I love that they blame "critics of the Bush Administration" and don't admit to doing it themselves.
LOL!
Most unreliable paper ... EVER.
You'll have to look in the first pop-up graphic illustrating this article to find that admission, but it is there.
Critics of the Bush administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion — only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.
"Seems to bear that out." What a weaselly admission, but there it is. In other words, the Bush administration told the truth, but we think they fooled you anyway. However grudging, the admission is a step forward. Perhaps the editorial page editors will read it and rewrite their recent editorials beginning with this this one.
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11. Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
And this one.
Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
Both statements are wrong. That the 9/11 Commission agrees with Bush does not seem to bother the editorialists at the New York Times (or many other newspapers). For some reason, the Times did not find room in their article for some of Lee Hamilton's sharper critiques of the press coverage.
Finally, I should add that many of the polls, though not the one used by the Times in the first article, were tentative in their questions about links between Saddam and the 9/11 attack, and the answers reflect that. If someone asked me whether Saddam ordered the attack, I would say almost certainly not. If someone asked me whether he helped in the attack, I would say possibly. If someone asked me whether we have definitive proof that he was not involved — as the New York Times editorials assert — I would say no, and we may never have such proof. Those who say the public was fooled ignore the precise wording of the questions used in many of the polls.
- 11:36 AM, 20 June 2004 http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/June2004_3.html#jrm2306
They just couldn't help themselves, could they?
What page was this hidden on by the way?
Of course, one would think a reputable "news" organization would have conducted such a "survey of past public comments" prior to printing headlines contradicting the facts. This is freakin' ridiculous.
The NY Times seems to be going through a continuing psychotic episode where it doesn't know whether to enlarge its outspoken vendetta against all things Republican or return to its flimsy facade of being a bona fide news organization. I suggest extended psychoanalysis for whoever is running it these days.
The New York Times had no problem demanding that President Bush apologize for his "lies", I think the NYT should apologize for their lies. It's hard to imagine how a "professional" newspaper could get it so wrong. Perhaps it's because the NYT is no longer professional, perhaps it's because it's become the propaganda arm for the enemies of the United States.
The "grey lady" is actually a painted blue whore.
That's Chrissy Matthews' complaint, too. He has conceded the administration never tied Saddam to 9/11, but he maintains by asserting the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda they deliberately misled the public.
Keith Olberman claims the administration is playing a parsing game. It seems plain enough to me, what they've been saying--and parsing it is not. I thought Olberman, biased as he is, was brighter than that. But with Clinton the scene lately, I figure Keith wants to play "everybody does it".
I guess Chris wants them to disavow a connection that in fact existed? I, for one, will not keel over from shock if reliable evidence that Saddam participated in 9/11 emerges.
And unlike these media entities, I listened to President Bush and understood hiim when he first articulated the Bush Doctrine.
LMFAO!
They still don't admit fault. But they've got to be the laughing stock of journalism at this point. The emporer is stark raving naked. What an embarassment. Have they no consciences?
Given the huge number of factual errors, out right fictional writing, gross malfeasance by top management, I am amazed anyone pays attention to anything in the New York Times.
Its ironic. The Clinton's destroyed the Democratic Party's credibility by their own deeds.
The New York Times has destroyed its own credibility by its own deeds.
If you are a conservative, you could not script this self immolation by both any better.
bump
Looks like they are still trying to 'blame Bush'.
Peach and Backhoe, you will probably interested in this mini retraction by the NY Slimes posted by finnman69!
Interpretation, yes we we wrong, they did tell the truth, but it's difficult to say whether they had bad thoughts somewhere along the line.
Geez, the liars are even lying about their lies. Sort of like Clinton. Ofcourse they are birds of a feather.