06/03/05 — New York Times: Its big scoop undercut the war on terrorism

View Archive

New York Times: Its big scoop undercut the war on terrorism

Whose side are you on in the war on terror?

That might be an appropriate question to demand of some in the “national media.” Specifically today, of The New York Times.

From a lofty, ivory tower perspective of pretended purism, the big-time media response predictably could be: “Neither side. Our dedication is to objectivity.”

Those who watch the network news and read the big city newspapers know better.

This week we read of the New York Times investigative report of the CIA’s operation in neighboring Johnston County’s airport:

“Nothing hints of foreign intrigue. Nothing gives away the fact that Aero’s pilots are the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism, routinely sent on secret missions to Baghdad, Cairo, Tashkent and Kabul.”

The article, with by-lines of three reporters, discloses that, “While posing as a private charter outfit, Aero is in fact a major hub of the CIA’s secret air service.”

It goes on to relate when, where and how secret anti-terrorist missions were flown to deliver CIA teams, terrorist prisoners and other involvements.

The Times boasts that its story was based on “thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations and corporate documents.”

It reports that “plane-spotting hobbyists, activists and journalists in a dozen countries have tracked the mysterious planes’ movements.”

The CIA and private contractors have steadfastly refused to talk with the Times in preparing its story.

It might be fair to ask if The New York Times also has assigned investigative reporters to detect and monitor the activities in this country and elsewhere in the world of organizations and individuals plotting terrorist attacks against innocent civilians — and our men and women in uniform.

Its efforts obviously have been focused on undermining the CIA which has been performing a Herculean task in our war on terrorism.


Whose side is The New York Times on? The answer is sadly — and chillingly — obvious.

Published in Editorials on June 3, 2005 10:31 AM