“Do you see the NY Times article as a fair objective representation of the NIE report?”

Yes. It identifies the main thrust of the document, that being that the Iraq War has made terrorism more widespread and the risks greater.

You’re no doubt fishing for me to say “but it doesn’t mention the hopeful statements about what could happen if we win in Iraq,” which you would view as more balanced. Perhaps fair criticism, but on balance, can you assess that the document really emphasizes that viewpoint in any meaningful way? Those points are practically parenthetical, and are not the central judgements of the NIE, at least as far as we can see.

The main point of the article is to contrast (yet another) official government assessment of the poor situation in Iraq and elsewhere with the president’s insistences that “we are safer” because we went into Iraq.

Should they do nothing when presented with such conflicting information, or is it not their duty to publish it?