Correction: Dubious Intelligence At The Washington Post

Walter Pincus' Mouth Is Moving, But Carl Levin's Voice Keeps Coming Out

By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

If you read this morning's Washington Post, you were unlikely to miss a story on Page A1 (that's the front page) with the dramatic headline

“Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted 'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War

The article, by Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith, purported to summarize the conclusions of a report by the Pentagon's inspector general, beginning with the news that
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included 'reporting of dubious quality or reliability' that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community . . .
Of course, the Democrats, led by Michigan Senator Carl Levin, have been making this argument for some time. What was newsworthy, and certainly what was front-page-worthy, was that the Pentagon's own inspector general seemed to agree with Levin. Apparently, though, this is more a case of Pincus and Smith agreeing with Levin and writing up an article that appears to have been itself so deceptive and misleading from the very outset that you wonder whether anyone read the thing before publishing it besides perhaps the people in Senator Levin's office who must have been dictating this to the dutiful scribes at the Post. Because take a look at the whopper of a correction the Post has posted, essentially recanting the entire thing:

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.

There goes the entire beginning, theme, title, and newsworthiness of the article. All the Post has left to stand on is a "well, they sounded alike" defense:

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."

Check Saturday's Post front page for this correction. Though I will be much surprised if it gets that prominence. After all, unlike the story itself, the correction is actually newsworthy.

« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto IndustryComments (46) | Noted columnist Ellen Goodman has wet herselfComments (34) »
Correction: Dubious Intelligence At The Washington Post 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

The Wapo won’t run this correction on A1 FrontPage like the Original OUT RIGHT LIE, end result will be millions of people who glanced at the Newspaper box to see that headline but never seeing the correction unless they took the time to go online.

I used to believe that the ME was just overly eager to post anti-US anti-war anti-Bush articles resulting in mistakes and sloppiness of not checking the stories properly because they believe it so in their head.

However after time and time and time and time of more and more blatant "mistakes" I no longer buy the overly eager sloppiness anymore. Its blatant deliberate obvious Propaganda hence "tells a lie enough times it becomes truth".

Look at Iraq the ME's most successful operation yet. A war that by any comparable Historical comparison on every level is a unbelievable success yet the lie "quagmire, failure, wrong, hopeless, losing, blah blah blah" has been told so many times even those who know better no longer question the basis of Iraq being a failure.

original story is going to be a major talking point from here on out.

The MSM feeds the left talking points, but the left isn't too interested in the corrections, because they want the original to be true more than they want the truth.

You never hear the leftys cite Hans Blix as the source of the dubious Iraq intelligence, and he was actually in Iraq and in a position to know -- At least that's what he told us, but with the UN types you never really know. If good old Hans had said what he said was missing was found, no war. We had no agents in Iraq, the Bush administration basically recited what Hans said.

But hey, Clinton actually bombed Iraq too stop their WMD programs, I guess this gets forgotten as well. The eve of Monicas's testimony, how could they forget.

The UN as a protected species to the media so mums the word.

It's also curious that no one picks up on the fact that it was Jay Rockefeller who was the only one who said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, it's in the Senate archives, he gave that statement in a floor speech..

about Sen Rockefeller and Iraq:

tells us how he plans to help those who do not want the US to win in Iraq.

Here he tells us, in his own words, how he helps those that want to defeat America:

"The strangest episode came from an appearance by Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: OK. Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch:

ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.

WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. [emphasis added]

What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?"

Read the entire article at:

Or maybe not. The Wapo and the NYT are carrying on his work with an astonishing vim and vigor. Its twenty one months before the '08 election and we, the voting public, are already experiencing the media's full court press.
Maybe there was some truth after all, to those rumors that the Dean Presidency was torpedoed, and John Kerry was installed as the next president to be, during a meeting of media executives in an upper West Side Manhattan apartment in early December before the '04 Iowa caucuses.
All you have to do is watch NBC's programming to know that Hilary's the office favorite there and the lies, they are a flying. Maybe by November '08, they'll successfully have us convinced the sun rises in the west and that pigs, do indeed, have the ability to fly.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service