In case you didn't catch it on Instapundit:

"A week ago, the New York Times reported, in a screaming page-one headline, that the 9/11 Commission had found "No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Today, in a remarkable story that positively oozes with consciousness of guilt, the Times confesses not only that there is documentary evidence of at least one tie but that the Times has had the document in question for several weeks. That is, the Times was well aware of this information at the very time of last week's reporting, during which, on June 17, it declaimed from its editorial perch that the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's terror network meant President Bush owed the nation an apology."

He concludes, "who knows what else the Times is not telling us?" Here's a link to the NYT article.

Prior to the war, I was irritated by the administration's efforts to link Iraq and 9-11 (they never said there was a link, but they consistently lumped the two together in their statements). Nothing bugs me like a bad argument for a position I agree with; a sophisticated, rigorous argument is a persuasive argument. Dissembling makes it seem like you can't do that. Still, it's almost as bad to see the same thing coming from the other side. I'm a news junkie and I pay attention, and I have smart people like Cori at Rantingprofs to help me out. But when the NYT runs Abu Ghraib stories on the front page almost every day for a month, when Michael Moore trots out his insane crap, when a respected media outlet flat-out lies to us, how does that help them? How does it advance their argument? And how does it affect public opinion?

Sadly, some of the loudest anti-war woices in this country want so much to be right that they'll do anything, not to make their case, just to discredit the other side. They're just not making an argument any more.
- posted by Dactyl @ 2:31 AM