The New York Times Does Some More P.R. Work For the White House
The New York Times, in a breathless "exclusive" from unnamed "government officials," once again dutifully does the PR work for the White House. They swallow an implausible story, tossed to them like a dog bone, fashioned to protect "the President." Of course, two BuzzFlash readers saw through it in a minute, and these readers aren't getting paid what New York Times transcriptionists (aka journalists) and editors earn. We're sure of that.
Regarding:
B.S. Alert. The New York Times Thinks This is Some Sort of
Exclusive, But It's More of "Protect the President Leaking":
"Ashcroft
Learned of Agent's Alert Just After 9/11 but Bush Was Not Told"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/national/21INQU.html
* * *
Dear Buzz:
So if I understand this correctly .....
Two or three days after the attacks, Dale Watson, who was then assistant director for counterterrorism, brought the (Arizona) memorandum to the attention of Mr. Pickard, the acting director at the time, officials said. Mr. Pickard and several other agents then briefed Mr. Mueller and Mr. Ashcroft on its existence, the officials said.
That means that every time Mueller & Ashcroft heard Ari or Shrub say that they had no prior knowledge or warning of 9/11, Mueller & Ashcroft just went along with it? For 8 months?
RK SEATTLE,WA
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: So Ashcroft and Mueller would be concealing the memo then, from Bush and his staff. Doesn't that mean that they are lacking in integrity? Of course, the other option is that the unnamed government officials might be doing a little bit of prevaricating to the gullible New York Times. Which is it?
* * *
Dear BuzzFlash,
Shocking. Within a couple of days of the stunning news that Bush and his administration knew about a serious and impending terrorist threat planned within U.S. borders, almost every major media outlet, including the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post, seems to be concluding that Bush and his administration acted appropriately, and that the real culprit was a breakdown in communications among the intelligence community.
And what is the basis for this conclusion? Uncorroborated statements made by the Bush administration.
Huh?!? We're supposed to believe the Bush administration is telling us the truth NOW after it has been lying to the American public for eight months, after it (predictably and speciously) blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11? Come on. It's almost enough to make you want to stick your head up the media's collective ass so you can see what the hell they're seeing.
Let's get this straight: at this time, the only thing that we can conclude is that Bush and his administration actively lied to the American public regarding what they knew about the threat to the United States and when they knew it. If lying about an act of consensual sex is an impeachable offense, than lying about foreknowledge of terrorist acts certainly ought to be.
We
don't have enough evidence to conclude that Bush and his administration
acted appropriately. As on 9/11, the only thing we know about what Bush
and his administration knew before 9/11 is what they tell us, and they
have proven to be untrustworthy. Even if they finally are telling the
truth now, they cannot be believed without independent
confirmation.
We
also don't have enough evidence to conclude that Bush and his administration
looked the other way and allowed the terrorists to have their murderous
way. Certainly, there are enough inconsistencies and odd facts to give
rise to a suspicion that something sinister was afoot, but even the insipid
opportunist George W. Bush deserves the benefit of the
doubt, at least until it is established that he retired to his Crawford
farm because it was surrounded by SAM sights to protect him from suicide
terrorist airplane attacks (which I bet you it was).
Until we have real answers, we need to challenge the media and our representatives to really press Bush and his administration regarding the events leading up to 9/11. Just as the "smoking gun" Enron memos show that the media rushed to judgment several months ago when it concluded that "Enron is a business scandal, not a political scandal" (actually, it is a government corruption scandal), there is more information out there that must be considered.
Let me walk through some examples of lackadaisical reporting to illustrate how the major media outlets and our congressmen are not doing their jobs. These quotes come from a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/national/21INQU.html)
"But senior Bush administration officials said neither Mr. Ashcroft nor Mr. Mueller briefed President Bush and his national security staff until recently about the fears of an F.B.I. agent in Phoenix that members of Al Qaeda were training at American flight schools, though the two men began daily briefings of the president at the White House immediately after the hijackings."
Okay.
Let's assume that we've established that Ashcroft and Mueller did not
brief President Bush or his national security staff before 9/11, that
does not establish that somebody else did not, in fact, so inform them.
Indeed, it seems unlikely that Ashcroft and Mueller would provide such
briefings. Whose responsibility is it to provide such briefings? Is
the Bush administration saying that NOBODY ever raised these issues to
Bush or his national security staff before 9/11?
"Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, who was traveling today with the president in Miami, said, 'We have nothing that indicates the president had seen or even heard about this memo prior to a few weeks ago.'"
Okay. Do you have anything that indicates that, prior to 9/11, the president was informed of the concern that members of Al Qaeda were training at American flight schools? The president need not review nor be aware of a particular document to be informed of the ideas expressed in that document.
"Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said last Thursday that the president had not heard about the memorandum before the hijackings and had only recently learned of it. "I personally became aware of it just recently," Ms. Rice said, adding that she asked Mr. Mueller and George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, to review the matter."
Okay. But were you aware of the basic concern stated by the memo? The fact that you were not aware of the memo itself does not mean that you were not aware of the concerns expressed therein.
"The issue of when top officials knew of the Phoenix memorandum is emerging as a main focus in Congressional inquiries getting under way. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has asked the FBI to identify anyone at the agency who knew about the memorandum before the attacks."
Too
bad. Knowledge of the memo is irrelevant. The only thing that matters
is knowledge of the concepts and concerns raised by the memo. Everybody
knows what a television is, but how many people read the patent for it?
There are many concepts that are widely shared and discussed where those
discussing it have no idea as to the circumstances
giving rise to those ideas.
As these simple examples show, the media and Congress still are not asking hard questions of Bush and his administration. Let's ask those hard questions now. Bush's breach of trust with the American people has eliminated any basis for treating the man as if he had any integrity. Make Bush and his administration lift the veil of secrecy and allow a full investigation of the facts. I, for one, would be ecstatic to learn that 9/11 was simply a result of incompetence of Bush or his administration. On the other hand, I would be crushed to learn that any president of the United States (whether elected or selected) could be so heartless as to allow the murder of innocents to advance his own political agenda.
Somebody needs to prove to me and the rest of the American public that there is reason to believe in our government and in our media. Right now, all I see is a shameless propaganda machine that is attempting to manufacture consent?
Scot
A. Griffin
Redwood City, CA
* * *
