Byron York: Full of Al Qaqaa
By on Mar 13th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Byron York: Full of Al Qaqaa
Byron York, National Review, 2/28/05:
[T]he [New York] Times appears to have simply dropped the Al Qaqaa story, publishing nothing about the munitions dump and the supposedly critical issues it raised about the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq…The obvious question is whether the Times pushed the Al Qaqaa story hard in the days in which it might have an effect on the presidential election, and then let up the moment the election was over.
New York Times, 3/13/05: A1, Above the Fold
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I wouldn’t hold your breath for an apology from York. This is why people write these columns. There is no downside/accountability if you’re wrong.
March 13th, 2005 at 10:17 amGoldberg, being the lazy ass that he is then used this for his syndicated column. Keep in mind that the Times consistently running anti-Bush stories is a sign of liberal bias. The Times not consistenly running anti-Bush stories is also a sign of livberal bias.
March 13th, 2005 at 11:10 amMoron. What college of limited knowledge do these people go to that allows this horrible and unchecked level of argumentation. The if A the B, has turned into an if A then whatever I feel like making up, is the new substitute for well reasoned thought. Good grief.
March 13th, 2005 at 11:20 amByron asked a good question. The NY Times published multiple pieces the week before the election, and then nothing for the next four months.
It seems to me that the NY Times is full of Al Qaqaa.
March 13th, 2005 at 11:27 amDamn straight! We all no that Sadam had them thar weapons! Hell, he bombed the WTC!! We all saw them flowers in the street when we gots there! And aint the democracy we brung a hoot! Thank goodness their oil is paying for it all and we don’t have to pay for it all ourselves, just like I said….er…wait a minute….scratch that last one…er…I mean….nevermind…
March 13th, 2005 at 11:37 amPerhaps Bush wanted it no longer mentioned. Seems Al Crock-ahhh story was out well before the election.
Remember when Bushco showed warehouse of allowed ordinance to create a WMD perception?
Of course you do. Just before they quit guarding such areas and went for supply runs to oil/gas sights and the logistics of halliburton convoy escorts.
Thanks goodness they damn near offed the Italian woman who was going to talk about Fallujeh war crimes. We woudln’t want to endanger the troops by maybe putting a stop to this bullshit war.
March 13th, 2005 at 11:40 amThe NYT doesn’t publish much about Saddam’s WMD’s as the main rationale of the war anymore either, so I suppose by York’s logic the paper is actually pro-Bush.
March 13th, 2005 at 12:20 pmI dunno. Mebbe there was some news… and then there wasn’t some news.. and then there was some news.
March 13th, 2005 at 12:23 pmIt’s weird to see conservatives attack the the New York Times these days. Wasn’t it the paper’s own Judith Miller, after all, who helped advance Bush’s case for war there? The Times has been entirely useful to Bush — it’s the paper with the liberal reputation that still backed the biggest play of his first term. The Times legitimized Bush’s push for the Iraq war. I think conservatives owe the Times some gratitude.
March 13th, 2005 at 12:37 pmByron asked a good question. The NY Times published multiple pieces the week before the election, and then nothing for the next four months.
It seems to me that the NY Times is full of Al Qaqaa.
From today’s NYT:
In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.
Since the evidence seems to be plentiful that the Great Bush Plan to Save Us All From Iraq’s WMD didn’t include any plans for, you know, actually securing any weapons sites, I’d say there’s little here for the BananaRepublicans to crow about. You’d think they’d be grateful for the lack of stories about how incompetent Dear Leader and his Krazy Krew have been.
March 13th, 2005 at 1:00 pmWell, York asked the question two weeks before the TImes article came out. The article could reasonably be seen as a reaction to York’s colloquy. It’s wankery of a fashion to intimate that the Times pushed the Al Qaqaa story for political purposes, as if the systematic looking of tons of munitions killing our soldiers is a non-story. But if the Times story came BEFORE York’s story, I’d agree with you more.
March 13th, 2005 at 1:25 pmThe rightwingnut 1st Commandment of spin.
March 13th, 2005 at 1:33 pm“When you can’t dazzel em with details baffel em with Bullshit.”
>>The article could reasonably be seen as a reaction to York’s colloquy>>
I doubt NYT editors jump to when NRO speaks. Also note the story’s length: It looks to have taken some time to report. Yes, you could argue, ‘exactly two weeks worth of time, in fact.’ But not reasonably, and not if you know anything about how the daily news business actually works. Stories get picked up, dropped, published and revisited for several reasons, few if any relating to political urges. A story’s progress from discovery to print has a lot of moving parts, and most of what delays a story or speeds one to print has to do with certainty (or lack thereof) about the facts and the sourcing.
March 13th, 2005 at 2:10 pmBut ignorance is a luxury: people who’ve never set foot into a newsroom can afford to fantasize that editors are little Saurons who watch the world with lidless eye and send their minions out to enforce the agenda. But is that a world anyone with sense, and a life, wants to live in? Where news isn’t read, just parsed for its left-right alignment and every story’s timing is proof of same.
Let us know how that works out for you.
Let’s hope that the NY Times story on how the Bush administration allowed weapons to be systematcially looted doesn’t gain traction. Then we’d have to riase the terror alert again to take our mind off the bad news. I hate when that happens. I’ve got to put the plastic sheeting BACK up over the windows, put on the gas mask, and sit in my ’safe room’ eating MREs until the story fades from the national consciousness, and we can all go back to endlessly praising Fearless Misleader.
March 13th, 2005 at 2:12 pmThe article could reasonably be seen as a reaction to York’s colloquy
Ah, the Kool Aid. It rots your brain. But it is sweet. So sweet.
March 13th, 2005 at 2:49 pmThere’s a bit of a chronology problem here. Without more evidence I can’t condemn Mr. York. He wrote that piece two weeks prior to the NYT article which you cite to prove he is “full of al Qaqaa.”
March 13th, 2005 at 3:30 pmYou’ll need to cite a NYT article that precedes York’s to make a point about either his laziness or malice.
Strange thing about how the commentary on today’s NYT’s article on unguarded WMD sites could be a reaction to internet criticism: it doesn’t deal with the sourcing that made the story current news. This news item builds on information released by one of the ministries in the current, pro-US government in Baghdad in the last 24 to 48 hours. As I recall, that information was made available to the United Nations in keeping with Iraq’s longstanding treaty obligations. By all logic, it is reporting new information, a legitimate ‘news’ article and not a reaction to York, or anyone else’s, question about bias at the paper. It is only by ignoring this part of the story, the part that establishes the article’s provenance, and so detaching it from any temporal context, that this allegation can be made. This misrepresentation of the reason for the publication of today’s story makes this allegation nothing more than spin, propaganda and defamation.
March 13th, 2005 at 6:10 pmWhat a bizarre rationale: if the NYT stops covering a story merely because nothing new is happening – it is a sign of “liberal bias?” Byron York displays standard propaganda style: draw a conclusion first, then distort or invent supporting facts.
Please also note the “lose-lose” scenario: if the New York Times prints more stories about terrorists looting the unguarded Al Qaqaa armory – they’re showing “liberal bias” by their continued reporting. If they stop, they’re also showing “liberal bias.” Byron York apparently feels “fair and balanced” reporting is to bury any story that might possibly reflect badly upon George Bush. By that standard, PRAVDA gave us fair and balanced reporting on the old Soviet Union…
March 13th, 2005 at 7:01 pmThe Bush administration appears to have simply dropped their timely terror alerts, leaving the American people in utter confusion about just how terrified to be. The obvious question is whether the Bush campaign pushed terror alerts hard in the days in which they might have an effect on the presidential election, and then let up the moment the election was over.
March 14th, 2005 at 12:18 amThe thread is callled braindead media for a reason (though “cowed”, “cowardly” also come to mind)
The Al Quaqaa story disappeared because there was no media follow through; because the oversight and investigation are anathema to the Republican Congres and because the Iraqi government supressed follow on reports until after the election so as not to embarrass Bush
That why we just learned a few days back that not only did Bush’s invasion force fail to secure ammo dumps, they also failed to secure weapons manufacturing facilities some of which had precision machine tools usable in nuclear weapons manufacture.
March 27th, 2005 at 11:43 amopt in email lists sports betting
You are invited to check out the pages on online sport betting site
November 19th, 2005 at 7:16 pmif you need some web design work then check outwebsite design montreal web design – web developers
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 amI do not know, what the form or importance is more important, but you do not need to reflect, everything is at high level on your site! I thnk that there is no necessity to make heavy weather of describing how nice your site is! Everyone can find here all he or she need! Thank you so much for your time, attempt and dedication to maintaining this website. I have visited it often.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:50 amYour site could replace books, TV and even communication with women to me! Wonderful design in a complex with professionally picked up information leaves very pleasant impression. You have worked well! The site is intereEnjoyed reading your site, just passing by and saw your site. Really nice!
January 4th, 2006 at 11:51 amHallo, people! This site is worth of your time! Your site is on the very high level and includes a lot of very interesting information and was very useful for me. This is a great site! Good luck!Jessica Ecker %e-mail%
January 4th, 2006 at 11:54 am