Dear New York Times

[robbedvoter]

Dear NYT

Tue Jan 13th, 2004 at 13:10:39 GMT
[e-mail]
Subject: Tape shows Clark linking Iraq and Al Quaeda
article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html
The short reply to this from Clark:
"I only brought it up to discount it"
The longer one is right in the article, although the reader has to go past the misleading headline and a number of empty paragraphs to what Clark really said:
"I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."
"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."
So, my question is: why the deception? Why are the readers of the NYT treated to the interpretation of "another campaign" shrouding up the truth?
    Everyone who watched Clark for the past 3 years or read his book knows his stand on this. The fact that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror is a central reason of Clark's opposition to Bush, one of the reasons he is running.
     Why would anyone distort that?
I mean, I do understand desperate candidates feeling hearing Clark's footsteps, but why the New York Times?
       A New Yorker who will never again buy a copy of your publication until you correct your facts.

[Tatiana]

1. Way to go, robbedvoter!!!!!

Excellent response :)

[ithacan]

2. NYTimes has gone over to the dark side...

no surprise there.

[Snivi Yllom]

3. the Slimes crossed over long ago

The editorial board room probably looks like the Death Star command room.

[mmonk]

4. writers have their agendas

and their favorites.

[Buffy]

5. What happened to the NY Times?

Sloppy journalism and distortions seem to be more and more frequent for them. It's getting increasingly hard to trust their reporting and frequently I have to check it against a more objective news site (like some of the british news sites or Salon). Anyway, the point is that no matter which democratic candidate you support, be sure to be skeptical about the media's reporting of ANY of the candidates' positions or "flip flops." The reporting might be accurate, but then again, it might not be, and in this case the NY Times verifiably has it wrong.
Go Clark!

[spooky3]

7. they have really declined.

[ShimokitaJer]

10. It's a nasty trend at most newspapers

For the most part, I don't think it's active disinformation, but laziness about fact checking. In fairness to journalists, the demands for high output are always getting higher and higher, and it's a lot easier to rely on secondary sources without checking them yourself. Should we demand a higher standard? Of course, but that demand needs to be directed at both the reporters, the editors, and the owners to let them know that shoddy journalism WILL impact the bottom line as readers stop buying the paper.

[Leilani]

15. Actually, I think it is disinformation

Prior to the Iraq war, & all throughout Times reporter Judith Miller did countless articles about WMDs . She was connected to the PNAC crowd & the Iraqi expats Chalabi, etc.

She reported they had WMDs, were about to find them, etc. It was the biggest sham reporting of the war.

But the Times never retracted. She was leading the Bush choir & the Times is as responsible as the administration for putting out false info.

I have nothing but contempt for the Times.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi Buffy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TexasPatriot]

6. this one is interesting

The first paragraph is a relatively misleading lead into the story - which goes into a reasonable amount of detail showing that what Clark implied was not a linkage related to 9-11, but merely an acknowledgement of the complexities of the realities of middle eastern politics.

It's clearly a smear - and i've seen several terrible leads into clark quotes in the last couple days. However, it's a pretty lame one. They're far better off just taking the quotes out of context and leaving the story in the trash if they really want an effective smear (though i'm sure we'll see that sort of crap in someone's flier at a clark event in the near future)

On the one hand, the Times has a glowing article about Clark in Texas... with the blistering quote "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame. They are a threat to what this nation stands for, and we need to get him out of the White House. And we're going to do it."... "We're going to give it to him, and you're going to have to take him back, right here in Texas. Let him chop cedar."

On the other we get a pretty lame smear. If this is the best they can do, Clark must be in pretty good shape.

[Killarney]

8. Good for you!

More of us need to call out the media on their distorting bullshit.
:toast:

[robbedvoter]

9. Back in 2002, Clark was testifying to Congress:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

CLARK: I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to Al Qaida, yes sir
CLARK: Representative Saxton, if I could just tag along on that. I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard says, that there have been such contacts. It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

[rucky]

12. Not only that, but where's the news in this story?

What timely event coincides with the angle of this article? The emergence of a tape? Sorry, just because the NYT researchers just discovered something that's been in the public domain for over a year doesn't mean it's new. It's almost like an admission of sloppy research & lame-ass reporting. Not something to brag about.

If I were an editor, I wouldn't run the story at all.

[BootinUp]

13. Transcript from Hardball discussing this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3947572/

snip...

(MATTHEWS)
They accuse him of making inconsistent statements as to whether the government of Iraq was cooperating with the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, which blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

As evidence, “The New York Times” presents a videotape of General Clark speaking on October of 2002, in which he said he would have expected Saddam to seek help from Al Qaeda if the U.S. attacked.

Well, Clark reportedly said, “Certainly, there‘s a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. It doesn‘t surprise me at all that they would be talking to al Qaeda, that there would be some al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing, ‘Gee, I wonder. Since I don‘t have any SCUDs and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of al Qaeda?”

But that‘s not a contradiction. Clark has consistently said there has been no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the move on Iraq and therefore was not a reason for our going to war.

[w13rd0]

14. You just brought up his response to something he said...

...as proof that he didn't say what he said. WHAAA??