We Fact Check Frank Rich

Frank Rich fact checks the world; we fact check Frank Rich.

Mr. Rich opens with a great catch:

THE morning the Deep Throat story broke, the voice on my answering machine was as raspy as Hal Holbrook's. "I just want you to remember that I wrote 'Follow the money,' " said my caller. "I want to know if anybody will give me credit. Watch for the accuracy of the media!"

The voice belonged to my friend William Goldman, who wrote the movie "All the President's Men." His words proved more than a little prescient. As if on cue, journalists everywhere - from The New York Times to The Economist to The Washington Post itself - would soon start attributing this classic line of dialogue to the newly unmasked Deep Throat, W. Mark Felt. But the line was not in Woodward and Bernstein's book or in The Post's Watergate reportage or in Bob Woodward's contemporaneous notes. It was the invention of the author of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "Marathon Man" and "The Princess Bride."

How about that?  William Goldman.  Is it safe?

A bit later, as he develops an boldly imaginative Nixon-Bush parallel, Mr. Rich's effort is not safe:

The main difference is that in the Nixon White House, the president's men plotted behind closed doors. The current administration is now so brazen it does its dirty work in plain sight.

In the most recent example, all the president's men slimed and intimidated Newsweek by accusing it of being an accessory to 17 deaths for its errant Koran story; led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam's holy book. These neo-Colsons easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek. Then came the pièce de résistance of Nixon mimicry: a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers.

Let's tackle this one falsehood at a time: "...led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam's holy book".

Here is Scott McClellan on May 13:

...Now, in terms of the allegation that was made, that's something we take very seriously, too.  And the Department of Defense is looking into it.  I would also point out, though, that for these detainees at Guantanamo Bay, they are provided the opportunity to worship freely, including being given copies of the Koran so that they may worship freely.

Here is Condoleeza Rice, speaking to a Senate subcommittee on May 12:

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my actual testimony, I want to speak directly to Muslims in America and throughout the world. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. We honor the sacred books of all the world's great religions. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all.

There have been recent allegations about disrespect for the Holy Koran by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and that has deeply offended many people. Our military authorities are investigating these allegations fully. If they are proven true, we will take appropriate action.

I can't guess how Mr. Rich got from "the Department of Defense is looking into it" to "unthinkable". [And yes, I know what McClellan said on May 16 - bring it on!]

Let's move on to "These neo-Colsons easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek."

Oh, dear - the "neo Colsons" include CNN, which cited the Pentagon assertion before rebutting it; the Washington Post, which implicated Newsweek in their lead paragraph; and the NY Times.  Have the neo-Colson's swept the board?

Not exactly.  Actually, there has been a plausible argument about the root causes and triggering events of these riots.  In one sense, of course, Newsweek is not responsible for any deaths in these riots, unless one of their reporters beat a person to death with a rolled-up copy of the magazine - it was the people who brought the guns and started shooting that are responsible for the violence.

But in a more useful sense, the Newsweek articles seem to have played a triggering role.  Here are Times and WaPo articles putting forward the view that demonstrations that might have peacefully protested the Koran desecration were hijacked by violent opponents of the Karzai government. 

We have had fun with this question before - Kevin Drum strayed briefly from the Dem talking points before retreating with a "Just kidding" defense.  (For pedants only - the quotes around "Just kidding" are intended to capture the generic nature of that defense, and not Mr. Drum's exact e-mail, which  apparently included "sarcastic").

Here is a pretty good round-up of comments made by Administration spokespeople neo-Colsons on the relationship between Newsweek and the riots.  Scott McClellan is especially cogent on May 17.  (Or do I only say that because he is making the same root causes/triggering events point I made?)  David Frum describes how the Newsweek article was seized upon by political opportunists in Pakistan; here is a contemporaneous local account.

Well, let's see how the Mr. Rich's own NY Times is describing this now that the dust has settled - here we go from last June 4:

The investigation was started about three weeks ago after Newsweek magazine published an article asserting that a separate inquiry by the military was expected to find that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet at the detention center. The magazine later retracted the article, but the assertion led to violence in the Muslim world that left at least 17 people dead.

Works for me, but that may just prove that the neo-Colsons are everywhere.

And the denouement: "a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers."

Timing is everything!  Now, for the rest of us, the report came out last weekend, and June 3 was not Memorial Day (Frank couldn't remember Memorial Day - that's rich).  Well, if Mr. Rich sat on a sneak preview for a week, that's news.  Or maybe he thought the Pentagon timed the release to the timing of the Michael Jackson trial - the jury got the case last Friday, yes?  C'mon, Frank, there must be a conspiracy here somewhere.

But what about the content - did anyone on the US side actually flush a Koran down a toilet, as Newsweek alleged?  Or is Mr. Rich willing to move the goalposts so that, wherever Newsweek kicked this story, it cleared the uprights?

We will defer to Austin Bay on this point. 

My suggestion to Mr. Rich and his many admirers - here is an opportunity to conform the lefty talking points a bit more closely with reality.

Comments

[gt]

really Tom, your ability to nitpick is astounding. So he got the weekend wrong? But the core point, that the information was sent out late Friday so it would have less press coverage remains perfectly true.

Same with the Newsweek article. We know allegations of Koran flushing have been made for years, and reported by many different news organizations. We know the US has acknowledged that US military desecrated the Koran, but they claim there is no proof of this very specific desecration (flushing). We know that when Newsweek first ran with the story the US military categorically denied that it had anything to do with the riots and they only changed their mind when Newsweek retracted (funny timing, huh?).

Plus you'll note that the Koran reference is but a samll part of the article. Much more space is dedicated to how nobody interviewing Colson today seems to remember to mention that he's a convicted felon. How any other criminals get the chance to offer their opinions on TV with no disclosure of their past activities, specially when they are commenting on the events that led them to jail?

Another big part of the article is how the MSM totally missed reporting the Downing Memo. At least today's WP seems to be making up for that. Better late than never.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Well, this is just like old times! How long has it been since we've heard anyone Question The Timing? God, how I've missed that.

All I want now to make my happiness complete is for DHS to issue an orange alert to distract us from all this.

[TM]

your ability to nitpick is astounding. So he got the weekend wrong?

Since that was about the last point I made in a longish post, I thank you for illustrating the concept of "nitpicking".

[moneyrunner]

Actually, Tom, you were being kind to the hysterical fulminations of Ms. Rich. For example: Referring to Watergate: …

“It is once again being covered up. “

“…the long national nightmare it actually was, it would dampen all the Felt fun by casting harsh light on our own present nightmare.”

"The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before"

“The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge “

“…This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. …”

Rich even credits the Bush administration for creating bloggers who challenge the God Given Right of the MSM to spoon feed us the “truth” and interpret the facts:

“sound like the founding father of today's blogging lynch mobs.”

And here: “Such is the equivalently supine state of much of the news media today that Mr. Colson was repeatedly trotted out, without irony, to pass moral judgment on Mr. Felt “

Of course the MSM when it fawns over our former leader William Jefferson Blithe Clinton fails to mention that he was disbarred, impeached, and paid off Paula Jones in a sexual harassment suit, is credibly accused of rape and in his final days in office pardoned tax dodger and Mac Rich. Perhaps we should instate the “Frank Rich rule” and provide a summary of the Bill Clinton’s sins before we get to the fawning part.

I could go on but Fisking Ms. Rich is breaking a butterfly on a wheel. I will leave it to others who have the stomach for it.

[DG]

" Another big part of the article is how the MSM totally missed reporting the Downing Memo."

If you ask me, what the MSM totally missed reporting is President Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act. How many times has Frank Rich mentioned it since the most recent conflict with Iraq began? I'd be curious to know. Or does he pretend that our history with Saddam began in August of 2002 like so many others in the MSM?

[Brainster]

GT, now hopefully the MSM can get on the really important stories, like Jeff Gannon, and what was in that box under Bush's jacket at the first debate.

[A Different NJ Tom]

moneyrunner - Ms. Rich, that is teh Heh! 1 problem with your post, you forgot to mention how Komrade Klinton's Kpenis caused 9/11, that's a double Heh!

[SteveMG]

This is a pretty damning indictment by a NY Times columnist of the er, NY Times. Guess he has the inside skinny on how the Times is tanking for the Bush Administration. Maybe in a future column he'll name names?

Although Sullivan got fired (allegedly) for criticizing the Times on his blog. Watch your back there Frank.

But I still can't quite figure out how one conducts a coverup in the open.

Again, another potential column. Rich can milk this for another three years. Even a book. Or, a Broadway play? Or did Tim Robbins do that already?

The possibilities are endless in cloud cuckoo land, er the reality based land.

SMG

[Cadwalj]

Let's close Guantanamo the day after Newsweek publishes its final edition. Neither will have any effect fanatical sensibility. The prison will move elsewhere, and free speech has no franchise.

[McCarroll]

The Koran flushing just won't wash. I tried to flush one this weekend. Had to break it in two before it finally went to paradise.

[jimhanavan]

I am not so sure references to Colson "omit" mention of his felony conviction (indeed, his life's work over the past 30 years has been the prison ministry resulting from that felony conviction), but I have seen little mention of John Dean's felony activities in connection with Watergate, or W. Mark Felt's conviction for conducting "black bag" activities as an FBI official.

[Cecil Turner]

". . . but I have seen little mention of John Dean's felony activities in connection with Watergate, or W. Mark Felt's conviction . . ."

Not sure about Dean, but Media Matters had a fairly effective rejoinder to the Felt news blackout charge.

BTW TM, "nitpicking" might not be a fair charge, but "barrel-fisking" surely is. You probably ought to've followed up with a Fezzik (Andre the Giant) quote from Princess Bride: "My way is not very sportsmanlike."

[creepy dude]

Turns out it's Bush's approval ratings that went down the toilet.

[SteveMG]

"Turns out it's Bush's approval ratings that went down the toilet."

How is that possible since, according to Rich, the press has been in the tank for the Administration covering up (or not reporting) on it's mis- mal- and non-feasance? Especially mis and mal, the new Bush twins.

I guess one could argue with a less supine press that Bush's approval numbers would be even lower.

That's the fallback position.

And can someone in the reality based community explain to me how releasing a report late on a Friday to minimize negative coverage is in ANY WAY comparable to Watergate?

Moynihan called it "defining deviancy down"; but I guess this is "defining skullduggery up"? Yeah, needs work but my editor is currently unavailable.

SMG

[big dirigible]

Frank Rich didn't mention "Stepford Wives" in his short list of Goldman screenplays. Perhaps for the Times editorial offices, that one hits too close to home.

[Nine]

The Left has put forth a number of interesting political memes of late: Bush as Nixon, Bush as "power mad," Gitmo as a Soviet-style gulag, Gitmo as worse than the Holocaust, etc, etc.

To what end? It appears to me, my friends, that there is a simple answer. They are ramping up the propaganda for a big political move.

And what will that be? Why, it will be the impeachment of Bush.

[jukeboxgrad]

TM, you seem to have an interest in promoting the idea that the Newsweek item caused riots (as if the real cause is not the behavior of our government). The implication is that Newsweek should have been able to anticipate the result of what they wrote. Simple question: if what they wrote is so obviously and dangerously inflammatory, why is it that it took the Pentagon more than two weeks (after the item first appeared) to publicly assert that the item was false and shouldn't have been published? Why is it that it took more than ten days (as far as I can tell) before any righty blogger spoke up to complain about the item? In other words, the chorus of complaint against Newsweek is entirely post-riot, and based on 20/20 hindsight.

Speaking of timing, it's interesting to notice that the administration pushback against Newsweek (in the form of Di Rita's angry phone call to Isikoff) started on exactly the day that Newsweek's corporate parent (WaPo) published its first real article about the Downing Street Memo.

But the idea that BushCo would deliberately intimidate the media is unthinkable, right? Likewise for the idea that the administration would attempt to create a distraction (now that color-coded terror alerts are widely seen as absurd).

"unthinkable"

The gist of adminstration statements was (paraphrase) "we don't do that sort of thing." That's a reasonable synonym for "unthinkable." You're making a giant leap to claim this is a "falsehood." Then again, you have a history of making libelous statements and then refusing to be held accountable.

"did anyone on the US side actually flush a Koran down a toilet, as Newsweek alleged"

It's interesting to note how you and lots of other folks consider the DoD denial as proof-positive it never happened. Given the way they blatantly lied about Tillman's death, it's hard to understand why you think they would never lie about a Koran in a toilet. Your attitude is sort of like asking a drunk driver how many times he's ever done it, and treating his answer as entirely true and the entire truth, as if there's no difference between doing it, versus getting caught doing it. As Rummy famously said, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Then again, I realize your standards of evidence are highly situational.

"Have the neo-Colson's swept the board? ... that may just prove that the neo-Colsons are everywhere."

Yes, as is also indicated by how the so-called liberal media has largely ignored the Downing Street Memo.

"Since that was about the last point I made in a longish post, I thank you for illustrating the concept of 'nitpicking.'"

True, it wasn't your only point, but it was your only point that is firmly based in fact. Too bad it's a nit.

"what the MSM totally missed reporting is President Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act"

It's true that many before Bush called for regime change. However, nice job ignoring the fact that it was hoped to be done peacefully, with invasion as a last resort. There are numerous indications (some old, some newly revealed) that for Bush, invasion was the first choice, not a last resort.

"does he pretend that our history with Saddam began in August of 2002 like so many others in the MSM?"

I have a funny feeling your account of "our history with Saddam" somehow overlooks the famous handshake, not to mention Cheney's deals with Saddam.

"explain to me how releasing a report late on a Friday to minimize negative coverage is in ANY WAY comparable to Watergate?"

If that was the only example of this administration trying to run away from the truth, I don't think anyone would be terribly concerned.

"Gitmo as worse than the Holocaust"

Citation, please.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"The implication is that Newsweek should have been able to anticipate the result of what they wrote."

The implication is that they should have at least made the effort of finding out the truth before reporting utter bullshit.

[Subsunk]

Looks to me like jukeboxgrad doesn't believe men have landed on the moon, Al Capone was a horrible gangster and killer, and that the press is not infallible. Just another moonbat in the belfry.

Subsunk

[SteveMG]

"If that was the only example of this administration trying to run away from the truth, I don't think anyone would be terribly concerned."

Again, how is holding the release of a report to mitigate negative coverage comparable to the CRIMES of Watergate?

Rich didn't say that the W.H. is simply running away from the truth. He cited the incident as being analogous to what the Nixon W.H. did during WATERGATE.

Using the term Watergate carries with it a whole host of connotations, all of them criminal. Y'know, illegal break-ins, obstruction of justice, hush money, wiretaps.

As I said, this is standing Moynihan's defining deviancy down on its head. It's defining dirty tricks up in such a reckless manner that it, dare I say, flushes Rich's credibility down a porta-potty.

Small toilet, little credibility.

SMG

[TM]

"The implication is that Newsweek ...

Ed has me covered.

[Cecil Turner]

"Then again, you have a history of making libelous statements and then refusing to be held accountable."

Looking back at that thread and then this one, that statement appears to be a particularly unattractive case of projection.

[jukeboxgrad]

"The implication is that they should have at least made the effort of finding out the truth before reporting utter bullshit."

I guess you must mean the kind of effort Bush made when a "a crucial part of the White House case for war" was largely based on someone who turned out to be an "out-and-out fabricator" (free registration required, try bugmenot.com, or this). Too bad Colin Powell's statement to the UN about "Winnebagos of Death" turned out to be "utter bullshit."

I guess you also must mean the kind of effort the media made before they reported that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire, which also turned out to be "utter bullshit."

By the way, Newsweek checked their report with the Pentagon, who made no objection to the toilet-claim. I've already pointed out that the Pentagon still made no objection for the first two weeks after the report appeared. I notice you can't be bothered to try to address this.

By the way, printing a report based on an anonymous government source is a practice encouraged and condoned by the White House (aside from the fact that Bush was willing to base the "Winnebago" claim on the words of a single anonymous liar). It's the height of hypocrisy to single out this instance as objectionable.

[kennymac]

“The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge “

Didn't President Bush grant Bob Woodward a 4 hour interview during the last campaign? That was something his opponent refused to do.

[Jor]

Is Pincus next on the fact-check bandwagon? Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan.

[jukeboxgrad]

"Looking back at that thread and then this one, that statement appears to be a particularly unattractive case of projection."

If you had any facts to back that up, I think you would mention them.

[Carrick]

Jukeboxgrad: t's interesting to note how you and lots of other folks consider the DoD denial as proof-positive it never happened. Given the way they blatantly lied about Tillman's death, it's hard to understand why you think they would never lie about a Koran in a toilet.

I think you have forgotten the original point. The part of the Newsweek story that was called into question was the claim that a U.S. military investigation had found that interrogators had flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. There now absolutely no question that this investigation made no such finding, and that the original Newsweek report was wrong.

True, it may turn out interrogators did flush a a copy of the Koran down the toilet. We don’t know for a fact that they didn’t. All we have to go on is the word of a group of likely terrorists whose known modus operandi includes making exaggerated claims of being tortured, and of desecration of their religion.

[Disclaimer: This is based on a comment I made originally on SayAnythingBlog]

[Jor]

So google can not find anything about about downing street but newsweek's story comes up several times. You're not alone, Glenn came up with similiar results. Seriously, you're guys ability to nit pick is unparralleled. Is there criteria besides this works for me politically, in terms of what stories to cover? With all this blogger focus on MSM, surely someones made some set of criteria for bloggers to follow?

[Jor]

If I wasn't soo lazy, I would take 20 blogs on the left, 20 blogs on the right -- try to find top 10 most politically charged stories each side thought occured that year -- and then see how much cross talk there is (i.e how many times sites on the left talk about top 10 stories the right mentions and vice versa). I'm almost certain the results would prove hilarious. Especially the right side of the blogosphere's #1 goal is nit-picking the MSM.

[Jor]

Since I'm on a role on this tangent, before you guys start whining about the whoa is me, underdog, can't do it all, must fight big media. Here are #'s on how conservatives are killing liberals on marketing (big surprise there)

[jukeboxgrad]

"There now absolutely no question that this investigation made no such finding, and that the original Newsweek report was wrong."

Elegant hair-splitting there. It's true that Newsweek didn't just claim we put a Koran in a toilet; it claimed there was a military report acknowledging this. It's also true that this report (which may or may not have ever existed) is now nowhere to be found. So it's true that in this sense the Newsweek report overreached. But that's different from claiming there's no reason to believe we ever intentionally desecrated Korans (later on the Pentagon admitted we did), and no reason to believe we might have even intentionally tossed a Koran in a latrine. Trouble is, when ordinary people see a headline like "Newsweek retracts Quran story," that's the impression that's created.

"All we have to go on"

It's not all we have to go on. We have our own Pentagon admitting that there have been at least several cases of intentional Koran-abuse by us (and we have a lot of gullible people who have absolute trust, in the face of a great deal of contrary evidence, in the DoD's willingness to incriminate itself, and who therefore believe the picture conveyed by DoD is complete and the gospel truth). We have a government coroner saying we beat one guy so badly his legs were "pulpified ... I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus." This guy was beaten to death even though "most of us were convinced that the detainee was innocent." In this kind of atmosphere, it's hard for me to believe (even if I completely discount claims by various detaines) that we didn't also toss a Koran in a latrine every now and then. Why wouldn't we, since we were willing to do lots of things that are infinitely worse?

"a group of likely terrorists whose known modus operandi includes making exaggerated claims"

What a relief to know that our side would never do anything like that (I think someone mentioned the idea of projection). Our Pentagon has admittedly used lying as a strategic tool, and the aforementioned Tillman fiasco is far from the only example.

"You're not alone, Glenn came up with similiar results."

Exactly. I've checked, and there's virtually a blackout, with regard to the large righty blogs mentioning DSM (obviously there are a handful of exceptions, especially in the last couple of days). They hope it's just going to fade away, even though more than half-a-million people have now signed a petitition. Keep your heads buried in the sand.

[BumperStickerist]

fwiw - picking nits is a fundamental part of cleanliness. And cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Further proof of the hold the Religious Well-Groomed Right has on public discourse.

[flenser]

According to Jor's link, if conservatives are kiling liberals in the ideas's market, it must be because they have better ideas. It is certainly not because the liberals are being outspent.

"The 15 largest foundations are spending more than $100 million a year on public policy institutes, and these are not conservative foundations supporting conservative think tanks. These are large, mainline
foundations often led and staffed by progressively minded people that do not share the agenda of reducing the role of government. In the 1990s, their endowments grew, and their interest in supporting groups in Washington grew as well. As Table 1 (p. 21) illustrates,
in 2002 these foundations spent $136 million supporting public policy institutes that are mostly in Washington producing policy-relevant work."

[SteveMG]

"least several cases of intentional Koran-abuse by us "

Intentional Koran abuse by 4 guards AGAINST regulations and the actions were corrected. The abuse was NOT authorized or approved or part of any policy.

See, this is the nonsense you guys on the left keep disseminating. That these isolated actions by a few soldiers are indicative of a larger Bush plan or part of a larger policy by the Pentagon.

The press reports on an alleged incident and you gleefully jump on it and shout, "See Bush and the neocons are doing these terrible things!!"

It's exactly like Rich comparing the delay of a report to the Watergate policies of Nixon. That's an absurd comparison.

You want to beat Bush more than you want to beat the terrorists and so you glom onto a report and run wild with it before it's verified. And when the report turns out to be wrong, you dejectedly move on to another report.

Amazing really. We read a report about contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq and you'll quickly dismiss it. But a report alleging a wrongdoing by the Bush Administration is swallowed whole.

SMG

SMG

[flenser]

jukeboxgrad

What exactly is it about the DSM that you imagine merits such attention?

Some anonymous British staffer in the Labor government offers his take on the opinion of another anonymous member of the British government, who in turn expresses his own unsupported opinion about what Bush and the American government are thinking?

I did not realize that things had gotten quite so bad in the "reality based community" that you people had to grasp at a wisp of smoke in the hope that it may be a straw.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I agree with this much: if you want to understand why people like Rich and Stalingrad are carrying on the way they do, it's essential to read the DSM.

[flenser]

jukeboxgrad

"In this kind of atmosphere, it's hard for me to believe (even if I completely discount claims by various detaines) that we didn't also toss a Koran in a latrine every now and then."
What kind of atmosphere are you refering to to?

If you bothered to read your own link, you would know that this story came to light, not due to the crack investigative reporting of the MSM, but as part of an Army criminal investigation. Admittedly you have to read down past the sensational details before the "reporter" mentions this fact.

Your constant insinuations that the US Army is engaging in torture as a routine official practice has no basis in any objective facts. Why don't you back up the charge or withdraw it?

[Gekkobear]

Hey, they put it out on Friday; there must be a conspiracy.

By the way, I've just noticed 20% of the news that the 40 hour a week staffer puts out is on Friday.

And another 20% seems to be put out on Monday (and we know people pay less atention on Mondays...)

I think he's trying to bury almost half of the news so we don't see it.

Sometimes a Friday is just a weekday. :-p

[Stan]

The crux of the left's argument flowing from the DSM relies on the definition of "fix" as in having to (paraphrase) "fix the intelligence surrounding the assessment of Saddam's possesion of WMD's". Now in British use of the word fix it seems to mean: "To make firm or secure, to settle or decide definitely". This is different from American usage: "to arrange or put in order, to adjust or repair as in clothing or hair - or even to prearrange or influence with a bribe or collusion". Since the memo originated, oh, from Downing Street and authored by Brits - Occam directs us to apply their usage.

I would think that intelligent, culturally aware and properly nuanced minds would understand this. Perhaps like Kerry their ability is ove - .

[Jor]

flesner if you read the entire article, you'll realize its not the total amount of dollars being spent thats the difference but how the money is being spent. Conservatives spend way more on marketing to the public and policy makers than the liberal organizations do. That was the point of the article. Hence, its not conservatives have better ideas, but like Coke, they have significantly superior advertising.

Flesner, I didn't say that conservative websites should be lingering over the Downing Street Memo -- its just amusing that its a virtual black out. Follow my google links. NOTHING. Do the reverse on atrios or kevin drum. Both talk about newsweek fiasco (or at least mention it). Zero mentions here, on glenn, and on powerline (although I dont regularly read powerline, so take that with a grain of salt). And this is mostly from google. If you cant see the difference in magnitude thats fine, but i think its pretty clear -- since conservatives continually get riled up about motivations for the war. And the number of memos out aren't exactly insignificant anymore -- tehy are by or quote high ranking british officials (in 2002) as concluding the same damn thing the left has been claiming forever.

[Jor]

Stan -- forget about the specifics of the Memo for a second -- I'm talking about the virtual black out. I can't even find an opinion on the right from most places because they refuse to mention it. Yet they perpetually whine about bias. Its almost comical. What standards are we using? I'm not even talking about magnitudes. Glenn = 0, HEre = 0, etc. etc. etc. (AT least from my cursory google searches).

[Jor]

Stan, to futher clarify -- I think its non-controversial to suggest that the memo is a significant enough of a story to deserve at least one remark from prominent pro-war right wing blogs. I don't think thats too much to ask. Especially if you want to complain about bias all the live long day.

[SteveMG]

Jor:
The allegations (such as they are) in the memo have been vetted already. We've gone through this with the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation and the President's commission on intelligence.

In addition, we clearly had elements of the CIA in semi-open revolt against the Bush Administration willing to leak to the press incriminating information re cooking the intelligence books.

After all this, not ONE single person in any of the intelligence agencies has come forward openly or leaked anonymously to the media that intelligence was "fixed" in any way. No one was pressured, nothing was falsified, no material was made up.

Despite all these investigations, despite all this evidence the left wants to, wishes to, hopes for this memo to be the smoking gun to get Bush. They seem to ignore all of the previous investigations, they seem to ignore all contradictory evidence because they just want to get Bush.

The people manipulating intelligence on this issue, it seems to me, are those who wish to get Bush more than they wish to get the terrorists.

SMG

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"I guess you must mean the kind of effort Bush made when a "a crucial part of the White House case for war" was largely based on"

Pointing a finger at President Bush and making allegations is not a defense. It's not even up to the level of an excuse.

[Jor]

Steve, I can assure you are incorrect. The allgeations are new, and they are conclusions by extremely high ranking british officials in '02. The Senate and the Comission investigated whether intelligence was flawed -- they specificially did NOT investigate how the president dealt with the intelligence. I wish I had a link on the right I could refer you to, but I dont, not even Drezner has talked about it. So you can take my word, or wander down to Kevin Drum, who is usually moderate (i.e. not too far left) enough for most righties to tolerate. He has several p osts on the front page clarifying these misconceptions.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"By the way, I've just noticed 20% of the news that the 40 hour a week staffer puts out is on Friday."

I've been screaming about this for years now! Finally someone else gets it! And on top of this the 6 O'clock news is at such an inconvenient time. Many people are still stuck in traffic, just sitting down to a meal or trying to unwind after work. Nobody could possibly be interested in serious news.

It's a conspiracy between the Mormons, Scientologist and the Shriners!

heh. :)

[ed]

Hmmm.

"So you can take my word, or wander down to Kevin Drum, who is usually moderate"

Unless it involves gay porn uncut Gannon penises.

BTW whatever happened with that scandal? Last I heard someone was tracing Gannon to a gay sex ring in the White House with hot hot hot lesbian action between Condi Rice, in dominatrix leathers, and the Bush twins.

I sure hope the right-wing blogs haven't conspired to suppress that. I'd pay a lot for that video.

lol.

[SteveMG]

Jor:
Sorry Jor, I'm going to need a more objective source than Drum.

Second: You didn't respond to my main point. No Mark Felt has come forward to state openly or anonymously that intelligence was cooked or manipulated.

We had the Senate Intelligence Committee interview openly and behind closed doors the intelligence analysts. Senator Rockefeller and Roberts have both stated, albeit Rockefeller with gritted teeth, that no intelligence officer or analyst was pressured to change his or her reports.

None.

You know Washington, Jor, it's a sieve. People leak all the time. And yet not ONE single person in ANY of the intelligence agencies has come forward to state that intelligence was "fixed". "Fixed" is the key word here.

None. Nada.

Let's argue backwards, then. Assume the memo is true. Where's the evidence of its accuracy? If intelligence was fixed, then someone fixed it. If intelligence was manipulated, then someone manipulated it.

Where's the evidence that this occurred? Someone must have seen it, a la Felt, or heard about it, a la Felt, or was told about it, a la Felt.

There is no Mark Felt. He's a ninety year old man retired living in California.

SMG

[Doug]

>>Jor: take 20 blogs on the left, 20 blogs on the right -- try to find top 10 most politically charged stories each side thought occured that year -- and then see how much cross talk there is.<<

I think the paper (PDF) at:
http://blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf
does something of the sort.

It's entitled, "The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided they Blog".

The Abstract:
In this paper, we study the linking patterns and discussion topics of political bloggers. Our aim is to measure the degree of interaction between liberal and conservative blogs, and to uncover any differences in the structure of the two communities. Specifically, we analyze the posts of 40 “A-list” blogs over the period of two months preceding the U.S. Presidential Election of 2004, to study how often they referred to one another and to quantify the overlap in the topics they discussed, both within the liberal and conservative communities, and also across communities. We also study a single day snapshot of over 1,000 political blogs. This snapshot captures blogrolls (the list of links to other blogs frequently found in sidebars), and presents a more static picture of a broader blogosphere. Most significantly, we find differences in the behavior of liberal and conservative blogs, with conservative blogs linking to each other more frequently and in a denser pattern.

[Carrick]

Jukeboxgrad says: Elegant hair-splitting there. It's true that Newsweek didn't just claim we put a Koran in a toilet; it claimed there was a military report acknowledging this If you think this is splitting hairs, then you really are clueless. Whose word do you think has more impact: Self-serving statements made by terrorists or an apparent direct admission of guilt by the US government? The answer is obvious in the Arab reaction to the Newsweek report. This was by no means the first time the story was reported, just the first time the US government apparently confirmed it.

15+ dead doesn't equal splitting hairs, elegant or otherwise.

By the way, there is one confirmed case of intentional abuse listed in the Pentagon report. This is not several. You can't even get your facts right.