[O.C. - Old Cracker]

But he said it would be unfair to pin the blame on specific reporters. "The failure was not individual, but institutional," he said.

Good grief! Every week it's a different tack with these liberals.

"We was all hyp-no-tized by da evil Medusa
from da Bush Aminastrashun!

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

bttt

[muawiyah]

No matter how hard they push the idea, the NYT editors are never going to be able to convince the Iranians or the Kurds that Saddam Hussein didn't have "Weapons Of Mass Destruction".

After all, he used WMD on them and killed tens of thousands of people.

What I'd like to know is why the new management at the NYT wants to be part of what is quite clearly the AlQaida Ground Support Team in America?

These people are misusing freedom of the press and wasting valuable assets that deserve new owners and managers.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

..."cunning campaign" by those who wanted the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...

So they're denying that Saddam ever killed over 40,000 Kurds with nerve gas? Gee, I just can't imagine why the NYT is hemorrhaging money and credibility.

[liberallarry]

Okrent should be immediately fired. The man is a complete idiot. Does he want to apply his standards only to those stories which favor the Administration...or universally? There's no indication he favors the latter - and, in any case, the whole thing is impossible. Nobody can escape from bias and error, and newspapers needs scoops to survive.

Cut costs. Fire Okrent.

[Morgan's Raider]

"Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines," said Okrent.

Of course no mention of the 28+ straight days of front-page coverage of the 5 month old Abu Ghraib business, which was being handled properly by the military and was already a non-story by the time the pictures were obtained a month ago.

[Clara Lou]

"The failure was not individual, but institutional," he said.
By "institutional," I'm interpreting that he means the NYT institution, because he mentions "hunger for scoops," among other things. His "epaulets sprouting" comment is very juvenile. We're in a sad state when a paper the quality of the NYT is the newspaper "of record."

[Political Junkie Too]

No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion.

Huh? Since when, since this morning?

It's like what Ann Coulter said, "The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning."

-PJ

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Okay. So they have established as fact that they have no jounalistic integrity. That stands alone. The issue is beside the point. If that is their journalistic character, then everything they print is suspect.

[Bonaparte]

You won't read this in the NYT or in any other liberal "news" source...

The Sound Of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found

[Calvin Locke]

"The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect,

This guy is an insult to the readers of the Slimes. For crying out loud, the Slimes circulation dropped during
the Gulf War, like 50,000 copies, daily, because of their failure to report the facts (i.e., the US was kicking butt) of the then current battles.

So, I like to know just how the Pentagon was using the Slimes?

This idiot's showing up in December of 2003 is no excuse for what appears to be either shoddy research, or he has his
own agenda and facts and history be damned.

[Lazamataz]

HA! The NYT Ombudsman has a complaint about the New York Times. What's his complaint? Is it that many stories have been shown to be outrightly false? Is it that there is an extreme leftward bias in the articles? Is it the excessive focusing on gay themes, or environmental caterwalling, or an anti-American agenda?

No, it's that the newspaper is not far enough to the left.

They need to stop printing in black ink and switch over to red. Just be done with it.

[Casloy]

Here's the problem...to read that editorial you have to read the NY Times. Oh well, guess I'll never see it.

[TexasGreg]

No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion.

Earth to NYT .... a Saren Gas weapon WAS used on US troops just a couple of weeks ago. THAT was a chemical weapon, and it was found in Iraq after the invasion. Where do you think it came from ... the United States???

In short, chemical weapons have been found. So ... you can start correcting your failures by firing your biased, hyper-liberal Ombudsman while, at the same time, refraining from spouting the DNC talking points on all issues. Until you do, you will always be suspect as the lie-factory that Jayson Blair so rightly typified.

"...editors needed to launch a series of "aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe (Saddam) had WMD at his disposal."

Amazing ... you still persist in assuming that there must be "misinformation" and "disinformation" and "suspect analysis" ... EVEN IN THE FACE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE WMDs. Your assumptions betray your bias. Evidence to the contrary will be ignored ... as you're currently doing relative to the discovery of a Saren Gas chemical weapon from earlier this May.

[WOSG]

Heaven's to betsy ... for a second there I thought they'd actually acknowledge being way overboard with their 28 straight days of front pages news items on the Iraqi prisoner "abuse" story.

But no ... now the New York Times will explain how their 2002 and 2003 reporting somehow convinced Clinton, UNSCOM and the world in 1998 to think Saddam Hussein had WMDs ...
"aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe (Saddam) had WMD at his disposal."

[InterceptPoint]

No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion

This is technically correct. They found us.