Posted on 11/04/2005 11:15:27 PM PST by woofie
NEW YORK After months of complaints from what he calls “bloggers on the right,” among others, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has posted at his paid TimesSelect page a clarification on his now-famous, but somewhat flawed, column that played a central role in the still-enveloping Plame/CIA leak case.
Kristof said the reasons for correcting the record now were that the Libby indictment had revived interest in the May, 6, 2003 column -- and he has been pressing for Vice President Cheney to “tell all” about the case so “here's my effort to do the same.”
It came just hours after Slate's Jack Shafer had penned his own column taking Kristof to task for not dealing with this matter. Kristof told Shafer yesterday that he was considering re-visiting the column, but noted that he couldn't think of an example where a Times column or article was corrected after six months.
In his TimesSelect piece Thursday, Kristof examines two key criticisms of the column.
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
Is this the guy whose irresponsible reporting over the handling of the Quran at GITMPO resulting in the deaths of several people in Pakistan?
I thought so! So why should he be trusted now?
You are correct, my bad :-)
He had it deliberately wrong when I could read it free, and now they hope I'll PAY for a begrudged errata blog post?!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
“I think that the attacks on Wilson are overdone. ... More generally, I find the attacks on a private citizen like Wilson rather distasteful. Sure, he injected himself into the public arena with his op-ed column and TV appearances, and so some scrutiny is fair. But I figure it's more important to examine and probe the credibility of, say, the vice president than a retired ambassador.”
Kristof's lukewarm admission that he screwed up belies the real story that Wilson yanked down Kristof's pants and had his way with him. I guess Kristof must have really liked it.
Kristof admits here that he is familiar with the Senate Intelligence report, and it can be presumed that he has also brought himself up to speed on other related aspects of the Plame fiasco. Yet he fails to acknowledge what everybody else conceded long ago - - that Wilson and Plame, enabled by fellow travelers at the CIA, undertook a rogue operation for the purpose of damaging the Bush Administration and diverting attention from the CIA's massive intelligence failures. Joe Wilson has since lied repeatedly about those efforts.
And despite all this, the cowardly Kristof thinks Wilson has been treated too harshly?? He's just as much a lying scumbag as Wilson is. (By the way I noticed that Kristof "forgot" to mention Wilson's book.)
Wilson was caught, red-handed, telling 3 different journalists at 3 different times that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong" on documents that he couldn't have legally seen.
The French had those documents. The Italians were given those documents by a spy named Rocco.
But the U.S. didn't get them for another 8 months after Wilson claimed to know they were forgeries.
So either he's a liar or else he's in the loop of foreign spy agencies.
I've heard of this "problem" in Wilson's statements - and wonder why it hasn't been fully developed and addressed.
Is Wilson not going to have his little peepee whacked over all this bullsquat?
Semper Fi
Oh, they got stuffed.
"But I’ll have a blue, blue blue blue christmas..."
A poster on a liberal blog suggested changing the name to Fitzukkah because "it went on too long and the presents stink."
“I think that the attacks on Wilson are overdone. ..."
What attacks on Wilson? Do you hear or see attacks on Wilson, except here at FR? Does he mean like the attacks on Rove, Cheney and Bush that occur every day, thanks to Democratic politicians?
Wilson sold Kristof a bill of goods, and Kristof was more than willing to go along with it. And now Kristof is defending Wilson. Kristof should apologize for printing lies about a matter of national security - exactly what the Dems accuse Bush of doing.
Well, Wilson lied to the reporters and he lied to the Committee staff. That's enough for me. Why didn't the Committee put Wilson under oath?
How can someone be a 'private citize' when he is operating w/ 'operation clearance' for a government agency? Doesn't sound like he's 'retired'.
As Rush says, the media have chosen a side and it's not ours.
.....I figure it's more important to examine and probe the credibility of, say, the vice president than a retired ambassador.”....
This is Ratherspeak in which although the documents are forged, the story they tell is true.
".....I figure it's more important to examine and probe the credibility of, say, the vice president than a retired ambassador.”....
What if the retired ambassador is lying about the Vice President?
it's no fun being stupid if you can't act like it....
YES..and you can't fix it either so you might as well revel in it over and over again Maybe some other stupid democrat will swallow the spun garbage of the MSM.
I'm starting to feel the same as I did during the 2000 mess. Not good.
Interesting. Kristof says Wilson admitted he misspoke.
Wonder if he knows Wilson says Kristof misreported.
"I did not misstate the facts as Nick Kristof acknowledged in an email to me that is in the first chapter of the new edition (paperback) of the book. Pincus also acknowledged that to me in a telephone call in July 2004, and again just two days ago in an email. This is part of the misreporting that I tried to correct in my original article on July 6, 2003 in which I said clearly that I had never seen the documents. What motive would I have in saying something so demonstrably false since the USG did not even have the documents in question at the time I was asked to go to Niger. All discussion with both Kristof and Pincus was about information that al Baradai brought to the public in his March, 2003 testimony before the UN."
Wilson says Kristof sent him this e-mail:
"don’t worry. i remember you saying that you had not seen the documents. my recollection is that we had some information about the documents at that time—e.g. the names of people in them—but i do clearly remember you saying that you had not been shown them."
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005856.php
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.