Eric Umansky

How to Be a Newspaper Editor

Let's say documents are released showing that before the war  intel agencies said they  didn't buy a jailed al-Qaida suspect's   "confessions" linking Saddam and AQ.  And let's say this suspects "confessions" were the primary basis for the White House's pre-war allegations about purported AQ-Saddam connections.

Would that new info--for example, the  Defense Intelligence Agency's pre-war conclusion that it "likely this individua " is intentionally misleading the debriefers"--be worth Page One coverage?

If you think it is, clearly you don't have what it takes to be  a newspaper editor.  (That second  story, in the NYT, doesn't  cite a page online. But, thanks to Nexis, we know it was printed on Pg. 14.)
 

Fascinating

I hadn't heard about this, from Time:

                           Josh Rushing, former Marine captain and an accidental star of the movie Control Room made news of his own last week when he signed on to become the American face of the controversial Arab news network Al Jazeera-International. Top U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have repeatedly complained that Al Jazeera's coverage is unfair or untrue. Yesterday, Rushing sat down with TIME for his first interview on why he took the job and what the new network will cover....

Rushing says he looked into the accusations about Al Jazeera distorting the news, and found nothing to stop him from joining. "I'm not condoning everything they do but the Arab media is a key part of national security and how to deal with Arab world. The network has long been the only one in the region with a point-counterpoint approach, where many others are 'point-point-point.' Al Jazeera, for example regularly has Israeli spokespeople on." Rushing says the State Department and Pentagon have both shown interest in working with the new network.

Quality Reporting

From the NYT:

An article in Business Day yesterday about a decision by the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust to bar nine doctors from providing medical reports as a basis for payments to asbestos claimants misidentified one of the nine. The Dr. Kevin Cooper on the list is a general practitioner from Pascagoula, Miss. (The Kevin Cooper who is a professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University was unaware of the list; his expression of puzzlement, quoted in the article, was a reaction to a call from a reporter.)

Arafat's Death and the NYT

The NYT:

JERUSALEM, Sept. 7 - The medical records of Yasir Arafat, which have been kept secret since his unexplained death last year at a French military hospital, show that he died from a stroke that resulted from a bleeding disorder caused by an unidentified infection.

The first independent review of the records, obtained by The New York Times, suggests that poisoning was highly unlikely and dispels a rumor that he may have died of AIDS. Nonetheless, the records show that despite extensive testing, his doctors could not determine the underlying infection.

Ha'aretz: "MEDICAL EXPERTS: ARAFAT DIED OF POISONING."  Ha'aretz actually got the records first and then passed them on to the NYT. So, who's right? Got me.  Again, does the NYT really know either?

It's All About Emphasis

Peter Galbraith as quoted in today's LAT about the draft constitution:

"The problem is that there are no agreements on these questions [about the role of Islam]," said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who advised Kurdish politicians on the constitution. "It allows any cleric to make his own interpretation of the law and opens the door to a whole range of abuses."

Galbraith said the draft fell well short of the sort of democratic government the Bush administration hoped to install in Iraq. "The U.S. now has to recognize that they overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," he said.

Peter Galbraith as quoted in today's NYT (in a Brooks) column:

The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."

The cheap shot is obviously to wonder what was between those ellipses. But if you actually read the whole Brooks column, Brooks doesn't seem to have twisted much.  Galbraith may believe the constitution is "open to abuses"  and the pre-sage to an Islamic  Republic but he also thinks  it's the best deal out possible:

Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun.

Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill."

Galbraith has been arguing for a while that the only way to "save" Iraq is, effectively, to break it up. So it's only natural he supports a constitution that moves things in that direction. Whether he's right... that's a different matter.

Maybe I'm wrong--and I really should get around to really his big takeout in the NYRB--but I wonder if Galbraith is overestimating the degree to which Sunnis will just gently accede to a break-up.  Sunnistan, if you will, would  be the modern equivelant of Lesotho--landlocked and resource poor. What are the benefits for them?

Thanks to reader JS.

Hey, Everyone Has Their Own Perspective

From Agence-France Presse:

A group of Iraqi workers in Baghdad came under fire from US troops who mistook them for insurgents.

An interior ministry source said US troops fired on a crowd of workers in the central Baghdad neighbourhood of Alawi, while a defence ministry source reported an exchange of fire between suspected rebels and US forces in the area.

But a number of casualties lying in Al-Yarmouk hospital told AFP that a US helicopter fired at them as they were gathered outside a hotel.

"The electricity went out at around 0500 (0100 GMT), so we exited the hotel to the street to have breakfast in the fresh air. A helicopter then opened fire into the street," said Ali Mohammad, who sustained neck and leg injuries.

From the NYT:

The American military also said today that some Iraqi civilians were killed or wounded when American forces attacked suspected insurgents from the air in Baghdad early Tuesday. In the battle, American helicopters "tracked and engaged the terrorists," the military said in a statement. There was an unknown number of civilian casualties, and an investigation has begun into the incident, the military said.

Our Tireless WH Press Corps

Seven of them went  mountain biking with the president.  But never fear, it's not like the First  Junket was for naught. Before the reporters took off on the pedal-fest,  they asked some hard-hitting questions. Excerpts below:

Question: Mr. President, you probably have the most stressful job in the world. And, yet, with your busy schedule, you make time to exercise. For Americans whose jobs are not as stressful as yours, what can you -- do you have any advice for them, for making time?

...
   Q: Do you have now in your possession, or have you ever had a pair of form fitting lycra shorts?

....
   Q: Your shorts are torn there, Mr. President.  Tell us about that.

   Q: Do you have now in your possession, or have you ever had a pair of form fitting lycra shorts?

...
   Q: Road bikers also have a tendency to shave their legs, which is ..

   Bush:  No, I'm pretty much into the ranch mountain biking thing, which, we don't tend to do that here.

All right, let's go have fun. This will be great. Again, hang in there and do not force the President too hard. Be kind. Then afterwards we'll have a good visit.

Now That's Quality Writing

Just heard on CNN:

CNN's Alex Quaid rode along with a team of IED hunters [in Iraq] for the  new program  The  Situation Room and  filed this explosive report. 

Oh, and emphasis in the original.

Able Danger, Atta, and the now MIA Proof

It looks like Rep. Curt Weldon has now adopted the increasingly popular "the dog-ate-my-proof" position. From Time:

In a particularly dramatic scene in Weldon’s book, Countdown to Terror, the Pennsylvania Republican described personally handing to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, just after Sept. 11, an Able Danger chart produced in 1999 identifying Atta. But Weldon told Time he’s no longer certain Atta’s name was on that original document. The congressman says he handed Hadley his only copy.

Still, last week he referred reporters to a recently reconstructed version of the chart in his office where, among dozens of names and photos of terrorists from around the world, there was a color mug shot of Mohammad Atta, circled in black marker.

Let's also remember that the original Times story said Weldon  recognized the significance of Able Danger "only recently."  So he says in his book, apparently, that he gave proof (the imfamous chart) to Hadley, then er, didn't have a back-up copy, but didn't recognize that it was all important anyway. So he just fired up PowerPoint,  and made a new one--without  mentioning to reporters that it was a reproduction. Hey, isn't there a word for that?

Yesterday, Weldon told the Post, "I will continue to push for a full accounting of the historical record so that we may preclude these types of failures from happening again." Well said congressman. No doubt, your  push for an accounting will include finding that original chart.

Media Angle: The Times has to be thrilled with the increasing  credibility of its source. The story feels like it's at the point now where it's turning on the Times, where the latest revelations undercut the Times' original reporting. My guess for their response to that: Nothing. That is, if SOP is followed, Able Danger--so far as the Times is concerned--is a done story. I hope I'm wrong. But this kind of stuff makes me feel like I won't be.

[Time story via Kevin.]

The NYT, Intent to Deceive

I wish that weren't the case, honestly.  But how else to explain this, buried inside today's paper: "9/11 PANEL EXPLAINS MOVE ON INTELLIGENCE UNIT."

That headline tells you nothing--and purposely so. Or, geez, maybe it's just an honest oversight. After all, it's not like the 9/11 panel's "explanation" deeply undercuts the Times' previous reporting.

Here's the Post's, slightly more substantive, take: "NO EVIDENCE PANEL KNEW OF ATTA, PANEL SAYS."

More later. In the meantime, thanks to Laura Rozen, here's the 9/11 panel's full statement. Among other things, it says the Grade A source the NYT has hung its story on, apparently insisted that the only documentary proof that Able Danger pegged Atta was, er, um, deleted. As Maguire notes, it's the dog-ate-my-proof defense.

I'm tempted to kvetch to Mr. Calame--though I get the sense he's keeping August shrink hours this month.