The Times and Iraq (NYT on Iraq Coverage)

New York Times ^ | 05/26/04 | New York Times

[conservative in nyc]

This is the Slimes' defense of flawed Iraq coverage promised by Drudge.

[conservative in nyc]

One specific correction in today's corrections:

Corrections

• An article on May 8 about the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison referred incompletely to an agreement in a federal lawsuit by inmates against the Texas Department of Corrections that was intended to improve treatment of those held in Texas prisons. While the agreement was in force while President Bush was governor of Texas, it began before then, in 1981, and was lifted in 2002.

I.e. the Texas abused prisoners only under Bush the cowboy, therefore the folks at Abu Ghraib abused prisoners under Bush the cowboy claim is baseless.

[conservative in nyc]

NYT defense of flawed Iraq coverage ping.

[martin_fierro]

This you gotta see.

	Media Shenanigans/ Schadenfreude
Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list

[conservative in nyc]

Specific articles in question:

FROM THE EDITORS

The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage

he following is a sampling of articles published by The Times about the decisions that led the United States into the war in Iraq, and especially the issue of Iraq's weapons:

The alleged Iraqi terrorist training camps, and Al Qaeda connection:
• October 26, 2001: Czechs Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader
• November 8, 2001: Defectors Cite Iraqi Training for Terrorism
The accounts of the terrorist training camp have not subsequently been verified.

On the subject of the meeting in Prague, a Times follow-up cast serious doubt:
• October 21, 2002: Prague Discounts An Iraqi Meeting

The hidden weapons facilities:
• December 20, 2001: Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites for Chemical and Nuclear Arms
According to Knight Ridder News, this scientist was taken back to Iraq earlier this year for a tour of sites where he worked. None of the sites showed evidence of illegal weapons activity.
• Follow-up: January 24, 2003: Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq

The aluminum tubes:
• September 8, 2002: U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest For A-Bomb Parts
• September 13, 2002: White House Lists Iraq Steps To Build Banned Weapons
• January 10, 2003: Agency Challenges Evidence Against Iraq Cited By Bush
• January 28, 2003: Report's Findings Undercut U.S. Argument
For a discussion of this coverage by Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent of The Times, see this letter from April 8, 2004.

The Iraqi scientist and destruction of weapons:
• April 21, 2003:Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
Follow-ups:
• April 23, 2003: Focus Shifts From Weapons To the People Behind Them
• April 24: U.S.-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled with Chemical Agents
• July 20, 2003: A Chronicle of Confusion in the Hunt for Hussein's Weapons

The "biological weapons labs":
This is one example of a claim that was quickly and prominently challenged by additional reporting
• May 21, 2003: U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms
The story left the impression that the Administration claims represented a consensus, because we did not know otherwise. By June 7, however, the same reporters, having dug deeper, published a front-page story describing the strong views of dissenting intelligence analysts that the trailers were not bio-weapons labs, and suggesting that the Administration may have strained to make the evidence fit its case for war. (Last Sunday, Mr. Powell conceded that the C.I.A. was misled about the trailers, apparently by an Iraqi defector.)
• June 26, 2003: Agency Disputes C.I.A. View on Trailers as Weapons Labs

Raising doubts about intelligence:
Following are examples of stories that cast doubt on key claims about Iraq's weapons programs, and on the reliability of some defectors.
• October 9, 2002: Aides Split on Assessment of Iraq's Plans
• October 24, 2002: A C.I.A. Rival; Pentagon Sets up Intelligence Unit
• March 23, 2003: C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports
• July 20, 2003: In Sketchy Data, Trying to Gauge Iraq Threat
• September 28, 2003: Agency Belittles Information Given By Iraqi Defectors
• February 1, 2004: Powell's Case a Year Later: Gaps in Picture of Iraq Arms"
• February 7, 2004: Agency Alert About Iraqi Not Heeded, Officials Say
• February 13, 2004: Stung by Exiles's Role, C.I.A. Orders a Shift in Procedures
• March 6, 2004: U.S., Certain That Iraq Had Illicit Arms, Reportedly Ignored Contrary Reports
• July 26, 2004:Ex-Inspector Says C.I.A. Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program
• May 22, 2003: Prewar Views of Iraq Threat Are Under Review by C.I.A.
• Feb. 2, 2003: Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda

[martin_fierro]

In other words, "We haven't been hard enough on Bush."

[MN_Mike]

This should be called "Look Who's Talking" now I wonder if they will give an apology like the ones they demand from President Bush. Are they applying the same standards to the Bush administration?

[smonk]

index

[MN_Mike]

My thoughts exactly. Look's like they are plowing over ground to plant new hate seeds for the presidential election run-up

[conservative in nyc]

As expected, the Slimes is admitting it made mistakes in its pre-war coverage. They were hoodwinked by evil intelligence sources and didn't ask enough questions of the evil Bush administration.

Prediction: The Slimes will use this in their "Why can't President Bush admit his mistakes" editorials. Now, they will say, "We admitted our 'mistakes'. Why can't you, Mr. Bush?"

[Mo1]

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

Didn't Jason Blair work for The New York Times??

And what was that guy from the street interviews name .. Greg Something???

[Howlin]

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

Not to put too fine a point on it, but didn't THEY accuse Bush of basing HIS decision to go to war on that very same information?

[weegee]

Mea culpa: "We are sorry to have run some articles that were completely fraudulant, including a recent piece in the Boston Globe that claimed some internet porno photos were shots of US military abuse of Iraqi prisoners."

Anything less from the Old Grey Whore will be lacking.

[jwpjr]

It's amazing to me that when a member of the mainstream media wants to review its performance it turns to its own investigation! We've seen the media's attitude toward the prison abuse scandal as handled by the administration. The army moved with dispatch to investigate its own and continues to kick ass and takes names. Its own handling of the entire mess has been much more unbiased than the Times' own look at its coverage of Irag. This info from the times in hardly the mea culpa I would expect from an organization that has consistently given the enemies of our nation aide and comfort in the form of coverage of events in a manner that was hardly fair to what we, as a nation, are hoping to accomplish in the war on terrorism. Like my Mom used to say, "with friends like these, who needs enemies!" I think this holds true in the mainstream media's coverage of Irag and in a larger sense the whole war on terrorism. My opinion of the whole moment of introspection at the Times is that it is self-serving at best, not to mention self-deceiving. At this point it appears things are beginning to turn around some in Iraq. There have been fewer, far fewer coalition casualties, a fact that has gone virtually unmentioned by the media.

[Mo1]

I believe so ..

[weegee]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

This is the Slimes' defense of flawed Iraq coverage promised by Drudge.

[Texasforever]

Yeo it all boils down to "we was duped'.

[Mo1]

BTW .. for the record .. IMO, this article smells to the high heavens ... what are they really up to

[conservative in nyc]

Greg Packer was the New York papers' "man on the street". Every paper (not just the Slimes). Everywhere. A true media whore.

[conservative in nyc]

Te Slimes has been running recent editorials claiming the President won't admit his mistakes. The Slimes has now admitted their mistakes. Expect this to be used against the President.

Also, they allegedly "came clean" and named only their pro-WMD, pro-Bush articles as suspect. Much of the info was given to them by the administration. I.E. It's all Bush's fault.

"Coming clean" also makes it appear that they are serious about "getting it right" in their biased anti-Bush coverage today.