When the 9/11 Commission found that Iraq didn't directly help with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times misreported that the commission had completely debunked the whole reason for the war in Iraq. Under the headline "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie", the Times claimed that BUSH LIED!!! and almost seemed to yearn for the return of Saddam Hussein. As even Andrew Sullivan points out, it's the New York Times who is in the wrong.

The vice-president's direct attack on the New York Times' portrayal of the 9/11 Commission report was a zinger. On balance, i think Cheney is right. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam may not have amounted to a formal alliance, but they existed all right, as the Commission conceded. The NYT itself reported that "The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, 'they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'" But if there were "repeated contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq, how can it be true that, as the headline put it, that "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie"? Headlines truncate things, of course. But Cheney is dead-on in describing this headline as misleading. Here's Tom Kean, the chairman of the Commision: "What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy - but they were there."

Of course, the Times isn't backing down, and they are lashing out at the Bush Administration for daring to defend their position. The folks over at Power Line recognize the Times as the lynch pin for the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy.

As a news organization, the New York Times is illegitimate. It no longer seeks to inform its readers; rather, its daily effort is to misinform and mislead them. You simply can't believe anything you read in the Times.

The competence of the New York Times can be summed up in two words: Jayson Blair.