The paper does not claim that it should have been harder on the administration. It says that it should have been more circumspect with dubious sources that had clear reasons for peddling bad info. The fact that the stories turned out to be incorrect is no surprise, that was the shame of the NYT.

Despite what Christopher says above, the NYT is saying exactly that it was not critical enough of the Administration. Every example cited were sources giving information favorable to the administration’s position.

To suggest that these are simply the only examples that were relevant and they all happen to support a more critical view of the administration is far more than naivete...

I find it amusing that the NYT thinks they have sufficient facts now to decide what was wrong then. Won’t they be embarrassed, and wrong, again, if we find Iraqi weapons in the Bekaa Valley and/or Syria?

To say that the NYT is akin to a freshman newspaper is an insult to freshman newspapers everywhere.

Students learning the trade at least attempt to follow some rules and decorum. The NYT is devoid of objectivity, decency and credibility. For the life of me I can’t understand why they have been held in any esteem what so ever for the past twenty years.

Most of all I don’t understand why any business would advertise in an American hating anti-capitalist vehicle like the NYT.

But then New Yorkers did vote that Arkansas trailer trash as their Senator