Maybe This Explains Cheney's Anger at the NYT

Consider: The administration gave a document proving the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq "several weeks ago," by the NYT's own admission.

The Times claims it's been "verifying" the document for all that time. One might suspect they were waiting for an opportune time to run it, say, after the staff of the 9-11 commission issued a statement denying ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda specifically repudiated by the 9-11 Co-Chairmen.

And also note that the Times didn't take long to "verify" the claims of the 9-11 staff. They received them and printed them that very day.

But when a document -- already authenticated by US intelligence -- is delived to the NYT, they take "several weeks" to verify it themselves.

What accounts for this divergence in verification procedures, I wonder?

But that's not the main point. This is.

The New York Times -- even if it was "verifying" this document -- chose to claim for weeks that there was no tie at all, while during this period they had in their possession a document proving, or at least purporting to prove, the precise opposite.

Liberal bias? Nahhhhh. Couldn't be.

Liberal-Baiting Epilogue: Since we all know that George W. Bush was not, in fact, elected in 2000, does this mean he's eligible for a third term in 2008?

Update: Captain's Quarters makes some hay of all this too.

As does Strange Women Lying in Ponds, who also hears the New York Times urging the public to "Move on, nothing to see here."

And I almost called this post "Tomorrow Kausfiles' Take, Today." How right I was. I'm glad that at least someone sort of in big media gets this outrage.

posted by Ace at 02:27 AM

| Access Comments