Well, I wasn't talking about the Chalabi case. Just the manner of performing 180° turns.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NY Times Admits it Lied to Help Bush
Collapse
X
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
-
Inasmuch as any city is the center of the world...I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanS
Their "outstanding" international reporting blew this one big-time. They recognize this.Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
OK, then what would be your standing for criticizing Bush on the WMD issue? Nobody's perfect, after all. And the intelligence community is made up of a lot of people.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Comment
-
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As in, we know these guys have serious biases, but we're not gonna bother to check it out. we'll just let our paper be their mouthpiece.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanS
OK, then what would be your standing for criticizing Bush on the WMD issue? Nobody's perfect, after all. And the intelligence community is made up of a lot of people.
The NYT should have a full accounting of lapses and there should be a meting out of consequences for them. But since they NYT is admitting to its errors (gee, when has the administration done that? or the Intelligence community? Never.) and seeking to correct the problems, I can respect that.Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
But since they NYT is admitting to its errors (gee, when has the administration done that? or the Intelligence community? Never.)
Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?
Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Comment
-
Not long ago Woodward published a book in which he says he reveals the "secret" of how and why Bush decided to wage war on Iraq.
He bases it - as do the editors who publish his stuff and that of other reporters - on interviews he has conducted. In this case 60 in number. That is the material he draws upon and he makes no claim to have looked into anything said.
No different from any other journalist and remote from the inference which the irritating article asks us, mistakenly, to draw.
Incidentally I, in common with all the world, thought we owed a considerable debt to Woodward and Bernstein for their persistence over Watergate. But I have changed my mind since. Hardly a journalist exists who does not yearn to earn undying fame by exposing some poor soul through the wonders of "investigative journalism". Which means in practice that the only place you get any actual reporting of facts is in the sports pages or when the local paper sends someone to the flower show. Elsewhere there is just cheap, slanted, head hunting junk.
The price we are paying for the exposure of Richard Nixon, welcome as it was at the time, grows bigger as this wretched process goes on and on.
I keep thinking that people will get as fed up with it as I have become but newspapers still sell and people are - just about - still tuning in to the appalling stuff which passes now as political interview or commentary.
Comment
-
things like this make me wonder why so much of the media is grouped as "the liberal media"... often because they publish things which may go against the bush party line.
but, as some conservatives rightly point out:
*GASP* Big articles based on fresh sources get put on the front page, while follow up ones, based on events a few weeks ago are buried in the paper! That NEVER happens!
well, DUH. the nyt, cnn, and a hundred other "liberal" sources hardly fit the bill simply because they go where they smell blood and noise, not because they have some left-wing agenda against our Dear Leader.
it was the same during the clinton era. were those outlets truly liberal, cnn, nyt, the whole shebang would have tried to downplay it rather than shoving it down our throats to the point where foreigners were asking if this is what we american truly cared about.B♭3
Comment
-
1. The NYT before the war was heavily opposign the march to war, both in its news pages and its editorial page. However the NYT also gives a lot of room to its star reporters, at least two of whom have been more hawkish on Iraq, Judith Miller and John Burns. Miller focused on WMD and got snookered, apparently, despite fine reporting in the past. John Burns has throughout been one of the most insightful reporters on Iraq.
2. The Times is generally liberal. Their hostility to Clinton was NOT a sign of conservatism as Che implies, but was largely based on their resentment of his third wayism. (A stand they shared with Harpers, for example) Especially his stand on welfare reform, which the NYT consistently criticized from the left. It is of course not the radical organ that Che would like either. Its between the radicalism of the Nation, et al, and the third wayism of the WaPo. IE its liberal.
3. Its clearly very fallible. Perhaps its not as much better than other US papers as it would like to think, but not terribly worse. And still a damned sight more reliable than UK papers."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
-
Originally posted by Q Cubed
it was the same during the clinton era. were those outlets truly liberal, cnn, nyt, the whole shebang would have tried to downplay it rather than shoving it down our throats to the point where foreigners were asking if this is what we american truly cared about.
Again you are making the same mistake Che does, assuming that liberal = pro-Clinton. The NYT was NOT like Salon, assuming that if the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy disliked Clinton, Clinton must be a liberal hero. The Times dislike for Clinton no more shows the NYT as 'right' or center than the Guardian's dislike for Blair shows the Guardian to be 'right' or center. For Howell Raines, Clinton was a BETRAYER of liberalism, and this hit all the harder because Raines is himself a Southern liberal. Raines war on Clinton was motivated by hatred for his DLC third wayism. Note that Clinton was defended by the third wayish Washington Post."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
-
Originally posted by Q Cubed
things like this make me wonder why so much of the media is grouped as "the liberal media"... often because they publish things which may go against the bush party line.
Youre not very old, are you? Some of us were aware of the various ideological slants and permutations before we'd heard of Dubya."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
Comment