| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
April 19, 2004
Bush Told "Lower Manhattan" an al-Qaeda Target?
A Sunday front-page story by David Johnston and Jim Dwyer provide more examples of failed pre-9/11 intelligence, but features an erroneous claim about the famous August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing memo that makes the terrorist threat warning sound more specific than it actually was.
They write: "The memorandum, declassified on April 10 by the White House at the commission's request, included some ominous information. It said that Qaeda operatives had been in the United States for years, might be planning an attack in the United States and could be focusing on a building in Lower Manhattan as a target."
But the actual PDB says nothing about "Lower Manhattan." It mentions only "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," which casts a rather wider geographic net.
The Times' error may stem from an April 11 Washington Post story by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus that made the exact same mistake: "President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan." The "targeting" was later found to have nothing to do with September 11--the photographers of the federal buildings turned out to be tourists from Yemen.
Also on Sunday -- the very day Johnston and Dwyer's article appeared in the Times -- Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler called the Post story's use of the term "Lower Manhattan" a sign of "political bias."
For more of David Johnston and Jim Dwyer's long rundown of pre-9/11 intelligence, click here.
• Corrections | Jim Dwyer | David Johnston | Terrorism
Spanish Withdrawal
"Serious Setback" In Iraq
In her Monday lead story, "Spanish Premier Orders Soldiers Home From Iraq--A Setback For U.S. Effort," reporter Marlise Simons twice characterizes the withdrawal of Spanish troops as a "serious setback."
First she writes of incoming Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: "Mr. Zapatero's move, though a serious setback, will not come as a surprise to the United States."
Then she writes, puzzlingly: "A European diplomat called the pullout a serious setback for Washington because Spain's presence was more important symbolically than in a military sense. The United States has been eager to maintain the international veneer to the increasingly beleaguered allied force, which is dominated by its 130,000 troops."
If Spain's presence was more important symbolically than militarily, wouldn't that make its withdrawal rather less of a "serious setback"?
There's a bit of a double standard here. After a year of Times complaints about Bush's "unilateral" efforts in Iraq, how can withdrawal of Spanish soldiers (who make up less than 1% of total Allied troops) be such a "serious setback"? Doesn't the Times consider such international presence as token anyway?
For the rest of Simons' story, click here.
• Iraq War | Marlise Simons | Spain
"Evaluating the 9/11 Hearings' Winners and Losers," Adam Nagourney and Eric Lichtblau's Sunday scorecard for the performance of key players on the 9/11 Commission, places Attorney General John Ashcroft firmly in the loser category, while ignoring the substance of the memo he presented showing a Democratic member of the commission also may have some questions to answer.
Here's the beginning of their Ashcroft entry: "JOHN ASHCROFT (AND JAMIE S. GORELICK) Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general, was still recovering from gallbladder surgery when he testified. By the time he was finished, even some Republicans were saying he might have been better off staying at home, and some commission members suggested he may have damaged his relations with them. Mr. Ashcroft went characteristically on the offensive, blaming the Clinton administration for many intelligence failures. He challenged the testimony of a former senior F.B.I. agent that he had been inattentive to warnings about a pending terrorist attack in 2001."
They then gloss over the actual details of, and questions raised by, the memo presented by Ashcroft: "Then he produced a 1995 memorandum, declassified by the Justice Department in time for the hearings, outlining restrictions on sharing information between agents in criminal and intelligence investigations. He blamed the policy of building a 'wall' for the failure of the C.I.A. and F.B.I. to share information that might have prevented the hijackings--and proceeded to point a finger."
That's a reference to the author of the memo, Democratic commission member Jamie Gorelick, who was deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton.
The Times chooses to spin this confrontation not by questioning Gorelick's place on the commission, but as a badge of honor for Gorelick in a Kerry administration: "Mr. Ashcroft's challenge to Ms. Gorelick could prove a badge of honor for her should John Kerry win election, since she is on the list of people mentioned as a possible attorney general in a Kerry administration."
Nagourney and Lichtblau cement this anti-Ashcroft view with quotes from a Democratic consultant and an unidentified "commission member" who talks like a Democrat: "One commission member said of Mr. Ashcroft's testimony, 'The basic thrust was to put all the blame on Clinton, and he really made it very politicized.' Ms. Gorelick, on the other hand, 'came out looking really good,' said Matt Bennett, a Democratic consultant."
By contrast, partisan Democratic committee members Bob Kerrey and Richard Ben-Veniste get off somewhat lighter, especially Kerrey: "With his indignation, spirited questioning and energy so boundless that he mixed up the names of two star witnesses, Mr. Kerrey cut a memorable figure. Compared with Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Ben-Veniste was more prosecutorial, but both men stood out as tough questioners of White House officials, particularly Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser."
(Note that when Democrats mix up names, it's attributed to excessive energy, not lack of knowledge.)
They do go on to note "at times the Democratic duo might have been too tough. Republicans have invoked what they describe as the two men's belligerent, partisan demeanor to challenge the credibility of the commission….Even some Democrats said they might have been over the top."
For the rest of Nagourney and Lichtblau's grades, click here.
• Sen. John Ashcroft | Sen. Bob Kerrey | Eric Lichtblau | Adam Nagourney | Condoleezza Rice | Terrorism
The Times argues in favor of an International Court of Justice ruling that Mexican nationals on death row in America are owed a review of their cases. The Monday editorial then critiques Bush's use and America's approval of the death penalty: "Citizens in most other democracies in the world are appalled that the United States still has a death penalty, and that emotion early on helped taint their view of George Bush, who presided over many executions as governor of Texas."
But that may be just liberal conventional wisdom. Liberal journalist Joshua Micah Marshall pointed out in the July 31, 2000 issue of The New Republic:
It's true that all of America's G-7 partners, save Japan, have abolished capital punishment, but the reason isn't, as death-penalty opponents usually assume, that their populations eschew vengeance. In fact, opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians crave executions almost as much as their American counterparts do. It's just that their politicians don't listen to them. In other words, if these countries' political cultures are morally superior to America's, it's because they're less democratic.
Surely some citizens in other countries are indeed appalled at the death penalty and most everything else the U.S. does, but that's hardly news. Judging by Marshall's piece, most would welcome the chance to support the death penalty, if those other democracies were more democratic.
For the rest of the Times editorial, click here.
• Death Penalty | Editorial | Mexico | Joshua Micah Marshall
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org