Why I don't Except the NY Times' Correction

I was looking at the NY Times Correction (from Seattle PI), and was happy to hear they were correcting stories....Until I saw what they were correcting...

On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified.

On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector -- his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri -- to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers.

On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts." That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: "The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."

Five days later, the Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view ("White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons"). The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1.

On April 21, 2003, as American weapons-hunters followed American troops into Iraq, another front-page article declared, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." It began this way: "A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said."

The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with al-Qaida -- two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" -- who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence -- had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion.

The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims.

Great! So the Times is apologizing for reporting on WMDs. How about all those "other" mistakes...You know, the ones that harm conservatives? Ted Rall? The distortions of Paul Krugman? Maureen Dowd? This "correction" is the worst kind of bias. Apologizing for not been anti-war enough? By correcting these "mistakes" they let a reader believe they've done more search into these stories. They obviously have not. If they had, they would have told us more about the Sarin shell that had technology not reported to U.N. They would have told us about the Mustard Gas shell. They would have told us about the marches in Iraq protesting the insurgents that only Healing Iraq covered. They would have told us ON PAGE 1 about the threat to bomb the heart of Jordan by Syria with WMDs Syria has never had.

Why not correct those? I know the A.N.S.W.E.R., do you?

To the Times' Editors, if you really want to be the paper of record, please stop acting like one sided shills. Half this country is Conservative. Try to remeber that.

Comments

[Rojak]

Um, perhaps you meant 'accept" rather than "except" the NYT apology?

[Aakash]

The WMD claims also "harm conservatives"... Those false claims harm us all.

This is maybe the 3rd comment that I've posted within the past few days about this issue. It is too bad that, even with all that has been happening within the past few weeks, some people are still regarding this as a 'liberal vs. conservative' issue. As I just pointed out in a comment post at Mr. Carter's blog, many liberals and Democrats supported the Iraq war, because it is consistent with left-wing and Democratic foreign policy principles, something that several war supporters, both liberal and conservative ones, have pointed out. Many more liberals and Democrats would be supporting this war - just as they've supported liberal interventions in the past - if a Democrat were in power, rather than a Republican.

Our government's current policy in Iraq is very liberal, and Democrats should be supporting it, while those of us who are conservatives and Republicans should be opposing it.

The media should perhaps be apologizing for its false claims, but there are others who have a lot more apologizing to do...