Today, one of the top headlines was a Wapo article "Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted", in which, as of right now, 164 blogs, multiple television news shows as well as other news papers have allllllll used to blast the "news" all over the country and world.
The Kicker?
Their recent correction. (Hat Tip to Hot Air: ) Emphasis mine.
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."
So, the big, front page story about what the DOD IG report contained is false.... the quotes were Levin's!!!!! Mistake? Or a deliberate attempt to create a completely false front page story?
Ooooops???
Wouldn't a reputable credible media source confirm information given to them before reporting it? Doesn't look like it.
What about Levin? How many actual believe this was some sort of "innocent" mistake on Carl Levin's part?
Also, what about the 164 links that have blasted this on THEIR front pages.... how many of them are issuing retractions, updates or even bothering to mention the correction that Wapo published?
The ones I have checked are eerily quiet about it... now, I fully admit I have not checked all of them...if someone has the time though, I am VERY curious to see who will have the class to blast the truth as far and as wide as they blasted the lies.
To give the devil his due, so to speak, Wapo showed much more class than the AP,because they actually tried to correct things by issuing a correction. That still does not make up for sloppy reporting and believing what Carl Levin was telling them with no verification nor confirmation which would have made it clear that their quotes were not from the IG report but from Carl Levins OWN report.
That is one hell of a major screwup.
From Hot Air:
Got that? The big scoop was that the Pentagon itself had concluded that Feith floated bogus intel on the links between Iraq and AQ and suggested that he’d done so at Bush/Cheney’s behest. Except the Pentagon didn’t conclude that. Anti-war Democrat Carl Levin did.
Ace of Spades headline says it all:
WaPo Exclusive: Pentagon Inspector General's Report States Conclusively That Bush Admin Official Cooked Pre-War Intelligence!!!
Oh, Minor Correction: It Was A Report From Anti-War Democrat Carl Levin Which "Concluded" That. Whoops, Our Bad.
Yup, thats just the headline!!!!!
Long headline, but for one of the most egregious "twisted intelligence" debacles of all time.
The correction, of course, does not quite capture the enormity of this error -- breathlessly labeling a partisan liberal Democrats' "conclusions" as if they were the indpendent, nonpartisan official conclusions of the Bush-run Pentagon. How could they really convey how massively they fucked up here? This is, in journalistic terms, simply catastrophic.
"Confirmation bias," they call it-- the press simply will run anti-Republican stories that ought to sound a little implausible or sketchy because, to them, they sound pretty darn reasonable. Such "facts" are "self-checking" -- they just prove themselves by how wonderfully they fit in with the liberal worldview.
One hell of a screwup and Wapo has none other to thank than Carl Levin.
NRO asks:
How did the WaPo screw this up so badly?
Wonder if the will "confirm" the next story he tells them.
Wanna take bets?
.
