Washington Post corrects Cheney article from MTP appearance

Washingtonpost ^ | 09/16/03 | corrections

[Pikamax]

CORRECTIONS Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A02 A Sept. 15 article on Vice President Cheney's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" mischaracterized the vice president's response to a question about releasing information on Saudi Arabia's ties to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 hijackers. The article quoted Cheney as saying, "I don't want to speculate" about the ties, and said that the vice president went on to say that Sept. 11 is "over with now, it's done, it's history and we can put it behind us." The article implied that Cheney agreed with this point of view. In fact, in his full remarks, the vice president took the opposite view and argued that it is important, in discussing alleged Saudi connections to the hijackers, not to release information that would jeopardize the United States' ability to fight terrorism.

[sigSEGV]

Saw this on Brit Hume yesterday. Its absolutely disgusting. I can't believe someone can get away with it and keep their job.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

What? The WP misquoted Cheney? Next you will be telling me the New York Times is unreliable.

[DoughtyOne]

If FoxNews and the internet weren't here, does anyone think this would have been revealed? I wish we'd have had this when Nixon went through his war with the Post. The Post would have had it's lunch handed to it.

Thirty years later and the Post still hasn't produced it's witness. We named witnesses with Clinton and it didn't matter.

The Post should have had it's doors padlocked decades ago. As for the NY Times, only the idiots who produce the evening news pay attention to it anymore.

[DoughtyOne]

How about: Only the idiots who produce the evening news pay attention to it anymore. LOL

[JOE6PAK]

How about: Only the idiots who produce the evening news pay attention to it anymore anyway!

[Timesink]

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Washington Post Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

---

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[over3Owithabrain]

Yeah, the WP is really sorry. They got their 3 days of bad PR for Cheney, now they can quietly "apologize". F them.

[DoughtyOne]

About now I'll accept any comment that is close. ;-)

[KC_Conspirator]

I believe the original hit piece was written by Bush-hater, Dana Milibank, who will never be fired by that liberal rag unless he magically endorses Bush in 2004.

[Fledermaus]

The New York Times is unreliable! lol

[OldFriend]

There was never any doubt that the Washington Post and the New York Times were sisters in deception.

As the election gets closer they will both print whatever lies they can and apologyze later. Hoping most will not see the corrections.

Never has FNC been more important to the security of our nation.

[jd777]

When we needed to go to war in Iraq, Cheney and co were putting out reports that were quesionable on Saddam and Iraq. I'm sorry, that was the case. Nothing needed to be classified, and that was fine with me, to be honest. But if Congress mentions the Saudi government in the 9.11 report, those pages have black lines through the text?

That stinks to high heaven.

[Miss Marple]

Any story by Dana Milbank about Presient Bush or the administration in general should automatically be assumed to be a lie. Milbank is a poisonous anti-Bush type and has been from the very beginning...see Bill Sammon's book Fighting Back.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

They got their 3 days of bad PR for Cheney, now they can quietly "apologize".

In addition, hundreds of other newspapers and mags repeat the story but never see the retraction.

[cyncooper]

I saw this on Hume yesterday, too. Even knowing how some media have pulled out all the stops to combat this administration I still had my jaw drop at this blatant lie.

[cyncooper]

I believe the original hit piece was written by Bush-hater, Dana Milibank

Really?! I have often seen him on MSNBC commenting and agree he is anti-Bush, but I have to say I am surprised to find how devious and deceitful he really and truly is, if he was the author of the original article.

It will be interesting if he is still called upon to commentate. Of course, I expect to see him next on Chris Matthews with Matthews nodding along with every ill-conceived "insight" offered.

[texasbluebell]

I wish we'd have had this when Nixon went through his war with the Post. The Post would have had it's lunch handed to it.

If only...history would have been rewritten.

[Coop]

Cheney and co were putting out reports that were quesionable on Saddam and Iraq.

Fine. Name one.

[Miss Marple]

You really should get a copy of Bill Sammon's book. Sammon details how the White House press office was dumbfounded at Milbank's mocking of the president and lack of respect. Sammon saw it first hand.

Almost any time there is a story slamming the administration, you can bet that Milbank is on the by-line. He specializes in "unnamed sources" and ellipses, as we see here. He is a liar and as far as I am concerned, as long as the Post employs him they have zero credibility.