> A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 20, 2003, on Page A00023 of the National edition

You know what an op-ed piece is, right? If you don't, here's a definition:

> An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page" or "opinion editorial", is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

Just because they put it in the op-ed section doesn't mean they weren't pushing war propaganda.

I know what an op-ed is. I guess your point is that they don't fact check op-ed's so it doesn't count?

The NYT itself felt it's reporting was bad enough it warranted an apology: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/the-public-e...

TFA is a NYT opinion piece...

The fact that they published it (or that they didn't publish something) is hard proof of endorsement.

If you think it isn't, I can only suggest you have a bizarre concept of reality.

> The fact that they published it (or that they didn't publish something) is hard proof of endorsement.

No, not at all. It's only proof that it's a point of view they thought their readers should know about.

Here's a contemporaneous editorial that expresses a very different view: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/opinion/the-bioweapons-en.... You can find all kinds of contradictory opinions in the NYT op-ed section, so it'd be nonsense to say the NYT endorses the view of every one (or any particular one) it publishes.

> If you think it isn't, I can only suggest you have a bizarre concept of reality.

I'd suggest your concept of reality is more bizarre than mine.