NY Times Picks Up False Claim PDB Referred to "Lower Manhattan"

MRC ^ | 12:20pm EDT, Tuesday April 20, 2004 | BrentBaker

[fight_truth_decay]

On the very day that Washington Post Ombudsman Michael Getler scolded his paper for distorting the content of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), by saying that it warned of how terrorists had cased a building "in Lower Manhattan," when the PDB said no such thing, a fresh New York Times story conveyed the same distortion about how the PDB warned of an attack in "Lower Manhattan."

The April 19 CyberAlert reported: Focusing on how the Washington Post a week earlier had led a story with a very misleading reference to how "President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan," when the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in question made no reference to "Lower Manhattan," Post Ombudsman Michael Getler conceded on Sunday that since the wording falsely suggested that Bush was warned about an attack in the area of the World Trade Center, "readers who believe this introductory paragraph was, or could be seen as, misleading and conveying a political bias make a fair point, in my view."

In fact, the PDB referred to "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," and while there are federal buildings in Lower Manhattan, there are federal buildings all over New York City and New York state.

For an excerpt from Getler's piece: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040419.asp#3

Clay Waters, Editor of the MRC's TimesWatch.org page, caught the fresh Times recitation of the same distortion. An excerpt from his April 19 posting:

A Sunday front-page story by David Johnston and Jim Dwyer provided more examples of failed pre-9/11 intelligence, but features an erroneous claim about the famous August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing memo that makes the terrorist threat warning sound more specific than it actually was.

They wrote: "The memorandum, declassified on April 10 by the White House at the commission's request, included some ominous information. It said that Qaeda operatives had been in the United States for years, might be planning an attack in the United States and could be focusing on a building in Lower Manhattan as a target."

But the actual PDB says nothing about "Lower Manhattan." It mentions only "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," which casts a rather wider geographic net...

END of Excerpt

For the New York Times story by Johnston and Dwyer: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/18SEPT.html

For the latest on bias in the New York Times: http://www.timeswatch.org

[Lunatic Fringe]

How telling that the New York Times ignores inconvenient things... likes facts.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Paging Jason Blair, Jayson Blair to the editorial department.

To think, he was the only one with any journalistic integrity at the Slimes.

[OldFriend]

And the solution would have been to evacuate Manhattan, ground all flights into and out of America, including all domestic flights. Shut down all buildings of interest, including all shopping malls, all federal buildings, etc. and of course, close the stock market beginning on Aug. 7th.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

That would be the Aug 6th 1996 memo to Clintox describing Operation Bojinka that needs to be declassified.

[talleyman]

Truth Bump!

[FourtySeven]

Knew it. Knew the Dems would twist that sentence, ad infinitum

< /gloat mode >

[VRWCmember]

Knew it. Knew the Dems would twist that sentence, ad infinitum

Here's another point about the FIRST PART of the sentence in question: FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country ...

Notice the qualifying phrase that I have emphasized. This phrase is typically omitted from most quotes of this supposedly damning smoking-gun statement. The reason is rather simple: if you include the phrase "SINCE THAT TIME" in your quote then someone might be curious enough to ask "Since what time?". The previous sentence, which provides the timeline context for the "smoking gun" sentence addresses events and reports of al qaeda's plans in July 1998. So the suspicious activity was going on for over two years while clinton was too busy getting BJs in the oval office to act on this smoking gun.

[Grampa Dave]

It is good to see the NY Slimes continue it nearly 100 year tradition of lying and printing fables and myths to push the agenda of the left.

[andy58-in-nh]

Well, now, I'm sure that the (Toilet)Paper of Record will be issuing a correction immediately. Right there on Page C63, below the fold, beside the police auction listings.

[NeutronTeuton]

i think the general point is a bit nitpicky: surely, if the briefer had meant, say, albany, he or she would have said so. and in nyc, most of the federal buildings are downtown--certainly, as far as i know, the most important ones are. what's more, we actually happen to know that the pdb was referring to a building downtown, the federal courthouse, a fact that the person actually briefing bush would have told him had he asked (turned out of course that it was a false alarm). none of this means that bush could have made the leap from the surveilling of a federal courthouse to the attack on the wtc, though.

anyway, i agree, it's misleading not to indicate the time qualifier. we'd had patterns for years and nothing bad had happened stateside, just as we'd had threats for years...

[petercooper]

we actually happen to know that the pdb was referring to a building downtown, the federal courthouse,

And how do you know this? The pdb says no such thing

[FourtySeven]

Good catch!

[timydnuc]

It's getting worse, but the good people of this country are getting a full frontal look at leftist propaganda and the filthy machine producing it. The working press are fast becoming the fifth column of tyranny. Keep going NYT, WashCompost, LASlimes and all you other rags. The People don't like this s#*t!

[NeutronTeuton]

before i answer your question, ask yourself this: what difference does it make? would it change things if bush were warned about federal court houses?

anyway, my source is the white house (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040410-5.html):

"Q: Did the PDB item include any warning of the 9-11 attack?

No. The only recent information concerning possible current activities in the PDB related to two incidents. There is no information that either incident was related to the 9-11 attacks. The first incident involved suspected "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." This information was based on a report that two Yemeni men had been seen taking photographs of buildings at Federal Plaza in New York. The FBI later interviewed the men and determined that their conduct was consistent with tourist activity and the FBI's investigation identified no link to terrorism."

[Nick Danger]

So with Howell Raines gone, the New York Times can't even make up their own lies anymore. They have to steal the lies that the Washington Post makes up. How sad.