About
	Contact Us
	Articles
	Topic Index
	Reports
	Quotes
	On the Web
	Links
	TW Tracker
	Support

Terrorism

• November 23 -- Bush Should Squeeze Congress, Says Suddenly Supportive Times
Suddenly, the Times favors Bush pressuring Congress: "A number of Congressional Republicans and members of the Sept. 11 commission….said that Mr. Bush, who has vowed to revive the bill, also needed to put pressure on a handful of House members aligned with the Pentagon who defied the president over the weekend and blocked a final vote on the legislation."

• November 23 -- Condoleezza Rice Not as "Bellicose" As Feared?
A second Bush administration, unrestrained by the caution of Colin Powell, will lead the United States into an unending series of confrontations with the world.

• November 22 -- A Double Standard on Anti-Terror Cheap Shots?
Labeling bias and double standards on political "cheap shots" in a front-page story from Philip Shenon and Carl Hulse.

• November 5 -- The Patriot Act Threatens Civil Liberties, Again
Michiko Kakutani reviews a law professor's new book on civil liberties in wartime and finds ominous modern-day parallels (of course): "At a time when the Patriot Act threatens to curtail civil liberties…."

• October 25 -- More Hard-Luck Stories from Guantanamo Inmates
Tim Golden has two huge front-page stories on the military and diplomatic struggles over the inmates at Guantanamo Bay: "Many of the detainees sent to Guantánamo turned out to be low-level militants, Taliban fighters and men simply caught in the wrong place at the wrong time." Not until the last four paragraphs does Golden note some released prisoners are now fighting American troops in Iraq.

• October 22 -- A "Didactic" Anti-Michael Moore "Screed"
Movie critic Manohla Dargis takes on "Celsius 41.11", a conservative antidote to left-wing Michael Moore's "documentary": "A didactic screed that has all the verve of a PowerPoint presentation and all the subtlety of a Homeland Security red alert, 'Celsius 41.11' is finally interesting only because it represents another unconvincing effort on the part of conservatives to mount a viable critique of Mr. Moore."

• October 19 -- Rebutting Bush So Kerry Doesn't Have To
David Sanger and Jodi Wilgoren accuse Bush of "a far more incendiary characterization" of Kerry and helpfully disputes Bush's characterizations of Kerry's positions.

• October 14 -- Post-Vacation Tom Friedman, Rested and Rabid After Bush
Columnist Thomas Friedman, rested and rabid after his vacation: "By exploiting the emotions around 9/11, Mr. Bush took a far-right agenda on taxes, the environment and social issues -- for which he had no electoral mandate -- and drove it into a 9/12 world. In doing so, Mr. Bush made himself the most divisive and polarizing president in modern history."

• October 5 -- Poor Palestinians on Anniversary of Intifada
Steven Erlanger paints the Palestinian terror intifada in Timesian moral equivalence: "Among the more than 3,000 dead, more than three Palestinians die for every Israeli, and among the Palestinian dead, though figures are hard to come by, easily more than half are civilians."

• October 1 -- Still Misquoting Cheney
Adam Nagourney sticks mostly to facts in his rundown of the first presidential debate but works in yet another misleading anecdote about Dick Cheney.

• September 30 -- Lumping Toddlers with Rock-Throwing Teens
A headline on a story on violence in Israel, "Children on Both Sides Killed on Northern Border of Gaza Strip," portrays the victims as equally young and innocent. Problem is, the Israeli terror victims were toddlers, while two of the Palestinian "children" were 16- and 17-year-olds throwing stones at soldiers.

• September 28 -- Clam Up About Iraq, Cheney
The Times seems to want Dick Cheney to stop talking about all that scary terror stuff: "But these advance workers could not control what Mr. Cheney said or predict that his dark message would be out of sync with what many in his ardently supportive audience wanted to hear: his stand on domestic social issues."

• September 27 -- Bush's "Un-American" Campaign
"President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory" is the baleful opening sentence of a Times editorial, "An Un-American Way to Campaign."

• September 17 -- American "Arrogance and Excess" in Protecting Embassy
Sarah Lyall on security measures around the U.S. embassy in London: "…the scary-looking eyesore in this otherwise elegant area has become, to some, a symbol not just of American vulnerability, but also of its arrogance and excess."

• September 16 -- Edwards As "Moderate," Plus More Misleading on Cheney
An off-lead story on Kerry's suddenly invisible running mate misleadingly labels Edwards a moderate and repeats a misreading of Dick Cheney's war-on-terror speech.

• September 13 -- Bush to Blame for Beslan Massacre?
Does Bush share responsibility for the killings of schoolchildren in Chechnya?

• September 10 -- "If A Republican Had Said That…."
How would the Times react if Bush told an audience to "beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing"?

• September 10 -- Bumiller All Wet on "Explosive" Cheney Remark
More misleading by the Times regarding a recent Dick Cheney quote on fighting the terror war--plus, a tale of two hecklers.

• September 9 -- Taking Cheney Far Out of Context, Again
Katharine Seelye and Ralph Blumenthal treat seriously the new controversy over Bush's Vietnam service--quite a change from how the Times treated the Swift Boat Veterans.

• September 9 -- More Mangling of Cheney's Terror Comments
Adam Nagourney turns media-mangled comments from Dick Cheney on the terror war into a fretful article: "Is it possible for a candidate to go too far, and alienate the very voters he is trying to court?....The remarks were among the more dire offered in a presidential campaign since 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson broadcast a television advertisement, with a mushroom cloud, warning that the election of Barry Goldwater would lead to nuclear war."

• September 8 -- Removing "Allah" from the NYT?
The Times carries political correctness to an extreme in its coverage of the terrorists in Chechnya. Also: Did the NYT substitute "God" for "Allah" in a quote from a terrorist to lessen the Muslim aspect of the attacks?

• September 8 -- NYT Clips Cheney's War on Terror Quote
A misleading headline tops a misleading front-page story by David Sanger and David Halbfinger on Cheney's recent remarks about the war on terror.

• September 1 -- Context for Kerry Quotes, but None for Bush's "Gaffe"
Elisabeth Bumiller again plays up a Bush "gaffe" to portray Bush on the defensive: But when Bush attacks Kerry in similar fashion, she allows the Kerry campaign to put the quote in context.

• August 31 -- Did Republicans "Cross the Line" on 9-11?
Todd Purdum provides the latest criticism of the Bush campaign for discussing the single-most significant event of his presidency, 9-11: "From morning to night, the Republicans strode proudly, even defiantly, right up to that line--if not over it--and the delegates responded with roaring approval…."

• August 31 -- Over-Excitement Over Bush's Terror Comment
Elisabeth Bumiller gets a front-page story out of a Bush comment on the terror war ("I don't think you can win it") and tries to gin up a controversy.

• August 30 -- Republicans "Putting 9/11 Into August"
The Times helps spread the idea of Republicans politicizing 9/11, while puffing up party controversy.

• August 25 -- Harping on Overseas Unpopularity of Guantanamo
We get the point, Neil.

• August 19 -- More Cheap Shots at Gun Owners from Kristof
Nicholas Kristof resorts to cheap, tiresome psychoanalyzing of gun-owners as self-doubting men who fire guns to make themselves feel more macho: "Assault weapons aren't necessary for any kind of hunting or target shooting, but they're popular because they can transform a suburban Walter Mitty into Rambo, for a lot less money than a Hummer."

• August 17 -- The "Campaign Against Political Dissent"?
The Times editorial page Tuesday gets a bit overwrought about the alleged governmental threat to civil liberties: "The F.B.I.'s questioning of protesters is part of a larger campaign against political dissent that has increased sharply since the start of the war on terror."

• August 11 -- Can Goss Boss the CIA?
Poisoning the well for Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's choice to head the CIA: "…his recent actions…have angered a number of senior C.I.A. officials, which could make it difficult for him to work with many of the holdovers from the Tenet era." Another piece intones: "Mr. Goss has engendered considerable ill will within the very organization he has been tapped to lead."

• August 11 -- Another "Independent-Minded" Bush Critic
Reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg praises yet another moderate Republican senator, and frequent Bush critic, Sen. Susan Collins: "Independent-minded but cautious…with her pleasant demeanor and penchant for being well prepared…."

• August 10 -- Bush-Hating Krugman: "It Scares Me Sometimes How Blind People Are."
Times columnist (and professional Bush-basher) Paul Krugman gives interviews to a couple of left-wing groups--and free reign to his Bush hate.

• August 9 -- Freaked-Out Librarians vs. Patriot Act
Timothy Egan takes seriously the view of some easily spooked librarians: "Whether federal agents are monitoring reading habits or not, the newfound power to do so has already had an effect on how people use their libraries, Ms. Sheketoff, the library association official, said, citing evidence from fellow librarians. Many libraries have posted notices saying that because of the law, they cannot protect the privacy of patrons' reading habits."

• August 9 -- Still Harping on Bush's Terror-Warning Timing
Two stories focus on the timing of the latest terror alerts. David Johnston and Richard Stevenson insist: "Among many of the administration's critics and even, to a more limited degree, among some of its allies, Mr. Ridge's performance was seen as fueling disbelief and cynicism," while Eric Lichtblau and Eric Lipton say: "Terrorism experts said the Bush administration may have also hurt its own cause and inspired public skepticism this week in how it alerted the public to the possible attacks."

• August 5 -- No "W" in Wisconsin
Stephen Kinzer and Todd Purdum find lots of Bush doubters in Kenosha, Wis.: "…many patrons questioned whether the Bush administration was trying to manipulate the terrorist threat for political advantage." As if such cynicism hasn't been encouraged by media skepticism.

• August 5 -- "Terror Alerts" When Bush "Would Have Benefited"
In contrast to a front-page story, a Times editorial keeps its suspicions up regarding Bush's terror-threat timing: "Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation."

• August 5 -- Taking the Terror Threat Seriously
A front-page Times story does--but the editorial page tells another tale.

• August 4 -- Bush Knew of Terror Threat Long Ago?
Adam Nagourney flubs a key fact in an article on the Democratic party's response to terror threats: "…the disclosure that the Bush administration had elevated the alert based on intelligence collected three or four years ago." Nagourney is apparently confusing the age of the terror-related information with the date the Bush administration actually gained the data.

• August 4 -- Bush Playing Politics With Terror?, Part III
David Johnston and Eric Lichtblau: "Senior administration officials said the action was not driven by election-year considerations, but by intelligence reports that described an orchestrated surveillance operation at several large financial institutions. It is now apparent that the information had significant gaps and omissions."

• August 4 -- Bush Playing Politics With Terror?, Part II
Todd Purdum's front-page news analysis recycles charges that Bush is politicizing terror threats.

• August 4 -- Bush Playing Politics With Terror?, Part I
A lead editorial obnoxiously suggests Bush is playing political games with terror warnings: "….it's unfortunate that it is necessary to fight suspicions of political timing, suspicions the administration has sown by misleading the public on security." But a front-page report today, armed with more facts, takes a more sober view of the terror threat.

• August 2 -- "Successful" Democratic Convention? Says Who?
Adam Nagourney and David Halbfinger assert: "News of the terror threat on Sunday also stirred renewed suggestions from some Democrats that the White House was manipulating terror alerts for Mr. Bush's political gain. They said the alert had been issued just as Mr. Kerry emerged from a convention that was described by Republicans and Democrats as a success." But conspiracy theories aside, polls have yet to discern much "success" from the Democratic convention.

• July 27 -- LBJ-style 'credibility gap' for Bush?
Michael Oreskes sees an LBJ-style "credibility gap" for Bush.

• July 26 -- Downplaying Al Qaeda-Iraq Ties, Again
In a front-page story on the 9/11 Commission's final report, Times reporters again try to minimize proven ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

• July 26 -- Sandy Berger, Terror Fighter
More pro-Sandy Berger spin from the Times: "[The 9/11 report] describes how Mr. Berger took the lead in December 1999 in mobilizing the F.B.I. and other domestic agencies to address the so-called millennium plot, in which attacks planned in Jordan and Los Angeles were disrupted." Or was it just plain old luck?

• July 23 -- Times Again Tries to Minimize Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties
Douglas Jehl insists the final 9/11 report "finds no indication that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990's 'ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship,' a conclusion very different in tone from assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials." But the report actually goes into significant detail about Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.

• July 23 -- Sandy Berger "Disrupted" Millennium Terror Plot?
After a string of blame-Bush stories in the Times, reporters David Johnston and Douglas Jehl squelch most of the anti-Bush bias in their story on the 9/11 commission's final report. But some misinformation still leaks through.

• July 22 -- Still Spinning the Berger Burglary
Eric Lichtblau and David Sanger work some anti-Bush spin into their front-page story on the Sandy Berger investigation: "…the campaign accused the White House of deliberately leaking news of the investigation and said that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in strategies to divert attention from the Sept. 11 report to be issued Thursday." Since getting into legal hot water, Berger's apparently been demoted by the Times.

• July 21 -- Bungling The Sandy Berger Burglary
The Times offleads with the wacky Sandy Berger story, but reporter Eric Lichtblau doesn't mention Berger apparently took classified documents on more than one occasion. The Times' earlier coverage also leaves out a lot.

• July 16 -- Bennet's Bye-Bye to Israel: Dreaming of a Palestinian State
Reporter James Bennet, who's leaving the Israel beat after three years (and much pro-Palestinian bias), issues a sprawling two-part report from Palestinian-occupied land that makes for two days of front-page stories, lamenting the failure of Palestinians to move toward statehood.

• July 15 -- Bill Maher, Groupthink Victim
The "Bill-Maher-Was-Fired-for-Saying-Terrorists-Weren't-Cowards" myth, once again.

• July 12 -- Still Ignoring the 9/11 Commissioners
Philip Shenon's story on the 9/11 commission's upcoming final report again insists the commission undermines White House arguments about a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda--despite what the cochairmen of the commission say.

• June 28 -- In Iraq, "Resistance" vs. U.S. Soldiers and "Collaborators"
Reporter Edward Wong describes the Iraqis killing U.S. soldiers as a popular "insurgency" and a "resistance" force, and calls Iraqis helping U.S. troops "collaborators."

• June 25 -- Now They Tell Us: NYT Confirms Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties
Thom Shanker has a scoop supporting the Bush administration's contention that there were in fact ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq (no matter what the paper's previous headlines have implied). But why didn't they tell us last week?

• June 24 -- South Korea "Anti-Iraqi" for Anger Over Beheading?
Reporter James Brooke reviews reaction in Seoul to the killing of a South Korean hostage in Iraq, including demonstrations against sending more troops to Iraq. But he also notes: "An unexpected reaction was Wednesday's wave of anti-Muslim and anti-Iraqi sentiment." What's "anti-Muslim and anti-Iraqi" about Koreans wanting revenge for the gruesome killing of their countryman?

• June 22 -- Could Bush & Co. Have "Foreseen" 9-11?
Douglas Jehl again argues the Bush administration missed clues to the WTC attack.

• June 21 -- US in Iraq Like Soviets in Afghanistan?
Distortions old and new from reporter Edward Wong in his latest from Baghdad. First he compares the U.S. liberation of Iraq to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, then wrongly claims Bush pressed for war by citing a working relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

• June 21 -- Safire vs. The Times
Columnist William Safire opens with a broadside against the Times' misleading front-page treatment of the 9-11 report, and then takes on the editorial page.

• June 21 -- More Misleading on Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties
Times reporter Tom Zeller challenges liberal conventional wisdom on the idea that the 9/11 report contradicts Bush and Cheney's claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Will his colleagues ever do the same?

• June 18 -- Jehl Calls Bush Into Question Over 9-11
Douglas Jehl pens a slanted analysis of Bush and the 9-11 report: "…that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe. Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months that the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House."

• June 18 -- Dick Cheney Takes On "Outrageous" NYT
David Sanger and Robin Toner's front-page story is headlined "Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein." More accurate would have been "Cheney Castigates NYT." Then again, the vice president hasn't been too impressed with Times headlines lately.

• June 17 -- Czech It Out: Times Tries to Squash Al Qaeda-Iraq Link
The NYT has worked overtime to discredit Czech intelligence reports of a meeting in Prague between 9-11 terrorist Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. James Risen cites the 9-11 report to justify dismissing the allegations: "…the Sept. 11 commission said its investigation had found that the meeting never took place." But the report doesn't--as Risen's own story shows.

• June 17 -- Doubting David Attacks Bush's Iraq Speech
David Sanger reports on a Bush speech and works in his own doubts about Iraq: "Mr. Bush focused on the best news he could find in the 14 days before the handover. He said that thousands of schools had reopened and that electricity had been restored, not mentioning that electricity was being generated far below the levels his own administration set as a goal." But Sanger leaves out a lot.

• June 17 -- Hitting Bush's "Spotty Scorecard" on Iraq Invasion
Richard Stevenson sees trouble for Bush from the 9-11 report: "In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein."

• June 17 -- Bush's "Dishonest" War Efforts
An editorial on the 9-11 interim report begins: "It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11." The report actually confirms a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that doesn't stop the editorial page from calling Bush dishonest.

• June 17 -- The 9-11 Report: Overreaching to Blame Bush
Philip Shenon and Christopher Marquis take the front page for the first in a series of blame-Bush stories in the wake of the 9-11 commission's report: "The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a 'collaborative relationship' between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

• June 16 -- The U.S. "Scolding" in San Francisco
A liberal judge scolds; liberal peace activists talk; reporter Eric Lichtblau listens. But does he have the full story?

• May 28 -- What's Happened to the Times' Terror Concern?
The Times has been critical of Bush for failing to act against terror threats before 9-11--yet its dragging its heels in laying out current terrorist threats.

• May 27 -- Bush's Response to Terror Threats: Either Passive Or Politicized
First the Times jumps on Bush for not acting on vague terrorist threats in a daily briefing he received a month before 9-11. Yet when John Ashcroft speaks out about a new Al Qaeda threat, they question the political timing in the headline and story.

• May 24 -- Susan Sontag, the Times' Anti-American Essayist
The Sunday magazine gives its front page over to radical intellectual Susan Sontag's on Abu Ghraib, the same person who wrote after 9-11: "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?"

• May 21 -- James Bennet, Unbalanced In Israel
Reporter James Bennet’s “Letter from the Middle East” takes evenhandedness to the point of setting up a moral equivalence between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists, lumping the groups’ conflicting claims into a general “fog of war.”

• May 19 -- Flooding the Zone on Abu Ghraib
The Washingtonian recently crowned the Washington Post the clear winner over the New York Times for comprehensive coverage of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse story. As if making up for lost time, Wednesday's NYT becomes Abu Ghraib central.

• April 29 -- Snell and the Terrorist’s Plea Bargain
The Times promoted the “Quiet but Aggressive Staff” on the 9-11 Commission. The story’s lead character, Dietrich Snell, tells the Times that he heard a terror suspect promise revenge as he was led away. The New York Daily News had a slightly different story in 2001.

• April 19 -- John Ashcroft, Loser
Adam Nagourney and Eric Lichtblau fill in their scorecard for the 9/11 Commission, and put Attorney General John Ashcroft firmly in the loser category: "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."

• April 19 -- Bush Told "Lower Manhattan" an al-Qaeda Target?
A front-page story by David Johnston and Jim Dwyer makes an erroneous claim about the Presidential Daily Briefing memo that makes the terrorist threat warning sound more specific than it was: "It said that Qaeda operatives…could be focusing on a building in Lower Manhattan as a target."

• April 15 -- The Return of Incurious George
A sensible editorial is marred by eagerness to reduce Bush to a cartoon figure: "Americans knew George W. Bush was an incurious man when they elected him, but the hearings of the 9/11 investigating commission, which turned yesterday from the F.B.I.'s fecklessness to the C.I.A.'s blurred vision, have brought that fact home in a startling way."

• April 14 -- Why Won't Bush Apologize for 9/11?
At Bush's press conference Elisabeth Bumiller demanded: "Do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?"

• April 14 -- The Anonymous Ashcroft Memo
An editorial on the FBI's pre-9/11 failures dismisses a memo introduced by John Ashcroft and fails to mention the most interesting part of the story--the memo's author.

• April 14 -- "Political Peril" for Bush?
David Sanger's front-page analysis of Bush's Tuesday-night press conference raises the stakes for Bush: "Facing a moment of political peril unlike any in the more than one thousand days of his presidency…." Sanger also frets over Bush's refusal to admit mistakes.

• April 13 -- The Adams' Family Bias
Adam Nagourney paints a Bush press conference as a defensive move and cements his point with quotes from former Times reporter Adam Clymer--who's not exactly a "major-league" Bush supporter.

• April 12 -- "Bold" Nuttiness from Cynthia McKinney
The Times soft-pedals former Rep. Cynthia McKinney's conspiracy theories: "Well known for bold comments and back on the campaign trail." Among McKinney's "bold" comments: That Bush knew 9-11 was coming.

• April 12 -- Where "PDB" Means "Pin Damage on Bush"
The Times uses the August 2001 "President's Daily Briefing" to hit Bush for allegedly missing clues to 9-11--despite the memo's lack of detail.

• April 9 -- Philip Shenon Called On Caller Double Standard
On C-SPAN, reporter Philip Shenon was combative with a conservative caller but limpid with left-wingers. He got called on it: "…whenever we get these wild allegations and misstatements by critics of the administration…you never correct it. But any slight variance and…you're quick to defend the previous administration [Clinton]."

• April 9 -- Condi Not Contrite?
David Sanger seems annoyed Condi Rice didn't concede blame on the part of the Bush administration for 9-11: "She did not acknowledge failings…She also did not concede that the newly arrived Bush administration was part of that problem, or that it, too, underestimated what it confronted or was distracted by other issues like tax cuts, China and missile defense." He and reporter Philip Shenon also fail to provide context to a heated exchange between Rice and Democratic interrogator Richard Ben-Veniste.

• April 7 -- Overheating Rice
The headline to Elisabeth Bumiller's piece on Condoleezza Rice upcoming 9-11 testimony sets the bar sky-high: "Bush's Credibility Now Rests on Her Shoulders." Bumiller's article is no less overheated.

• April 7 -- Bin Laden Capture Would Be No Boost For Bush?
Adam Nagourney tries to tamp down any boost Bush gets from a hypothetical capture of bin Laden: "And what if the capture of Mr. bin Laden brings with it disclosures that the United States had missed opportunities to seize him earlier, a finding that might lend some heft to Mr. Clarke's criticisms." Does Nagourney know something we don't?

• April 7 -- "Preventable" 9-11 Puts Rice on the Spot?
David Sanger and Philip Shenon again claim Condoleezza Rice is under pressure, since the 9-11 commission thinks the WTC attacks were preventable. But commission leaders have never pinned blame on Bush or Rice. Also, the "uranium from Niger" legend returns.

• April 5 -- The Times Still an Anti-Condi Conduit
Douglas Jehl and David Sanger again hold Condoleezza Rice up to a level of scrutiny that anti-Bush Richard Clarke managed to avoid: "Her task seemed to become even more difficult on Sunday, when the leaders of the commission said that it was likely to conclude that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable." But the commissioners didn't blame Bush or Rice.

• April 2 -- Clarke Commended, Rice Fried
Philip Shenon and David Sanger--surprise--bolster Richard Clarke at the expense of Condoleezza Rice.

• April 2 -- "Nonpolitical" WTC Widows
Sheryl Gay Stolberg's front-page story, "9/11 Widows Skillfully Applied The Power of a Question: Why?" suggests they have no political agenda. However, statements from the women themselves suggest otherwise.

• April 1 -- Pro-Palestinian Movie Leaves Reviewer "Infuriated"
Stephen Holden reviews an Israeli documentary focusing on the plight of Palestinians that leaves him "infuriated and mystified" at Israeli actions.

• April 1 -- Clarke's Candor vs. Condi's Contradictions
The Times has yet to compare Clarke's 2002 pro-Bush comments with his anti-Bush allegations of 2004, but finds Condoleezza Rice guilty of an apparent "contradiction."

• March 31 -- NYT Pits Clarke vs. Rice...But What About Clarke vs. Clarke?
The Times runs an article on "discrepancies" between what Condoleezza Rice has said about 9-11 compared to recent claims made by Richard Clarke and others. But what does the Times have to say about Clarke vs. Clarke?

• March 30 -- Richard Clarke a Must-Read, Raves Risen
National security reporter James Risen likes Richard Clarke's Bush-bashing book a lot: "…if President Bush and his advisers were hoping that their loud pre-emptive attacks on 'Against All Enemies' would make this book go away, they were sadly mistaken. Richard A. Clarke knows too much, and 'Against All Enemies' is too good to be ignored."

• March 30 -- Sanger's Surprise
David Sanger, who's usually more interested in chipping at Bush's foreign policy credibility, talks to an intelligence official who calls Clarke's 9-11 memories into question.

• March 29 -- Sharon "Bent On More Violence"?
Neil MacFarquhar's story on an aborted Arab-nation summit in Tunisia passes along this propaganda line: "Syria and Lebanon…[argued] that Arab public opinion would not abide such an overture to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel at a time when he seemed bent on more violence."

• March 29 -- Still Standing Up For Clarke
The Times paints Clarke's 9-11 testimony as confirming the Bush administration's worst fears, while cheering Clinton's anti-terror efforts: "The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush allowed the terrorism issue to drift down the list of White House priorities from the relatively high importance given it by President Bill Clinton's national security aides."

• March 29 -- NYT Provides Platform for "Dick Clarke's American Grandstand"
Eric Lichtblau claims Richard Clarke's stories stand up to scrutiny, even though a 2002 press briefing by Clarke utterly contradicts his current anti-Bush claims.

• March 26 -- A Condi Scoop for the Times?
Condoleezza Rice is retiring?

• March 26 -- Clarke's Book a Must-Read, Say D.C. Lefties
It's still all Clarke at the Times, with two front-page stories. Rachel Swarns finds unlabeled leftists to chatter about Clarke's must-read book, while a news story concludes: "With the economy faltering and Democrats so united, Mr. Bush's terrorism credentials are portrayed by his supporters as the strongest assets he has going against Mr. Kerry. The revelations--in particular, the account offered by Mr. Clarke--could give Mr. Kerry ammunition to attack Mr. Bush on foreign policy." And the Times is pitching in.

• March 25 -- Clinton "Distracted" from Terror "By Threat of Impeachment"
The Times blasts the "lack of urgency" of the Bush administration's pre-9/11 terror efforts in an editorial on Richard Clarke's testimony--and offers a lame excuse for Clinton's inaction.

• March 24 -- Fleischer Rebuts Krugman
Ari Fleischer responds to Paul Krugman, who accused the former White House press secretary of warning people "to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions" after Fleischer said "Americans need to watch what they say" after 9-11.

• March 24 -- Richard Clarke, "Unbowed"
The Times profiles the anti-Bush brigades' newest star Richard Clarke, portraying him as standing "unbowed" against attempts by the Bushies to "discredit" him.

• March 23 -- Hamas Leader "Killed Just As He Finished the Dawn Prayers"
Neil MacFarquhar writes on Arab anger over the assassination of the "spiritual leader" of the terror-group Hamas, but calls him only "a Palestinian opponent to [Israeli] occupation."

• March 23 -- The "Perceived Threat" of Hamas?
Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the "spiritual leader" of the anti-Israel terrorist group Hamas, enables the Times to call Yassin a lot of names, among them "Icon" and "Perceived Threat"--but not "Terrorist."

• March 23 -- Richard Clarke "Undercuts" Bush: "Basic Credibility in Jeopardy"
Anti-Bush accusations from Richard Clarke make the Times front page, while a "News Analysis" enthusiastically portrays Bush as "on the defensive" with his "basic credibility in jeopardy."

• March 22 -- Francisco Franco Is Still Dead...Times Bias Is Still Disgraceful
If Elaine Sciolino’s consistently hostile reporting on Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar wasn’t enough, she compares him to Spain’s former fascist dictator General Francisco Franco.

• March 15 -- Reign Fall in Spain Means Stormy Weather for Bush
Elaine Sciolino also fingers Bush for blame for the Spanish ruling party's loss in Sunday's election and sees the results as a problem for Allied forces in Iraq.

• March 15 -- Pain in Spain for Bush
After the defeat of Spain's Bush-allied party, David Sanger's analysis carries this blunt headline: "Blow to Bush: Ally Rejected--Voters Clearly Reiterate Opposition to Iraq War." Sanger, who rarely misses a chance to portray Bush's unpopularity abroad over Iraq, writes up the results as an "electoral rebuke" to Bush.

• March 12 --  Gall Over Youths In Guantanamo
Carlotta Gall talks to three Afghan youths released from Guantanamo Bay, but while even the liberal London Guardian quoted the boys about how much they liked Guantanamo and Americans, Gall ignored those positive views and focused on concerns about their captivity.

• March 12 -- Bush-Backing Spanish PM to "Get the Blame" for Terror?
Elaine Sciolino's hostile profile of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar appeared the morning of a terrorist attack in Madrid, and her story on the attack works in the same anti-Aznar points: "Ninety percent of Spaniards opposed Mr. Aznar's decision to back the United States in the war against Iraq, and some say that if Arab groups are responsible for the attack, Mr. Aznar will get the blame."

• March 10 -- Twisted Terror Priorities at the Times
The Times' twisted priorities on the war on terror: Possible miscalculations by the Bush administration get top-shelf treatment, while potential terrorist threats are either played down or (in the case of Jehl's story) not mentioned at all.

• February 9 -- Goodie for Gorby
Seth Mydans' story on a Moscow subway bombing plugs a liberal hero: "The glasnost--or openness--that Mikhail Gorbachev brought to the Soviet Union does not run deep."

• January 29 -- Hezbollah, an "Organization" of "Pioneers"
Ian Fisher on the anti-Israeli, anti-American terrorist group Hezbollah: "Mr. Tahir has no question whom to thank: Hezbollah, heroes to virtually all of southern Lebanon even if Israel and the United States put the armed Shiite Muslim group on the 'A team' of world terror."

• January 26 -- Harsh Ashcroft
Has John Ashcroft used "harsh measures" to combat terrorism? Alan Cowell takes it as a given.

• January 19 -- Karl Rove, Evil Genius
Elisabeth Bumiller parrots Democratic spin on Bush adviser Karl Rove, "the man who told Republicans they should use the war on terrorism for partisan advantage."

• January 19 -- The Absent-Minded Italian Professor
Karen Arenson makes much of a professor from Italy "scheduled to teach at New York University this semester [who] has decided not to do so, as a protest against the new American policy of fingerprinting arriving visitors and employees from other countries." But Arenson fails to point out Italians are exempt from fingerprinting.

• January 15 -- "Conservatives" vs. "Democrats"
Eric Lichtblau and James Risen pit "conservatives" versus plain old "Democrats" in a story on a 9/11 task force.

• January 1 5 -- More Double Standards on the Gaza Strip
While Greg Myre is preoccupied with the sex of a suicide bomber that killed four Israelis, Craig Smith's calls embattled Jewish settlers in Gaza "flagships of extreme Zionism [that] provoke Palestinian fury."

• January 14 -- Times Book Critic Not Mum On Frum
Michiko Kakutani takes on the recent volume by conservative hawks David Frum and Richard Perle: "It is a screed….all the subtlety of a pit bull on steroids…smug, shrill and deliberately provocative….macho posturing…bullying tone and often specious reasoning." She didn't like Frum's last book much, either.

• January 5 -- Bulldozing Balance in the Gaza Strip
Craig Smith, new to the Israel beat, proves to be an old hand when delivering a credulous pro-Palestinian slant.

• December 11 -- No Good News From Baghdad?
Is the Times burying good news from Baghdad? Edward Wong's dispatch at first reads like another round of Baghdad bad news--until the ninth paragraph: " In contrast, a heavily policed march in central Baghdad on Wednesday, organized peacefully by the country's major political parties, drew thousands of Iraqis to protest attacks by guerrilla fighters, which have injured and killed Iraqi civilians as well as occupiers."

• November 20 -- The Times Finally Checks Out Pentagon Memo
After several days, the Times finally weighs in on a story regarding the leaked memo alleging ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

• November 18 -- A Press Release for Left-Wing Disruptors
Left-wing anti-globalization activists are gearing up for a Miami trade meeting, and the Times helps with a glowing profile of left-wing activist Lisa Fithian: "Fithian will join them, but she doesn't care too much about the march. It doesn't need her. It needs numbers. Direct action--to physically 'shut it down'--is her calling. Blocking the Miami airport, preventing delegates from getting inside the conference center, ripping a hole in the protective fence--these things need her."

• November 18 -- Syria's Torture, America's Shame
Clifford Krauss tells the story of a Canadian arrested while changing planes at JFK and deported to his native Syria, where he was jailed and claims to have been tortured. Krauss shakes his head and blames...the United States.

• November 14 -- Warren Hoge's Rogue Attack on Bush
Times correspondent Warren Hoge: "America is now something of a rogue state, a pariah nation….It is quite amazing to think where we were the day after September 11 and how much of that goodwill has been squandered."

• October 14 -- Minding Syria's Business
Neil MacFarquhar's latest Damascus dispatch again lays out the terror-sponsoring state's case against Israel, while refusing to identify Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terror groups, simply saying they've been "labeled" so by Israel and the U.S.

• September 22 -- Their Own Personal Vietnam
A Times editorial leaps into the Big Muddy: “The Bush administration always bristles when people attempt to draw any parallels between the quagmire in Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq.”

• August 20 -- Terror in Israel, Real and Imagined
Tuesday’s piece by Middle East correspondent Ian Fisher blames “radical” “right-wing” Jewish settlers for hypothetical future attacks on Palestinians. The next day, a Palestinian suicide bomber killed Jewish civilians for real.

• August 20 -- Times Lets Dems Exploit Grief of Baghdad
Richard Stevenson lets two Democratic candidates take unopposed potshots at Bush over the Baghdad bombing.

• August 14 -- The Times’ “Don’t Name the Victim” Mentality
Ian Fisher’s story from Israel, “2 Suicide Bombers Fulfilled Their Fathers’ Worst Fears,” profiles the fathers of two young terrorist bombers and talks about the anger the boys felt toward Israel. As for the victims: “They killed one Israeli man who was grocery shopping and an 18-year-old army recruit at a bus stop.” So much for the victims.

• August 13 -- “Charitable” Impulses Toward Hamas
James Bennet compares Israeli militant-turned-prime minister Menachem Begin to the terrorist group Hamas and becomes the third Times reporter to favorably cite the group’s “charitable” impulses.

• August 13 -- Gen. Clark Chides Krugman’s Faulty Quote
Gen. Wesley Clark chides columnist Paul Krugman for inaccurately quoting him regarding a call he received urging him to link 9-11 to Saddam Hussein: “No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.”

• July 21 -- Anti-Israel Terrorism Would Have Been OK?
James Bennet writes on rising crime in Palestinian towns: “They were not masked men battling for the Palestinian national cause, just three thugs trying to kidnap a man off the street, apparently for ransom.” Would Bennet have thought better of the men if they’d been terrorists?

• June 25 -- Targeting Terrorists Bad for Middle East Peace?
A Times cover story suggests a recent round-up of suspected Hamas terrorists is a blow against peace and laments “harsh Israeli reprisals.”

• June 25 -- Labeling Bias, at Home and In Israel
Greg Myre calls Hamas, whose goal is the destruction of Israel, an “Islamic group” and notes its “extensive network of schools, health clinics and welfare groups.”

• June 23 -- Suicide Bombing: Just A Phase?
Reporter David Rohde portrays a would-be suicide bomber in Baghdad as a typical disaffected youngster: “Idealistic, in search of community, lost in many ways, he is trying to find himself, as young people always have.”

• June 17 -- The Times’ Muddled Middle East Morality
A front-page story by Greg Myre and Ian Fisher again shifts the blame for the failure of the Middle East “peace process” to the Israeli government, rather than the Palestinian terror group Hamas. The Times also attempts to position Israel and Hamas at two extremes--with the PLO as a voice of moderation.

• June 16 -- The Softer Side of Hamas
Ian Fisher’s profile of Palestinian terrorist group Hamas begins: “To most Israelis, Hamas is a terrorist group and little more, the core of Palestinian hatred that explodes against Israeli civilians who are innocently shopping or riding on buses.” But that’s just one side of the story, according to Fisher.

• June 13 -- The Times’ “Promising” Young Terrorist
Judging by the sympathetic headline to Ian Fisher’s story, “A Sudden, Violent End For a Promising Youth,” one might think it was about a victim of the recent deadly bus bombing in Jerusalem. But the Times is talking about the bomber.

• June 11 -- Israel Targeting of a Terrorist “Damages” Peace Talks
Middle East correspondent Greg Myre again puts the entire burden for the success of the “peace process” on Israel, saying its retaliation against a terror attack “further damaged an already fragile Middle East peace plan.”

• June 10 -- Randy Cohen’s Impeachment Proceedings
When Times ethics columnist Randy Cohen was asked by CNN’s Aaron Brown about possible Bush administration intelligence lapses, Cohen sounded armed for impeachment: “If you are so wrong about all three causes [for war], I wonder if you can honorably hold -- continue to hold your office.”

• June 9 -- Well-Intended Terrorists?
Elvis Mitchell’s review of a documentary of the terrorist group The Weather Underground claims the film “captures a movement in motion, with its contradictions of good intentions and narcissism.” Mitchell’s upbeat tone is remindful of another fond look at terrorists that appeared in the Times the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

• May 30 -- We’re Sure She Was
The Times says Maureen Dowd was “happy” to correct her distortion of a Bush quote.

• May 30 -- Profiles In Terrorism
Friday’s front-page is dominated by profiles of two Palestinian suicide bombers, with one called “the first Palestinian woman to blow herself up on behalf of an Islamist group.” Isn’t the Times taking its gender-equity obsession a bit far?

• May 21 -- Reporter Chris Hedges’ Pompous Pacifism
Times reporter Chris Hedges thought “progressive” Rockford College would be a safe place to indulge his pompous pacifism: “I want to speak to you today about war and empire….We are embarking on an occupation that if history is any guide will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige and power and security.” The graduates thought differently.

• May 20 -- A Video Game Platform…for Terrorism?
Daniel Wakin’s story from Beirut gives free publicity to a Hezbollah video game whose object is to kill as many Jews as possible. Wakin’s ambivalent attitude toward the game is best rated P--for peculiar.

• April 29 -- Eyeless in Gaza
James Bennet reports from Gaza on the strained friendship between the head of Fatah and the leader of Hamas—making it sound more like a spat between two neighborhood bakeries than two terror groups.

• April 15 -- What the Times “Calls” Objective
“The United States has long accused Damascus of supporting groups it calls terrorists, especially Hezbollah,” says reporter Neil MacFarquhar. Like there’s any doubt about the nature of Hezbollah?