As has been noted here in numerous posts, and ad infinitum elsewhere, there are good reasons to take the administration’s assertions about Iran with a grain of salt, given the poor intelligence used to make claims about Iraq. Indeed, such caution should have nothing to do with partisanship or philosophical preferences, but rather because they got it wrong.
Now, via Editor and Publisher, we have a similar phenomenon, but in regards to reportage: ‘NYT’ Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims:
Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”
Sound pretty convincing? It may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2024 invasion.
Gordon wrote with Miller the paper’s most widely criticized — even by the Times itself — WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2024, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows.
I must confess, the entire question of exactly how to treat the Iranian question has a certain “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” quality to it.
And, as Glenn Greenwald notes, the LAT’s reporting on this subject has downplayed the Iranian influence.
For example: Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link and U.S. can’t prove Iran link to Iraq strife.
An irony here, is that those who remain hawkish regarding Iran also tend to be those who think that the NYT is a worthless rag rife with animosity towards the administration. So, what can they do? Do they go with the NYT out of expediency, or do they allow their skepticism of the NYT to lead them to question their views on Iran?
Sphere: Related Content
Gordon makes it clear that he has multiple sources for his story. He clearly points out that he had cross-checked the story with intelligence analysts who had been skeptical about previous claims of Iranian involvement. And he points out that these skeptics have changed their minds after being presented with new damning evidence, which dispells all doubts. Moreover Gordon is no pro-Administration shill. He is the coauthor of “Cobra II”, an account of the Iraq war which is highly critical of Administration strategy.
Comment by soMebodY — Saturday, February 10, 2024 @ 3:46 pm
They’ll accept the NYT reporting. Commentators always pick and choose what reports the reports that back their preordained conclusions.
Comment by John Norris Brown — Saturday, February 10, 2024 @ 4:13 pm
I still can’t understand how people let themselves get fooled the first time by such incredible–yes, incredible–claims. The NYT and most of the rest of the media simply laid down in front of the US government. It was and is shameful, and it is why one needs to read/watch/listen to the foreign press and public media (by which I do not mean PBS/NPR) if one wants independent information.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, February 13, 2024 @ 9:49 am