The Wilson-Plame Affair (Cont'd) -WP Ombudsman responds to TPM

[TacticalPeek]

Ombudsman
The Wilson-Plame Affair (Cont'd)

By Michael Getler
Sunday, July 18, 2004; Page B06

snip

Almost all the readers who had complaints relied for their objections on some critical comments by Joshua Micah Marshall, an online commentator who writes the "Talking Points Memo" Web site. Another critic, of both the story and the reporter, is Wilson, who sent me a copy of a letter to The Post that appeared in Saturday's paper.

There was one mistake in the Schmidt story, which was not central to the main points and which The Post corrected on Tuesday (more on that later). If I were the editor of this story, there are one or two places where it might have been better to use the exact words from the Senate report, or to have another sentence of background. And there was one paragraph of speculation about the possible impact of the report on the administration's case in the investigation that, in my view and the view of critics, should have been left out.

But in general, I didn't find the criticism of this story persuasive. The story, in my view, reflects the points, interviews and conclusions laid out in the Senate study.

snip

"The Post's corrections are maddening," wrote one reader. "Sometimes the most trivial errors are corrected but significant errors are ignored. Sometimes blame is fixed, especially if the Post was not at fault, but most often it is not. Sometimes the corrected information is cryptic almost to the point of secrecy in not providing more details." Now, there is something we can all agree on.

more (that 'corrections' thing is about Steno Sue's Iraq/Iran snafu)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58334-2004Jul17.html



I would say that Getler's kool-aid was watered down.

And Josh Marshall is almost too fair in his response to Getler. I guess he has to be his own ombudsman, and does so better than the WP.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

[bluedeminredstate]

1. Steno Sue rides again!

I just don't see why the Post continues to defend and employ this woman. Her involvement with illegal leaks during the
Whitewater/blow job inquisition should have gotten her shitcanned, then there was the infamous email/tattletaling episode. If they're going to keep giving her a paycheck then they should have her writing op-ed peieces with the other rightwing nuts on the back page.

[tom_paine]

3. That is the REASON the Post continues to employ her

She is an integral part of the Bushevik Mockingbird operation and she can always be counted on to plant or fabricate or ibfuscate a story, depending on what Steno Sue's Masters wabt.

[grasswire]

4. once I wrote her an email....

....that pointed out her excesses. She wrote back to say that I was "meanspirited." She has since changed her email addy to something readers can't crack. The Post has protected her from mean readers year after year.

[burrowowl]

2. Kick for

the Plame Indictment threaders

[shockingelk]

5. LIES LIES LIES! Compare to actual report:

This was posted in GD yesterday, from the article:

"But the Senate study points out that in January 2003, the CIA, which still believed Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, did not tell the White House to take out those 16 words from the State of the Union address and that then-CIA Director George Tenet had not even read the speech beforehand."

LIE! Again, everybody - from the SSCI report, page 56:

<George Tenet> called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

[TacticalPeek]

6. Kick morning.

:kick:

[alfredo]

7. Another

:kick: