New Revelations Highlight Miller Ink Stain at 'NY Times'

[maddezmom]

New Revelations Highlight Miller Ink Stain at 'NY Times'
Colin Powell admits being wrong about WMD in Iraq. What about the Gray Lady?

By William E. Jackson Jr.

(May 19, 2004) -- This past Monday, The New York Times published "U.S. and Iraq Spar Over Who Should Run Corruption Inquiry Into Oil-for-Food Program," a jointly-authored piece by Susan Sachs and Judith Miller. Sandwiched into the story was the observation that, beyond the political question of who should run such an explosive investigation, there was the practical question of access to thousands of documents that remain in the hands of individual Governing Council members "like Ahmad Chalabi ... a former exile who returned with the strong backing of many Bush administration officials."

Was this an attempt by Judith Miller to distance herself from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader with whom she had such a close working relationship during the long period of her misreporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? For Chalabi had been not only the favorite of the Pentagon to govern Iraq; he was Miller's as well.

That day, the Times also reported Secretary of State Colin Powell's confession on "Meet the Press" the previous day, near the close of a staff-interrupted interview with Tim Russert, that he and the CIA had been fooled by intelligence sources who provided wrong and "deliberately misleading" information about Iraqi WMD -- such as presented to the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. Not included in the paper's brief account was any mention of the fact that the Times itself had been a conduit for such bogus information through Miller's reporting at home and abroad, which heavily relied upon INC defectors either offered by Chalabi or the Bush administration.

Jack Shafer in Slate subsequently argued that Powell has been more accountable than the paper of record: "Note to Bill Keller: Colin Powell Admits He Was Misled About WMD. Why Can't the Times?" Chalabi and his "heroes in error" had played Miller and The Times for "suckers," as I observed in a March 10 column here.

~snip~
much more:http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000514376

[happyending]

1. thanks

That's just dynamite.

[enough]

2. Right to the point.

snip>

Who at the Times protects Miller from the consequences that should have flowed from the highly irresponsible reporting she did on WMD in 2002-2003? At several national newspapers, not to mention the Times itself in the Jayson Blair case, severe penalties have been imposed on bad journalists for reporting untruths. However, they were not involved in the glaring conflicts of interest -- among other negatives -- that characterized Miller's performance.

An industrious star reporter holding onto her job is one thing. But just what is the problem that keeps executive editor Keller from ordering a lengthy editors' note correcting what she wrote based on tainted sources in the pages of the Times? She was up to her eyeballs in hyping disinformation resulting from a highly suspect intelligence operation run by a foreign exile group, which had penetrated the office of Cheney, and which actively suborned the entry of the United States into a misguided, and destructive, invasion of Iraq.

[The Zanti Regent]

3. Why did the Screw York Times fire Jayson Blair and keep Judith Miller?

Why will nobody at the Times answer that question????????