The 9/11 Story That Got Away

[Paul Mackin]

Prompted by a private conversation (off list) with another p-lister I  
decided to look at the original September 9, 2002, Judith Miller/ 
Michel Gordon aluminum tube story. It was the first of a hundred  
Times stories on the subject. Anyway, the funny thing is, the article  
wouldn't come up. Too many people were trying to look at it I guess.  
The Alternet interview much be getting a lot of  reading.

I guess everyone remembers the aluminum tubes. They are what Iraq was  
supposed to be using to produce nuclear weapons and a central pin in  
the justification for war.

The Pentagon had leaked the bogus information to Miller and  she  
reported it.

To the best of the knowledge of my off list correspondent she never  
publicly acknowledged being  so gullible.

P.



On May 18, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:

>
> On May 18, 2006, at 10:29 AM, jd wrote:
>
>> What, exactly, is Alternet?
>
> About as reliable as Fox News but without  Murdoch financing.
>
>> Why would Miller talk to them?
>
> That is the big question. She's (now since leaving  the Times)  an  
> independent journalist who writes for mainstream publications (Wall  
> Street Journal for one) and must get big bucks for what she turns  
> out. Out of Alternet's league.
>
> The believability of her allowing an unedited interview go forth  
> like this reminds me of the Pynchon Japanese Playboy story, but  
> what do know.
>
> There certainly isn't anything the least bit implausible about  
> information on  impending  WTC-type attacks on U.S. soil having  
> been obtained by her.  The government had received such  
> information, as is documented in the 9/11 commission report.
>
>> And isn't
>> Miller, essentially, a shill for the current administration for the
>> most part?
>
> Think all's she accused of is gullibility on Iraq's  WMD.
>
>> I find this hard to believe...
>>
>> I'm skeptical of all news sources but especially those home-brew ones
>> when no other source... not even blogs... seem to corroborate.
>
> Your skepticism is well-advised IMHO.
>
>> Are
>> any other sources talking about this?
>
> Well, there's that Columbia  Journalism Review article the  
> interview refers to.
>>
>