The NY Times made two specific claims:1. They said that the Bush Administration somehow convinced Americans that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
2. They said that the 9/11 Commission found no Iraq - Al Qaeda ties.
But reviewing *every* speech by President Bush and most speeches by the other high-ranking Bush Administration officials shows that all involved went out of their way to say that Iraq was specifically *not* involved in 9/11, based upon the evidence at hand. I've found not a single one who said that Iraq was behind 9/11, and more importantly, the NY Times is unable to show so much as a single quote to that effect.
Yet they made that claim in no fewer than two Editorials.
Furthermore, the NY Times itself published on January 14, 2001 and on June 26, 2004 front page news stories detailing specific ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on non-9/11 activities. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission specifically cited Iraq sending a high level officer on 3 trips to Sudan to meet with Osama Bin Laden in 1994.
Thus, both claims by the NY Times are refuted by the evidence at hand.
Their public editor, their ombudsman, Mr. Okrent, addresses neither claim nor refutation successfully in this "reply."
He even claims that distortion is part of the news business and that no apology is required. How quaint.
But what is addressed above is not even something as benign as "distortion." No, those are outright fabrications by the NY Times.
They've misrepresented what the 9/11 Commission said. They've misrepresented what the Bush Administration said.
And they've even misrepresented what their own staff has published in various FRONT PAGE articles!
But what can they do at this point. Like any crook caught completely red handed, there is no benefit to them at this point to being contrite. They can only play the idiot kid who always claims that he "didn't do it" when caught on camera doing it again.
It's not intellectual. It's not honest. It doesn't show integrity.
That being said, it's probably the best that the Left can offer on any large scale. They simply aren't capable of arguing issues any longer.
No, they have to fabricate wild-eyed tales to even stay in the debate.