|Posted: Thu, 2005 Nov 24 18:42:25 Post subject: NewYorkTimes LjögFör USA:sBefolkningOmIrak! VemKanManLitaPå?
Thursday, November 24, 2005
NYT: spinning the Iraq war lies
The spin of the New York Times to explain its deplorable coverage leading to the war in Iraq is the usual anti-conspiracy remedy of claiming stupidity. The publisher, editors and, in particular, Judith Miller, were all completely taken in by liars such as Chalabi, Curveball, al-Libi and Cheney, and, despite all appearances to the contrary, were definitely not engaged in a treasonous criminal conspiracy to fool the American people into illegally attacking a sovereign foreign country for no good reason at all. Morons, idiots, fools - but definitely not liars. It is now coming out that the spin is itself a lie, and that the Times had information contradicting Miller's lies before she published them. There is no way around it: the New York Times was engaged in a treasonous criminal conspiracy which invoved lying to its readers. They knew, and they lied.
By the way, every single media outlet in the United States, and every single journalist (except for a handful including Hersh, Pincus, the Knight Ridder guys, and Jay Bookman), participated in the lies, either actively or by simply doing nothing as the obvious fables were broadcast or published. Ignorance is no excuse, as the bloggers were all over these lies right from the beginning. Where are the apologies for all this appalling lying?
By Ms. Rice In 2002
But Held Ground
By Gabriel Sherman
In late August of 2002, David Sanger, White House correspondent for The New York Times, found himself in the far west wing of the West Wing: at President George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex.
There, in what must have been a fairly routine meeting with then–National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, he was told in no uncertain terms what the White House had thought of much of The Times’ reporting on the President’s Iraq policy that summer. They were not happy.
“I would not discuss any background conversations with any sources in the White House,” Mr. Sanger said, sounding quite a bit like a former co-worker of his. “I remember that several members of the administration were unhappy with our coverage [in the summer of 2002], but that’s not a rare event on many different subjects.”
But two sources—one who was at the Washington bureau and one high-ranking editor back at The Times’ West 43rd Street headquarters at the time of the meeting—remembered the criticism was worrying. Would the Washington bureau be frozen out of the big stories emanating from the White House?
It was the summer the President and his allies were laying the groundwork for military action in Iraq, and the premium on high-level sourcing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was perhaps at its apex. And for The Times’ Washington bureau, the pressure was on to deliver on the biggest story of this still-young administration.