While I was taking the bird dog out for a frolic and waxing sentimental-like yesterday, the newswires were all a-flutter with the results of a Pentagon IG investigation into the activities of Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans. Which you have to admit, is rather an Orwellian-sounding name, but anyway.
An intelligence cell within OSP critically vetted the conclusions of the traditional organs of the intelligence community, a common-sense notion given the community’s rather spectacular failure to “connect the dots” one year previously. Critics of the OSP, the Bush administration and the Zionist Occupation Government (the list is instructional, but not inclusive) accused Feith of sifting the intelligence to suit policy decisions - in this case, the decision to go to war with Iraq - rather than to formulate defense policy on the basis of intelligence.
On the topic of the IG report, the WaPo in particular had some juicy things to say - very little of which, it now appears, were true. In one of the largest corrections I’ve ever seen to a front page article, the paper had this to say:
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. 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.”
Well, there was that similar langage thing there, towards the end. I’m smelling Pulitzer Prize.
Hard to see how a paper could get a front page article on such an important issue so fundamentally wrong, inserting conclusions from a three-year old minority report drafted by a partisan, anti-war senator whose stack of strawman arguments has become something of a fire hazard into a much less accusatory, bureaucratic DoD IG document.
I mean, hold your horses, fellas: The election is almost two years off. You don’t want to burn your best stuff up front.
12 responses so far ↓
1
FbL
// Feb 10, 2007 at 8:40 am
Ooh! Snarky, snarky! I like it!
Hard to see how a paper could get a front page article on such an important issue so fundamentally wrong,
Seriously, Ace of Spades answers that, I think: confirmation bias.
And what really sticks out is that the reporter obviously never actually read the report! He merely relied on his understanding of what Levin said (and confused that as being in the report). Talk about getting caught with one’s journalistic pants down…
2
Michelle
// Feb 10, 2007 at 8:53 am
What?! You mean that job requires fact-checking? Maybe even giving both sides? Boy, am I ever glad I didn’t decide to do that for a living!
At least in my work, I get to just argue that what I want is reality and just ignore any contrary evidence. Oh wait, maybe I could be a journalist, after all!
3
craig mclaughlin
// Feb 10, 2007 at 9:30 am
Actually I’m kinda sorta impressed that they issued a correction in a kinda sorta timely fashion. What does that tell you about my expectations in re Journalism With a Capitol J?
To steal a metaphor from Neal Stephenson, Journalism is fractally broken: no matter at what scale you examine it, it’s broken, elegantly and profoundly so. For every John F. Burns there are a dozen Seymour Hersh’s.
4
Dale B
// Feb 10, 2007 at 11:25 am
But, they have editors, and fact checkers, and… they are just good people! And they’re superior people too. Just ask ‘em.
These are the same people who think that Anna Nicole Smith’s death should be a lead story for the last three days.
And they wonder why many people don’t take them seriously.
5
badbob
// Feb 10, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I ain’t no friend of da WaPo and heartily enjoy y’all taking them to task for this sloppiness.
But this post brings up a name I don’t personally associate with greatness. That’s Mr. Feith, several years gone now, but a powerful lawyer who held important post in the Pentagon. IMO, He gooned it up. Lot’s o’ways.
If he had done those things the WaPo said a story would have blown wide open- THEN.
Single frame o’reference for me which made me focus on the man: Someone I trust, who was there, told me that 3.5 hours into 9-11, he needed to stop and eat lunch. Suffice it to say the rest of the folks didn’t. I’ll say no more.
b2
6
Justthisguy
// Feb 10, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Look up Lt.-Colonel Kwiatkowski’ articles on this. I think they’re archived at Lew Rockwell’s site.
She’s been bitching about that guy for *years*.
7
SeniorD
// Feb 10, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Cap’n
Oh for the days of Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward and the rest of the Watergate Wrecking Crew. At least then we had attibutable names like ‘Deep Throat’ to give credence to their reportage. Then, WaPo wouldn’t back down from a story. They stood firm, shoulder to shoulder with the truth, justice, and the American Way (as they saw it).
My, how the mighty have fallen. Now if they would just repudiate Mr. Arkin.
8
John Carmichael
// Feb 10, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Once again praise needs to go to the Blogosphere for holding the Mainstream Media’s feet to the fire. What was the recourse 10 years ago? A letter to the editor? Yeah, that would have motivated a correction!
Remindes me of the Cox and Forkum Editorial Cartoon in 2005 that summed it up:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000535.html
9
Buck
// Feb 10, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Speaking of Burns (#3):
Sunday, Feb. 11
Q&A: John Burns, New York
Times Baghdad Bureau Chief
On C-SPAN at 8pm ET
For those of you that don’t know Q&A, it’s a two-hour (often longer) interview program run by C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb. Viewer call-ins, too. Good stuff.
10
craig mclaughlin
// Feb 10, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Thanks Buck. (Charlie Rose wishes he were Brian Lamb.) Hewitt has an interview with John Burns up also.
11
Justthisguy
// Feb 10, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Concur, Craig. OMG, I do so miss Book Notes. I used to watch it, and take notes…
Wasn’t Mr. Lamb a Naval Officer, back when?..
12
craig mclaughlin
// Feb 10, 2007 at 5:24 pm
JTG,
Yes. But he went to Purdue. So nobody’s perfect. Book Notes was a damn fine program.
Leave a Comment