16.5.05

Apologies and Retractions

Scathing reminder from Salon that the Administration seems rather excited to condemn Newsweek for mistakes, mistypes, poorly thought-out columns, manipulations of evidences, and out right lies, all while refusing to awknowledge their own:
Given the Bush administration's record of errors -- and worse -- in the war on Iraq, you'd think the administration's talking heads would be slow to climb aboard the high horse when someone else makes a mistake in the war on terrorism. You'd be wrong, of course.

...
It's not clear yet just how much of the story Newsweek got wrong. Newsweek seems to suggest that its error was in saying that "sources" confirmed the incident or that the confirmation of the incident was contained in a report by U.S. investigators. The magazine's apology seems to leave open the possibility that, regardless whether it was confirmed by sources or identified in a report, the flushing incident may actually have happened.

...
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence di Rita said over the weekend that the editors at Newsweek "owe us all a lot more accountability than they took." White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this morning: "It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story."

Accountability? Retractions? We're still waiting for that sort of thing from the White House. Newsweek has expressed its regret for any loss of life that may have come from its mistakes. As for the Bush administration? More than 1,600 U.S. troops and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have been killed so far in a war that was sold based on White House assurances that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a whole lot innuendo suggesting that he was somehow involved in the attacks of 9/11. Would it be too much to suggest that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others in their administration owe the American people "a lot more accountability," too?
The Administration, as usual, feels obligated to condemn the media [or rather, those portions of the media they haven't paid off completely yet] as a tactic of passing blame for what can only be understood as a passions inflamed due directly to the Administration's actions. Good work, fellas. Pass that hot potato.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Newsweek didn't get the facts wrong, necessarily: Newsweek's source claimed knowledge of the Quran desecration that he gleaned directly from the Pentagon, then backtracked and said that's where he thought he saw it, but maybe not. He's still not saying he never saw the report at all, just that its origin is unclear. And didn't Newsweek originally report that an Army spokesman "declined to comment" --meaning they were told the substance of the story and asked for their side of it BEFORE it was published? So where, exactly, is the magazine solely culpable? If Bush had half as much excuse for HIS massive blunders, he'd be trumpeting it coast to coast. (Oh, wait, no: screw the coasts. They're full of hellbound wrong-thinking gayloving atheists, whose opinions are worthless. He'd trumpet it from the banks of the Mississippi to the Colorado River, instead.)

16.5.05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Follow-up: Beautiful run-down of the entire mess on Sploid:

http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/05/16/the-shift-memo-has-been-horribly-desecrated-103721.php

Watch for the bit about the message board on the Free Republic site. Why is NEWSWEEK in trouble, again?

16.5.05  
Blogger General Stan said...

Fascinating how quickly the Administration has put the hunt out for Newsweek, really. And you're right- the report itself may not even be WRONG- in fact, from Amnesty to HRW, all claim that they've got documentation of abuses of the Koran in Guantanamo.

It is fantastic to see, of course, the Administration SO AGGRESSIVELY reprimanding Newsweek for prematurely going to press with unreliable sources with the result of the loss of life...

Anybody remember "Curveball: 'Yeah, those are mobile WMD STATIONS, not grammie's Winnebago trailers!" or Chalabi "you'll be welcomed with roses and hugs!"

Or how about the worst:

George W Bush's trusted crew: "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." September 20, 2001.

17.5.05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

c