Yes, the article is on Page 1, according to the official
"Editor's Note"/correction on page A2:
Editors' Note
A front-page article last Saturday profiled Ali Shalal Qaissi, identifying him as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004. He was shown holding such a photograph. As an article on Page A1 today makes clear, Mr. Qaissi was not that man.
The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.
Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim.
The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.
already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, One MSM outlet makes up a story. Others use the previous as sources. Uninformed Americans believe them. A poll is taken. Bush's ratings are down. The liars seem to win. Let's hope they don't in the only poll that really counts; the election.
The latest issue of Vanity Fair is three-fourths ads and one-fourth anti-Republican diatribes. I can only surmise that all those advertisers are anti-R.