Hillary Clinton Fires Back at the New York Times

[BooScout]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-fires-back-new-york-times

Hillary Clinton Fires Back at the New York Times

Letter to the New York Times’ Dean Baquet

Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York

July 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Baquet:

I am writing to officially register our campaign’s grave concern with the Times' publication of an inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and her email use.

I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to publicly explain how this error could have been made. But we remain perplexed by the Times' slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times' editors have made. We feel it important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be properly addressed and so our campaign can continue to have a productive working relationship with the Times.

I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was. The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing "criminal" from the headline and text of the story.

(More) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-fires-back-new-york-times

[Cosmic Kitten]

1. Can't wait for a letter decrying lies promoting the Iraq war

FFS, where is the indignation about
the Times reporting false about
WMD and the need for war against Iraq?

Hillary promoted those same lies as she
banged the drum for a "War of Choice".

So it's OK to lie or misrepresent a war
resulting in untold death, dis-figuration,
human misery, torture, etc...
but heaven forbid any misrepresentation
of a blunder Hillary caused herself!

Lies about War are acceptable.
Misrepresentation of unethical behavior, not so much

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Couldn't of said it better myself. Hillary's support for the ill-fated Iraq War is just one of many reasons to dismiss her candidacy.

[JaneyVee]

36. Have you ever read her speech?

Here's part of it:

"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."


She was also senator from NY where support was particularly high.

[George II]

51. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU - maybe THAT will stop the BS BS. Maybe not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. How does Hillary Clinton voting for the Iraq War Resolution justify the New York Times lying...

How does Hillary Clinton voting for the Iraq War Resolution justify the New York Times lying about her?

That's akin to arguing that if I don't like something my neighbor did I can say I saw her having sex with her dog and publish it on the internet.

If you have a legitimate complaint about Hillary Clinton's IWR vote it would behoove you to bring it up in the appropriate context, just saying...

Nothing gives a person the right to lie about another person.

[Cosmic Kitten]

54. Look, she needs to write a "scathing letter"!

Nothing says I'm mad as hell
and I'm not gonna take it anymore
than a sternly worded letter!

THEN, THEN they'll think twice about
lying the nation into war!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. What does that have to do about lying about somebody?

Nothing I do gives a person a license to lie about me.

[Cosmic Kitten]

57. What lie?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. That she was the target of a criminal referral?

I wouldn't take too kindly if a newspaper published that DSB was the target of a criminal referral either.

[Sheepshank]

47. WTF does this have to do with the lies printed by Times

it's a separate op.

shitting over every Hillary post has become your standard I suppose?

*face palm* *roll eyes*

[Cosmic Kitten]

55. Don't be mad, bro... and try not to make it personal. M'kay

[George II]

50. Off topic, but.......

......while we're at it, just what was the text of the legislation that she voted for that "promoted war"?

No vague "well we ALL knew bush was lying" and all those other inane assumptions years after the fact.

Got anything Kitten?

[NCTraveler]

2. Absolutely disgusting actions by such a large publication.

Know that those attempting to rationalize it are fully working against progress. The NYT is attacking one of the greatest voices on women's rights we have and a great voice on many issues. Some will attempt to justify it by making reference to issues that are not germane to the situation itself. They are republicans, ratfuckers, or just plain stupid. It is like some have all of the sudden completely forgotten about how the media treats the left. As one poster put it about three months ago, "The NYT is quickly morphing into the National Enquirer." It is now their go-to source. That will last until the next story comes out. So many have become fair-weathered friends on the left. We should all be outraged at this. If you aren't, you are one of the options I mentioned above.

To some, keep ignoring the decades long dishonest treatment of democrats by the media. Act like you have never seen it before and that these are great and trustworthy institutions without a track record of working against progressives. Keep promoting this and sharing it in your support of conservatives.

[freshwest]

45. This post shows why they did it. They're against our issues. n/t

[riversedge]

4. Who are callling a fool??..

"Please go away disgusting Bush surrogate. We are trying to change the world...you are trying to change us to serve your masters on Wall St and in the Military Industrial Complex. How low can you go. I feel sorry for fools on my party that support you. Shame."

[billhicks76]

8. Anyone Who Supports Bush Loving Clinton

Its ok to tell the truth right? Are the optics not clean?

[Cha]

35. That's your opinion.. nothing more.

[leftynyc]

37. And I think anyone

trashing one of our nominees the way you do is nothing but a right wing troll looking to separate Democrats. Isn't it nice we all get to have our own opinions? Is that clear enough FOR YOU?

[artislife]

46. I think the candidates themselve are separating the Democrats

Forward v stay the course.

[NCTraveler]

7. Pretty sure they are rightfully calling the NYT a Bush surrogate.

I know it's hard to tell here sometimes. The other possible assumption would make their post pretty foolish at best.

[Cha]

10. You were being too optimistic.. he's trying to insult Hillary Supporters but looking like what he is

accusing others of being.

[NCTraveler]

11. Well, if that is the case, I will leave it alone.

I have four hidden posts at the moment and a proper reply to that thought process would leave me on time-out.

[Cha]

13. Uuuuuh! I hear ya! I try not to directly engage, anyway. Why

talk to anyone who only has personal attacks? That's their problem.

[sufrommich]

22. He's doing it for us..for all the people.He's just

that righteous,or maybe narcissistic.Regardless,it's our duty to shut up and listen,then nod our heads in awe.

[Cha]

30. It is to laugh.. their insults mean less than nothing. Go Hillary!

[billhicks76]

15. Uh...I do this for us...and all people.

Its not personal...like Hillary's self-entitlement. Its real. And Ive lived through real consequences of people like Hillary and Bush...And Ive been on the front lines in DC and across America putting my butt on the line. So your insults, misdirection, obfuscations or obsession with not criticizing your candidate just isnt a factor in my opinion.

[JaneyVee]

18. Oh you're such a martyr! Thank you for doing it for us!

[NCTraveler]

23. Don't you love it.

It's like the post the other day "I know I'm going to catch hell for this."

I made the same point to them. Thanks for being such a martyr. They literally stated their martyrdom before composing their post. It says a lot about the thought process and how they justify working against progressives.

[JaneyVee]

29. All they have is insults and smugness....

Yet they think they're the "enlightened" ones.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Uh, You aren't doing a damn thing for me

Saying Hillary and Bush are the same thing is saying Rebublicans and Democrats are the same thing. That kind of thinking got Bush to the position where he could steal the Whitehouse in the first place.

To to coin a phrase, you don't know me. You don't what I've been through, what I've done personally or how I've reached the conclusion that Hillary Clinton far and away the superior candidate. I don't bother to outline actual facts to certain types, as used as they are to hyperbole and magical political thinking. You have no right to pretend to speak for me. You don't. You won't, ever.

[NCTraveler]

25. +1 nt.

[NCTraveler]

33. Thankfully, "us" decided it falls out side of progressive communities standards. nt.

[Laser102]

34. Wow. I had no idea I was in need of your services. I would like to say thank you.

But no thanks. I really like Hillary and will be voting for her. Maybe you need to stay home and rest a bit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. You aren't doing anything for me and I am beyond

Uh...I do this for us...and all people.

You aren't doing anything for me and I am beyond appalled at you claiming that you are.

[George II]

52. The only one insulting ANYONE in this thread is YOU!

[billhicks76]

14. The Clintons Are Bush Family

It matters not the 1980 family photo at Kennebunkport with a wide eyed Bill in awe of Daddy Bush....but the threat I watched live of Bill going after Jerry Brown telling him he didnt know what he was messing with(not who...what) at the PBS roundtable primary debate in 1991 told it all. Ive watched these relationships very closely for decades and I have paid attention. My family are all high ranking republicans which is sad but trust me the Clintons serve them and always have. Bill came out of nowhere in '91...he was selected to defuse Brown and hedge for Bush because Perot joined the race to make sure Bush couldn't take over the country and start a world war in the Middle East...Bush and Co needed a back up candidate...a democrat in their pocket...do you really think they would let a real Democrat take over the American Government after JFK? Carter was a timeout short lived regrouping break...he was a real Democrat and still is. The Clintons are admitted honorary Bush family members...a rare title but deserved for making sure no IranContra justice was levied so the next generation of Bushed with the same administration could return in 2000. And now they are pulling the same shit again with Jeb and people arent crying foul and rioting? Mark my words, Trump and Christie are just there to make Jeb look moderate...they will be rewarded later. Jeb will claim the Hispanic vote (try to) and they will try and keep the dynasty going. They neutralize the anti-nepotism advantage by running Hillary....thats where we are fools. The public hates nepotism so once again they insert a Clinton to cover their bases. Fool me three, four,five times...wont get ...Uh, no thanks. Been there...done that.

[ismnotwasm]

21. What?

You say you lived through those days and THAT's what you come up with?

Boy I'm glad you're a Sanders fan.

[sufrommich]

24. +1. nt

[NCTraveler]

26. I wouldn't be so sure.

It reads more like a poor parody of a Sanders supporter.

"Boy I'm glad you're a Sanders fan."

If they are, I am glad as well. I am just not sure they are. I would hate to associate this with support for Sanders. Then again, I originally thought thy were calling the NYT a Bush surrogate. Wow was I wrong there.

[ismnotwasm]

41. Excellent point

[el_bryanto]

31. Please provide a source for the claim that the Clintons are admitted honorary Bush family members?

I haven't heard that before (and frankly don't believe it).

Bryant

[BooScout]

49. neither do I....

But don't look for a source....the poster has apparently been kicked out of the thread.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I like Jerry Brown, my governor, a lot...

It matters not the 1980 family photo at Kennebunkport with a wide eyed Bill in awe of Daddy Bush....but the threat I watched live of Bill going after Jerry Brown telling him he didnt know what he was messing with(not who...what) at the PBS roundtable primary debate in 1991 told it all.

I like Jerry Brown, my governor, a lot... I remember that debate...Jerry Brown gratuitously insulted Hillary... Bill defended his wife. In DSB's opinion a man who won't defend his wife isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

[leftynyc]

38. No - that pathetic poster

was saying it about Hillary. Just sat on a jury for another one of his repulsive posts - voted to let it stand as I'm all for stupidity getting sunlight.

[riversedge]

5. Interesting--The Clinton camp wants to discuss this with them..

......In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Palmieri
Communications Director
Hillary for America

Cc: Margaret Sullivan,
Public Editor
New York Times

[Capt. Obvious]

9. The Clinton's are catnip to the media

and the Grey Lady is no exception.

Given the Clinton's long standing antipathy to the fourth estate I doubt they really want to discuss anything with them other than trying to control their image as best as possible.

Remember the tabloid story they ran in 2007(?) on Bill? The Clinton's were out in front discussing it before it could head to print. They were able to stave off what was going to be a tawdry gossip piece and turn it into a suggestive innuendo piece; and then they released the hounds on the Times when that tamped down effort hit the stands (below the fold A1 IIRC). The backlash was so fierce it neutered the Times - for a while.

It seems to be happening again.

[Fred Sanders]

32. "class". Some understand the definition and some have not a clue.

[Cha]

6. Good for Hillary fighing back against corporatemedia and rw lies.

[Gamecock Lefty]

12. Go Get 'Em, Hillary!

We got your back!

RAISE HILL 2016!

[JaneyVee]

19. That full letter is scathing. Good for Hil.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Clinton should also have sent a copy to some DU members to ponder. Lots more good stuff in the letter.

The mass media needs a whipping, well deserved for so many reasons, and not just this massive propaganda failure.

Clinton can handle it, 30 years of being a leader and married to a leader for even longer....this is CLASS, as properly defined.

[Sheepshank]

48. She just threw down a gauntlet. Times is about to pick it up

and they will mess up big time. Their publication may very well be on the line if they screw this up. I sensed a deep and seriously smoldering "will never forget or forgive" feeling to the letter.

[Gothmog]

28. The NYT really screwed up here

[Iliyah]

40. K & R

The NYT is not done yet.

[freshwest]

44. Using an undisclosed source, huh? Drudge, Breibart, Rush, Fox? What a bunch of shills. n/t

[Spazito]

53. Geez, Judith Miller must have been their 'source'...

Same shameful coverage by this once prestigious now pathetic newspaper as was done with Miller's crap.