|
Replies: 3
| visibility 220
|
Legend [17143]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 19108
Joined: 10/15/02
|
About the WP reporting of that much mentioned IG report...
Apr 7, 2007, 11:00 PM
|
|
I could care less at this point, but its interesting that the WP story is based on a "single footnote from the report that they reported incorrectly".
A One-Two Punch
http://powerlineblog.com/
Last night, I started working on an analysis of the Washinton Post's story titled "Hussein's Prewar Ties to al Qaeda Discounted". I finished the post this morning, titled it "Malpractice or Malice?" and put it up on our AOL page. Only then did I turn to Power Line and see that Paul had done a post on the same subject last night.
It's worthwhile, I think, to read the two posts together. Paul's focuses on the undisputed facts and the bottom line question of whether it was reasonable to worry about potential collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. My post, which is unusually lengthy for us, focuses more on the Post's misleading characterization of the Inspector General's report which is the basis for the story, the history of the IG report itself, and the drive-by attack on #### Cheney that the Post's reporter gratuitously inserted into the article. An excerpt:
One would think that Smith and the Post, having been burned on this story once already, would be careful to get their facts right the second time around. No such luck. Here is the first paragraph of Smith's story in yesterday's Post:
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
To read this, one would think that the Post is actually reporting new information on this long-contentious subject. In fact, the IG's report contains no news on the subject at all, and the IG made no attempt to figure out who--the CIA or Feith's Defense Department group--was right. The statements in the IG's report that lead the Post's coverage come from a single footnote; worse, the Post didn't even report that footnote correctly.
Read together, the two posts are an indictment both of the Posts's reporting and of the sloppy thinking that characterizes so much liberal argument on this issue.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [25697]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 25046
Joined: 8/25/03
|
Now we know why you wouldn't talk about this yesterday.
Apr 7, 2007, 11:11 PM
|
|
You had to wait for "powerlineblog" to tell you what to think. Just once do some thinking for yourself, for Christ's sake.
I'm interested to know what you think about it. Since you said you "could care less" (I have to bring this up since clemsontyger doesn't appear to be logged in), then you have indicated that you do in fact care about it to some degree. So what's your opinion?
Or did you mean that the deaths of 3,262 (9 more pending DoD confirmation) Americans is a good price to pay for your political agenda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Wake up Rip van Winkle.............
Apr 7, 2007, 11:17 PM
|
|
It is delusional to refer to today's WP as a liberal news source.
It is laughable to hear and see people criticize the Post as an unreliable or sloppy newspaper.
Do they make mistakes? Sure they do. But to ridicule them as less than anything but an outstanding news source in our Nation's Capital betrays the ignorance of the accuser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31756
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Afghanistan vs. Iraq.
Apr 8, 2007, 1:52 AM
|
|
With Afghanistan we all knew they were harboring al Qaeda, they refused to give up bin Laden, and we invaded. With Iraq, it was nothing like that. It was all, "Comply with the [irrelevant] UN," and, "Give up your WMD."
So splitting hairs over news reports or IG reports or C & P'ing blogs citing blogs only illustrates the problem with your position. And it's truly tragic that your position hasn't changed in over four years. The most stark illustration is your own failure to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 3
| visibility 220
|
|
|
50
