The WaPo - "Reporting Of Dubious Quality Or Reliability”

While the PostWatch feasts, let's talk about yesterday's train wreck in the WaPo - how often do you see a front page story get widely quoted only to find out that the *lead* paragraph is utterly confused?  Breakin' it, then unmakin' it, but never fakin' it... (oh wait!)

Let me just replay yesterday's glorious moment in the WaPo's history:

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

By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007;  Page A01

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, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

And here is part of the correction:

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.

Pentagon Inspector General, a Senate Democrat - who can tell 'em apart?

And since you ask, the phrase "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" does produce a Google hit - here is Bryan Bender of the Boston Globe covering Levin's report back in 2004 and, almost miraculously, attributing his interpretations correctly.

I'm sure it gets confusing at the WaPo, what with government reports sitting on the old desk right next to the blast faxes from Howard Dean.  But do make an effort, gents...

PILING ON:  Yes, Walter Pincus is one of the WaPo's deans of intel, and has a role in the Libby trial - he received a Plame leak from a White House official on July 12, but that was not from Libby or Rove (and, if we have followed the trial correctly, not from Ari Fleischer, either - Ari had been my pick, for whatever that was worth).

Comments

[windansea]

pathetic...no wonder the Lied/Died meme prevails

[Carol Herman]

Where would we be without bloggers?

Lucianne's site is also headlining this with a link to HOT AIR. Exactly how do you now quote from an entirely different document, to cover up the original PURPOSEFUL lie. I ask.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

It seems "over there," the left has dead soldiers, that stay propped up. But this is no WaPo take-down of Nixon, anymore.

Nixon, "foolishly" fired Cox. To stop the "ain't he special, prosecutor" from continuing with this political operation. Where the dems wanted to "take back" the White House.

But the troop line up is different now. Our President did not fire the SP. Instead, he's letting the left have all the stage room it wants.

As to the FBI? Eckenrode is no Mark Felt.

As to the WaPo? Pincus is no Woodward. (As a matter of fact, that's probably why Woodward stuck out his foot, to stop Pincus' march up the stairs.)

Oh. And, on Monday, I am sure Judge Walton will let us watch Wells attempt to get at the truth, through his cross examination of Andrea Mitchell. When it's over? Just another Anna Nicole Smith bites the dust. What do I mean? Autopsy 'inconclusive.'

[capitano]

PILING ON: Yes, Walter Pincus is one of the WaPo's deans of intel, and has a role in the Libby trial

That probably explains why he didn't have time to proof the copy before the article was printed. But then that's what his readers are for, no?

[Martin]

When does Bush issue a correction for the war?

[lurker]

There is nothing that Bush needs to correct for the war against Iraq and Global Jihadism.

[lurker]

It was the right thing for Bush to do to invade Iraq as part of the war against Global Jihadism.

[windansea]

Mr Feith, who left the government in 2005, said he welcomed the finding that his activities were legal and authorized, but said it was "an absurd position" to say his activities were inappropriate.

"It, of course, varied from (the) consensus. It was a criticism of that consensus. That is why it was written," he said in a statement.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I am convinced that Armitage was Pincus source, despite WH attribution.

[Rick Ballard]

I don't understand the fuss. All of the major MSM outlets are resorting to cost cutting measures to compensate for loss of subscribers. The WaPo is just experimenting with an innovation that is completely honest, IMO.

Why spend the money on rewriting Dem press releases in order to maintain a facade of impartiality? Let's applaud their honesty and laud Pincus for leading the way! The rejection of hypocrisy by the Post is refreshing and we should acknowledge their service to the party.

This is the most honest thing the Post has done in years and we should not ridicule them for coming clean.

[lurker]

The more honest thing for WaPo to do should have been to review it in depth and NOT publish it in the first place once they realized the plagiarizing of this report. Hope they learn better next time.

[SteveMG]

Wow, this appalling error (or errors) was done by Pincus and Smith, two of the most experienced and qualified reporters the Post has on national security and defense matters. These guys have 50+ years of reporting combined.

Pretty disheartening, really.

SMG

[Menlo Bob]

And all of the other papers that printed the lie remain uncorrected.

[Foo Bar]

That's a horrible, inexcusable mistake that Pincus and Smith made. They should be duly embarrassed, and the WaPo correction should receive a prominent placement.

If anyone is nonetheless interested in what the report actually said, I recommend reading the whole thing. It's quite short (10 pages of Powerpoint-style bullet points).

Now, did Feith's office produce an Iraq/Al Qaeda link that was much stronger than that assessed by the intelligence community and more in accord with administration policy? See question 9:

9) Did the OSD Policy briefing to the White House draw conclusions (or "findings") that were not supported by the available intelligence, such as "intelligence indicates cooperation in all categories; mature, symbiotic relationship" or that there were "multiple areas of cooperation," and shared interest and pursuit of WMD, and "some indications of possible Iraq coordination with al Qaida specifically related to 9/11" ?

Yes. The briefing did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence

Generally the defense of the White House going to war based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong has been that the administration passively accepted the intelligence and hence were victims of intelligence community incompetence. Yet here you have a clear admission from Feith that he was criticizing the community's conclusions (on Iraq/al Qaida links).

So were the policymakers and political appointees responsible for critiquing the intelligence, or weren't they? Or was that their job only when the intelligence didn't sufficiently support the case for war?

[MII]

Glorious.

Reminds of 'It's the End of the World as We Know It,' and 'Spirit in the Sky.'

[clarice]

I posted this yesterday--Among the things Feith's office found that our crack intel folks had overlooked is that in the pre-9/11 period OBL made 100 calls to Raq. Only 60 got thru. What was so important in Iraq that he spent hours trying to get thru?

I know, let's just leave this in the hands of the Pillar's and Mary whatshername and Plame. That'll do it.

[boris]

were the policymakers and political appointees responsible for critiquing the intelligence, or weren't they?

Not the issue. Muddy the water. Obfuscation. Red Herring.

Straw Dummy: "passively accepted the intelligence and hence were victims"

False premise. Logical fallacy. Whiney mumbo jumbo.

[Cecil Turner]

Generally the defense of the White House going to war based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong has been that the administration passively accepted the intelligence and hence were victims of intelligence community incompetence.

Last I checked, Congress declares war, not the White House. And the "offense" is that the Administration lied about the intelligence, which a simple glance at the available summary shows to be nonsense. And the fact that Feith, a noted hawk, focused his critique on the intel that tended to minimize the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq isn't exactly Earth-shattering.

[windansea]

LOL...new article in todays WaPo by Pincus

An article in yesterday's Washington Post misattributed to the inspector general's report critical comments about the Pentagon operation made by committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). In a statement he released Thursday, Levin, not the inspector general, said the Pentagon effort used intelligence reporting of "dubious quality or reliability." [See correction, A2.]

note the disembodied "article" attribution

You wrote the article Pincus!

[Ranger]

And remember, just because DCI Tenant said the case against Iraq on WMDs was a "Slam Dunk" that didn't mean he mislead the president and congress. Nope, it was all Bush, Cheney, and Feith. No career intel officials ever gave them the idea that the case was strong. If congress had just listened to Tenant... oh wait, that's exactly what they did... never mind.

[clarice]

In the meantime the lie has spread. How much attention do you think they'll be to the pullback?
But I can predict the FNC Newswatch take--these things happen, innocent mistake, WaPo did right thing and corrected immediately, cannot expect the Post's premier intel guy to have caught this. Aren't we in the media wonderful and blameless?

That show writes itself.

[Cecil Turner]

I think it's also worth noting Pincus's July 6, 2003 article (his second on the Wilson saga):

Joseph C. Wilson, the retired United States ambassador . . .

While his family prepared for a Fourth of July dinner, he proudly showed a reporter photos of himself with Bush's parents.

With that, and Pincus's known contacts in the CIA's DO, the idea that he wasn't aware of Plame's employment prior to July is implausible.

[clarice]

Laughable really, Cecil and he, too, got presidential treatment--answered a few written depo questions in the office of his lawyer son. (Any pre-calls by Eckenrode beforehand?)

[topsecretkk9]

--Nope, it was all Bush, Cheney, and Feith. No career intel officials ever gave them the idea that the case was strong.--

I am convinced all the selective leaks and then running behind the democrats backs has been survival - the CIA is full of a bunch of V.Plames. - not the best and the brightest.

[Foo Bar]

the fact that Feith, a noted hawk, focused his critique on the intel that tended to minimize the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq isn't exactly Earth-shattering

Certainly wasn't earth-shattering, but do you agree that it was inappropriate? If policymakers are free to criticize only those intelligence conclusions that don't support the policies they want and then present those critiques to the White House, isn't that going to tend to give the White House a distorted picture of the intelligence?

[corvan]

Clarice are you planning on posting anything over at the American Thinker on the Russert-Eckenrode-lost notes thing? I don't see that anyone in the media has confronted this angle. Specifically, whether it's credible to believe that Russert burned a source to a complete stranger without so much as ever seeing a badge. Then the stranger in question happens to lose the notes of the conversation.

[clarice]

Yes--it's at the editor and I will post it here as soon as it's up. I wanted to get it out early and it is perhaps less polished than it would be if I worked on it more, but that's life.

[corvan]

Thanks, Clarice.

[boris]

If policymakers are free to criticize only those intelligence conclusions that don't support the policies

What totalitarian mindset is this? It is a free country.

[owl]

(Any pre-calls by Eckenrode beforehand?)

Of course not, silly rabbitt.

[clarice]

Foo Bar, on the one hand the critics complain the Administration was too credible of the intel reports of the nomenklatura and on the other they complain it wasn't credulous enough?
Give me a break.
If you were the Pentagon exactly what part of the now declassified NIE would you consider "actionable intelligence"? The whole thing--sloppy and incomplete--reads like a sixth grade term paper.

[richard mcenroe]

As sent to the WAPO this morning...

Gee,the professional journalists of the Washington Post misrepresented a two-year-old press release as a new report and a Democratic Senator as an unnamed Administration official. Quite the little faux pas for professional journalists with their layers of fact checkers and editors. And where was Bad Billy Rankin when we needed him? Youd think a veteran intelligence profession and expert journalistic security expert would have picked up on this... If there was the slightest shred of honesty and professional integrity at the Washington Post...

[clarice]

It has everything in it but the pics clipped surruptiously from the out of date home copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[clarice]

rm, And they are still letting Pincus cover the story. Is he reporting from the Alzheimer's Clinic? Isn't it time for the gold watch already?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

There are two worlds in America. Not the two worlds of John Edwards, based on money, but two worlds based on CVs and degrees, etc. There is what I call the "country club Republican/limousine or ivory tower liberal world" and those with "street cred" or the blue collar world, or the world of the enlisted man in the military, or the self-made man, etc.

In the first, violate social convention and you are ostracized and severely limited in your quest for position and power. In the second world, you live to fight another day and the gloves are off.

The problem with our government today, which really began with the Yuppie movement of the eighties is that those who make it to power have no idea how to operate on the operations level. Growing up in the protected environments of World One and the protected environments of elite universities might prepare one to handle complicated issues on an academic level, but those who grew up in the "survival of the fittest" world know how to make things happen. They don't have the academic credentials we now require to get the really top jobs, but that does not mean that within their ranks there aren't exceptionally bright people far better to orchestrate large organizations and operations. They never get the chance.

Those of World One are clueless really. They get it on paper, but like we saw with the chase for OBL in the recent movie, they do not have the guts to go for the throat. It just isn't the way World One people handle things. Remember their way is to ostracize.

We need tough "survival of the fittest" people running our intelligence and as our agents. Forget all the fancy degrees and hire based on basic smarts and then give them their rules and parameters and set them loose. You cannot win any war, whether the war on terror or the war on drugs or any other, using debutantes and their beaus.

[centralcal]

The Alzheimer's Clinic - would that be located in the left wing of the hospital?

[Martin]

Here's a great (in the piss you off sense) clip of Cheney lying right to your face about pre-warr intelligence he cited on his go to guy-Russert's MTP.

Why you people get more outraged by the WAPO than Cheney is an eternal mystery.

[Foo Bar]

Foo Bar, on the one hand the critics complain the Administration was too credible of the intel reports of the nomenklatura and on the other they complain it wasn't credulous enough?

Yes, too credulous when the intel supported the case for war, and not skeptical enough when it didn't.

E.g. you had them running with the aluminum tubes stuff on the basis of what the CIA said even though the real experts (DOE) thought it was unlikely they were for centrifuges. So the CIA is distrusted on Iraq/al Qaida and trusted on nuclear technology. Which of these 2 areas more naturally falls under the CIA's purview: (1) the possibility of a shadowy alliance between 2 of our enemies or (2) the suitability of a piece of equipment for a highly complex piece of nuclear machinery?

[clarice]

Interesting point, Sara..I have often thought myself that if we replaced the DoS's Mideast operation personnel with rug merchants we'd be in much better shape.

[clarice]

Interesting point, Sara..I have often thought myself that if we replaced the DoS's Mideast operation personnel with rug merchants we'd be in much better shape.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Shhh! You want him replaced with a more competent party shill?

I think Walter Pincus is a great journalist and should remain in harness at the Post until Big Brother finally gathers him home to his warm reward.

[topsecretkk9]

Rich

Excellent. Again I missed the detail of attribution. Was not Judy Miller raked over the coals for agreeing to "former Hill Staffer" == I should think going down, not UP is a bit better.

[clarice]

What foolishness, foo bar and martin.
Three damn commissions confirmed that the intel was never manipulated. And as for things like the aluminum tubes--there has been ample reason for suspicion--they were so finely milled (and expensively so) no one would order them that way except (a) for nuclear weapons or (b) to make us think they were for (a). And if (b) that should be a lesson don't try to bluff a Texas poker player.He'll raise and call you everytime.

[Foo Bar]

Me:

and not skeptical enough when it didn't.

Sorry, I meant "too skeptical", obviously.

[boris]

unlikely they were for centrifuges

Misses the point. They were contraband because they could be used for centrifuges.

Want our side to always fairly present both sides, pro and con, of every issue? Fine, just have your side go first.

[Other Tom]

"If policymakers are free to criticize only those intelligence conclusions that don't support the policies they want and then present those critiques to the White House, isn't that going to tend to give the White House a distorted picture of the intelligence?"

C'mon, FooBar, give us a break--you're better than that. You are talking about one "policymaker" here, and there is no suggestion anywhere that either he or any of his colleagues were not free to criticize any conclusions they wished to. It is in the very nature of intelligence that people draw differing conclusions from what are necessarily shaky bits of evidence, often conflicting evidence. If that weren't so we wouldn't need intelligence agencies--and God knows we have them in abundance. It was the job of the then-DCI, George Tenet, to develop the consensus and present it to the president. He did, and the president chose to invade Iraq because of it--with the support of a number of Democratic senators, including Jay Rockefeller of the SSCI.

Now that things aren't going so well on the ground, we are witnessing the disgusting spectacle of politicians seeking to excuse what is now an unpopular vote by doing what politicians always do--blaming someone else. It makes one's skin crawl.

[Martin]

Clarice-I have video linked of Cheney emphatically denying he said exactly what he said, supra.

I'm thinking Wells could use that clip to establish how bad and unreliable the memory is!

[Foo Bar]

Three damn commissions confirmed that the intel was never manipulated

None have addressed whether administration public statements were consistent with the underlying intel. That's coming later this year.

[clarice]

Too bad polls don't have this (****) so they could use it as I do to correct a misspoken word before the nutcases ride off in the sunset with it.

[windansea]

It makes one's skin crawl.

enough to make me move to Mexico

oops, already did that :)

weather update: it's currently about 75 degrees with a warm tropical breeze and the dolphins and whales are frolicking in the Bay