The New York Times, America's paper of record, the beknighted institution, All the News That's Fit to Print, etc. etc. etc. seems to have deceived its readers.
You see, last week the Times trumpeted a misleading summarization of the 9-11 Commission staff report on Al-Qaeda by posting a front-page headline "No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Along with the front-page story, the Times ran an editorial excoriating the Bush Administration and questioning the basis of its attack on Iraq.
Today the Times ran a story regarding a Defense Intelligence Agency document that shows Saddam reached out to al-Qaeda in the mid-90s. But the Times had this information when it ran the story claiming no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam. In other words, the Times knew of information completely contrary to, and which disproved, its editorial line and the 9-11 Commission report and refused to run it.
Andy McCarthy rips the Times over this and explains how pernicious the Times is:
Why is this important? Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Times, the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission staff, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection naysayers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it didn't happen — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence.
* * *
We know there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after the collaborative proposals discussed in the newly reported document. How does the Times know that Saddam never responded to bin Laden's overtures? It doesn't. Neither do I. Neither do you. That's why it's called an investigation. The idea is to keep digging until you know. To the contrary, the Times's idea is: bury it, pretend you don't even know the things you do know, grudgingly admit the bare minimum, and use the enormous weight of your own inertia to make the whole thing go away.
Read the whole thing.