'NYT' Finally With Key Piece Warning of Syria Attack

Yesterday I covered NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan asserting that the paper had covered the run-up to the attack on Syria without enough skepticism and from too much of an administration view.  In what we'll assume is merely coincidence (?), the Times--later than most other top outlets--today finally not only published a piece  on experts warning about risks of attack, but placed it at the top of its Web site.  Of course, it's now too late to do much good, with Kerry and Obama announcing yesterday that there was no turning back.  One might imagine that while today's piece was surely in the works before yesterday, the decision to put it at the top of the home page might have been sparked by the public editor's critique.  But anyway:

Supporters of the president’s proposal contend that a limited punitive strike can be carried out without inflaming an already volatile situation. But a number of diplomats and other experts say it fails to adequately plan for a range of unintended consequences, from a surge in anti-Americanism that could bolster Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to a wider regional conflict that could drag in other countries, including Israel and Turkey.

And the second story at the top of the home page right now?  Amid Skepticism, White House Tries to Shore Up Support.


Sullivan yesterday quoted #2 editor Dean Baquet admitting he never reminded editors or writers about the paper's monumental failures on Iraq WMD, and said of that fiasco that it was "a long, long, time ago."