The grey lady begins it's death throes

[dude1394]

nytimes rag


Another Disgrace at The New York Times
By John Hinderaker

This morning's lead editorial in the New York Times is another vicious attack on the Bush administration, titled "Show Us the Proof." The theme of the editorial is that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are lying when they insist that there were ties between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda. The editorial begins:

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

We have written repeatedly of the many connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, and I won't repeat all of that here. I want to focus instead on the Times' own effort to rewrite history. Later in its editorial, the Times makes this argument, which is crucial to its thesis:

Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner" who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.

This is a grotesque mischaracterization of what Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Far from contradicting the Bush administration's claims about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, Tenet explicitly supported those claims.

The Tenet testimony referred to by the Times was an exchange with Senator Mark Dayton; here is the exchange in full:

SENATOR DAYTON: The linkage that has been asserted with al Qaeda going back to even 9/11, as alluded in reference -various references made by -- it was one that I don't recall was ever asserted by you or your agency. And in fact, I think that you -- al Qaeda leaders reportedly told interrogators in Guantanamo that there wasn't any partnership between bin Laden and Saddam. Is that -- yet that has been an assertion that has continually been made.
MR. TENET: We in -- I think in testimony before this committee, we posited contacts, training and safe haven as the issues that we raised at the time. And when we published our paper and when we testified up here -October/November, and then we published a paper in January of 2003. I believe in questioning either in this committee or Senate Intelligence Committee we talked at length about our concerns about Zarqawi, who we posited to be a senior associate and collaborator of al Qaeda, documented his role in the Foley assassination, his operations in Baghdad in the summer of 2002.
SEN. DAYTON: Right. When the -
MR. TENET: I think we also said that we did not -- I think I said publicly in one of these committees that we did not have command and control between these individuals and the regime.
SEN. DAYTON: So when the president stated in November of 2002 that Saddam was, quote, "dealing with," close quote, al Qaeda; and at the U.N. Secretary Powell said that there was, quote, "A sinister nexus," close quote, between Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda; and aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st, the president called Saddam, and I quote, "ally," close quote, of al Qaeda; were those accurate reflections of the information that you were providing?
MR. TENET: I think the information of concern at the time went to contacts with Iraqi regime members going back to the mid-'90s; training that had been provided by the Iraqi regime.
SEN. DAYTON: The president said that Saddam was dealing with al Qaeda.
MR. TENET: Well, if they provided training, sir -
SEN. DAYTON: Current tense.
MR. TENET: -- that would be dealing with, at the time. And then the whole question of the safe haven, or the fact that these people could operate in Iraq, I think I said in testimony before this committee, it was inconceivable to me that Zarqawi and two dozen EIJ operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq knowing, although I posited we didn't know about command, control and sustenance. So the safe haven argument was -

So what Tenet told the Senate was that 1) Saddam's regime has provided training to al Qaeda; 2) Zarqawi is a "senior associate and collaborator" of al Qaeda; 3) Iraq knowingly gave Zarqaqi and his group "safe haven" to operate out of that country, such operations including, among others, the murder of an American diplomat; and 4) the CIA "didn't know" whether Saddam's regime commanded, controlled and sustained Zarqawi's network. For the Times to cite this testimony as a refutation of the Bush administration's claims of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an outrageous falsehood.

Note, too, the Times' weird hair-splitting: the editorial insists that Zarqawi doesn't operate "under the direction of" al Qaeda. What's the point? Tenet says that Zarqawi is a "senior associate and collaborator" of al Qaeda. What's the difference? In fact, as everyone knows (except maybe the Times), the administration's successful war on al Qaeda has largely destroyed, fragmented and driven that organization underground, so that it is unclear to what extent al Qaeda, as a coherent organization, "directs" anyone.

But Zarqawi's willingness to take direction from Osama bin Laden (or whatever al Qaeda leaders are still alive) appears manifest from the conclusion of the letter he directed to al Qaeda's leadership, via an al Qaeda operative, in February:

So if you agree with it and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you, to work under your guidance and yield to your command. Indeed, we openly and publicly swear allegiance to you by using the media, in order to exasperate the infidels and confirm to the adherents of faith that one day, the believers will revel in God's victory. If you think otherwise, we will remain brothers, and disagreement will not destroy our cooperation and undermine our working together for what is best. We support jihad and wait for your response.

As a news organization, the New York Times is illegitimate. It no longer seeks to inform its readers; rather, its daily effort is to misinform and mislead them. You simply can't believe anything you read in the Times.

John Hinderaker writes for Powerline and is a fellow at
The Claremont Institute.

[dude1394]

nyrag


Bill O'Reilly: Sign of the times

By BILL O'REILLY, Creators Syndicate
June 19, 2004

On the day Ronald Reagan was buried, The New York Times ran a page-one analysis of how history might evaluate his presidency which stated: "(Reagan's) conviction that words counted for more in politics than mere deeds — enabled him to convince large majorities that as long as he was in charge, it would remain 'Morning in America.' They made it possible for him to redraw the nation's political map, moving the center so abruptly to the right that even Bill Clinton would proclaim the end of big government I

"(Reagan's) brand of radical conservatism had a counterpart in Britain under Margaret Thatcher, but it achieved little success elsewhere (overseas)."

Radical conservatism? Ronald Reagan was a Barry Goldwater clone? According to R.W. Apple Jr., the Times associate editor who wrote the piece, he was indeed. And so another example of how The New York Times, itself, has become radicalized is in the books.

Somewhere along the line, the Times got out of the news business and into the nation-building business. Its primary intent is no longer to provide objective information and fair-minded analysis to its readers, but to convince them to support a brave new world in the USA. The power of The New York Times is being used to promote the formation of a new America, a bright, shining progressive city on a hill of steep government entitlements.

But why should you care what an individual newspaper does? With a circulation of a million and a half, most Americans don't read The New York Times. True enough, but consider this. Every morning the powerful barons and anchor people who run the network TV news operations read the Times first thing. They often take editorial direction from the paper, sometimes duplicating story selection and even point of view. All news radio does the same thing, and the Times' wire goes out to thousands of newspapers across the country and around the world. This is one extremely powerful outfit.

The transformation of The New York Times from news source to ideological journal has taken years. The absurdity of labeling Ronald Reagan a far-right radical is just the latest in a long line of over-the-top "reportage." Two further recent examples:

— The New York Times ran 43 front-page stories in 47 days on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. By contrast, the Chicago Tribune, certainly no conservative bastion, posted 27 front-page stories on the situation. There is no question the Times is using the scandal to hammer the Bush administration, as often its front-page expositions contain little new information. But the steady drip of scandal undermines the president's credibility and makes his administration look brutal and inept.

— Over the past few months, The New York Times has run 11 stories on the start-up liberal radio network, which is now having trouble paying its bills and is heard on less than 20 stations. The last time the Times tried to prop up this propaganda operation its correspondent opined the network had a "significant" audience. That is flat out untrue.

In almost every section of the Times the reader is confronted with liberal ideology. Even the feature sections are skewed. Times business reporter Geraldine Fabrikant wrote an article on me a few months back and described your humble correspondent as a "conservative" four times. I guess the label was used the fourth time in case you might have missed the other three.

In the world of the Times, Americans like Ronald Reagan who want a smaller federal government are radicals — mean people who want to hurt minorities. Those who believe symbols of Judeo-Christian philosophy should be freely exhibited in public are "fundamentalists." If you oppose abortion, you are "anti-woman." If you're against gay marriage, you are, quite possibly, homophobic. The number of personal attacks in the Times has increased dramatically over the past few years, and if you don't believe me, just ask Mel Gibson.

As the Blues Brothers once remarked: "we're on a mission from God." The Times, of course, would remove God from that quotation. The paper is definitely on a mission, and the gloves are off. Arthur Sulzberger and his tribe want a secular nation with few judgments on personal behavior, income redistribution through taxation of the affluent, and a foreign policy that seeks consensus at almost all costs.

That's the sign of the Times today. And God (sorry) help you if you're standing in its way.

[Mavdog]

ask yourself this. The whole argument being put forth showing that Saddam was connected to Al Queda rests totally on if one- just ONE- person had possible contact with Iraq?

The training mentioned was with an Iranian allied Islamist group in the part of Iraq that was outside of Saddam's control due to sanctions. Zarqawi was against secular regimes such as Iraq and his whole philosophy is based on theocracy.

There's no doubt Zarqawi is a terrorist, that he is an islamist such as Al Queda. Here's a good read on how he's a seperate threat.

Weekly Standard

Tenet struggles himself to make the connection, stating that he cannot say there was a linkage but, without any substatiation, he assumes that due to Zarqawi being in Iraq in 2002 Zarqawi must be allied with Hussein, yet he also acknowledges he knows there is no "command and control" between them.

Of course, it's pretty hard to take any of our intelligence as well founded these days.....

The phrase "a shred of evidence" is pretty applicable.

[dude1394]

Ask yourself this... Do you think that sadaam hussein who paid for suicide bombers in israel, who celebrated 9/11, who tried to murder the first bush would NOT have made common cause with al queda. Common cause being defined as giving safe haven, allowing them to move into his country. The "lack" of the smoking gun is irrelevant in such a smoky, clandestine world.

The whole argument is that there was a "non-aggression" pact between sadaam and al-queda of course much more direct with hamas as he was funding those terrorist attacks. There were many,many times where sadaam forces and al queda met. I don't (nor does the 9/11 commission) know if there was a working relationship between the two, I doubt it honestly as only an idiot would leave a paper trail and al-queda has shown themselves to be nothing but idiots.

Of course everything depends on what the definition of "connected" is. If I were going to say...provide a biological or nuclear weapon to a terrorist to explode it in jerusaleum or new york city, I would be very careful about a paper trail.


Of course at the end of the day is....

Mavdog are you willing to bet YOUR life, your childrens lives and your parents and all your families lives on the lack of coordination between terrorists and sadaam. I'm not and the NYTimes continues to pursue a POLITICAL agenda and not a logical one.

[Mavdog]

The possibility that one's enemies would align to better win isn't a new one, and is w/o a doubt words to live by.

Another good concept is to remove one enemy before opening a second front with another. We've yet to complete the actions in Afganistan, the campaign against those who attacked us on 9-11.

Under your definition of Hussein's terrorist connections, Saudi Arabia and many other parts of the mideast qualify. Are you arguing that those who have provided resources to hamas, hizbollah are justified for invasion?

I have no idea why you suppose an argument about a "non- agression pact". They're competitive forces who had a common enemy. The "true believer" mentality of the terrorist allows for only so much compromise on ideology.

We've lived our whole lives under the threat that our enemies won't be able to launch a wmd upon our heads, we have had a very capable foreign service, intelliegence and military professional corps to protect us. In this situation our decision makers ignored the first, had poor contribution from the second, and relyed on only the later.

The truth is the attack on Iraq was not necessary at the time, Hussein was pressured from all sides on his wmd capabilities. The attack was launced with minimal long term planning due to our decision makers determination to rush to war. While there is still the chance we might be successful long term, the decision to go to war in the manner we did is costing much more both financially and in human costs.

We now must deal with the echos of the poor decision, that being the Iraqis themselves with their humpty-dumpty society we're now responsible for, and those sympathetic we pushed into listening and believing in the hate and revenge message of the radical islamist. While we can mend Iraqi society thru money, people and time (I personally see it as a long time and a lot of money, it's already too many people) locating and neutralizing the radicals is even more dificult.

[LRB]

It's obvious that the NY Times is little more than a political rag without even the credibility of the National Inquirer when it comes to reporting political issues. They eschew reporting the facts and letting the readers make up their own minds. The facts are always reported in a lobsided manner to support a liberal political agenda. The liberal side with be in large print on the front page while the conservative side will be in small print buried in the middle of the paper if existent at all. It's actually sad when any news media that reports the unadultered facts is labeled as being a conservative rag for not slanting their news towards a liberal agenda. Obvious the liberals realize how weak their case is when the full facts are available and do everything within their power to hide and keep from the public those facts which do not support the liberal view.

[dude1394]

What ho?? Now we find out that the NYTimes had information pertaining to an Al-queda/Iraq link for two weeks. But didn't think it worthy to mention it while they were blairing their anti-bush headline.. What a rag.

Iraq/Bin Laden ties ...FROM NYSlimes documents.. hmmm

This morning's report is more of the same. We know there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after the collaborative proposals discussed in the newly reported document. How does the Times know that Saddam never responded to bin Laden's overtures? It doesn't. Neither do I. Neither do you. That's why it's called an investigation. The idea is to keep digging until you know. To the contrary, the Times's idea is: bury it, pretend you don't even know the things you do know, grudgingly admit the bare minimum, and use the enormous weight of your own inertia to make the whole thing go away. Thus we get hilarious paragraphs, like this one in today's story:

Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."


(Emphasis added.)

That's a good one: a "formal alliance" between terrorists to terrorize. Did the Times expect a signing ceremony? What next? "The FBI's organized crime unit concluded today that there probably is no Mafia because the evidence does not describe any formal alliance between shadowy figures who, Vice President Dick Cheney claims, refer to themselves as 'Gambinos' and 'Bonannos'...."

Most pathetic of all in today's article is the Times's self-serving rationale for withholding critical information while it was accusing the president of misleading the country. First, even though the document inescapably shows a tie to bin Laden, the Times slyly suggests it may not really show a tie to al Qaeda. After all, so the story goes, this was the mid-90s, "before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." Nice try. As established by federal indictments, the embassy bombing trial, the 9/11 Commission staff report released last week, and innumerable other sources, al Qaeda was formed in Afghanistan in the late 1980s — years before this document existed.

[Mavdog]

Odd that the subject- the NY Times article itself- isn't even shown in the attempt to show its faults.
very telling statements: "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan," it said, "finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."

The Sept. 11 commission statement said there were reports of further contacts with Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan after Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it added.

But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, June 24 — Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two.

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties.

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government last year. The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington.

Some of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited, although officials have called some of the documents it helped to obtain useful.

A translation of the new Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group in the spring, officials said. It included senior analysts from the military's Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specialized in counterterrorism issues, they said.

The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis.

It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity.

At the time of the contacts described in the Iraqi document, Mr. bin Laden was little known beyond the world of national security experts. It is now thought that his associates bombed a hotel in Yemen used by American troops bound for Somalia in 1992. Intelligence officials also believe he played a role in training Somali fighters who battled Army Rangers and Special Operations forces in Mogadishu during the "Black Hawk Down" battle of 1993.

Iraq during that period was struggling with its defeat by American-led forces in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when American troops used Saudi Arabia as the base for expelling Iraqi invaders from Kuwait.

The document details a time before any of the spectacular anti-American terrorist strikes attributed to Al Qaeda: the two American Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the strike on the destroyer Cole in Yemeni waters in 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed.

At the meeting, Mr. bin Laden requested that sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad.

Mr. bin Laden "also requested joint operations against foreign forces" based in Saudi Arabia, where the American presence has been a rallying cry for Islamic militants who oppose American troops in the land of the Muslim pilgrimage sites of Mecca and Medina.

But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons.

The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states.

Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

The heated public debate over links between Mr. bin Laden and the Hussein government fall basically into three categories: the extent of communications and contacts between the two, the level of actual cooperation, and any specific collaboration in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The document provides evidence of communications between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence, similar to that described in the Sept. 11 staff report released last week.

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime," the Sept. 11 commission report stated.

The Sudanese government, the commission report added, "arranged for contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan," it said, "finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."

The Sept. 11 commission statement said there were reports of further contacts with Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan after Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it added.

After the Sept. 11 commission released its staff reports last week, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney said they remained convinced that Mr. Hussein's government had a long history of ties to Al Qaeda.

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

It is not clear whether the commission knew of this document. After its report was released, Mr. Cheney said he might have been privy to more information than the commission had; it is not known whether any further information has changed hands.

A spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission declined to say whether it had seen the Iraqi document, saying its policy was not to discuss its sources.

The Iraqi document states that Mr. bin Laden's organization in Sudan was called "The Advice and Reform Commission." The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden in 1994 after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein, the leader's son, as well as the director of Iraqi intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

A former director of operations for Iraqi intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, the document states.

[dude1394]

Do you mean this title from the NYTimes??, I don't understand what you are saying. The guys linked to it and I didn't want to reprint it. I try hard not to frequent nor promote their site.:

Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says

Nor do I understand why the left requires written documenatation between al-queda and sadaam, a written contract to at least acknowledge the potential of collaboration. It belies a lack of seriousness that to me is very dangerous.

Even your statement that "this" document doesn't show that sadaam followed up with bin ladens request seems naive at best. Ok, so if a document comes out tommorrow that does, then voila! all is ok, without the document it's bush lied, bush evil, bush devil, but with the document it's bush why did you take so long, what were you thinking, why didn't you kill saddam the first day of office.

It seems disingenious to me to (like michael moore) take everthing that happens and assume that bush and co. are so vile, so evil that they are globe-hopping around looking for people to kill. It's ridiculous and reduces the conversation to uselessness or hiterian propaganda which it seems to be most similar to.

But back to the point of this thread, do you think that a newspaper that has access to information that is relevant to a current blaring headline and editorial isn't just a little bit disingenious by hiding it until after said headline and editorial is written.

[Mavdog]

It is interesting that those who admire the use of our military might to invade Iraq appear to see the issue as black and white, a stance that likens the rush to war as protecting America while at the same time grasping for confirmation that such a true threat existed, and then at the same time portraying those who advised caution and deliberation as being the ones in error.

The issue of a collaboration between Iraq and Al Queda is central to the veracity of a true threat. Conversations, meetings that led to nothing, those are not collaboration nor do they provide justification for an invasion.

Did Bush "lie" as you put it? Is he "evil"? I certainly didn't see any of those in the above article, I didn't place those demonic labels on GWBush. IMHO GWBush came into office with an Iraq fixation, fell victim to a belief that his staff assisted in furthering, that belief being that Iraq justified a war at that time with or without a unified allied commitment to the conflict. Let's just put it this way, GWBush is none of those but at the same time he is in guilty of poor decisionmaking, of relying on the wrong adivisors and ignoring those whom he should have listened to who advocated further non-agressive means.

But back to the point of this thread, do you think that a newspaper that has access to information that is relevant to a current blaring headline and editorial isn't just a little bit disingenious by hiding it until after said headline and editorial is written.

Yes, if a newpaper has information relative to a story it does a disservice if it suppresses that news for its own self interest. Look at the above article and tell me how it conflicts with their editorial. I don't agree with the conclusion of the author who says:
"Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Times, the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission staff, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection naysayers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it didn't happen — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence"

for I see it from the opposite direction, and suggest it reads more accurately adjusted as follows:

Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Bush Administration, the supporters of the War, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection conspiracy believers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it must have happened — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence

[dude1394]

It continues, the grey lady against america.

THANKS to the 9/11 commission, we now know that the movie got the story right. The administration was repeatedly warned in advance that disaster could strike America. The planning for that contingency was nonexistent. Once hell broke loose, there was only chaos at the top. As New York collapsed into terror, the amiable but overmatched president turned in desperation to his older, arrogant vice president and asked, "What do you think we should do?"

[dude1394]

Love the opening line so much that "I" have to write it myself.

Each day, more and more it seems, the Old Gray Lady transmogrifies into America's al-Jazeera

Each day, more and more it seems, the Old Gray Lady transmogrifies into America's al-Jazeera. The following appeared in a New York Times editorial this weekend:

For more than two years now, about 600 men have been kept in American custody in Cuba, and the odds are that some — perhaps most — were merely hapless Afghan foot soldiers or bystanders swept up in the confusion of the American invasion. But it took the Supreme Court to tell the Bush administration they could not be kept there forever without giving them a chance to contest their imprisonment. [Emphasis added.]

First of all, the Times has absolutely no basis in fact — none — for this preposterous supposition. The military picked up thousands of people on the battlefields of Afghanistan. It screened and released the vast majority (well over 90 percent) of them. Of the remaining number, even more were weeded out before being sent to Guantanamo. While there were well over 800 Gitmo detainees a few months ago, that number — after months of interrogation and investigation — has been reduced by more than a quarter under circumstances where litigation and public scrutiny have caused intense interest.

That is, given the screening, the attendant political costs, and the burden involved in keeping prisoners (and there's more to say on the burden, presently), there is every reason to believe that the 600 still being held are extremely dangerous. Does the Times think there are no dangerous al Qaeda operatives?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Love the opening line so much that "I" have to write it myself.

Each day, more and more it seems, the Old Gray Lady transmogrifies into America's al-Jazeera

uh huh, all these prisioners have been "screened" so what we have are those who are "extremely dangerous", yet many can now be just set free? The facts are in direct opposition to what the critic of the NYTimes editorial seems to believe are true, and adds credibility to just what the editorial writer is saying...

"Pentagon might release Guantanamo detainees

Published Friday, July 2, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon might release some Guantanamo Bay detainees deemed not to pose a security threat without first giving them access to civilian courts, a spokesman said yesterday.

Larry Di Rita, chief spokesman for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, told a news conference no final decisions have been made about how the government will respond to U.S. Supreme Court decisions this week requiring that detainees be given a way to challenge their incarceration.

But he said it was possible if it could be determined some people need not be held then they also "need not necessarily be part of a judicial process."

[dude1394]

The author is pointing out that this is the type of uncorroborated tripe that al-jazeera would pass on.

[quote]
For more than two years now, about 600 men have been kept in American custody in Cuba, and the odds are that some — perhaps most — were merely hapless Afghan foot soldiers or bystanders swept up in the confusion of the American invasion. But it took the Supreme Court to tell the Bush administration they could not be kept there forever without giving them a chance to contest their imprisonment. [Emphasis added.]

First of all, the Times has absolutely no basis in fact — none — for this preposterous supposition[quote]


Newspaper of record my rear.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394
The author is pointing out that this is the type of uncorroborated tripe that al-jazeera would pass on.

For more than two years now, about 600 men have been kept in American custody in Cuba, and the odds are that some — perhaps most — were merely hapless Afghan foot soldiers or bystanders swept up in the confusion of the American invasion. But it took the Supreme Court to tell the Bush administration they could not be kept there forever without giving them a chance to contest their imprisonment. [Emphasis added.]

First of all, the Times has absolutely no basis in fact — none — for this preposterous supposition

Newspaper of record my rear.

the point dude is the charge- that the US has kept many prisoners in Guantanamo for almost two years whom have been later revealed to not have any connection to al Queda- is factual. Those same people might still be sitting in a cage in Cuba if the SCOUS hadn't ruled against the Bush Administration.

There were overzealous people who went too far in rounding up combatants, keep the ones who have information and let the rest go back home.

They've already set almost 25% of the prisoners free, and they could easily end with half of those originally seized being set free due to their lack of involvement with the Taliban or al Queda.

The question that needs answering is how the Bush Administration believed they could flaunt the laws of our country, as if they believe those laws do not apply to them.

[dude1394]

Prove it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Prove it.

prove what?

[dude1394]

Prove this:

For more than two years now, about 600 men have been kept in American custody in Cuba, and the odds are that some — perhaps most — were merely hapless Afghan foot soldiers or bystanders swept up in the confusion of the American invasion. But it took the Supreme Court to tell the Bush administration they could not be kept there forever without giving them a chance to contest their imprisonment. [Emphasis added.]

First of all, the Times has absolutely no basis in fact — none — for this preposterous supposition

Newspaper of record my rear.

[Mavdog]

as for the 600 detainees, the proof will be how many are charged with anything or just returned to Afganistan.

as for the Supreme Court, the SCOUS decision against the Bush Administration proves it true.

[dude1394]

[dude1394]

Newspaper of record. rrrriiiiiiigggghhhhtttt.

Times Cheap Shot Backfires

The New York Times went a long way on Wednesday for a cheap shot against Florida Governor Jeb Bush, with brief story titled "Math Question Stumps Jeb Bush":

At a speech to high school students in Orlando, Gov. Jeb Bush was stumped on a math question from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which he has championed. A student, Luana Marques, 18, posed the question: "What are the angles on a three-four-five-triangle?" The governor gave a steely grin. "The angles would be - if I was going to guess," he said. "Three-four-five, Three-four-five. I don't know, 125, 90 and whatever remains on 180?" Ms. Marques had the correct answer: 30, 60 and 90. "The fact that a 51-year-old man can't answer a question is really not relevant," Mr. Bush, a Republican, said. "You're still going to have to take the FCAT and you're still going to have to pass it in order to get a high school degree."

Sure, we get the point, Republicans are all dumb. Of course, not many people can do geometry on the fly, including, apparently, New York Times reporters and editors. Today's Corrections section confesses error:

[/b] A report in the National Briefing column on Wednesday about a math question from Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test that stumped Gov. Jeb Bush, when posed to him by a student, misstated the answer. The angles on a 3-4-5 triangle are 90 degrees, 53.1 degrees and 36.9 degrees — not, as the student said, 30, 60 and 90.[/b]

And the Times, unlike Governor Bush, had a pencil and paper and a day or two to figure out the answer. Of course, as we've noted before, arithmetic is not the Times's strong suit.

Thoughtful people who kept making these kinds of mistakes might, at some point, consider whether it's time to stop taking silly cheap shots at Republicans. I don't think we can expect any self-examination from the Times, however.

[dude1394]

Who would actually want to read the briefing paper provided by the administration when it gets in the way of a slur.

correction by the slimes

An article yesterday about the destruction of some payroll records of National Guard members, including President Bush, misstated the record of White House acknowledgment of the loss. The White House indeed took note of the missing information last February when it released hundreds of pages of Mr. Bush's military files. In a briefing paper for reporters on Feb. 10, summarizing those files, it noted that payroll records for the third quarter of 1972 had been lost when they were transferred to microfiche. (Go to Article)

[dude1394]

Can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you have Michael Moore (oopps Paul Krugman) giving prominent editorial space. Also some interesting insight into iraqi' culture about self rule and the problems they are having to overcome.

Simone Ledeen

Krugman’s Fantasy
The New York Times columnist gets the CPA wrong.

By Simone Ledeen

When I was in business school several years ago, my macroeconomics professor assigned one of Paul Krugman's books for us to read; it was a collection of essays about President George W. Bush's economic plan. Dutifully, my classmates and I read the book, researched Krugman's position, and spent time analyzing his arguments. I was disappointed that in his June 29 article, "Who Lost Iraq?," Krugman didn't apply the same standards of honest research and analysis to me and my father, Michael Ledeen, that I had applied to him.

Criticizing what he claims are the failures of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (CPA), Krugman wrote:

If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."

Instead of trying to find out who my colleagues and I really are and what we did in Iraq, Krugman created a fantasy world in which unqualified people got great jobs because they were children of celebrated or powerful Washington insiders. (I won't dwell on the fact that Krugman also quoted my father out of context; those interested can verify this for themselves.) Times readers are entitled to the real story, however. People were hired based on professional experience and abilities, not cronyism. The Pentagon had a website up for many months to recruit volunteers for both Iraq and Afghanistan. In my case, I have an MBA, spent a year in post-Communist Eastern Europe at a newly privatized publishing house, and have worked at an economic consulting firm and a venture-capital group.

No doubt, some at the CPA volunteered because of their political beliefs, but I don't know of anyone who was hired because of them. Contrary to Krugman's fantasy, several of my colleagues were staunchly antiwar and had voted for Gore, yet held positions of considerable responsibility within the provisional government. They believed that, regardless of the past decisions that got us to that point, they could make a contribution to helping the Iraqi people. I admire each and every one of them and am proud to have served with them.

I question Mr. Krugman's implied premise that these were highly desirable jobs for which one needed political connections. He should try telling that to my friend and colleague Scott Erwin, who was ambushed several weeks ago returning from teaching a pro-democracy program he created at Baghdad University. Scott nearly died after having been shot multiple times. He is currently recovering from numerous surgeries and undergoing physical therapy.

The kind of political "reward" Krugman describes doesn't put you in a flak jacket and a Kevlar helmet and expose you to roadside bombs or rocket attacks. Nor can I imagine any parent celebrating the arrival of his child in a war zone.

At no point did those of us in the trenches ever assume direct responsibility for running the Iraqi economy. That was the role of our senior leaders. One senior advisor was a high-ranking official from the Australian treasury. In January, the former deputy associate director for international affairs in the office of management and budget replaced him. He was in turn replaced by an official of the U.S. Treasury Department, who held the position until the transfer of sovereignty. These individuals spent decades of their lives in civil service, dating back through several presidential administrations. One can hardly attribute their being hired to political cronyism.

I was part of a team trying to repair an unbelievably broken system. This job was extraordinarily difficult, resulting in an average workday of 18 hours. Additionally, we moved in convoys to and from the Ministry of Finance in central Baghdad an average of six days a week. Although there were danger involved in crossing the city, if we didn't go to the ministry, money didn't get moved, budgets weren't funded, Iraqis didn't get paid, and all hell broke loose.

Mr. Krugman appears oblivious to the difficulties associated with rebuilding a formerly totalitarian state. Having worked in a rigid "command" bureaucracy — in which decisions were dictated from above, and deviation from the established ways of doing things was often severely punished — many Iraqis needed to learn to make decisions rather than waiting for orders. And the Baathist state had employed some unique methods: For example, some of my colleagues came across a payroll sheet from the ministry of education that detailed how one teacher was being paid 30 times what any other teacher received. Why? That teacher had been spying on all the others.

One of the greatest challenges we faced was the reluctance of Iraqis to disburse funds. Under the old regime, government employees were rewarded for withholding funds and punished — sometimes even executed — for spending money. This structure allowed regime loyalists to live in giant mansions surrounded by man-made lakes, while the average Iraqi suffered through summers without running water. These attitudes had to be immediately and drastically corrected.

Ask the Iraqis who got paid on time whether they were satisfied with our work. Ask the security-sector employees who received their hazardous-duty allowance (a bonus on top of their base salaries that resulted from the difficult security situation) about our competence. These are the opinions that matter. That we were able to pay the right people and on time — and that as a result Iraqi government workers did not demonstrate or riot during our tenure — meant we helped keep American marines and soldiers from being placed in additional danger. That is certainly something to be proud of.

The system is now up and running. Security personnel are paid, the budget is transparent, and Iraq is headed toward a modern banking structure.

Readers should also know that despite the difficult conditions, my colleagues frequently took the time to visit orphanages around Baghdad. They accompanied soldiers bringing candies, toys, and clothes — donated by generous Americans, including those so-called insiders scorned by Krugman — to needy children. I hope and believe some of these children will rise to prominence in a free Iraq, and will remember that Americans voluntarily came to lend a helping hand. This is no small matter in a country and region in which repression, mass murder, and abuse remain commonplace.

Krugman believes he is in a position to judge my work and that of my CPA colleagues though he knows nothing about us or our efforts. One of the great things about living in a free society is that people can say whatever they want — offensive or ignorant though they may be — without fear of violent reprisal. We get to listen to it all and then arrive at our own opinions. How lucky we are. May the people of Iraq experience this same freedom.

— Simone Ledeen is a former Coalition Provisional Authority adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance in Baghdad.