That's not true. The original evidence suggests she did. The only reason this was changed was because skeptics found the story in trying to research Obama's backstory. This wasn't an error caught by the reporter nor was caught by the paper's editor nor was it caught by Tammy Duckworth and immediately corrected. And as I told you, the reporter's excuse doesn't wash.
But rather than addressing this matter, you have attempted to change the subject to the larger issue of Obama proving he was born in Hawaii.
I didn't change the subject. I told you that the Duckworth correction and Obama's claim of being born in two hospitals was never proven to be 'incorrect.' You're certainly trying to revise the story. Bad form, Mr. Rogers.
Moving the goalposts. The article does not state that Tammy Duckworth herself claimed Obama was born in Indonesia, and has never stated such. The article's author is on record as saying that he did not obtain such information from Tammy Duckworth. Demanding even further evidence, namely the specific single website that the author looked at over four years ago, is an irrationally high standard of proof.
This is how it was written:
"Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have "a kama'aina connection.
"Both were born outside the country - Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand - and graduated from high school in Honolulu - Punahou and McKinley, respectively."
The reporter says that Duckworth pointed out a connection between the two of them and then followed with what the connection was. Why would he go hunt the Internet to find connections?? That excuse makes no sense. And of course, there's nothing on the Internet outside of this story to claim Obama was born in Indonesia. Maybe she said Obama grew up in Indonesia and the reporter misunderstood her to say Obama was born there. That correction might have made sense. The excuse the reporter offers instead does not. More pathological lies.
There is no direct attribution.
Dude. You are wrong. "Obama described ..." You can't be more direct than that. Just admit you were wrong. The only reason this was 'corrected' was because this was discovered by skeptics who found yet another massive hole in Obama's backstory. These kinds of mismatching details are symptomatic of a pathological liar, except he got elected and now has the clout to go back and tell others they misquoted him or made factual errors and gullible faithers drink it up like a fresh batch of kool-aid.
Or it was changed because once an error was brought to the newspaper's attention, they corrected it. Like newspapers are wont to do.
This wasn't an error caught by the reporter nor was caught by the paper's editor nor was it caught by Tammy Duckworth and immediately corrected.
Of course it wasn't caught by the reporter; he made the error and has confessed to the same. There's no reason to believe that Tammy Duckworth knows where Obama was born, and there's little reason to think that the editor would have fact-checked the passing reference to Obama in an article about Duckworth. Such minor errors are the exact reason why newspapers HAVE corrections sections. Reporters and editors make mistakes; secret cover-ups need not be invoked.
And as I told you, the reporter's excuse doesn't wash.
But you have failed to provide any valid reason WHY it doesn't wash, apart from your own subjective belief that he's lying.
You're certainly trying to revise the story. Bad form, Mr. Rogers.
I believe you're confusing me with someone else. Someone named, I presume, Mr. Rogers.
This is how it was written:
"Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have "a kama'aina connection.
"Both were born outside the country - Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand - and graduated from high school in Honolulu - Punahou and McKinley, respectively."
The reporter says that Duckworth pointed out a connection between the two of them and then followed with what the connection was. Why would he go hunt the Internet to find connections??
Because that's what reporters do? Incidentally, "kama'aina" means someone who was born in Hawaii or has lived there for a long time. The word has no association whatsoever with foreign birth.
That excuse makes no sense. And of course, there's nothing on the Internet outside of this story to claim Obama was born in Indonesia. Maybe she said Obama grew up in Indonesia and the reporter misunderstood her to say Obama was born there. That correction might have made sense. The excuse the reporter offers instead does not.
Now there you have a possible explanation, and not just saying you don't believe it. I'd propose that the author could have similarly misread an online reference to Obama's youth in Indonesia. Either way, it explains how the mistake was made without resorting to broader accusations. It also fits nicely with the other flaw in the author's explanation, namely that since there was no controversy over Obama's birthplace prior to 2008, there would not have been any opposition websites with such information in 2006.
So we're presented with at least three explanations for the author's reference. One, Tammy Duckworth claimed that her elementary school classmate was born in Indonesia. Considering that Duckworth is SEVEN YEARS YOUNGER than Obama means that he was in middle school by the time she started kindergarten. And you want to believe they met and discussed birthplaces? They weren't classmates or friends. And as the article notes, Duckworth went to a different high school.
Two, that the author got the reference to Indonesia online, either from an unreliable source or through misinterpretation of a source. And that when he says he got the reference online, that's what he remembers about his source for a single tangential sentence in a three-year-old article.
Dude. You are wrong. "Obama described ..." You can't be more direct than that.
Yes, you can. You can say what speech it supposedly came from. The article doesn't. You can quote the actual text that was spoken. The article doesn't. Whatever speech is being cited presumably happened circa election day, when every speech Obama gave was videotaped and broadcast. And you haven't seen any video of this supposed statement, have you? Sure, you can start resorting to allegations of widespread media coverups, but realize that claiming that every news video, ever home video, every cell phone video, and every news report quoting the supposed 'confession' is quite the logical leap. That's quite the elaborate explanation compared to: UPI made a mistake, and eventually corrected it.
What the article DOES do is paraphrase something Obama supposedly said in some unidentified speech. The way the paraphrase is presented, and given UPI's readiness to correct its mistake, the most ready explanation is that Obama referred to his birth hospital without naming it, and the unbylined writer added the specificity of Queens as detail. Again, no conspiracies or cover-ups are necessary.
The only reason this was 'corrected' was because this was discovered by skeptics who found yet another massive hole in Obama's backstory.
Or, it was corrected when the UPI editor looked back at whatever speech the article is about, and found that there was never a reference to Queens in the speech.