Quote:
|
Originally Posted by slang
I thought that the NYT started running stories about Iraq becoming a threat sometime in 1998.
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
|
I don't understand your point. Stories about threats from Iraq predated 1990. So what? We are not talking about a time when the NY Times provided both background of the threat and reasons why the threat did not exist. We are discussing a time when the NY Times literally quashed or buried (in back pages) stories that factually demonstrated George Jr myths of a Saddam threat. And no, I never said Judith Miller wrote those stories. But she "kept feeding her stories that NY Times editors just could not ignore." The problem in 2002 was that NY Times editors did not challenge those sources AND did not demand Miller's notes. This also when editors that should have come from where the work gets done were not the editors in charge.
But again, I don't understand your point about 1998 articles. For example, your article from 25 Aug 1998 entitled "US Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan" sat adjacent to another article entitled "A Moderate Thinks US Shot itself in the Foot". So in 1998 the NY Times was providing contrary perspective. We now know that second article was quite accurate. IOW the NY Times back then provided background information from both perspectives - a practice that was not ongoing in 2002.
We know from 2004 articles that much of the information in those 2002 news reports were literally based upon lies and too often fabrications from the George Jr administration. The aluminum tube story is a perfect example of an administration that knew facts to be otherwise - but promoted lies about those aluminum tubes anyway?
Your article from 20 Nov 1998 entitled "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say" also quote experts such as Charles Duelfer who said the UN Commission and cooperation of adjacent countries insure that Iraq could not build prohibited weapons. Today we know Charles Duelfer was accurate. IOW your cited article cites many rumors BUT also cites why the WMDs were not possible. It goes further to mention offshore contracting was more difficult to detect and police.
But again, the 1998 NY Times article provided multiple perspectives including the perspective that was proven accurate.
Meanwhile what did the NY Times not do in 2002? As scientists repeatedly demonstrated - too many times with too many facts - that those aluminum tubes could not be used for WMDs AND that those aluminum tubes were perfect for counterfeit Medusa rockets. Instead the NY Times did not report that reality until 2004.
Of course I am only repeating what every Cellar Dweller would have known back then or are finally (grudgingly) admitting today. Other sources provided doubts that the NY Times failed to provide; as summarized in a previous post:
Quote:
A soldier's viewpoint
It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense. Military analysts even demanded to see the only evidence George Jr had that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. The only evidence were speculations about aluminum tubes. Today we know that technical analysts by the dozens were correct - those tubes were only for making rockets - to duplicate an Italian rocket called Medusa. Even the company (Zippe?) who made centrifuges that George Jr claimed Saddam was duplicating said those aluminum tubes were wrong - completely wrong - for uranium processing. ...
Miltary analysts demanded to see the evidence and found it lacking. Repeatedly, those who know how the work gets done were upset with the mental midget president's decision to invade Iraq. It made no logical sense. That is painfully obvious with what the retired generals were saying back then. An Iraq invasion was not justified. Franks was correct to be angry. Even back then, a war with iraq was obviously wrong - once you eliminate the propaganda from the White House ...
|
Where was the NY Times when other sources (writing reports that many here declared as lies) were writing the truth about Iraq? The George Jr administration literally lied to justify a war in Iraq. Those aluminum tubes are the perfect example of how far they would lie.
The NY Times did not report the accurate story; instead gave too much credence to administration lies until 2004 when the NY Times began to suspect what are typically management (editorial) problems. Judith Miller being a symptom of the NY Times unable to see through repeated administration lies about Iraq - and playing catchup starting in 2004.
But again, what is your point? Your previously cited (1998) articles did provide multiple perspectives. The NY Times in 2002 (and apparently under undo influence of people such as Judith Miller) did not provide what we now know to be accurate facts. Those aluminum tubes being a classic example of administration lying (along with uranium from Niger) that the NY Times did not properly report. If that news source did not include what American scientists were saying and did not include those tubes were perfect for manufacturing rockets, then that new service had a problem. 2002 NY Times did not do its job. They parroted what we know now were administration lies.
Meanwhile, Fox News (I bet) still will not admit the lies about those aluminum tubes. A fact that should strike fear in those who still listen to Fox News for accurate reporting.