Digg
del-icio-us
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The momentous occasion of the end of the war in Iraq also marks a time for reflection at The Times. As many of our readers have pointed out for years, this newspaper played no small part in making the case for the war in the first place, and in supporting the costly and deadly U.S. occupation of Iraq for five years — long after public opinion had turned against it.
We have in the past acknowledged botched reporting. In May 2006, we published an editors’ note acknowledging no fewer than nine articles that uncritically repeated erroneous claims about W.M.D.s by anonymous officials.
Those admissions, we realize, didn’t go nearly far enough. Notably, we failed to single out the instrumental role that Times reporter Judith Miller played in bringing unfounded W.M.D. allegations to a national audience.
Miller’s prominent stories hyping purported Iraqi weapons go back to 1998, and were full of dramatic but unverified claims and unreliable sources. “All of Iraq is one large storage facility” for W.M.D.s, she credulously quoted one source (September 8, 2002). Miller systematically played down skepticism and conflicting evidence, both of which were readily available to any reporter. In so doing Miller lent crucial support to the Bush administration’s agenda. It took Miller’s involvement in the vengeful leak of a C.I.A. officer’s name before we finally let her go — with a hefty severance package.
Even after this episode, we continued publishing articles based on claims by anonymous officials advancing unverified claims — this time, against Iran.
As for our opinion pages, what we passed off as “debates” on the Iraq war have consistently excluded the views of people with a track record of being right. Conversely, in January 2008, we boosted Bill Kristol’s already considerable national platform by offering him a regular column. It is hard to say why.
As early as 1997, Kristol had penned a Weekly Standard cover story, “Saddam Must Go,” in which he and contributing editor Robert Kagan called for war against Iraq: “We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable.” They argued that Saddam Hussein had humiliated the United States by expelling U.S. officials from U.N. weapons inspection teams. The editorial cited unspecified sources about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and concluded with this dark warning: “If you don’t like this option, we’ve got another one for you: continue along the present course and get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the Gulf. That day may not be far off.”
Why did we decide to reward Kristol for having been utterly — and lethally — wrong on Iraq? We can’t say for sure, but as of yesterday Mr. Kristol has been terminated as a columnist at The Times. In the same spirit, we also welcome Thomas Friedman’s resignation.
Beginning today, you will see a giant overhaul of our paper, from the front page to this page, as, belatedly shouldering our responsibilities as the newspaper of record, we make a practice of hiring writers who get it right.
Does this mean you’ll finally start printing my letters to the editor? I’ve sent you a dozen or so over the last five years, on Iraq, health care, Cuba, Israel, and other topics. All rejected on ideological grounds by your editorial board.
Better still, will you hire me as a regular columnist in place of Friedman or Kristof? I was actually right on the issues where they consistently blew it! Shouldn’t that count for something?
Comment on November 13, 2008 05:42 am