Let’s see if I understand all this. The story was wrong to begin with, so unless someone involved in the actual “event” which apparently was not an event but something someone made up as well, we don’t know what is (was) going on. But, other than the fact WAPO prints as much B.S. as the NYTimes we do  know that facts are irrelevant as long as  “characterization” of the made up report is consistent with the facts being manufactured.

I have a headache now.

The good news is: All of this does serve to remind me why I wouldn’t pay money to purchase a “news?paper,” if my life depended on it. I’ll stick with the Opinion Journal in the ol’ email box which is where this came from.


Saturday, February 10, 2007; Page A02

· A Feb. 9 front-page article about a 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 M. Levin (D-Mich.) in October 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:

And these print moron’s have the gall to think bloggers are just a bunch of yehoo’s.

Source: CORRECTIONS – washingtonpost.com