NYT: We're sorry (again!) for not doing our job

[Bhaisahab]

Over the last few months, this page has repeatedly demanded that President Bush acknowledge the mistakes his administration made when it came to the war in Iraq, particularly its role in misleading the American people about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. If we want Mr. Bush to be candid about his mistakes, we should be equally open about our own.

During the run-up to the war, The Times ran dozens of editorials on Iraq, and our insistence that any invasion be backed by "broad international support" became a kind of mantra. It was the administration's failure to get that kind of consensus that ultimately led us to oppose the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html

[bryant69]

1. The New York Times

wants to be on the winning team.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[porphyrian]

8. Yep, the whores are coming over to our table, now...

...I wonder how pissed the traitors'll get?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. This is a start, although I'm probably fooling myself to believe...

that it is a harbinger of a more skeptical American press -- thanks, probably, to a large degree, to Michael Moore. MM has forced our press to look at themselves in the mirror, and what they have seen is not a pretty sight.

[CWebster]

3. Check this out::

"...Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. And even though this page came down against the invasion, we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions."


Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did.

[Ripley]

5. Let's see, I wonder who they mean?

Dean? No.
Kucinich? No.
Gore? No.

I wonder.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. Hmm, No Mention Of Judith Miller

the use of Iraqi defectors as sources, or the aluminum tubes.

They talk much about candor, but once again the Screw York Times manages to fall short.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. give them credit for doing this

I still like the NY Times a lot. Do you think you'd ever see a conservative paper do a mea culpa?

It takes a good person to admit when they're wrong. I think this shows that the NY Times still has a lot of good people working for it.

Bash the paper all you want, but imagine how bad the media would be with NO NY Times.

[skooooo]

11. Here here!

I concurr.

[gratuitous]

14. The New York Post did a mea culpa

Cheneyed up that "Gephardt is Kerry's running mate" thing big time, and then apologized.

In any event, the Times has much to answer for. Judith Miller "reporting" on the man in the baseball cap pointing out where those ol' debbil weapons of mass destruction were -- remember that? Credulous Judy was driven by her handlers out to a location, and several yards away, a man in a baseball cap was walking back and forth. He would occasionally stop and point at the ground, then resume pacing, looking intently at the ground. Miller never spoke to the man, never knew what his name was, never even got out of the vehicle as far as I could tell from her story. Yet, she authoritatively reported that the man was a former high official in Saddam's government, and was pointing to places where those elusive (or is it illusive?) WMDs had been. She was promptly whisked away after her escorts showed her what they wanted her to see, and told her what they wanted her to say.

It was this specious report that helped build public support for the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Coupled with equally spurious reports in the Times and elsewhere of unmanned drone flyers, the preposterous case that Saddam was on the verge of a direct attack on the United States was built into the media frenzy we all saw from late 2002 to early 2003 when the invasion was launched.

"We should have been more skeptical" doesn't quite excuse the supine complicity the Times and its reporters exhibited. And if they're going to be hard on Kerry and Edwards for not being sufficiently regretful about being bamboozled and stampeded by the corrupt administration that actually carried out the invasion, I hope to hell that they bring out the heavy artillery (journalistically speaking for all you lurkers who cream yourselves about "liberal threats") for the true architects of this fiasco.

It's not enough to be sorry for your misdeeds; you have to atone for them as far as is practicable.

[redqueen]

16. Is Wilgoren still busy Gore-ing Kerry?

Go Cheney yourselves, NYT whores.

[librechik]

6. yes--show good faith by firing a few of the LYING REPORTERS

why doncha--there's miller and several others <cough> SAFIRE <cough> who ought to be ashamed of themselves--if they weren't being paid 5 figures as celebrities!

[redqueen]

17. This is just a feel-good gesture

They won't be changing their modus operandi one bit.

[welshTerrier2]

9. Thanks for Nothing !!

When all is said and done, I'm afraid it was the acquiescence of the U.S. mass media that paved the way for bush to invade Iraq ... Instead of standing up as the "fourth estate" and acting as a check and balance against the neo-con "policemen of the world" mantra, the post 9/11 NY Times stood up patriotically and cheered for war ... well, they've finally issued an apology ...

but talk about a day late and a dollar short ... why did it take them so long to admit that they failed the American people, the Iraqi people and the cause of peace and justice thoughout the world ???!!! after 1000 dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and a world that hates the U.S., I'm giving a big "THANKS FOR NOTHING" to the NY Times ...

[CWebster]

13. My guess is they are thinking about how history will view them nt

[cybildisobedience]

15. If they keep their crappy journalistic practices up...

there won't BE any history. Remember what Bush said when a reporter asked him how history would view him, and he replied, "I don't care. We'll all be dead."

I think that's what we could consider his long-range strategic plan.

[SoCalDem]

10. All they need is ONE headline...

MICHAEL MOORE IS RIGHT......WE WERE WRONG....WE ARE SORRY !

[LuminousX]

12. No matter who is president

I prefer a skeptical media to an ass-kissing media.

[hansolsen]

18. Facts trump theories. -- Editors eat humble pie. My letter back

This in regard to Today's editorial, A Pause for Hindsight.

Well, let it be said that on July 16, 2004, the Grand Poobahs of the Times finally sobered up. Today they acknowledge that, "we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions (on WMD in Iraq). I, and many others of course, have long observed that the Times was drunk on Judith Miller fairy tales in the lead up to the war, and long into the war, and that drunken bender contributed mightily to putting a stamp of credibility on the Bush administration's plans for war in Iraq. Yes the editors objected to the war unless we had international backing, but that was about like handing a pack of drunken sailors a stack of $100 dollar bills with directions to the nearest whore house, and instructing them they were not to go unless accompanied by their maiden aunt.

The editors also say, "We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us." Well, I am happy and proud to say, I was one of those people, and it is with deep satisfaction I see these words in print here today. So, in a spirit of taking yes for an answer, let me say thank you, and congratulations, first to Ms. Collins, for her courage and good sense in taking this step today. It is an important step, I believe. If only our president could display such courage and humility, the world would be a better place, and though it pains me to say so, he could probably get reelected. I also offer a tip of the hat to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and the rest of the editorial board for coming to their senses, and being willing to say so. In the history of the New York Times, the WMD news and editorial coverage may well go down as one of the darkest hours in the family history. Yet, today, with this clearing of the air, the clouds part, the sun shines, and even the harshest critics of the Times coverage of the lead-up to the war are compelled to say -- today is a very good day at the Times.

Your loyal reader, Hans

[bpilgrim]

19. they sound just like dubya - if they would have behaved and let the inspec

IF only, saddam had've behaved and just let the inspectors do their damn jobs, we wouldn't have needed to invade - BS! shoot, W is on record saying iraq was even worse 'he refused to allow the inspectors IN', for christ sake, TWICE!

now the NYT puts it 'if only iraq had behaved differently, we wouldn't have believed and PREACHED the WMD LIE... BS!

"As we've noted in several editorials since the fall of Baghdad, we were wrong about the weapons. And we should have been more aggressive in helping our readers understand that there was always a possibility that no large stockpiles existed."

or how about NONE AT ALL, eh... nah, that would seem so far outside the realm of possibility EVEN to this very frigging day, eh?!

thank GORE he 'invented' the INTERNET :evilgrin:

most Netizens knew APPARENTLY far more then the illustrious NYT. please.

yeah, another bad case of 'GROUPTHINK' right, turning the establishment into a bunch of quivering, psycohtic, syncophants for 3/4 years? - more if you consider the clinton years - next thing you know they'll have a bridge to sell us... one we already bought! - but hey there's no tell'n what you can get away with these days just ask ken lay. wasn't that clever getting martha to do the perp walk first ;->

this article just serves to highlight more reasons why we need SERIOUS change in leadership ACROSS the board in OUR society if we are to avoid further CATASTROPHY around the world and even right HERE at home.

"At the time, we believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding large quantities of chemical and biological weapons because we assumed that he would have behaved differently if he wasn't. If there were no weapons, we thought, Iraq would surely have cooperated fully with weapons inspectors to avoid the pain of years under an international embargo and, in the end, a war that it was certain to lose."

what a weak load of bunk to put forth as your EXCUSE :puke:
the NYT is certainly in a FUNK these days... i hope she rights herself SOONER rather than later.

they OWE us - dems - a PRESIDENT according to my scorecard.

"But we're not blaming ourselves for failing to understand the thought process of an unpredictable dictator"

of course your NOT ever gonna 'blame yourselves' but...

the WWW is watch'n and keep'n SCORE.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Jacobin]

20. "Harsh Methods" Aren't Torture, Says the New York Times

This is dated May 14, 2004.

The New York Times, revealing the interrogation techniques the CIA is using against Al-Qaeda suspects, seemed unable to find a source who would call torture by its proper name. The May 13 article, headlined "Harsh CIA Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogation," described "coercive interrogation methods" endorsed by the CIA and the Justice Department, including hooding, food and light deprivation, withholding medications, and "a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown."

The article took pains to explain why, according to U.S. officials, such techniques do not constitute torture: "Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only be gleaned by extracting information from often uncooperative detainees."

The article seemed to accept that the techniques described are something other than torture: "The tactics simulate torture, but officials say they are supposed to stop short of serious injury." The implication is that only interrogation methods that cause serious physical harm would be real and not simulated torture.

The article quoted no one who said that the CIA methods described were, in fact, torture. Yet it would have been easy to find human rights experts who would describe them as such. The website of Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) reports that "the prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures," including "near drowning through submersion in water." Amnesty International U.S.A. (www.amnestyusa.org) names "submersion into water almost to the point of suffocation" as a form of torture, and emphasizes that torture "can be psychological, including threats, deceit, humiliation, insults, sleep deprivation, blindfolding, isolation, mock executions...and the withholding of medication or personal items."

http://www.fair.org/activism/times-torture.html

Tne New York Slimes can go Cheney itself. It is and was a complete and utter whore for this invasion and occupation and continues to whore for torture and conquest.

This reminds me of Cardinal Law's excuses for enabling serial pedophiles.