Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

Michael Gordon, the disgraced columnist of the “aluminum tubes” fame, is back on the front page of the New York Times with a characteristically subtle headline: “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says“.

Before we have a look at the article, lets meet General Gordon.

Gordon Does Iraq

Michael Gordon is the Military correspondent of the New York Times. With Judith Miller, Gordon wrote the discredited WMD stories, one of which, the Sept. 8, 2002, “aluminum tubes” story, was especially influential since it was used by the Bush Administration to sell its war against Iraq. In a mea culpa after the war, the New York Times blamed two of the Miller-Gordon articles for its overblown and misleading coverage of Iraq.

After Powell’s misleading case for war at the UN, which according to Bob Woodward, was based on evidence the Secretary doubted himself, Gordon wrote: “it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.”

Gordon Selling “Surge”

In late 2006, the consisten theme in Gordon’s reports was the desirability of an escalation (“troop surge”) in Iraq. Alexander Cockburn writes:

On September 11, 2006, the Times ran a Gordon story under the headline, “Grim Outlook Seen in West Iraq Without More Troops and Aid“. Gordon cited a senior officer in Iraq saying more American troops were necessary to stabilize Anbar. A story on October 22 emphasized that “the sectarian violence [in Baghdad] would be far worse if not for the American efforts” There were of course plenty of Iraqis and some Americans Gordon could also have found, eager to say the exact opposite.

On two successive days in November, the New York Times gave Gordon its front page for selling the “surge”. November 14: “Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Some Experts Say“. November 15: “General Warns of Risks in Iraq if GIs Are Cut“.On December 4, he tried to preempt the the Iraq Study Group report with another story: “Blurring Political Lines in the Military Debate“. On December 7, he wrote another attack on the repot: “Will Iraq Study Group’s Plan Work on the Battlefield?”

On January 2, he co-authored with John Burns and David Sanger a piece attacking Gen. George Casey, the commander of US forces in Iraq, for espousing a defeatist plan of orderly withdrawal.

Appearing on TV, he fully supported the escalation, saying “I think it’s worth one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win.”

Gordon Does Iran

On February 10, the New York Times again carried a front page story by Gordon; the title this time was “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says“. While in its mea culpa the New York Times had faulted Gordon for citing “unidentified senior administration officials”, it curiously puts Gordon’s new story on the frontpage, despite the fact that all the sources cited in it, once again, remain unnamed.

Cockburn again:

What Gordon fails to mention is that over 90 per sent of the IEDs used against US troops in Iraq have been detonated by the Sunni insurgents , who of course are not supplied by Iran. More generally, the prime point of interest of the intelligence briefings given to Gordon and other journalists is the timing. At any point in the past couple of years the US could have gone public with roughly the same accusations.

Gordon did not launch New York Times’ war on Iran with this story of course. His November 28 article, “Hezbollah Helps Iraq Shiite Army, U.S. Officials Say“, quotes unnamed a “Senior American Intelligenci official” accusing Hezbollah, facilitated by Iran, of training Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Gordon’s present article is no exception; none of the sources quoted therein are named.

Update: [The article was immediately followed up by another frontpage story, U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians To Iraqi Shiites.

Despite the widespread condemnation of the report, Gordon has not relented in his campaign against Iran. He first backtracked with two defensive articles, Why Accuse Iran of Meddling Now? U.S. Officials Explain and U.S. Says Raid in Iraq Supports Claim on Iran, but Doubts Persist (27 February), but returned to the 'deadly device' theme on 27 March with the report Behind U.S. Pressure on Iran, Long-Held Worry Over a Deadly Device in Iraq . On April 3 the New York Times carried his report, "U.S. Says Arms Made in Iran Were Seized In Afghanistan", followed on 3 July 2007 by another frontpage report co-authored with John Burns, entitled: "U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.'s"  (see Greg Mitchell's excellent critique). This was followed by another one on 8 August 2007, entitled: "U.S. Says Iran-Supplied Bomb Is Killing More Troops in Iraq".]

All of this begs the important question: How does a journalist with the unenviable track record of Gordon receive the front page of a prestigious newspaper so frequently?

The Record of the Times

Anyone familiar with the record of the New York Times would find little reason for surprise here. Blaming Gordon is easy; however, his stories wouldn’t gain such traction if it weren’t for the selectively permissive editorial policies of the paper. This has been thoroughly documented and analyzed by Richard Falk and Howard Friel in their brilliant study, The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (for revealing case studies on Latin America and Eastern Europe see Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent; for Israel-Palestine, see Noam Chomsky’s The Fateful Triangle). Falk & Friel painstakingly expose how the New York Times enabled the neocon war against Iraq through its bogus frontpage reports on Iraq’s WMD threat, which were later cited by administration officials (having first planted them through Miller and Gordon) to bolster their case for war.

NYT’s War on Iran

Who better to kick off the new escalation against Iran than the establishment’s trusted mouthpiece?

The New York Times’ war against Iran started early: On October 30, 2005 it quoted Iran’s president as saying that occupying regime must be “wiped off the map”. Israel’s propagandists ran with the phrase; it was interpreted as a call to genocide by a “new Hitler”. Of course it soon transpired that Irani president had said no such thing. Soon exposed by Professor Juan Cole and Jonathan Steele, even the New York Times was compelled to issue a correction. But as with the WMD story, it had already served its purpose. It still gets quoted without demurral on mainstream media in Britain and the United States. While NYT can claim post facto innocence, it has already provided the pretext in the form of a catch-phrase that purportedly proves the genocidal intent of the Iranian leader.

[Update: Alexander Cockburn has written another caustic piece on Gordon: Sold to Mr. Gordon, Another Bridge!]