Redstate explains;
The article, by Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith, purported to summarize the conclusions of a report by the Pentagon's inspector general, beginning with the news that..
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included 'reporting of dubious quality or reliability' that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community . . .
[...] take a look at the whopper of a correction the Post has posted, essentially recanting the entire thing.
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.
Ed Morrissey looks at what the report does say; "They Were For Dissent And Alternative Analysis Before They Were Against It"
Feb 12 Update- Less an error than an agenda. The inside story on what happened doesn't look good on Walter Pincus, or the Post.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4759
You can go to the Globe and Mail on-line discussion forums and posters still quote these "sexed-up" articles, long after the retraction has been printed.
Posted by: rebarbarian at February 10, 2007 8:04 PMUmm Kate wear a respirator while you're painting, looks like the fumes caused you to miss Bill Arkins (sp? Arcains?) blog at WAPO. The only reason there's a correction is the WAPO realizes that even "special" people can see through the opaqueness of their reporting.
Posted by: Boss429 at February 10, 2007 8:31 PMNext Washington Post correction:
A front-page article on the Chicken Inspector General report on recent multiple henhouse deaths incorrectly attributed the quotation, "it's only natural for 50 hens to die in one night" to the Inspector General. In fact, the quotation was from the fox. The Post regrets this minor error.
Posted by: surly at February 10, 2007 8:36 PMBoss,
I can't even see through the opaqueness of your post. Anyway, who cares what Bill Arkin has to say about anything after he called US soldiers mercenaries and complained about them being a bunch of spoiled brats living in the lap of luxury?
Posted by: surly at February 10, 2007 8:51 PMWill the WaPo be printing in 5 years. Has anybody kept a count of all the retractions, phony pics, apologies and plain phoney stories done by so called reporters in the last 3 years.
Posted by: mary T. at February 10, 2007 8:52 PMSurly, what you have said is so opaque that I'm not sure your saying soldiers are or are not mercenaries. In your words a bunch of spoiled brats living in the lap of luxury, would you care to clarify?
Posted by: Boss429 at February 10, 2007 8:59 PM"...who cares what Bill Arkin has to say about anything after he called..."
Is that so hard to understand?
Posted by: surly at February 10, 2007 9:39 PMWhy are journalists allowed to live?
Posted by: BillyHW at February 10, 2007 9:40 PMBilly,
You wouldn't want to live in the kind of place where they weren't.
Posted by: surly at February 10, 2007 10:03 PMBill
Do you live in a cave? keep up the primitive wall scratchings.
Bill Arkin is a two-bit hack suffering from the usual defeatist left-wing delusions.
Posted by: missing link at February 10, 2007 10:37 PMYou'll just have to trust me on this one Surly, but you don't want to live anywhere that professional soldiers are not available to protect what you take for granted.
Posted by: Boss429 at February 10, 2007 11:15 PMBoss, you'd make a good Washington Post reporter yourself, what with your skill at penetrating someone's actual words to reveal that they meant the exact opposite of those words.
Kate, is it me, or is it him? How do you put up with this all day?
Posted by: surly at February 10, 2007 11:33 PMKate, is it me, or is it him? How do you put up with this all day?
surly mommy?
Posted by: Boss429 at February 10, 2007 11:58 PMI remind you to read the rules. This is not a chat forum. Enough, already.
Posted by: Kate at February 11, 2007 12:37 AMThe Washington Post is first and foremost a "tabloid" in the traditional pattern of that media...it thrives on sensation and exageration...and they do a little magic "editing" as well...WYSIWYG.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 11, 2007 10:11 AM