Not content to redeem itself after the Jayson Blair scandal and the firing of editor Howell Raines, the NY Times continues to sink. After managing about 50 front page stories on Abu Grahib prinson, a dozen stories on "Air America" and over 40 sotries in 50 days on Farenheit 911 (no sing of partisanship here!),* those East coast frauds can't reconcile the numbers on the CPA's work in Iraq! http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/international/middleeast/30RECO.html?hp "More than a year into an aid effort that American officials likened to the Marshall Plan, occupation authorities acknowledge that fewer than 140 of 2,300 promised construction projects are under way. Only three months after L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator who departed Monday, pledged that 50,000 Iraqis would find jobs at construction sites before the formal transfer of sovereignty, fewer than 20,000 local workers are employed." But the State Department says [http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/May/03-195325.html] that the coalition has so far completed over 20,000 reconstruction projects employing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and will finance thousands of additional projects through more than $19 billion provided by the United States. Iraqi firms will be given priority in heading the new projects, which will create over a million and a half jobs for Iraqis next year. Perhaps the once unnecessary Time's ombudsman will reconcile these blatantly skewed and public quantitative disparities - but perhaps not. Meanwhile, the one-time Newspaper of Record sinks down over the horizons of today into historic memory . --Orson (*Source: http://www.thenationaldebate.com/)
Nonsense. This is the revived conservative tactic (that was borne during the Reagan years) that if you just lie authoritatively it sort of makes it true, or at least believable. Well, who should we believe? The story from the NY Times, or the government? Who has the greater payoff from propaganda? The fact is, most of the construction in Iraq HAS taken much longer than expected. The primary reason is security, or lack thereof. Just ask the folks from Bechtel, a company that figures quite prominently in my neck of the woods. Nevertheless, the point is that there are conflicting reports based on the two articles Orson posted. As far as the falling credibility of the NY Times, this is purely Orson's OPINION (hope). There is absolutely no basis for such from the articles. Again, the conservative credo "right you are if you say you are." For people who don't think a little deeper it's an effective ruse. When all is said and done, I'll turn to the NY Times or the Washington Post for an impartial view. This explains why the best source arch conservatives can usually quote is a right wing blogger .
With all of these sorts of threads it would be very intersting to see a poll of this site of where everyone stands politically: Anarchist Left Right Center Libertarian Other?
I agree with Tom on this one. Taking the State Department's word seems to me to be ludicrous, especially given recent inaccuracies from that source.
Overall, the New York Times has had a much better track record with the truth than the federal government. I'll take the Old Gray Lady any day.
