Posted on 02/09/2007 4:14:49 PM PST by bnelson44
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.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."
Almost all the truly damning quotes came from the office of Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, not the DOD inspector general.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.nationalreview.com ...
They were quoting Carl Levin (D), not the report itself. And yes, there's a BIG difference.
"Almost all of the quotes were wrong."
Lets see if the networks update and correct, because the headlines have been screaming since this morning.
View screenshot of correction.
UPDATE: The entire 'sphere is all over this, but Ace is just on fire.
Levin is full of crap.
MSNBC Correction
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17051786/
Not only is WaPo's incompetent and dishonest presentation of the "IG report" just awful, but the report itself is pathetic twaddle, even without the distorting lens of Walter Pincus channeling Carl Levin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782263/posts
Which is more damaging to U.S. National Security?
a) A Senator using the word "macaca" on the stump (with the WAPO running the macaca story on the front page for 7 straight days) or
b) The WAPO smearing the DoD, then half-retracting the smear on a Friday evening while nobody's looking.
Oopsie...
Propaganda works!
They don't care that they were caught, they just laugh in our faces now.
Since we have no major media to counter attack.
The DemonicRats and the MSM....what a TEAM....something NOT to be TRUSTED!
Wolfie Blitzed had to eat crow in front of Feith this afternoon on CNN. It was the best moment I've ever seen on that lying leftie loser network.
I would have loved to have seen that.
This is terrible. When are we going to finally get wartime censorship? When can we start using the word, "treason?"
To use the word "wrong" implies that there was a mistake made.
And there are too many erreors for it to be a mistake.
The correct word would be "propoganda"!
You should know that here in Florida they are called "Purposeful Misstatements".
I don't think they did "screw it up". That would imply that it was accidental. I think it was deliberate.
"Any guess on what page the retraction and corrections will be on??"
I'putting money on page 172 of the Style section, lower right corner, right below the Used Car ad and just to the right of the Erectile Dysfunction ad.
The people working in the media--print, broadcast, and increasingly the 'net--today are NOT JOURNALISTS!! They are mouthpieces for liberals or willing stooges who are predispositioned to a liberal point of view, accepting anything fed to them by likeminded powerbrokers.
Nearly anything told them by a liberal is accepted as truth, nearly anything told them by a conservative is suspect.
see my post above.
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.