The hypocrisy of an editorial saying: ======================

John H. Lederer – 6/

I am just astounded by the revelation today that the NYT had in its possession for weeks a document that appears to support the administration’s claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney’s adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to “tiptoe through the land mines of what’s sayable and not sayable” to the public, but that “his job is to connect the dots.”

The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there’s more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy. =============================================

at the same time that the NYT had one of those documents and chose not to reveal it is beyond the pale.

The article today in which the NYT reveals the document is Clintonesque. Timelines are muddled to make it appear less contradictory of the NYT than it is, the story itself is self contradictory, and we have a fine parsing of words to minimize the contradictions– apparently Al Qaeda is not really a “full fledged terrorist organization until it is involved in “spectacular” anti-american attacks — the unsuccessful 1993 attack on the WTC was not apparently, sufficiently spectacular.

People have had a lot of cognitive dissonance of late. What the media says, what the media says the government says, and what the governement says have been at pretty dramatic odds. One or the other is go to this web-site going to end up being “shut out” as a source of information because the public is going to conclude that it deceives. I used to think it would be Bush. I suspect now it is going to be the media.

That is going to have a lot of unintended consequences which depending on your viewpoint may be very unfortunate. One I suspect will be that Kerry and many democrats will go down with the media.

Richard Henry Morgan – 6/

The NY Times is reporting, this morning, on a document that it says the commission might not have had access to. The story reports:

“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.”

“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.”

Mr. Lederer, Thank you for the clarifications. While I still believe the claims are wrong and just as damning, putting them into context certainly helps.

To me, support for the war in Iraq and support for President Bush’s justification for the war need not be contradictory. There really was a humanitarian crisis, and Iraq really was in violation of the UN. There are good grounds to defend the war itself. My problem is simply with the evidence to support the war, which (to me) have been demonstrated to be false, inaccurate, misleading, or at the very least still failed to be proven.

I would also strongly recommend the website The site has no endorcements and I believe it to be fair and equal in its targeting.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.