With respect, my opinion is not based on sheer bias, but also on a careful reading of the data
This does not mean that it is correct, but it is certainly not an uninformed opinion based on some underlining bias.
3) “In the end it is disingenuous for the anti Bush crowd to assert that, “whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.” In fact it is doing the same thing that Bush detractors accuse the administration of, which is, to implicate guilt by association.”
How so? I happen to find it not only NOT disingenuous, but in fact correct. Who are we trying to associate the administration with to imply guilt? The American people? If that is the implication, then of course there is an association, since the American people get their information from, among other sources, the president of the United States.
Richard Henry Morgan – 6/
That is what pawn shops in NJ passes for a correction at the NY Times. They correct their error when forced to, and take a swipe at the same time. Read up on their own reporting of the Walter Duranty issue. The guy was a servile and enthusiastic liar for Stalin, and a reporter for the Times, who denied there was a famine in the Ukraine — a famine that killed 7 million people. He later told the British Ambassador that it was closer to 10 million. Recently, under criticism, the NY Times reviewed the case, concluding that Duranty was merely “too credulous”, and Duranty’s Pulitzer (won for repeating Stalin’s lies) is still displayed on the wall of the entrance to the NY Times.
Interesting exercise. Since Jayson Blair, even before he was caught out the last time and fired, had a known high error rate in his reporting, it would be interesting to look back and see just how many of those errors were in the corrections section. Similarly for Maureen Dowd. As far as I know, her claim that Bush had asserted iraq would be easy, has never been the subject of a Times correction.
Although I am sure it is no surprise to anyone, I happen to agree with the NYTimes conclusion that “whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.” In fact, I will go one step farther in saying that I do believe that there was such a deliberate campaign. Furthermore, I must say that the NY Times did not conclude it, the American people did, and up to 70% in fact who believe that it was likely Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Of course, every fact that the administration said regarding this particular matter was correct, and there is nothing that anyone can say to refute that. But that is not my charge that they told lies. My charge is that “there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association.” My evidence comes from their own statements, as well as the public reaction to them.
Of course, we will never know if this is true or not (I do not suggest that there is any memo stating it), but frankly, I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion.
John H. Lederer – 6/
Don’t be silly. A responsible newspaper like the NYT would print a correction if their main editorial were based on a false representation of what Bush said.
“Critics of the Bush administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion – only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out – although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.”