"The New York Times and Iraq"

FROM THE EDITORS
www.nytimes.com
Published: May 26, 2004

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In doing so - reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation - we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge. www.nytimes.com

Replies: 2 Comments

Wednesday, May 26th, uscrusade.com posted:

Although they 'apologized' The New York Times is complicit in every death that resulted from this 'war'. Any sensible person with a computer and Internet access could have seen that they were WRONG, the information was there, however they had their agenda. Apologizing now rings very hollow. The major thing that can be taken from their 'apology' is how easily they presented misinformation as the truth, even in the face of better information. Any story they publish should ALWAYS be carefully examined because they have a history that should not be ignored.

Thursday, May 27th, Ayinde posted:

Personally I do not trust their attempt to set the record straight, and I don't consider what they wrote an apology. They were part of the drive to invade Iraq that killed many people, and they share the guilt of murder. Many independent low budgeted websites were pointing out the lies. The NY Times can afford thorough investigations, and they could have investigated all the WMD claims before the invasion.

This apology-that-was-not is probably about trying to regain the confidence of their readers to set them up again. Maybe an upcoming al-CIAda attack in the US that they want them to believe is not part of Bush's election agenda.

-Ayinde