From Editor & Publisher by Greg Mitchell:
"In Sunday's 10,000-word indictment of the Bush administration's misuse of prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, The New York Times did not spare itself in apportioning blame in the fateful rush to war. Readers had to dig deep into the massive story, and understand some of the subtleties in the self-criticism, but it was there.The first hint of self-criticism in the Times article comes just past the midway point, when the writers observe that on Sept. 8, 2002, the top article on page one of their newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program."
The next self-criticism, equally damning, appears a few paragraphs later. It describes how the Times, on Sept. 13, 2002, made the first public mention of the internal tubes debate. Did the paper play it up? No, the editors put it on Page A13. Did the article raise a red flag? Not exactly. It quoted an unnamed senior administration official dismissing the debate as a "footnote" and reported that the "best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like the Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments."
Sunday's article ends with a damning indictment of Secretary of State Powell for giving credibility to the aluminum tube theory in his speech before the United Nations on February 5, 2003. It does not mention, however, that the Times, like most major newspapers, did not at the time dispute Powell's assertions. As the paper concludes today's story, "Six weeks later, the war began."
Comments