The New York Times loves stenography, and their CIA beat writer Mark Mazzetti does a great job, doing what he's told. Award-winning investigative bl
May 15, 2009

The New York Times loves stenography, and their CIA beat writer Mark Mazzetti does a great job, doing what he's told. Award-winning investigative blogger Marcy Wheeler points out why his work is so misleading:

Pelosi agrees that she and Goss were briefed on the program and, generally, that they discussed techniques. She even agrees that waterboarding was mentioned; the phrase "waterboarding was not being employed" certainly counts as a mention of waterboarding.

But see what number 5 doesn't say? It doesn't say, "those techniques had already been employed." "Were to be employed," a prospective use of waterboarding, not "had been employed," a past use of waterboarding.

Now, Mark. If you want to continue doing Porter's bidding, you're going to have to go back to him--I'm sure you've got him on speed-dial?--and get a stronger statement from him. But as things stand today, Porter Goss' statement is completely consistent with Nancy Pelosi's. The CIA, when it briefed Goss and Pelosi in 2002, did not tell them they had already been using waterboarding with Abu Zubaydah.

As a spook stenographer, Mark, I'm sure you're familiar with the National Security Act, but if you need a primer, why not read about it on the pages of the NYT? You'll see that the National Security Act requires the Administration inform Congress--arguably, the entire intelligence committees--about their covert ops. Requires. But instead, what happened here is that CIA took up torturing, and then, when they "briefed" Pelosi and Goss on it in September 2002, they didn't tell them they were already doing it. They didn't get around to revealing that until five months later--and six months after they had gotten into the torture business.

That is a violation of the law--some might even consider it news. But not the NYT!!! Nope, the NYT is going to keep recycling Porter Goss' carefully parsed statements and imply they refute Nancy Pelosi when they don't. The NYT is going to obsess over the fact that a staffer told Nancy Pelosi something that CIA should have told her almost a year earlier.

But the NYT is not, apparently, going to tell its readers that the CIA broke the law.

And what the hell is wrong with this country that the complicit media is now savaging Nancy Pelosi instead of those responsible for these war crimes? If she did know about torture (and she denies she did), why would she be the target instead of the war criminals who implemented this evil policy? Nope, the corporate media is consistent: It's only a crime if a Democrat does it!

That's why Pelosi is being savaged while war criminal Dick Cheney is still invited onto news shows to share his wisdom.

And if you want to look for complicity, the New York Times need look no further than the closest mirror.

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.