Mideast Envoy Zinni and U.S. Senator Charge Neocons Pushed Iraq War To Benefit Israel

by Hilal Sun May 30, 2004 11:25

A letter from the New York Times editors published on wednesday apologises for their pre-war coverage and especially for printing "evidence" given to them by informants in the Pentagon and from friends of Chalabi .

"Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge."

Foremost among the liars at the New York Times is Judith Miller who back in January 2003 was writing articles like, "Defectors boulster the U.S. case against Iraq", and "U.S. says Hussein intensifies search for A-bomb parts". In these works of pure fiction Miller and fellow writers expolored and emotionally coloured the myths that they had received from "confidential sources".

Judith Miller, who is reputed to be an expert in weapons of mass destruction as well as on Islam, despite her lack of a science background and her inability to speak Arabic. Miller was more than a mouthpiece for the Pentagon. She played an active, at times even leading role in the US military’s operations in occupied Iraq. A key element in the extraordinary influence wielded by the reporter was her relationship with Chalabi. She apparently functioned as a liaison between the US military and the Iraqi exile group, passing on intelligence that the Iraqi National Congress was confident she would use to achieve their aims.

Miller’s connection to these elements stems from her ties to an interlocking network of right-wing and pro-Zionist think tanks that includes the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Middle East Forum.

Who is Judith Miller? Is she herself an intelligence operative? If so, for which agencies: American, Israeli?

US Spy/journalist Judith Miller

by William Saffire Sun May 30, 2004 16:34

I have to differ with you. The number one liar of the New York Times is senior editor WILLIAM SAFFIRE, whose career includes being the speech writer for President Nixon ("I'm no thief").
His editorial comments are not only ALWAYS a reflection of Sharon's "policy", they actually supply the words and label BEFORE they eminate from the lukkid party. If you want to know what is Israeli policy, then you only have to read his comments to know.
Saffire was, is, and always will be, a paid mossad/lukkid spokesperson for the right-wing of Israel.
What are his "views"?
Absolutely FOR the Invasion of Iraq. First, for wmd, then for "democracy" in the Middle East, and (of course) for the safety of little Israel. But, of course, thinks the war should be expanded to Iran and Syria.
He's absolutely for George Bush and the Republican party (when, and only when it mirrors Sharon's "policies").
Saffire's world-view is "Brave Little Israel" vs. "Arab Terrorists". Any who disagree with Sharon's "policies" are deemed by Saffire as "arabists" (which is supposed to be an insult).

William Safire is out of sync with the otherwise fairly decent New York Times. He's certainly out of sync with ANY journalistic ideals of truth. He's a liar, and without any principles, besides ALWAYS mouthing appologies for Ariel Shaon. (in his commentaries, he often writes about having just talked to "Arrie" on the phone).
He was a paid speech writer for Nixon, and now he has another job: paid speech-writer for Ariel Sharon (under the cover as an NYT editor). As sure as the sky is blue, or Ireland is green, William Saffire is a paid mossad/Lukkid plant posing as a journalist.

by timesman Tue Jun 01, 2004 05:53

Yes Saffire is a raving ziolooney but he is a columnist and so his writing appears as opinion in the NYT. Actually much wrose than him is david brookes, another biweekly columnists who is not as smart nor as good a writer as saffire and so is utterly unbearable. He is the one who repeatedly explains away US war crimes with the naivety, best of intentions defense. actually quite stupid and so more dangerous than saffire who is smart enough to attempt coherence in his thoughts. this of course buries him as he is forced by political necessity to routinely change his opinions as they are uncomfortably overtaken by events.

But as i said both these half wits are columnists, like that racist mark steyn in the anti irish times or the only person who actually plagiarises from the nyt op ed columns, kevin meyers. But the real shit in the times is the so called journalism, most famously judith miller who it appears may have unwittingly been working for the iranians, which explains last weks mea culpa over her reporting. But the whole coverage of Palestine is completely skewed, most bylines appearing from Jerusalem meaning they are written from IDF press releases. James Bennett, their man in Israel, is an applalling Islamophobe. they have yet to publish a story about civilian casualty numbers in Iraq, or even explain why no tally is kept. It is occasionally stated like an observation of nature that the "us army does not count the number of civilian casualties". similarly they never use the word torture to describe the treatment of prisoners though it has been widely known and documented since the invasion of afghanistan, and during every war before. in fact they have accompanied a photo of a dead prisoner who had clearly been beaten with text describing him as one of the abuse victims.

so forget the times being a decent paper beyond the wmd stuff, that story is symtomatic of its approach to news generally. it is the newspaper of the state dept.