July 08, 2004

Buried Lede Watch

The unanimous report by the panel will say there is no evidence that intelligence officials were subjected to pressure to reach particular conclusions about Iraq.That issue had been an early focus of Democrats, but none of the more than 200 intelligence officials interviewed by the panel made such a claim, and the Democrats have recently focused criticism on the question of whether the intelligence was misused. [emphasis added]

This, er, little piece of news is buried in Graf 5 of this Douglas Jehl NYT piece.

Imagine, God forbid, if it had gone the other way!

Say, for kicks, just one of the two hundred plus analysts said Doug Feith bullied him to death on his analysis of the intel.

What would the lede be then?

And where would the Times place the story?

Yeah, those are rhetorical Qs.

(Hat Tip: Tom Maguire).

UPDATE: Well, there's buried, and then there's buried (French language, see last graf).

Posted by Gregory at July 8, 2004 07:36 PM
Comments

Great post. I was equally outraged by the Ron Wyden criticism - the jist of which is that Bush should have known the intel was bunk and not advocated for a war on Iraq.

A few months prior we were treated to endless stories about how CIA warnings about al Qaeda activity in the U.S. were ignored.

So the CIA should be trusted when it comes to al Qaeda (even though that fabled August 6th memo was pretty heavy on the CNN citations and light on actual U.S. intelligence) but ignored when it comes to Iraqi weapons.

And the Democrats wonder why they're not taken seriously on security issues? There's no coherence to their criticism, just opportunism.

Posted by: Greg Scoblete at July 8, 2004 08:51 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I agree with Greg. The intel folks and the Bush administration failed to act agressively when provided vague information about OSB's plans. So Bush failed to protect America from his Saudi friends so he and Dick Cheney could continue to benefit from their oil interests.

Consequently, the Bush administration acted agressively when presented information showing Saddam had WMD in violation of UN resolutions and (via Putin) planned to launch attacks against the US. So Bush is condemmed as a lying, unilateralist, cowboy, Saudi owned, oil greedy imperialist.

I guess it makes sense if you work for the NYT, but the bottom line will be that nothing changes in the intel community because the investigations have been about politics not corrective action.

Posted by: Daniel at July 8, 2004 10:24 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Always Thoughtful"
--Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
Columnists
Think Tanks
Security
Books
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by