HA ha...
and the RATS take another one in the...
Posted on 04/14/2006 3:32:21 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
Another Day, Another Embarrassing Intelligence-Related Correction Posted by: Clay Waters 4/14/2006 11:59:09 AM
After correcting itself on the Lewis Libby leak yesterday, the Times on Friday corrects another Bush-related intelligence story by reporter Eric Lichtblau that brought much criticism from conservative bloggers like PowerLine.
This is what Lichtblau falsely claimed March 29: “In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”
Today the Times admits: “An article on March 29 about congressional hearings on the Bush administration's program of domestic eavesdropping referred imprecisely to testimony about the secretive court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which requires warrants for eavesdropping under most circumstances. While two former judges said they believed that Mr. Bush was bound by federal laws governing intelligence gathering, they did not explicitly express skepticism about whether he has the constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”
As Times Watch pointed out at the time, “Lichtblau doesn’t quote any of the judges actually voicing that skepticism about Bush’s actions -- skepticism Lichtblau certainly feels, judging by his slanted reporting in the past.”
Where does the Times print corrections and retractions? Page A39?
I think they print them under the gay "wedding" announcements.
Today the Times admits: “An article on March 29 about congressional hearings on the Bush administration's program of domestic eavesdropping referred imprecisely to testimony about the secretive court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which requires warrants for eavesdropping under most circumstances. While two former judges said they believed that Mr. Bush was bound by federal laws governing intelligence gathering, they did not explicitly express skepticism about whether he has the constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”
Its worse than that...
The Times reports it, AP picks it up and runs it. Thousands of newspapers and local news reports cover it...THEN the Times prints a retraction on page C14 and the thousands of media outlets feel no responsibility to retract since it was not their mistake.
We just had a letter to the editor in our local paper claiming that "Bush ordered the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity".. where did he get that and where is the retraction?
yeah, so Republicans can't find the corrections and rub it in their faces.
"More Layoffs at the New York Times
I do not think the shouting should be done by us, rather the
daily press briefings should begin by citing the corrections made by so many newspapers and page they were placed.
I like it. I can see the faces of the press now as Scott McClellan reads off the retractions in front of live TV......priceless!!
"I do not think the shouting should be done by us, rather the
daily press briefings should begin by citing the corrections made by so many newspapers and page they were placed."
I think you have hit on a great strategy! Email it to the WH press office.
Rush has it right in calling them the "drive by media".
Ping
... rather the daily press briefings should begin by citing the corrections made by so many newspapers and page they were placed.<<<
I like it. I can see the faces of the press now as Scott McClellan reads off the retractions in front of live TV......priceless!!
I agree and Scott McClellan should set it up as a quiz in front of the press corps by first asking "Truth or retraction" then poll how many goy it right.
YES, you ARE correct....but, maybe, if we put it in bold it will allow those who peruse this site to have EASIER ACCESS to it, and USE IT! (That's why I do it - to unbury it in the myriad of replies.) But, I love your idea!
I am becoming quite disappointed with our party, it seems that being diplomatic is more inportant than being direct.
ping
bump
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.