Monday, September 29, 2003

The whole Judith Miller/New York Times/Ahmad Chalabi/Iraq thing is just getting too weird:

  1. Judith Miller spends much of the last year writing a whole series of articles presenting various pieces of propaganda promoting an attack on Iraq before the American public. Many of these articles contain information obtained from Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, a fact admitted by Miller, who seems to be very proud of, and quite jealous about protecting, her privileged access to Chalabi.

  2. The Bush Administration relies on a lot of the information contained in the Miller articles to argue for the attack on Iraq.

  3. The attack takes place.

  4. Miller annoys the U. S. military by pushing them around as she attempts her own search for weapons of mass destruction, part of which actually involves Ahmad Chalabi, to whom she delivers a captured Saddam son-in-law for debriefing.

  5. Judith Miller and Douglas Jehl write an article for the New York Times published September 25, 2003 concerning the upcoming report by David Kay on his fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not once mentioning that it was Judith Miller's reporting which contained many of the main allegations that Iraq had such weapons.

  6. Douglas Jehl alone writes an article for the New York Times published September 29, 2003, the first sentence of which states:

    "An internal assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement."

  7. Not once in the article does Jehl mention that the main, if not sole, conduit for this information to the American public was none other than New York Times writer, and his co-author from 4 days before, Judith Miller. The Chalabi information, repackaged by members of the Bush Administration in various ways, served as the backbone of the case for an attack on Iraq.

So a prominent New York Times writer obtains a pile of crap and fashions it into articles, the articles are used to start a disastrous attack on a sovereign country, and the same paper eventually gets around to publishing an article on how crappy the crap actually was, all done as if it had nothing whatsoever to do with the writer, the crap, the articles, or the attack.