NY Times Says It is Sorry

[umtalal]

Too late for I'm sorrys. I'm sure the NYTimes has another agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html?th

July 16, 2004
A Pause for Hindsight


Over the last few months, this page has repeatedly demanded that President Bush acknowledge the mistakes his administration made when it came to the war in Iraq, particularly its role in misleading the American people about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. If we want Mr. Bush to be candid about his mistakes, we should be equally open about our own.
During the run-up to the war, The Times ran dozens of editorials on Iraq, and our insistence that any invasion be backed by "broad international support" became a kind of mantra. It was the administration's failure to get that kind of consensus that ultimately led us to oppose the war.
But we agreed with the president on one critical point: that Saddam Hussein was concealing a large weapons program that could pose a threat to the United States or its allies. We repeatedly urged the United Nations Security Council to join with Mr. Bush and force Iraq to disarm.
As we've noted in several editorials since the fall of Baghdad, we were wrong about the weapons. And we should have been more aggressive in helping our readers understand that there was always a possibility that no large stockpiles existed.

[freetobegay]

1. Welcome to DU umtalal

And your right, it's to late to say I'm sorry.

[umtalal]

3. Thank you for the welcome

It is much appreciated to be within a group (oops, the forbidden word) of people who welcome my ideas.

[Worst Username Ever]

2. Hmmmm

not sure what to make of this. Maybe it will at least make some freeps give it a second look.

[umtalal]

4. Like Fire Judith Miller

or have her spend some time with Martha Stewart.

[hansolsen]

5. Posted on their web site -- Facts trump theories; editors eat humble pie

This in regard to Today's editorial, A Pause for Hindsight.

Well, let it be said that on July 16, 2004, the Grand Poobahs of the Times finally sobered up. Today they acknowledge that, "we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions (on WMD in Iraq). I, and many others of course, have long observed that the Times was drunk on Judith Miller fairy tales in the lead up to the war, and long into the war, and that drunken bender contributed mightily to putting a stamp of credibility on the Bush administration's plans for war in Iraq. Yes the editors objected to the war unless we had international backing, but that was about like handing a pack of drunken sailors a stack of $100 dollar bills with directions to the nearest whore house, and instructing them they were not to go unless accompanied by their maiden aunt.

The editors also say, "We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us." Well, I am happy and proud to say, I was one of those people, and it is with deep satisfaction I see these words in print here today. So, in a spirit of taking yes for an answer, let me say thank you, and congratulations, first to Ms. Collins, for her courage and good sense in taking this step today. It is an important step, I believe. If only our president could display such courage and humility, the world would be a better place, and though it pains me to say so, he could probably get reelected. I also offer a tip of the hat to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and the rest of the editorial board for coming to their senses, and being willing to say so. In the history of the New York Times, the WMD news and editorial coverage may well go down as one of the darkest hours in the family history. Yet, today, with this clearing of the air, the clouds part, the sun shines, and even the harshest critics of the Times coverage of the lead-up to the war are compelled to say -- today is a very good day at the Times.

Your loyal reader, Hans

[CHIMO]

6. Sorry

Well now go and pick up the feathers!

Wonder if there is any liability here if conspiracy is proven?

[alarcojon]

7. I was trying to look at the plus side on this

Of course it is too late to bring back our dead or the Iraqi dead. On the other hand, there is hope that the next war someone tries to get us into with lies won't happen.

[hansolsen]

8. I sent this letter today.

This in regard to Today's editorial, A Pause for Hindsight.

Well, let it be said that on July 16, 2004, the Grand Poobahs of the Times finally sobered up. Today they acknowledge that, "we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions (on WMD in Iraq). I, and many others of course, have long observed that the Times was drunk on Judith Miller fairy tales in the lead up to the war, and long into the war, and that drunken bender contributed mightily to putting a stamp of credibility on the Bush administration's plans for war in Iraq. Yes the editors objected to the war unless we had international backing, but that was about like handing a pack of drunken sailors a stack of $100 dollar bills with directions to the nearest whore house, and instructing them they were not to go unless accompanied by their maiden aunt.

The editors also say, "We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us." Well, I am happy and proud to say, I was one of those people, and it is with deep satisfaction I see these words in print here today. So, in a spirit of taking yes for an answer, let me say thank you, and congratulations, first to Ms. Collins, for her courage and good sense in taking this step today. It is an important step, I believe. If only our president could display such courage and humility, the world would be a better place, and though it pains me to say so, he could probably get reelected. I also offer a tip of the hat to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and the rest of the editorial board for coming to their senses, and being willing to say so. In the history of the New York Times, the WMD news and editorial coverage may well go down as one of the darkest hours in the family history. Yet, today, with this clearing of the air, the clouds part, the sun shines, and even the harshest critics of the Times coverage of the lead-up to the war are compelled to say -- today is a very good day at the Times.

Your loyal reader, Hans