it's an old lawyer trick... say something you want the jury to hear that you know they shouldn't know about, the judge has it stricken from the record and tells the jury to ignore what was said. RIGHT!!!
right or wrong... you can't unring the bell.
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.”
This "imprecision" was no mistake. Eff them.
I need to make a retraction.
goy it right should be "got it right"
Great caption. I have no use for the NY Times. I would not even use it as toilet paper because I would be afraid I would catch something.
I LIKE that idea! I REALLY like that idea. Think anyone can get Scottie to do it?????
[sigh]
Isn't that true. I can just see the liberals screaming as we burned a pile of NY Times papers - "You are ruining the air quality!"
My email to Scott McClellan.....
"We thank you for your tireless efforts.
On the Free Republic Forum there was a discussion today of the New York Times retractions and the effect on National coverage. It was noted that the Times will print a blatantly inaccurate piece and retract it later. But in the meantime the AP picks it up and papers all across the country prints the false article. They never print the Times retraction.
It was suggested that the first order on your daily agenda would be reviewing all the retractions to be sure the word gets out.
Such an action would be much appreciated and in the best interest of the country."
It's the firsr blast of news that counts and this rag is perfectly willing to publish lies first and then retract.
BUT, but, think of the number of trees they would save if they did NOT print these stupid LIES!!!
I think we should all get bumper stickers made that say
"Main Stream Media STUCK ON STUPID
Want to know why? CALL (put your phone number here)
I'll bet the local news reporters driving around will eventually see it and give you a call. Then you can tell them all about the Iraqi documents that Freeper jveritas has been translanting about Saddam and Al Quida connection and WMD, that NONE OF THE MEDIA are reporting on.
Bert,
If Scott followed your advice and starting doing that, it would drive the liberal moonbat reporters nuts. I could just see David Gregory cursing under his breath.
I really wish they would do it because it would throw it right back in the reporters faces and make them accountable for their crappy reporting. The world would see them for what we know they are.
They are ignoring the docs for now but they will not be able to ignore them for the next 7 months before the Nov. elections. They are hoping we will all give up and quit talking about them. They are in for a nightmare of a surpise because if I could wager a bet, I believe there will be many more documents that tie Saddam to al qaeda since 1995, tie him to 9/11 and or the Anthrax attacks.
The left is rolling the dice and they are going to lose on this one.
How about this for a bumper sticker
Mainstream Media
Fullfilling the needs for a socialist agenda and promoting the Communist manifesto
They drive up, fire a shot, then take off with a "talk amongst yourselves" mentality.
It's really all they have left as they cling to what little credibility they have while the American public, slowly but surely get on to them.
Hey, throw it out there, the NY Times figures. Say anything and hope those idiots out in la-la land busy carrying this country on their backs hear a couple of sound bites and summarize the bites into exactly the conclusion we want them to make. As I surmise is the Times' logic
Give it time. IT's not going to last much longer.
it's an old lawyer trick... say something you want the jury to hear that you know they shouldn't know about, the judge has it stricken from the record and tells the jury to ignore what was said. RIGHT!!!
right or wrong... you can't unring the bell.
.....I really wish they would do it .....
Send him a note. Can't possibly hurt.
Retort: Maybe, but we are improving the quality of life.
Way to go. I would love to see them implement this strategy.
Corrections are always on even page numbers. That way you actually have to fold the paper back to find it. So I suspect either A38 or A40.
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.