT employee who purportedly lept from your rooftop.

Still far too many questions to give some kind of unconditional acceptance. In fact, if WE THE PEOPLE were to give such unconditional acceptance after this gross negligence and deceipt, WE wouldn't be doing our civic duty.

Here's a few assignment which you could actually investigate to make it up to us:

The 2000 Election coup and voting debacle (then and now).

Why did you run the J. O'Neill briefcase story...out of the blue and then never really follow his story and ultimate demise?

Which brings us to 9/11. Although many groups and web sites have already done much of your homework for you and asked the truly hard questions...maybe they'll let you borrow their notes.

Anthrax story: ditto (see above)

That would be a very good start. I won't hold my breath.

[grasswire]

49. maybe some day they will apologize for ..

1. trashing Clinton
2. trashing Gore
3. lying about the Florida recount

[librechik]

53. yes! OMG!

they are shameless!

[GalleryGod]

55. I think We should Mass-Email then with THAT Very Theme

"ONE Down...three to Go!"
Why don't you open an ENTIRE Bureau devoted solely to your misrepresentations,half truths, innuendos and lies.

And whilst your at it...somebody take Chalabi's Cock Out of Judith Miller's mouth!? Please?

Your Man, Away from the Faculty Lounge for Summer,
G.G.

[leftchick]

57. FIRE JUDITH MILLER!!!!!

Then I will believe they are sincere.

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. So would the NYT like to come clean

and tell us which Page One stories they are referring to and who wrote them. Or are they just going to say we're sorry and think they can just continue to do business as usual?

Seems that if we had a real DOJ, criminal charges would be in order.

[Jose Diablo]

59. The non-apology "apology" is declined

The NYT has gone far far beyond mere incompetence. They are supposed to report the news in such a way that we the people know what our government is doing. They NYT has failed is performing this duty. The reason the Bill of Rights has a free speech clause is to protect the news media in performing the vital duty of providing a check against a corrupt government.

We can look back on Millers reports of the anthrax investigation as little more than shrill for this corrupt administration. When reports of irregularities surfaced at a bio weapons lab that started focusing the investigation on individuals most likely to have access to the strain of anthrax used, Miller tosses out Hatfield's name, this was a diversion. Who is she really working for?

The misreporting by NYT goes on and on. Vote fraud in Florida in 2000 that they refused to comment about. It took Palast from England to report this item. Where was the NYT on this?

I say one big reason our country is in the shape it is in, can be laid directly at the feet of media corporations like the NYT.

I do not forgive them until they flush the content control their owners are forcing on the news gathering and reporting functions of the organization. If the organization cannot change to do this, then I say the corporate charter should be yanked. Their reason to exist as a media corporation do not exist unless the content is free of corporate bias.

[dusty64]

64. They have all but

admitted that they are NOTHING more than a propaganda arm for our regime's agenda. Surprise!

[farmbo]

66. Judith Miller = Jayson Blair of the International beat

But she must have some serious leverage on the Boys on the Editorial page.

[nolabels]

93. The Decline and Fall of American Journalism (Part LXV)

(snip at the bottom)
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04252003.html
April 25, 2003
CounterPunch Diary
The Decline and Fall of American Journalism (Part LXV): the Case of Judy Miller

by ALEXANDER COCKBURN
(snip)
No problem, said Miller; she would stay up all night and by dawn descend with the synopsis of an entirely new work on Iraq on which they could collaborate. She went about her business, but when dawn came al-Khalil examined the fruit of her labors and exclaimed that this was indeed nothing but a remake of Republic of Fear. Exclaiming in her turn that she was not just a rewrite girl, Miller swept off.

On September 7, 1990, the Times carried a media item headlined "Crisis in Iraq Inspires Spate of Books." The story by Roger Cohen underneath this energetic headline-while Miller was still deputy editor of the media page-showed that, as a word meaning something resembling a torrent, "spate" had come down in the world, here connoting just two books. One was Republic of Fear and the other a quickie to be put out by Times Books, an imprint of Random House, by none other than Judith Miller, writing with Laurie Mylroie, a Harvard professor specializing in Middle Eastern studies. In earlier years Mylroie was scarcely the foe of Saddam that she later became.

To his friends al-Khalil/ Makiya confided news of an encounter he later had with Miller, whose demeanor was unfriendly and conversation replete with suggestions that aside from her own influential position at The New York Times she had powerful friends and that al-Khalil's future literary endeavors would not necessarily flourish this side of the Atlantic. (Miller confirmed she'd discussed a book project in London with al-Khalil. She described him as a "friend" and said she wouldn't discuss the content of their conversations or where and when she might have met him later, since this could endanger his life. For its part, Hutchinson confirms that prior to the invasion, the emirate put down cash in part payment for the bulk purchase of Kuwait, which one U.S. publishing informant said at the time involved 15,000 books.)

Miller covered the invasion crisis nobly.. On October 1, 1990, for example, the Times published under her byline a most affecting story about Sheik Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah's speech to the U.N. General Assembly the previous Thursday. It was of a tone surely gratifying to the Emir and to his public relations advisers, Hill & Knowlton, who no doubt be billed the offshore government of Kuwait for hundreds of thousands of dollars for due diligence in persuading The New York Times to decorate Miller's story with such subheads as "Wrapped in Dignity, the Emir Manages to Dazzle."
(snip)

[msanthrope]

67. I'm guessing that their readership is going down--

and they've realized that their base is turning to alternate news sources, depriving them of revenue.

Fuck you, you bastards. You bent over for Bush, and now you're whining that your ass hurts.

[gratuitous]

69. Golly, and it only took 800 dead soldiers . . .

Countless (and uncounted) thousands of dead Iraqis who never did or meant us any harm, bankrupting the Treasury, squandering our country's most precious assets (people, treasure, reputation), and making us an even bigger target for terrorism than ever before!

So, they're going to "take full responsibility" and that will be the end of it, right?

Catholics, Jews, 12-step programs all agree that merely apologizing for wrongdoing doesn't cut it. You must do penance, atone, or make amends: What does the Times propose to do along those lines? Otherwise, it's just empty words of no significance.

[myccrider]

74. ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Beat me to it, too.

Your comments are almost exactly what I had composed in my mind to send to the NYT & post here, gratuitous.

Great minds..., eh?

Here is the letter I just sent off to [e-mail]

"I just finished reading an on-line version of your editorial "The Times and Iraq." Although you deserve credit for admitting to this dereliction of duty, just saying "I'm sorry" doesn't cut it. Our constitution gives you special privileges, along with such privileges comes special responsibilities to, among other things, hold our government's feet to the fire at all times. You have failed miserably in that responsibility.

All of you who were and are complicit in this Pravda-like behavior have blood on your hands; think of the 800+ (and counting) dead US soldiers, the tens of thousands of dead and maimed and tortured Iraqi civilians (many of whom are nearly powerless women and innocent children), the hundreds of billions of dollars added to the federal deficit, the loss of reputation and influence of the US in the world, etc., Etc., ETC.

No, "OOPS" isn't good enough. Until there are CONSEQUENCES to those who allowed/encouraged this malfeasance, until the Times starts doing the hard job of OBJECTIVE, investigative journalism again, and until this mea culpa and the REFUTATION of all the errors, misinformation and lies are printed on "page 1 above the fold", the Times will not begin to recover its reputation with me and many others in the world."




I didn't steal the 12-step comment ,although I was mightily tempted. You should just cut and paste your post directly to the Times, it's great as is.

[gratuitous]

75. Excellent letter

And I'm glad you sent it. If they get back to you (Hey, the Times apologized for being such a tool, maybe they actually care -- I can dream, can't I?), feel free to use the penance/atonement/amends point. I don't think they read my submissions too much anymore. Overliberal use of the words "heartless" and "motherfuckers" has probably thickened their ears against me.

[myccrider]

80. Thx

My first to the NYT. I was a voijin.

Since I'm an unknown, maybe they're more likely to consider my opinion. I certainly hope they are getting an 'ear full' from all the other editors who use their news service, other journalists. and lowly readers like me.

Although I firmly believe the owners/editors are embedded with the RW monied interests, if there is enough public opinion pressure and money pressure (cancellations?) maybe we can get them to pretend they are real journalists long enough to help take back control of the government and break up the media conglomerates!

If not with the Times, I may very well use the atonement/penance thing with some other outlet (like in discussing prisoner torture).

Later,

[dArKeR]

70. N.Y. Times lists problems in war coverage - MSGOP

U.S. newspaper says Iraq reporting was not rigorous enough
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:35 a.m. ET May 26, 2004

NEW YORK - The New York Times said its reporting in a number of stories leading up to the war in Iraq and the early occupation “was not as rigorous as it should have been” and relied on reports from informants whose credibility was later called into question.

Reports of claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to international terrorists contained information that was unchallenged by editors and was not adequately followed up, the Times said in a lengthy editor’s note that appears inside the front section of Wednesday’s editions, alongside its Iraq coverage.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5066178 /

[dArKeR]

71. Like when you MURDER someone and then say you're sorry?

[nolabels]

73. I wonder how many times they rewrote this little diatribe

I spent a little time having some fun with it (I think I have changed over 10% so it should be okay)
They wrote
(snip)
Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
(snip)

I changed the take to this:
<sarcasm>
Over the last year this newspaper has shone some light on the dim bulb but in hindsight our decisions that help lead the United States into Iraq were justified (our fiat). We have examined our failings it is even worse than the CIA, the NSA or even FBI intelligence (just a little bit though). This especially on the issue of Iraq's Betty crockers yellow coffee cake mix and possible Iraqi connections to the International House of Pancakes. We have studied how to do gossip and our official gullibility and hype is our best hope. It is well past time for you to be more fooled then you are and so we turned the same light onto the readers.

In doing so — reviewing hundreds of planted stories during the propaganda stage before to the plunder and rape of Iraq and into the early stages of the Terra, — we found an enormous amount of Torture and abuse that we needed to ignore. In most cases, what we Parroted was contemptable retoric from the state of corporate Americas adgenda . Our limited profit from our leveraged stock portfolio at the time made us like hungry children. Much of our pain was extracted by intelligence agencies or Skull and Bones member that were themselves dependent on a hidden adgenda. Then there were those other articles that included falacies and disinformation or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger lies. That is how news coverage normally is done by us.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as outlandish as it should have been. In some cases, information that almost seemed believable then now just seems passe. It was all so well over qualified so we let stand and also because no one challenges us. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive feeding you B.S. The claims of our complicity that have emerged are false and should not interfere with our merger to be an arm of the upcomming totalalitarian state.
<sarcasm off>

on edit :spelling

Btw I could be angry, but it's more fun to show how foolish they are.
Most of us were not fooled, how in the hell could they have been?
(see Bush Anti-logic)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

77. Hopefully this means that this means they're going to kick some major butt

to make up for their failings.

[peterh]

78. The L.A. Times is publicly saying what many here feel…

Judy “neocon” Miller is the main culprit, but was allowed to discredit both herself and the paper…


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ny...


The primary lightning rod for outside criticism of the paper's coverage has been staff writer Judith Miller, who penned many of the paper's early stories on weapons of mass destruction and was involved in some of those mentioned in the note from the editors.

In what appeared to be a veiled reference to Miller, the editors write that some critics "have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper."

[PassingFair]

81. Maybe, they were too busy

...editing Smirky's speeches for public consumption to fact check anything. I believe that they have admitted to "paraphrasing" Smirky's words because it is more important that we understand what he means, rather than WHAT HE SAYS.
I stopped caring what they printed after they vomited this little morsel out.

[SandyUSA]

82. Article on Judith Miller going back to 1991 and Bush Sr.

Hi All, Judith Miller has been up to her biased reporting for a very long time. This is nothing new!

For those of you who admire Paul Wellstone, this snip about Miller comes from an article in 1991 about how he won the election against Rudy Boschwitz. It is entitled: Boschwitz's Play for the "Jewish Vote" Costs Him His Senate Seat. Both Boschwitz and Wellstone were Jewish, so this makes for interesting reading.

Remember, this is from 1991 and Bush Sr. History sure does repeat itself!

-----------

New York Times columnist Judith Miller has been known to direct her considerable reportorial skills to support the perceptions of some of her co-religionists in the US Jewish mainstream. It was she who printed Solarz's reference to a "Middle East Munich," after having reported a change of mind by President Bush "in trying to cajole the man he had called 'Hitler revisited'." Her articles seldom ignore an opportunity to conjure up the Nazi spectre.

Recently, she authored a lengthy book, One by One by One: Facing the Holocaust, based on interviews with European survivors of the Nazi horrors. Describing her book as not about the Holocaust, but "only how it is remembered, " Miller readily admits in her preface that "American Jews have a practical stake in keeping memory of the Holocaust alive, as a way of maintaining American support for Israel."

She apparently has a stake herself in incessantly pricking the Christian conscience so as to bring about what, for her and her newspaper, is the correct perspective toward the Middle East conflict.

Undaunted by the prospect of a war in which thousands of Iraqis and her fellow Americans might die needlessly, she, like Kissinger and Solarz, is set on a violent solution. For her, no Holocaust would be good enough for Saddam Hussain or for the Palestinians!

Article written by anti-Zionist Jewish-American historian:
Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal is the author of What Price Israel?, There Goes the Middle East, The Other Side of the Coin, and his monumental The Zionist Connection.

http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/jewishvote.htm

[Snazzy]

83. Laurie Mylroie....

Looking for information on who did it early on, while the dust from 9/11 was still settling here in New York, I stumbled across some of Laurie Mylroie's writings (which I later learned spawned from some AEI or Heritage type funding).

In hindsight and to my great intellectual embarrassment, I initially got sucked in by some of Mylroie's totally unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories about Iraq's motivation (both in 2001 and 1993). They made sense in their own screwy context--I was suckered. Accept the initial level of the lie and you can build a whole damn pyramid on it.

So for at least about a week I was duped into a very early idea that Iraq could have been involved. Bushco was many months away from saying that publicly. Then, of course, I found the time to scope out Mylroie and got to projectile purge myself of her delusions and spin.

Can't believe I ever went for it.

Now, just recently I find out Miller co-authored a book with her pre-Gulf War pt. 1. I never fell for Miller, but also never realized she was connected to Mylroie. Birds of a feather. Actually, more like birds of an agency. Miller is more subtle, a better spin master. I just fell for some good spy stories from Mylroie amongst the chaos here after 9/11 (and also because no one was on the Iraq possibility then, 'cept Bushco. in private). But like I started to say up above somewhere, these two have been remarkably consistent cheerleaders for PNAC all along. Probably before '91 too.

There's more to what's up at NYT--Miller has the paper or editors hooked bad. To be clear, I mean from a blackmail standpoint. There's something.

[Snazzy]

85. Agency

"Miller played a highly unusual role in an Army unit assigned to search for dangerous Iraqi weapons, according to U.S. military officials, prompting criticism that the unit was turned into what one official called a 'rogue operation.' More than a half-dozen military officers said that Miller acted as a middleman between the Army unit with which she was embedded and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, on one occasion accompanying Army officers to Chalabi's headquarters, where they took custody of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. She also sat in on the initial debriefing of the son-in-law, these sources say. Since interrogating Iraqis was not the mission of the unit, these officials said, it became a 'Judith Miller team,' in the words of one officer close to the situation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28385-2003Jun...

[JSJ]

88. Laurie Mylroie was drunk...

...during her appearance on C-span's Washington Journal Tuesday morning. I shit you not. She was slurring words and swaying in her chair. Only one caller picked-up on it and told her she was not making any sense. The hostess seemed to be embarrassed by the she-fascist's antics, however. Damn, wish I'd gotten through.

[Chicago Democrat]

84. I'm sorry the NYT sucks so much!

UGh

[mrdmk]

86. When I read this article, "The Times and Iraq", I almost cried

Here is the letter I wrote to the President of the New York Times
[e-mail]

Dear Mr. Scott H. Heekin-Canedy
President, General Manager New York Times,


Thank you for the article, “The Times and Iraq”. This article at face is a refreshing thought that there is hope for United States of America at this point. The position that the entire managing staff of the New York Times did not do their job is needed for this country’s integrity. The reason for the uplifting of this country’s integrity is because the truth about national and world events are in short supply. The “main stream media”, has given the United States citizens a black eye ever since the idea that we do not want to have the “people in power, angry at us”. This does not make for good reporting or journalism. The United States of America needs a very hard look as to what has actually happen inside and outside of its borders as of late. The article, “The Times and Iraq” is a good start.


Thank you,

mrdmk
Irvine, California


P.S. The article, “The Times and Iraq”, needed to be on page one!

[Algorem]

87. the oldmedia whorehouses gotta go.

[mrdmk]

89. A kick with NYT contact list

Tell the New York Times what you really think. Hey, you can even contact the Art Department!

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdi...

[nolabels]

91. The new sick world we live in.

Picked this article out of the bag, In a twisted sense it was somehow trying to exonerate this fraud of a paper. It's only possible to chuckle if one can divorce themselves from some weird idea of Henry Kissinger being some kind of a Peace Nick.


http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=2...
The Opposition
How the New York Times replaced the Democrats

At the beginning, few clued-in readers noticed any change. The new executive editor of the New York Times, Howell Raines, took over last September and was immediately embroiled in the biggest New York story in decades. The coverage of the 9/11 massacre was superb, detailed and thorough - exactly what the American elite demands of its paper of record. Some cavillers griped that a newspaper with the enormous resources of the Times was bound to do a good job of covering a massive story on its doorstep, but credit should go where credit's due. The new editor got off to a flying start.

(snip)
Recently, there have been signs of improvement. In what Times-watchers viewed as a stunning and rare internal rebuke, the man who lost out to Raines in the race to become the new editor, Bill Keller, penned an op-ed two weeks ago, all but chastising his boss. "The three Republican foreign policy luminaries who have been identified in the press as skeptics - Mr. Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger - spend much of their time courting well-paying clients who would rather not rock boats in the Middle East," wrote Keller. He went on: "I say 'identified as skeptics,' but in the case of Dr. Kissinger that should be 'misidentified.' The über-realist's recent commentary in The Washington Post, which some have construed as cautionary, seems to me to be as forceful an endorsement as Mr. Bush could want of a pre-emptive military ouster in Iraq ‹ and sooner rather than later." When a top Times-man concurs with conservatives in criticizing his own paper's grotesque distortion of the truth, you can see that it's not only outsiders who are worried by the damage Howell Raines has done. In the last week or so, to be fair, the war coverage has been far fairer and more factual, although it's anyone's guess how long that will last.

So when you hear talk of a growing debate about the Iraq war in America, it's useful to know who exactly instigated it and who the major players are. One of the most remarkable things is that the Congressional Democrats have been extremely quiet in this debate. They know the risks both of getting on the wrong side of a popular war president and also of skewing the national discussion to matters of terrorism and war. They want to keep the country talking about corporate excess and prescription drug benefits, the issues that will benefit them in the upcoming Congressional elections. Some of them are actually disturbed by what the Times has accomplished. They fear that war is inevitable and that if the debate about it dominates national discussion this autumn, the Republicans could win back the Senate and gain in the House. The real opponents of the war in America are therefore outside the elected political branch, and are really three-fold: the New York Times, the men who left Saddam Hussein in power in 1990 and who are thus partly responsible for the current crisis (Scowcroft, Powell), and gun-shy military brass, who also opposed the first Gulf War. The three have worked in tandem during the dog days of August to prevent a war. And they have made great headway, as polls have shown a slow decline in public support. But so far, this has been a phony war - between newspaper ideologues and security has-beens defending their own complicity in Saddam's survival. Soon, the real debate will take place. The president will speak. The Congress will vote. And the war, despite Howell Raines' posturing and hysteria, will, barring unforeseen events, almost certainly follow.
(snip)