The New York Times published an editorial effectively conceding that there was no factual basis for its reporting on Russian Bounties .
An editorial appeared on Wednesday, July 8, one day after General Frank McKenzie, the commander of Centcom, with overall responsibility for Afghanistan and the Middle East, told the press that there was no evidence that any US soldiers had been killed because of the alleged Russian bounties.“I didn’t find that there was a causative link there,” McKenzie said, “the intel case wasn’t proved to me.”
The Times did not report his comments, which diametrically contradicted the newspaper’s own reporting of June 27.
The editorial begins with the admission: “There’s a lot still missing from the reports that Russia paid for attacks on American and other coalition forces in Afghanistan. That’s why it’s critical that emotions and politics be kept at bay until the facts are in.”
This appeal for waiting “until the facts are in” is remarkable since the Times itself had claimed to be in possession of the facts about alleged Russian efforts to murder American soldiers, citing unnamed “intelligence officials,” and it gave the signal for a vast media campaign aimed at whipping up a very specific “emotion,” hatred of Russia.
The editorial further admits that there was no independent reporting to back the claims of Russian bounty payments.
Instead, its articles “cite intelligence findings.” In other words, the Times served as a conduit for unnamed officials, apparently in the CIA, who leaked uncorroborated and disputed claims, allegedly based on the interrogation of prisoners captured in the war with the Taliban.
The CIA did not divulge who these prisoners are, where they are being held, and what torture or other mistreatment they may have been subjected to.
