In an August 10 post on The New York Times' Empire Zone weblog, staff writers Patrick Healy and Jennifer Medina noted that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman had, during a single campaign event, both used the recently foiled British terror plot to attack Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont and argued that politicizing national security issues is “just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American.” But an August 11 article posted on the Times website, also written by Healy and Medina, simply reported that Lieberman seized on the news out of Britain to bash Lamont, omitting any mention of Lieberman's criticism of those who would “make it into a partisan political football.” The Washington Post and the Associated Press also uncritically repeated Lieberman's attack on Lamont.

In the August 10 blog post, Healy and Medina reported on a lunchtime event in Hartford, Connecticut, during which Lieberman -- in what they called “an extraordinary injection of politics into a national security issue” -- had linked Lamont's opposition to the Iraq war to the foiled terrorist plot. They quoted Lieberman saying, “If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out [of Iraq] by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.” At the end of the post, Healy and Medina noted that in the same appearance Lieberman denounced the politicization of national security issues:

Asked by a reporter about warm praise that Mr. Lieberman received yesterday from Vice President Dick Cheney, the senator tried to underscore his independence in politics.

“I'm not saying we shouldn't have healthy disagreement and discussion about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football, it's just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American,” he said.

“How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on our party affiliation?” Mr. Lieberman said. “They want to kill any and all of us.”

On August 11, Healy and Medina published a web-only article -- headlined “Lieberman, on the Offensive, Links Terror Threat and Iraq” -- that prominently noted Lieberman's attack on Lamont and raised questions regarding his “use of a national security hazard to buttress a political attack.” But in this piece, Healy and Medina inexplicably omitted any mention of Lieberman's statement that such attacks are “just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American.”

An August 11 article by Times staff writer Adam Nagourney noted Lieberman's reference to the British terror plot in his attack on Lamont and compared it to similar comments made by Vice President Dick Cheney:

In a sign of how the terrorism issue was roiling American politics, Mr. Lieberman echoed Mr. Cheney as he attacked his primary opponent, Ned Lamont, for his opposition to the war. He said Mr. Lamont's desire to withdraw troops from Iraq would result in victory for Islamic extremists.

But Nagourney too failed to mention Lieberman's denunciation of the very politicization he had just engaged in.

As Media Matters for America noted, an August 10 article by AP staff writer Susan Haigh quoted Lieberman slamming Lamont at the Hartford event, while omitting his separate comments denouncing such attacks. An August 11 article by Washington Post staff writers Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker also ignored those remarks, while reporting Lieberman's claim that Lamont's policy on Iraq would be “taken as a tremendous victory” by the terrorists.