NYT looks really stupid - and complicit

Both Salon and Slate take a shot at the New York Times over how ridiculous the paper looks over its UK briefing paper story, written by David Sanger.

Slate's Today's Papers from June 13 awards the New York Times headline the No. 1 prize for "worst headline of the day." Notes Slate:

A day after the Post broke word of another prewar British memo, the NYT hops onboard. Presumably not content to simply repeat the WP's angle—"MEMO: U.S. LACKED FULL POSTWAR IRAQ PLAN"— the Times gets creative: "PREWAR BRITISH MEMO SAYS WAR DECISION WASN'T MADE." That headline hangs on a single clause of a single sentence in the 2,300-word memo:

Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.

As it happens, the memo was first obtained by the Rupert Murdoch-owned Sunday Times (U.K.). Its headline: "MINISTERS WERE TOLD OF NEED FOR GULF WAR 'EXCUSE.' "

Salon's War Room section, titled "New York Times' Downing Street shuffle", notes that, "Scrambling to play catch-up on the unfolding Downing Street memo story, [yesterday's] New York Times latches onto a single phrase from a newly leaked eight-page briefing document in order to produce the Bush-friendly headline, 'Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made.'" Just to make sure we're clear, Salon reminds us that "The truth is, the briefing document in question, dated July 21, as well as the previously leaked memo, dated July 23, both stress repeatedly how the Bush administration, despite its public rhetoric, appeared committed to war with Iraq. But thanks to today's Bush-friendly spin, New York Times readers are getting a very different story." Here's how War Roominterprets (quite accurately, I believe) the NY Times's government-friendly spin:

What the [New York] Times is saying is that despite the controversy surrounding the original Downing Street memo and its implication that the U.S. had decided on war -- contrary to numerous Bush statements -- eight months prior to the invasion, the newly leaked briefing document throws all of that into question because British officials noted Washington had made "no political decisions" to invade. In other words, according to the [New York] Times, Tony Blair might be right in his public insistence, given with Bush at his side, that the two governments misled nobody during the run-up to war.

The [New York] Times report "completely ignores the portion of the briefing document that raises questions about the legality of going to war." It ignores the part of the memo that clearly states, "Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law." To make the contrast clearer, War Room also draws us back to the portion of the new report by the Sunday Times of London that states quite clearly: "The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair's inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was 'necessary to create the conditions' which would make it legal." No reference to that in the NYT. Continues War Room:

Apparently the New York Times did not consider that to be newsworthy. Instead it focused on the notion that "no political decisions" had been made to invade Iraq. The problem here is that the briefing containing the phrase "no political decision" was written July 21, 2002, and the memo containing minutes from a senior meeting of British officials was written July 23, in which it was reported that Washington appeared bent on war. That is, the July 21 briefing paper was distributed to participants in preparation for the meeting two days later with Bush's closest intelligence advisors, where the updated details of war planning were then discussed -- and from which one conclusion reached by the Brits was: "Military action was now seen as inevitable."

The right-wing blogosphere had already latched onto the phrase in the original memo about "the intelligence were being fixed round the policy", arguing that the term could be interpreted in more benign ways (I don't agree, but the conservatives only need to muddy the waters on this, to provide just enough ambiguity to the situation in the eyes of the electorate.) Now the New York Times, in its first pronouncement on the issue, instantly tries to discredit the whole issue by focusing on the "no political decision" term - "a single clause of a single sentence in the 2,300-word memo". That's the conservative side's Talking Point right there. So much for the liberal New York Times. And David Sanger follows Gwen Ifill (and, I think Chris Matthews) and gets one of my silly "Officer Barbrady" awards! There'll be more to come, I'm sure.