FPM: NY Times Embarrasses Itself Again – On Iran-9/11 Ties

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/ny-times-embarrasses-itself-again-iran-911-ties-kenneth-r-timmerman/

I am sharing this link because we seem to get a lot of NYT posts in the Forum. I would encourage people to be more skeptical of NYT as a source of reliable factual reporting and, for that reason, especially skeptical of it’s analytical reporting. NYT doesn’t really deserve the veneration it seems to enjoy.

For the oh-well-mistakes-are-made-and-usually-corrected crowd, I point to the last sentence.

19 thoughts on “FPM: NY Times Embarrasses Itself Again – On Iran-9/11 Ties

  1. The ties are tenuous at best. The terrorists had to get from Saudi Arabia and UAE to Afghanistan somehow and the cruise ships to there were booked.

    We worked hard over the decades to make Iran our enemy, so letting some sketchy folks slide through Iran was not exactly out of the realm of reality.

    Does that make Suleimani complicit in planning and executing 9/11? A year before the attacks?

    Only in the regimes backpedaling and shifting excuses for the assassination.

    First it was revenge for the contractor killed by rockets in Iraq.

    Then it was for an “imminent” attack on US personnel.

    Then it was for planned attack sometime in the future.

    Then it was because he provided weapons to the Shia militias in Iraq, a 2/3rds majority Shiite country that we invaded and occupied, BTW.

    Now it is because Suleimani aided and helped plan 9/11.

    If the regime would have at least told the truth from the beginning, that Trump is goading Iran to do something big, we might believe it. But its record of outright lying and purposefully misleading the American citizens to confuse them is pretty well documented and admitted to by none other than Trump himself.

    In summation, Pence is full of crap and so is frontpage.

    Simple as that.

    IMHO

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “Only in the regimes backpedaling and shifting excuses for the assassination.”

      Not really. Why don’t you spend some time exploring the sources FPM identifies?

      Like

      1. National Review did a similar story. The bottom line is still that Suleimani’s part was tiny, if anything.

        The evidence of shifting reasons by the administration is more than enough evidence that they have been trying hard to find a reason for the attack. So this story comes out days later after the other excuses didn’t gain traction.

        That is the story behind the “story”.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. RE: “The bottom line is still that Suleimani’s part was tiny, if anything.”

        The point of the FPM piece is that the NYT got its facts wrong. Perhaps NYT should have contacted you for information on Soleimani. You might have been able to show them, for example, that Soleimani was not, in fact, commander of the Quds Force.

        Like

      1. I”m the one laughing at you, now, since your Vanity Fair piece is nothing but a recap of the NYT article now shown to be full of errors.

        Like

  2. I don’t expect you to understand nuance, but I do expect that you are capable of reading the definition of “assist, assisted, etc.”

    “According to the report (Chapter 7) [an entire effing chapter], there is no evidence that Iran was aware of the actual 9/11 plot. Iran has since implemented several widely publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country.”

    So, when Pence tweets (the 21st Century version of “emphatically states”) that “Iran assisted” then he is making a statement unsupported by facts, hence an opinion at best, and at worst, a baldfaced lie.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “I do expect that you are capable of reading the definition of “assist, assisted, etc.” ??

      Maybe, but reading to find what one wants to find rather than what is actually being communicated kinda negates the ability to discern the meaning of individual words…

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “I do expect that you are capable of reading the definition of ‘assist, assisted, etc.'”

      I appreciate the compliment, and yes I am capable. In fact, I notice Pence mentions that Iran only “Assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan,” not in the 9-11 plot itself. Hence your parsing of NYT’s fact check misses the mark.

      As FPM notes, also from the 9/11 report (page 240), “we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.” This verifies Pence’s actual statement, no matter how NYT denies it.

      Like

      1. The “assistance of clandestine travel” was in not stamping passports.

        It was common practice in the pre-911 years to not stamp passports. I had been on several trips where my passport was checked and not stamped.

        There was good reason for this. There were two big reasons a passport could require replacing, expiration and when the pages were all stamped. This would require people who traveled a lot between neighboring countries to constantly go through the hassle of getting passports replaced, so as a courtesy many times they wouldn’t stamp them.

        When I asked the customs agent why he didn’t stamp my passport entering St Lucia, he merely said, “It’s not necessary. You could use your driver’s license and it can’t be stamped.”

        Liked by 2 people

  3. @Roberts
    It is you – not the New York Times – who embarrasses themselves by spreading the phony baloney BS cooked up by this war-mongering Neo-con.

    From the 9-11 Commission Report . . .

    “We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the Al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.”

    That established fact does not stop lying liars like Brother Pence from trying to tie Soleimani to this Saudi Arabian planned, financed and executed attack on 9-11. The article you find compelling is all smoke and mirrors based on the fact that some of these Saudis passed through Iran from Afghanistan on their way West. Before even they knew what their mission was to be.

    We have seen this movie before. First it was Saddam who somehow helped those Saudis on 9-11. Now it is Iran. If you are so eager for war send YOUR kids or grand-kids to be killed and maimed to divert the news cycle from Trump’s crimes and impeachment.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “The article you find compelling is all smoke and mirrors based on the fact that some of these Saudis passed through Iran from Afghanistan on their way West”

      Yes, and that’s enough to debunk the NYT’s reporting that “there was nothing in ‘public United States intelligence’ [sic] linking the two, or indeed, anyone in Iran to the 9/11 attacks.”

      The point is that the NYT “fact check” on Pence is a sloppy hatchet job that any first year journalist should have been able to disprove. Your willingness to stand up for such lousy work says a lot about you.

      Like

      1. “… linking the two, or indeed, anyone in Iran to the 9/11 attacks.”

        I think those hijackers probably flew through France to get to the US.

        Does that implicate France too?

        Liked by 2 people

    1. So the supposed hijackers who traveled through a Iran in 2000 without stamps were just early beneficiaries of a coming trend.

      Seems as good an explanation as Pence’s.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s