On the other hand, they may want to consult with Nick Berg.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Gore.
Death to Mr.Bin Laden!
Guess those of us who took them up on their "Show Us The Proof" editorial got a reaction. Here's what I got in my email today (names, email addresses, and his phone number redacted):
Dear X,
Mr. Okrent will be addressing the June 17th article “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie; Describes a Wider Plot for 9/11”, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17panel.html) and its headline in his column in the week in review section on Sunday.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
At 11:03 AM 6/18/2004, you wrote:
Dear Mr. Okrent,
This is a complaint about the reporting on the 9/11 commission
report in the Times yesterday. There are a number of clear distortions and
an appalling lack of backround research evident in the content of the
stories.
First, the headline itself reads "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie".
This headline is of course the most prominent thing in that day's edition
of the Times. All one needs to do is read the actual report from the
commission, which reads, in part:
"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his
time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin
Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi
Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly
persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts
between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly
made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin
is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.
There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also
occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not
appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin
Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al
Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Can you honestly tell me, after reading that paragraph of the
report, that the panel found no Iraq-Al Qaeda tie? Clearly, the person who
wrote that headline failed to read the report. This is a gross instance of
journalistic malpractice.
Unfortunately, that is only the beginning of the distorted
coverage of the report. The major story on the commission's report itself
is on the right side of the front page, and is headlined "Challenges
Bush". We learn in the first paragraph that the alleged absence of a
"collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq "sharply
contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq
war, ...." This is quite an allegation, given that President Bush never
declared the existence of such a relationship to be even a part of the
reason for the war, and certainly not a "central justification".
What is the reason for these outrageous distortions and
misinformation on the front page of the New York Times? I will offer what
I believe to be the reason. Turn to page A28, and you will see the lead
editorial proclaim "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq
and Al-Qaeda". Given that a few minutes on Google turns up the 1998
indictment of Usama Bin Laden in the Untited States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (by the Clinton administration's Department
of Justice, no less), which states: "Additionally, the indictment states
that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the
regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq,
particularly in weapons development.", where do the individuals who wrote
that story get off calling themselves reporters? Iraq/AQ connections
abound if one does not deliberately blind onself to them: Salman Pak, Abu
Nidal, Atta in Prague, the pre-9/11 reports in official Iraqi press
predicting the attacks, Ramzi Yousef, Sudan connections, and so on.
If a person cannot do so much as look up a search term on the
Internet, which would lead them to many credible and substantiable sources
of information on the topic, they have no business calling themselves
reporters, to say nothing of getting their stories published on the front
page of the Times.
Occam's Razor (a general rule under which the simplest explanation
is considered the most probable) leads one to believe that the distortions
on the front page, viewed in the context of the clear agenda of the
editorial staff of the Times) were intended to support the predetermined
point of view of the editorial. In other words, the Times editors
deliberately lied to its loyal readers in order to launch yet another
attack on the President, facts be damned.
It leads one to wonder, at what point can the printing of the
Times be considered to be an illegal contribution to the Kerry campaign?
It also leads one to wonder how much farther the circulation of the Times
needs to drop before the business managers realize that the pattern of
deliberate distortion, which is plain as day to the objective reader, is
the reason why the Times and its cohorts in disinformation find their
circulation dropping regularly, while more objective sources such as the
Wall Street Journal and (it pains me to say it, but it's true) the NY Post
enjoy strong expansions of their readership?
9/11 comission = worthless dog and pony show!!!!
Pray for W and our Awesome Troops
OK...the dems want to niggle, as does the times, that the relationship was not "collaborative." Goodness me. They hadn;t got to second base yet. For starters, see here that Iraq initiated. THEY were the instigator. It doesn't matter if they were rebuked by Osama or not. The FACT is Saddam sought to form an alliance with terrorists in the middle east. In my book, that makes him a menace and a threat. Let the dems run against it. Let em explain to America that yes, Iraq sent love letters to Osama, and tried to unite the jihadist terrorists in an alliance of islamic fascism. BUT....the relationship was not "collaborative", and therefore, Bush went too far. France likes me better. I'll raise your taxes. Great platform. LOL!
More.
Translation: Being a member of the democrat propaganda machine, we want you to have doubts about the credibility of this report, despite the fact that we have absolutely no corroborating evidence whatsoever.
For later.
(or as the brilliant James Taranto puts it ... Al Gore "jumps the shark" yet again)
LOL!
This article was on page A-5 in the Austin Pravda. Anyone see it on the front page of your paper? It is not in the Austin Pravda electronic edition yet, and I don't expect it to ever show up. It should have been on A-1 above the fold, but that would have been pro Bush.
The article on A-1 above the fold, in one of the largest print sizes I've seen was
Over 100 Killed In String Of Attcks In Iraq
Anyone reading just the headlines, would think the dead were all Americans.
Page one? Where did they put the Abu Ghraib pictures?
Thanks for posting, Southack. Very interesting article.
Funny how, after weeks floating around the Times office, this comes out on a Friday.
Done in hopes that by Monday, and the start of a new broadcast week for talk radio, this story will be old news.
bump
Slimey work by the NYT on a number of counts--http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001873.php