Certainly looks like the WaPo blew it, and blew it big time, on the report about Doug Feith that I linked to and discussed yesterday:
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general’s report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”
You can’t quote from Levin’s report and attribute it to the IG report. Period.
While the IG report is probably damning enough, there is no need to even allow any confusion between the two to exist.
Shame on the WaPo.
I enjoyed the editorial presentation of the corrigendum: one long paragraph, a mass of grey text, as if the goal were to make it hard to read. Now, they wouldn’t do that, would they?
It’s quite clear that the whole concept of “fact checkers” is just quaint and antiquated at most MSM outlets.
Frankly after the last twenty years or so this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Remember right after the Bush inauguration, the stories about the “trashing” of Air Force One and the White House?
All the MSM ran with the story big time.
It never happened.
For some time, Brad DeLong has been presenting a substantive case that the WaPo will not last a decade because of its collapse as a reliable reporting outlet.
I should note that most of the Post’s problems have to do with “reporting” that merely rehashes right wing talking points and an absurd editorial obsession with “centrism.”
Froomkin’s column is the only truly good thing that Post has going for itself, and the paper-side of the operation has tried repeatedly to get him canned.
Here’s a Saturday morning eye-opener for y’all:
I don’t know who those sources are, or how reliable they are, but if nothing else that bit about bombing Iran just before he leaves office rings true of Bush’s character.
After all, his Daddy left Clinton with the same kind of White House-warming gift, starting military actions in Haiti and Somalia just before he left office. And Bush II is all about outdoing Daddy, isn’t he?
I wonder if impeachment proceedings would do any good.
Blast the block quotes! I shoulda used Preview.
This passes as ‘deep thinking’ on the left. So does the we-invaded-Iraq-for-oil meme. No wonder you lefties gravitate to groupthink echo chambers.
Not at all–in fact, blatant examples of this are so exceedingly obvious and frequent that it’s dead easy to write tomes about it.
See above. Amazing how Darrell constantly mistakes the obvious for “deep thinking”? Well, not really.
Irony of the day!
In other news, Darrell, 1+1 does actually equal 2.
9/11 changed everything.
Go over to Free Republic and make a few “leftist” posts and see just how quickly you are banned.
Indeed–now, 1 + 1 = 9/11 * 1/1500. Or something.
This is Dan Rather and the memos all over again, it seems to me. Every now and then you see a slip this obvious and you the liberal bias is clear for all to see.
Actually, I applaud the Post for admitting its error, and doing so the next day, in a big way. Compare that to what we get in other publications, say the Washington Times, wherein poorly sourced phony stories are drudged up for smear centered reasons, then when they are shown to be false, are never corrected by the publication (or done so in the most self serving way).
Note that the mistake — ghastly as it is — really does nothing at all to vitiate the Post’s statements about the tone of the actual IG report (which used virtually the same phrases to describe Feith’s activities). Which, of course, is not exactly surprising — given that two days ago Feith was both admitting his activities, and frantically trying to duck responsibility for them on the grounds that he himself didn’t necessarily actually BELIEVE what he kept telling Congress and the world.
One of the writers of the original article was Walter Pincus. I’ve always had a generally good impression of his work. I wonder where the screw-up happened, and who’s responsible?
Jimmy Mack, yes – it does remind me of the Rather Papers, but for a different reason.
There’s every reason to believe it’s true. And in fact everyone who’s accused says the basics are indeed correct – “But I didn’t necessarily believe what I was saying” [paraphrase]. But in a very “what is the meaning of ‘is'” type of dance all the attention is focused by the accused and their defenders not on the allegations and facts but on the carrier of the facts.
On the other hand, this one’s also different. Unlike the Rather papers, this time the actual source is also somewhat valid. The quotes were from a Senator’s report subsequent to review (aka hearings). Unlike the condemnations of, oh, say RedState.org, Senators’ official reports can and do have teeth.
What’s really bizarre is that they quoted from a 2004 report from Levin and tried to pawn it off as part of the IG report. How did that happen?
Yeah, partisan rhetoric from Levin = valid source for the IG document. Incredible. Not one iota different that those saying Rathergate was ‘fake but accurate’.
I hope someone digs to give us an explanation as to how those at the WPost could take a partisan document from 2004 and confuse it with the IG report.
In Darrell World: “Partisan document”== something that says something he doesn’t want to hear.
DuhDuhDarrell misses the point. Sure the WaPo screwed the pooch. The real story is that the IG report largely confirms some of the key findings of the Levin report. Neocon Kool-Aid drinkers like Darrell hate it when the media deceives but has no problem with Bush admin deceptions that have much larger negative consequences for the nation.
And another thing, Darrell, at least the WaPo had the decency to run a correction. When can we expect the same to come from Bush, Cheney, Feith, or anyone else in the administration for their many deceptions?
It disgusts me that the MSM will run smear jobs like this, but they’ll give hardly any coverage to Nancy Pelosi asking for a jumbo jet to fly a few hundred miles.
The IG report hasn’t been publicly released you dumbass. But hey, ‘fake but accurate’ is good enough for you leftist halfwits.
Hey, it ‘sounded’ true right? and who has time to verify facts when a hardcore partisan like Levin is telling you what you want to hear? Hey, ‘fake but accurate’ – The sequel.
I want to hear more about Iran supplying weapons to Sunni insurgents.
Who made that claim?
I’m not sure, but if someone hasn’t, they should. It sounds true.
I think the word “truthiness” applies here.
And what makes you so sure it isn’t? We learned today, in the New York Times of all places, hardly a pro-Bush source, that some of the most dangerous bombs being used in IEDs in Iraq are being supplied by Iran. But you probably don’t want to hear about that. It might burst your bubble.
This New York Times piece
My last post was meant to be a question.
What, I’m supposed to be impressed Gaywald doesn’t like it? Has he ever liked an article that presented a different point of view?
God damn it, there goes another one. I need to buy irony meters by the gross.
jg, would you agree that Greenwald’s objection to the article are basically:
1) that Gordon reported findings that the Bush administration agrees with
2) He chastises Gordon for writing the article without ever inspecting the (alleged) Iranian IED’s and munitions which have been confiscated.
General Zahner (and others?) has testified under oath that he has verified Iranian arms and munitions found in Iraq. And Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world run by extremist mullahs. I read Greenwald’s “argument”, but it’s unpersuasive. If you disagree, then tell us why you believe Zahner is lying.
The Other Andrew
As “Gaywald” pointed out, the NYT is carrying water for the pro-Iran-war crowd in the runup to a possible war with them, just as it carried water for the pro-Iraq-war crowd in the runup to the war. (See: Judith Miller.) Oh, they eventually realize they got fooled, but they initially err on the side of nationalistic gullibility.
The Other Andrew
Also, I have a feeling that some of the insurgents are using US arms and munitions. Should we declare war on ourselves?
If you can prove that the Iranian government itself is supplying them, that’s one thing. But merely being Iranian in nature means nothing.
Did you read the Greenwalds post or reflexively dismiss it when you read the link?
I detailed what were major criticisms leveled by Greenwald and I responded. If you disagree tell us why and defend your position. Otherwise you’re just mindlessly parrotting what Greenwald tells you to think.
Not if your a wingnut. If the assertion comes from an approved authority its not to be questioned. its a Known Fact.
As the article says, there is consensus among our intelligence that the Iranians are providing Sunni insurgents with these particularly lethal bombs. Do you really think that Greenwald has access to better info than the CIA? I mean, I know there’s a lot of commenters on his site and all, but come on…
Bush administration officials, Feburary, 2007:
Bush administration officials, July, 2002:
Okay, I think we can all relax; we’ve got, what, around nine months or so before we have to start worrying.
Greenwalds argument is that some folks are taking what gov’t sources say and repeating it without any regard to verification but still acting like they are reporting truth. You did the same thing. ‘A general said…’ so therfore its true. Verification is not needed.
Is their assertion that they found stuff good enough for you? Is that all you expect from journalists?
And you detail anything you pompous ass. Stop the playacting.
Sunni insurgents?! Armed by Iran? Its absurd. Why would you ever let that enter your head as truth without scrutinizing the fuck out of it? No way the Sunni are getting help from Iran.
Care to offer proof?
Source. Again, Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, so this is entirely consistent with their other terrorist activities and extremism, including Iran’s warning to the US to convert or die
What has Greenwald presented to contradict Generals Barbero, Zahner, and Abizaid, all of whom have alleged that Iran is arming and supplying insurgents in Iraq?
Let’s not forget that the Sunni insurgents are getting funding from the Saudis.
It’s possible that Iran might be aiding Sunnis to destablize Iraq’s govt, but I’d be really skeptical of that. More likely they’re arming al-Sadr and other Shiite extremist militias.
Then it’s time to invade Jordan.
It’s probably because of the “Made in Iran” stickers that they keep putting on bombs and bullets.
Nothing. No why? He wasn’t trying to refute that point. He was saying it was bad reporting to do what you keep doing, repeating what is said as truth. You take it a step further by bringing in the irrelevant terorism stat but we expect that from you, we know you’re full of shit.
IMO Iran is most definately helping the Shia, either directly through arms and training or just with happy prayers on friday afternoons. But we’re not fighting them so it won’t be a problem until we invade Iran. This is why its a concern that Iran is arming elements in Iraq, because they will become a problem if we invade Iran which we have to do because Iran is arming elements in Iraq.
Darrell, where do you live?
Because I really want to make sure that its your hometown that gets bombed by our military since American supplied equipment is being used to kill Americans in Iraq…..
It’s like the old gag with fortune cookies, but instead of adding “in bed”, we need to add “as asserted by anonymous government officials”. Where’s the renowned conservative skepticism of government authority? Not to mention the equally renowned skepticism of mainstream news media? It may turn out that these reports are true, but it may instead turn out that we’re talking about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons factories.
What, I’m supposed to be impressed Gaywald doesn’t like it? Has he ever liked an article that presented a different point of view?
spoof or not, this kind of homophobic crap used by “Jimmy Mack” demands that a banning….
I apologize for saying “Gaywald” if it offended anybody. I am not a homophobe — I have gay friends — but I can’t stand Greenwald. Funny, though, that “Gaywald” demands a banning but the Edwards bloggers deserve a medal in eyes of some on the left.
That’s likely true, I guess, given the Sunni-Shiite tensions that exist. But I also have to believe that Iran would arm anybody who’s going to oppose the U.S., at this point.
One one side we have generals on the ground telling us that Iran is sending arms into Iraq and that quite a number of Iranian-made munitions have been discovered in Iraq. Iran is, and has been for decades, one of the premier state sponsors of terrorism in the world, so such actions are entirely consistent with the character of Iran’s leadership.
On the other hand, we have skepticism on whether Iran is sending arms into Iraq from the “Bush lied us into war” black helicopter crowd who have presented us with nothing that I’ve seen to discredit or counter what the generals are telling us about a terrorist state like Iran.
I’m all for being skeptical of our govt, but those arguing that Iran isn’t sending arms and other support to insurgents in Iraq, arguing (without basis) that it’s likely a Bush administration misinformation campaign to “cook up” justification to invade Iran… that’s in tinfoil hat territory
Good point. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
From the same ahole hoping my hometown gets bombed
Yep. Everything I’ve read on the topic mentions an Iranian Shiite connection. No mention of Iranian aid to Sunnis in Iraq, which would piss off the Shiites no end anyway.
I bet you have a lot of gay friends, “Jimmy.” Do you have a lot of black friends too? And female friends? I bet your gay friends would think “Gaywald” is funny. No? Because he’s got “wald” in his name and he’s, get this, “GAY!” Hahahaa. Asshole.
Oh, and how many Edwards bloggers comment here? They should be banned! No medals for the “Edwards bloggers,” but a brownie button for you. Cretin.
On the one hand we have an approved right wing source so I believe it.
On the other hand we have the sound of left wing thinking so I’ll just dismiss it.
when an issue is being raised by a democrat…
You really are a piece of work. You may even be more delusional than Bush.
Pelosi didn’t ask for the plane.
Now there’s a tight argument no one could dispute.
The Other Andrew
Black helicopters = crazy right-wing conspiracy theory from the ’90s.
Bush lying us into war = commonly-held belief amongst Americans.
Jimmy Mack says:
Shortly afterwards Jimmy Mack says:
So Jimmy Mack asks jg to prove a negative. But, he is more than willing to “believe” Iran would be supplying the Sunni to oppose the U.S.
And predictably… Darrell agrees with this.
Don’t speak ill of dead crooners, Spiidey!
Yes. Yes it does.
Hey! Wait a minute…
Totally bogus, in fact. Only an idiot would trust anything these clowns has to say that is not supported by any tangible, unambiguous facts.
Perhaps not, because I admit it wasn’t that funny. But I will say this: that if my gay friends are any indication, gays are possibly the only mostly liberal group that actually have a sense of humor.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
If everyone who called someone gay got banned here, and everyone who made a crude alteration of someone’s name got banned here, there would be four people left to post.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
So the lefty spin is going to be that it’s “fake but accurate?” Well, the IG report had better say something to the effect that Feith’s office produced “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” (which were the two lead quotes because they were so stunning to everyone but lefty journos) or that meme is sunk.
Saying that Feith’s report ran counter to most intelligence reports isn’t the same as saying it was dubious and predisposed.
But he’s less delusional than Wayne Newton.
It seems to me that WaPo corrected themselves publicly and rapidly. Is it that you want to punish this behavior?
“Liberal-media” conspiracy theorists,
Have you asked yourselves how you became aware of the WaPo’s error? Was it directly or indirectly through their own published correction? If so, do you understand the implications that has for your argument that this error was all part of a plan?
No one is alleging a liberal media “conspiracy”.. What is being alleged is an extreme liberal BIAS which makes many in the media predisposed to believe and print things with little or no fact checking, all because it “sounds” right and fits with their leftist narrative. In this case, no fact checking on an explosive front page story. Extreme partisan Carl Levin said it (in 2004!) so it must be true right? Incredible. And yet, even after WaPo fessed up and this was exposed, leftists are here on this very thread and elsewhere making excuses, claiming “fake but accurate” just like they did with Rathergate.
That the WaPo came clean on the eve of the report being sent to the Senate where their error would have been exposed anyway seems like damage control.. I’m not sure what their correction has to do with the bias we are discussing.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
OK, this has got to be a spoof, right? Or just the most aptly-named commenter in history?
…a correction which will be seen by about, ohhhhh, 5% of the people who saw the mistakes. Way to lower the bar for media all over the world. As someone said, the new WaPo slogan should be “Well, that’s why pencils have erasers!”
And, sure, they printed liberal talking points as official government findings, but their correction proves they aren’t biased! Yeah, gotta be a spoof.
I think the correction has been fairly well-publicized. But obviously it’s a black eye for the Post. And it does seem like you don’t seem them making these kinds of errors in the other direction. The “mistakes” always seem to favor the left. Coincidence? You tell me…
Except for all those mistakes that agreed with Bush before the war. Weren’t so liberal then.
Darrell you stupid little tool. Thats the issue with the NYT piece by Gordon that repeats the White House message with no fact checking. Your decribing the reporting that you actually support when its done in your favor. The deal with the Post is different.
Is that what happened?
How do you feel about Gordon’s reporting? Comprehensive? Filled with right wing talking points?
So, we have a propped-up government in Iraq that is demonstrably pro-Iranian. And we are now “shocked, shocked” that Iranian arms are found in Iraq?
While we’re at it, who do we need to go to war with when we discover that some of the 363 tons of missing CPA cash was used to buy C4 from Iran?
A summary of the IG report was given to the WaPo. That’s how they were able to make the corrections they made. And some of those points about Feith and his group of flunkies made in Levin’s report are substantially confirmed in the IG report summary made available to the WaPo.
I find it interesting how many of you wingnuts refute anything coming out of Democrats as “partisan” and therefore suspect yet at the same time seem to believe every word out of the Bush administration in spite of their record of deception and failure.
the Republican political machine has engaged in a relentless and systematic assault on all of the institutions in our society that have traditionally served as arbiters of truth
Good point, jg. When the President of the United States advocates teaching religion in science class, as he did when he endorsed “intelligent design” as something that should be taught to show “both sides”, that is an incredible assault on the foundations of truth.
As the wags said at the time, “intelligent falling” should be taught as an alternative to gravity…….
Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking this is about religion. In the Republican Party, religion is just one step off from FOX News, as an organ to regurgitate propoganda. Republicans are surprisingly intolerant of religions that try to provide medical aid to border-hoping immigrants or that vocally object to foreign wars or that insist on non-partisan (or god-forfend Democrat) political affiliations.
I may have lost the time line here, but I thought that the original story was published on the 9th. The correction, which has indeed been widely publicized, was published on the 10th.
Given that the WaPo is a daily, …and the correction was made the next day, …
This from Darrell, who quotes from 1998 and 2005 out of date reports and polls and refuses to recognize that time doesn’t stand still.
Shorter Jimmy Mack: You keep dropping the soap, Mr. Bush. My Ass is hurting from picking it up all the time.
The ‘evidence’ presented do far by this administration is about as valid as Nigerian Uranium purchases.
Hit-piece on Pelosi over a plane. Hit piece on Reid over land. Eject head from Ass, Jimmy Mack.
Darrell’s Irony of the Day(tm).
Shorter Darrell: Generals never lie. Even when they do.
Weapons and Ammo from a number of countries are easily available in Iraq, Darrell. Even American weapons. Enough money can buy just about anything from a black market that knows no borders.
How do you discredit or counter vague claims? No tangible evidence that would past muster has been presented, only Bush’s appointed people saying ‘Iranian connections’ which means pure bullshit. The black helicopter rightwingers are in your camp Darrell, who will insist to their dying day that attacking Iraq without cause was a good idea.
Fallacy, Darrell. Poisoning the Well.
Iran is sending support. It’s called money, medical care, food and general aid. They’re doing what the US could not. Helping the Iraqi Shia get back on their feet. Iran could be sending weapons too, it wouldn’t really surprise me but we have no real proof yet that their government is backing that. Trying to claim such as ‘fact’ without evidence is the same trap too many fell for with ‘WMD’.
And as far as Iran helping the Sunni guerillas? That takes real tinfoil to claim without proof. Do you honestly believe Iran is going to give weapons to groups that slaughter Shia?
A critical distinction ought to be made between arms supplied by ‘Iran’, that is, the leaders of that nation, and arms that are sourced from Iran, a relatively large country with different branches of government with overlapping spheres of authority, some of which are not accountable to the the political leadership. This means that while the political entity of Iran supplies weapons to the Iraq governement and to al-Sadr, rogue elements like the folks who started up Hezbollah, or criminal elements, may sell weapons to the Sunni insurgents who have lots of cash from their Saudi supporters.
The Sunni bombers are using Iranian materiel, but the central strategic problem here is the Saudi financial support, which, by the way, was the central strategic problem of dealing with al-Qaeda. But lets trot out some misleading and mischaracterized intel so we can ignore the real strategic threat and go off on an adventure, be big heroes, and make lots of money for ourselves, our political allies, and our pals in business! And who needs the trilateral commission when you have the Carlyle group: the only reason this is not a conspiracy is that it is sitting out in the open.
It worked for Iraq, so it may work for Iran.