• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Not all heroes wear capes.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

No one could have predicted…

Tick tock motherfuckers!

People are complicated. Love is not.

T R E 4 5 O N

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

I really should read my own blog.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

He really is that stupid.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Infrastructure week. at last.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Corrections

Corrections

by John Cole|  February 10, 20079:39 am| 90 Comments

This post is in: Media, Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

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.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Pretty Amusing
Next Post: Didn’t He Already Declare? »

Reader Interactions

90Comments

  1. 1.

    demimondian

    February 10, 2007 at 10:10 am

    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?

  2. 2.

    Jonathan

    February 10, 2007 at 10:10 am

    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.

  3. 3.

    Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 11:13 am

    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.

  4. 4.

    Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

    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.

  5. 5.

    CaseyL

    February 10, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Here’s a Saturday morning eye-opener for y’all:

    US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

    The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

    (empn. mine)

    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.

  6. 6.

    CaseyL

    February 10, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Blast the block quotes! I shoulda used Preview.

    Sorry.

  7. 7.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    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?

    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.

  8. 8.

    Pb

    February 10, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    And Bush II is all about outdoing Daddy, isn’t he?

    This passes as ‘deep thinking’ on the left.

    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.

    So does the we-invaded-Iraq-for-oil meme.

    See above. Amazing how Darrell constantly mistakes the obvious for “deep thinking”? Well, not really.

    No wonder you lefties gravitate to groupthink echo chambers.

    Irony of the day!

  9. 9.

    Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    In other news, Darrell, 1+1 does actually equal 2.

  10. 10.

    scarshapedstar

    February 10, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    In other news, Darrell, 1+1 does actually equal 2.

    9/11 changed everything.

  11. 11.

    Jonathan

    February 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    No wonder you lefties gravitate to groupthink echo chambers.

    Go over to Free Republic and make a few “leftist” posts and see just how quickly you are banned.

  12. 12.

    Pb

    February 10, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    In other news, Darrell, 1+1 does actually equal 2.

    9/11 changed everything.

    Indeed–now, 1 + 1 = 9/11 * 1/1500. Or something.

  13. 13.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    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.

  14. 14.

    KC

    February 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    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).

  15. 15.

    Bruce Moomaw

    February 10, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    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.

  16. 16.

    RSA

    February 10, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    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?

  17. 17.

    Kirk Spencer

    February 10, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    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.

  18. 18.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    You can’t quote from Levin’s report and attribute it to the IG report. Period.

    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?

    On the other hand, this one’s also different. Unlike the Rather papers, this time the actual source is also somewhat valid

    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.

  19. 19.

    grumpy realist

    February 10, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    In Darrell World: “Partisan document”== something that says something he doesn’t want to hear.

  20. 20.

    Redleg

    February 10, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    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.

  21. 21.

    Redleg

    February 10, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    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?

  22. 22.

    Perry Como

    February 10, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    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.

  23. 23.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Redleg Says:

    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.

    The IG report hasn’t been publicly released you dumbass. But hey, ‘fake but accurate’ is good enough for you leftist halfwits.

  24. 24.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Redleg Says:

    And another thing, Darrell, at least the WaPo had the decency to run a correction

    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.

  25. 25.

    Perry Como

    February 10, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    I want to hear more about Iran supplying weapons to Sunni insurgents.

  26. 26.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    I want to hear more about Iran supplying weapons to Sunni insurgents

    Who made that claim?

  27. 27.

    Perry Como

    February 10, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Who made that claim?

    I’m not sure, but if someone hasn’t, they should. It sounds true.

  28. 28.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    But hey, ‘fake but accurate’ is good enough for you leftist halfwits.

    I think the word “truthiness” applies here.

  29. 29.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 4:07 pm

    I’m not sure, but if someone hasn’t, they should. It sounds true.

    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.

  30. 30.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    This New York Times piece

  31. 31.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    My last post was meant to be a question.

  32. 32.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    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?

  33. 33.

    jake

    February 10, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Hey, it ‘sounded’ true right?

    God damn it, there goes another one. I need to buy irony meters by the gross.

  34. 34.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    jg Says:

    This New York Times piece

    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.

  35. 35.

    The Other Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    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.

  36. 36.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    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.

    No.

  37. 37.

    The Other Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    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.

  38. 38.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Jimmy Mack Says:

    What, I’m supposed to be impressed Gaywald doesn’t like it?

    No.

    Did you read the Greenwalds post or reflexively dismiss it when you read the link?

  39. 39.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    No.

    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.

  40. 40.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    If you can prove that the Iranian government itself is supplying them, that’s one thing. But merely being Iranian in nature means nothing.

    Not if your a wingnut. If the assertion comes from an approved authority its not to be questioned. its a Known Fact.

  41. 41.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    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…

  42. 42.

    RSA

    February 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Bush administration officials, Feburary, 2007:

    The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.

    Bush administration officials, July, 2002:

    In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that “there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president’s desk.”

    Okay, I think we can all relax; we’ve got, what, around nine months or so before we have to start worrying.

  43. 43.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Darrell Says:

    No.

    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.

    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.

  44. 44.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    As the article says, there is consensus among our intelligence that the Iranians are providing Sunni insurgents with these particularly lethal bombs.

    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.

  45. 45.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    No way the Sunni are getting help from Iran.

    Care to offer proof?

  46. 46.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    On August 23, 2006, Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy chief of operations of the Joint Staff, said the Iranian government is training, funding, and equipping Shiite militiamen in Iraq. On September 28, 2006, Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner, deputy chief of staff for intelligence of the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I), said that the labels on C-4 explosives found with Shiite militiamen in Iraq prove that the explosives came from Iran. He added that the Iranian government provided the explosives because the Iranian military apparatus controls access to such military-grade explosives.

    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?

  47. 47.

    Jonathan

    February 10, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Let’s not forget that the Sunni insurgents are getting funding from the Saudis.

  48. 48.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Care to offer proof?

    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.

  49. 49.

    Perry Como

    February 10, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Let’s not forget that the Sunni insurgents are getting funding from the Saudis.

    Then it’s time to invade Jordan.

  50. 50.

    Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    It’s probably because of the “Made in Iran” stickers that they keep putting on bombs and bullets.

  51. 51.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    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?

    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.

  52. 52.

    p.lukasiak

    February 10, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    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…..

  53. 53.

    RSA

    February 10, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    He was saying it was bad reporting to do what you keep doing, repeating what is said as truth.

    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.

  54. 54.

    p.lukasiak

    February 10, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    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….

  55. 55.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    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.

  56. 56.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 10, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    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.

    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.

  57. 57.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    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?

    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

    But I also have to believe that Iran would arm anybody who’s going to oppose the U.S., at this point.

    Good point. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

  58. 58.

    Darrell

    February 10, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    spoof or not, this kind of homophobic crap used by “Jimmy Mack” demands that a banning….

    From the same ahole hoping my hometown gets bombed

    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

  59. 59.

    jake

    February 10, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    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.

    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.

  60. 60.

    Richard 23

    February 10, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    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.

    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.

  61. 61.

    jg

    February 10, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Darrell Says:

    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?

    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.

    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.

    Darrell Says:
    I’m all for being skeptical of our govt,

    when an issue is being raised by a democrat…

  62. 62.

    SPIIDERWEB™

    February 10, 2007 at 9:03 pm

    Perry Como,

    You really are a piece of work. You may even be more delusional than Bush.

    Pelosi didn’t ask for the plane.

    I’m not sure, but if someone hasn’t, they should. It sounds true.

    Now there’s a tight argument no one could dispute.

  63. 63.

    The Other Andrew

    February 10, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    Black helicopters = crazy right-wing conspiracy theory from the ’90s.

    Bush lying us into war = commonly-held belief amongst Americans.

  64. 64.

    chriskoz

    February 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Jimmy Mack says:

    No way the Sunni are getting help from Iran.

    Care to offer proof?

    Shortly afterwards Jimmy Mack says:

    But I also have to believe that Iran would arm anybody who’s going to oppose the U.S., at this point.

    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.

  65. 65.

    Richard 23

    February 11, 2007 at 1:00 am

    Perry Como,

    You really are a piece of work. You may even be more delusional than Bush.

    Don’t speak ill of dead crooners, Spiidey!

  66. 66.

    rachel

    February 11, 2007 at 5:17 am

    ‘NYT’ Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims

    By Greg Mitchell

    Published: February 10, 2007 10:30 PM ET Friday updated Saturday

    NEW YORK Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”

    Ooooh, scary!

    What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”

    Sound pretty convincing?

    Yes. Yes it does.

    Well, almost all the sources in the story are unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

    Hey! Wait a minute…

    Gordon wrote with Miller the paper’s most widely criticized — even by the Times itself — WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2002, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows.

    When the Times eventually carried an editors’ note that admitted some of its Iraq coverage was wrong and/or overblown, it criticized two Miller-Gordon stories, and noted that the Sept. 8, 2002, article on page one of the newspaper “gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program.”

    This, of course, proved bogus…

    Totally bogus, in fact. Only an idiot would trust anything these clowns has to say that is not supported by any tangible, unambiguous facts.

  67. 67.

    Jimmy Mack

    February 11, 2007 at 9:38 am

    I bet your gay friends would think “Gaywald” is funny. No?

    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.

  68. 68.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    February 11, 2007 at 9:50 am

    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.

  69. 69.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    February 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

    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.

  70. 70.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2007 at 11:32 am

    You really are a piece of work. You may even be more delusional than Bush.

    But he’s less delusional than Wayne Newton.

  71. 71.

    numbskull

    February 11, 2007 at 11:40 am

    John,

    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?

  72. 72.

    Darrell

    February 11, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    “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.

  73. 73.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    February 11, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    OK, this has got to be a spoof, right? Or just the most aptly-named commenter in history?

    Have you asked yourselves how you became aware of the WaPo’s error? Was it directly or indirectly through their own published correction?

    …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.

  74. 74.

    JImmy Mack

    February 11, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    …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!”

    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…

  75. 75.

    jg

    February 11, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    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 Said:
    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,

    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.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop Says:

    And, sure, they printed liberal talking points as official government findings,

    Is that what happened?

    How do you feel about Gordon’s reporting? Comprehensive? Filled with right wing talking points?

  76. 76.

    Whammer

    February 11, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    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?

  77. 77.

    Redleg

    February 11, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Darrell,
    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.

  78. 78.

    jg

    February 11, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    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.

    For the last decade and a half, the Republican party has pursued an intentional strategy of insulating its base from reality. The goal has been to create a permanent block of loyal Republican voters who will dutifully internalize whatever the party’s leaders tell them.

    To accomplish this, 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. They have attacked the press, the judiciary, academia, and even science itself. And they’ve been remarkably successful; we’ve now reached a point where much of the Republican base simply refuses to believe anything that doesn’t come from a trusted partisan outlet.

  79. 79.

    Whammer

    February 11, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    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…….

  80. 80.

    Zifnab

    February 12, 2007 at 9:43 am

    When the President of the United States advocates teaching his 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.

    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.

  81. 81.

    numbskull

    February 12, 2007 at 10:13 am

    Daryll says:

    That the WaPo came clean on the eve of the report

    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, …

  82. 82.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    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?

    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.

  83. 83.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    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.

    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.

  84. 84.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    More likely they’re arming al-Sadr and other Shiite extremist militias a.ka. The Official Iraqi Government.

    Darrell really needs to read the entire sources he quotes. They keep proving him an idiot.

  85. 85.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    The “mistakes” always seem to favor the left. Coincidence? You tell me…why there is blood in my stool

    Hit-piece on Pelosi over a plane. Hit piece on Reid over land. Eject head from Ass, Jimmy Mack.

  86. 86.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm

    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.

    Darrell’s Irony of the Day(tm).

  87. 87.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    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.

    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.

    Darrell Says:

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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

    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?

  88. 88.

    Tulkinghorn

    February 12, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    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.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Heretik : Substance says:
    February 10, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    […] A misquote and quote updated. The WaPo came clean today on who it quoted and the usuals who suspect all are in a frenzy. A question of style? Or of substance? The facts are the WaPo blew it on the cite.  Is there a larger truth beyond what is a significant detail. You have Levin’s report which got quoted as the Inspector General’s report. From the correction: 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.” […]

  2. The Heretik : Substance says:
    February 10, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    […] A misquote and quote updated. The WaPo came clean today on who it quoted and the usuals who suspect all are in a frenzy. A question of style? Or of substance? The facts are the WaPo blew it on the cite.  Is there a larger truth beyond what is a significant detail. You have Levin’s report which got quoted as the Inspector General’s report. From the correction: 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.” […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Kelly on This Is Who They Are – Wisconsin Extremists on the Ballot on April 4 (Open Thread) (Mar 29, 2023 @ 3:14pm)
  • JDM on A BFD on regulatory action (Mar 29, 2023 @ 3:14pm)
  • Paul in KY on This Is Who They Are – Wisconsin Extremists on the Ballot on April 4 (Open Thread) (Mar 29, 2023 @ 3:12pm)
  • Kelly on This Is Who They Are – Wisconsin Extremists on the Ballot on April 4 (Open Thread) (Mar 29, 2023 @ 3:11pm)
  • pat on A BFD on regulatory action (Mar 29, 2023 @ 3:07pm)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup coming up on April 4!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!