Patterico's Pontifications

8/17/2006

Hagee’s Office Responds: Contradicts L.A. Times

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:01 am



I heard back from General Hagee’s office yesterday regarding my inquiry about when Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha about Haditha. The bottom line: Gen. Hagee’s office has directly contradicted an assertion by the L.A. Times that Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha on Haditha before Murtha accused Marines of killing civilians in cold blood. Gen. Hagee’s office confirmed to me that the General’s first briefing to Murtha took place a week after Murtha had already made his public accusations.

The background is here. Briefly, Murtha made public statements on May 17 in which he accused Marines of killing civilians at Haditha “in cold blood.” On May 26, the L.A. Times reported that Gen. Hagee had briefed Murtha before his May 17 statements:

Hagee last week briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of those, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel, said later that Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

I have bolded the word “later” to emphasize what The Times claimed: first, Hagee briefed Murtha, and then “later,” Murtha made the “in cold blood” accusation.

Based on news reports, I suspected this was wrong. Murtha’s “in cold blood” statement was made on May 17, and I believed that Gen. Hagee had briefed Murtha well after that. Later news reports — in particular this one from Reuters — appeared to confirm my suspicions.

But when I wrote the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative, she insisted that The Times‘s report had been accurate, despite my having provided her with evidence to the contrary, including the Reuters story. Some suggested that Reuters might have gotten the story wrong, or overlooked an angle. So I contacted Gen. Hagee’s office directly.

I heard back yesterday from the Public Affairs Officer for the Commandant. She directly contradicted the L.A. Times‘s version of the facts — but declined to criticize the article specifically. Here is her statement:

While it would not be appropriate to comment on any particular press article, I can confirm that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael Hagee, provided a progress update on the Haditha investigations to Congressional leaders, to include Rep. Murtha, on May 24, 2006.

In a follow-up phone call, she confirmed that May 24 was the first progress update Gen. Hagee gave Murtha and others. I specifically asked her whether May 24 was the first time Gen. Hagee spoke to Congressman Murtha about Haditha, and she said “yes.” So Hagee first briefed Murtha on Haditha on May 24 — a solid week after May 17, when Murtha first accused Marines of killing civilians “in cold blood.” Yet the L.A. Times specifically said that Hagee had briefed Murtha first, and Murtha “later” made his “in cold blood” accusation.

If Hagee’s office is right, then the L.A. Times May 26 article was wrong.

I can only speculate about where Murtha got his information, but according to Gen. Hagee’s Public Affairs Officer, it wasn’t from General Hagee himself (as Murtha had claimed to the Philadelphia Inquirer). Not only did Murtha make his statements before the investigation was complete, he didn’t receive his preliminary information from the top brass before accusing Marines of cold-blooded murder.

And the L.A. Times covered for him, and continues to do so — even after I have told them that Hagee’s office says otherwise.

You can reach the Readers’ Representative at ReadersRep@latimes.com.

74 Responses to “Hagee’s Office Responds: Contradicts L.A. Times”

  1. This is just disgusting. We certainly found out what kind of integrity is necessary to be reader representative at the L.A. Times. Very little.

    Did the article have a byline? It would be nice to know who intentionally writes fantasy details into their articles.

    Bob_K (573e6b)

  2. Don’t blame her, Bob.

    I have no idea what her personal integrity is like.

    I suspect strongly, as I’ve said before, that her newspaper put her in a hard spot. Remember, she wasn’t there. She’s their representative.

    It’s her job to assume her superiors are telling the truth and express to the public what she is told.

    The lying appears to be done by the L.A. Times itself, and of course, by John Murtha.

    Is she intentionally lying? I don’t know. But I do know that if I’m working for a company and the company tells me what’s up, that’s what I tell my clients.

    I would refuse to intentionally lie and am fortunate to be working for an honest organization with the public’s interest at heart. Indeed, that’s our mission.

    But, have I ever worked for a company, received info I believe is true, and communicated it to find out that I later have my doubts?

    Yes.

    That’s why I ask hard questions when I have my doubts. I’m too employable to need to work for a dishonest organization.

    If she’s asked the hard questions Patterico has raised and they’ve lied to her, what can she do as their rep, but report what they said?

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  3. I just sent this email to the Readers’ Representative:

    Subject: Your Personal Integrity Is Being Questioned, Not Just L.A.T.

    Dear Readers’ Representative,

    I am defending your personal integrity to others who are questioning it over the conflicting General Hagee / Senator Murtha statements reported by the L.A. Times on May 26, 2006.

    The L.A. Times story basically calls General Hagee a liar.

    This is what I said to a person who accused you of being dishonest:

    “Don’t blame her, Bob.

    “I have no idea what her personal integrity is like.

    “I suspect strongly, as I’ve said before, that her newspaper put her in a hard spot. Remember, she wasn’t there. She’s their representative.

    “It’s her job to assume her superiors are telling the truth and express to the public what she is told.

    “The lying appears to be done by the L.A. Times itself, and of course, by John Murtha.

    “Is she intentionally lying? I don’t know. But I do know that if I’m working for a company and the company tells me what’s up, that’s what I tell my clients.

    “I would refuse to intentionally lie and am fortunate to be working for an honest organization with the public’s interest at heart. Indeed, that’s our mission.

    “But, have I ever worked for a company, received info I believe is true, and communicated it to find out that I later have my doubts?

    “Yes.

    “That’s why I ask hard questions when I have my doubts. I’m too employable to need to work for a dishonest organization.

    “If she’s asked the hard questions Patterico has raised and they’ve lied to her, what can she do as their rep, but report what they said?”

    I mean what I said, and I believe that you probably personally didn’t lie, but your newspaper has.

    Are you personally satisfied that the story in question was accurate or are you just relaying information that was passed on to you? Who in your organization states that this story, contradicted by General Hagee, is accurate?

    I’m not saying that General Hagee is beyond reproach and that Senator Murtha lied. I’m saying that Senator Murtha cannot have been FIRST briefed by General Hagee on May 17th AND May 24th.

    This is physically impossible.

    Therefore, one of the two men is lying (or mistaken) and your news article is either right. Or wrong.

    Which is it? And am I correct that you personally are being honest in this matter and relaying information provided to you or do YOU personally assert that Senator Murtha is telling the truth and that General Hagee is lying?

    Your timely response is requested because this is an urgent matter of L.A. Times credibility.

    Thank you,

    Chris

    I will tell you if I receive a response from the Reader’s Representative – or if she chooses to ignore this question about her and her newspaper’s honesty.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  4. […] And I don’t think it’s the commandant of the Marine Corps. […]

    Hoystory » Blog Archive » Somebody’s lying (322185)

  5. Chris–

    Problem is, she’s the Readers’ Rep, not the paper’s. Her job isn’t PR. Like Barney Calame at the New York Times, she’s supposed to be acting on the interests of (both of) the LA Times’ readers.

    She’s in an awkward spot because the Times pays her salary, and she’s accountable to them in some way, but she’s supposed to “represent” the consumer.

    See Dubya (ce14a1)

  6. The article is accurate.

    Jamie Gold (6fbc27)

  7. The article is accurate.

    James Goldstein (6fbc27)

  8. Damn right it’s accurate.

    Jaime Oro (6fbc27)

  9. Chris F V,

    Good point.

    Bob K (573e6b)

  10. Not A Surprise…

    Patterico, doing original reporting:I heard back from General Hagee’s office yesterday regarding my inquiry about when Gen. Hagee briefed John Mu ……

    Chris At Home (95d7b7)

  11. Murtha reminds me of another military man gone bad…the Hero of Ticonderoga….aka Benedict Arnold.

    Since before they started the Civil War democrats have been a bane on this nation. From the party of slave holders in the agrarian south to the party of anti-Americanism today, democrats embody all the worst.

    Murtha is not unique, he is just another democrat.

    George Dixon (5564c0)

  12. […] Patterico confirms that Congressman Murtha lied when he said that his comments, calling our soldiers cold-blooded murderers, on May 17 were based on a briefing that he had received from General Hagee.  In fact, the first briefing that the Congressman received from Hagee was on May 24. […]

    Murtha Watch » Murtha Lied (28a983)

  13. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION REP. MURTHA’S PATRIOTISM!!!!!

    YOU RIGHT WING SLIME ARE ALL THE SAME, WITH THE SMEARS AND THE PERSONAL ATTACKS!!!!!!!1!one

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  14. Speaking of LATimes:
    http://www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=34079

    This is a PR Newswire “webinar” on “Trends in Online News.” One of the panelists is an LATimes.com “editorial operations manager.” That should be interesting to hear.

    RHB (fbae5a)

  15. Media Arrogance vs. Facts…

    Patterico has exposed some rather shoddy reporting at the L.A. Times. You’ll have to read his entry to get the story, and marvel at the arrogance of a news organization that refuses to correct untruths it has printed…….

    Slublog (ca22ca)

  16. […] More evidence mounts that Rep. John Murtha lied when he said that he obtained information about Haditha AFTER a military briefing. The LA Times futher identified the briefer as General Haggee. Petterico’s Pontifications checked up on it on has the verdict. The LA Times is also full of crap. “I heard back from General Hagee’s office yesterday regarding my inquiry about when Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha about Haditha. The bottom line: Gen. Hagee’s office has directly contradicted an assertion by the L.A. Times that Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha on Haditha before Murtha accused Marines of killing civilians in cold blood. Gen. Hagee’s office confirmed to me that the General’s first briefing to Murtha took place a week after Murtha had already made his public accusations.” […]

    Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Liar Murtha (ca15f9)

  17. The May 17 msnbc article says “sources within the military have told him”. Wouldn’t they have used Hagee’s name if Murtha had said on the record his source was Hagee?

    If Murtha only said ‘sources’, could the Times writer on a whim, have inserted Hagee’s name attempting to make his article and Murtha’s source look more credible?

    Might be entirely the writer’s fault if Murtha never mentioned Hagee as the source. Murtha may have had a different source than Hagee.

    Who wrote it?

    Bob_K (573e6b)

  18. […] Er, anyway. He’s got them by the pants cuff again, although there’s not much there we didn’t already know. His real scoop came a few days earlier, when the Times’s reader rep responded to one of his e-mails by foolishly standing by their earlier story that it was General Hagee who had briefed Murtha before he made his first comments about Haditha on May 17th — even though the Corps has since said it isn’t true. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Dog bites man: Patterico nails the LA Times on Murtha (d4224a)

  19. […] Patterico has made a direct inquiry to General Hagee's office to confirm when the Marine briefed John Murtha. Murtha first made has execrable statements about the accused marines on May 17th and repeated them endlessly. The LA Times and the Philadelphia Enquirer both have said that Hagee briefed Murtha before he made his comments. Unfortunately for Murtha, the general's office has specifically stated, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that the first briefing did not occur until the week after Murtha shot his mouth off. The LA Times, however, will not admit its mistake. Patterico: But when I wrote the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative, she insisted that The Times’s report had been accurate, despite my having provided her with evidence to the contrary, including the Reuters story. Some suggested that Reuters might have gotten the story wrong, or overlooked an angle. So I contacted Gen. Hagee’s office directly. […]

    Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Murtha Lies, LA Times Provides Cover (a177fd)

  20. Shameless plug:

    …meanwhile, Murtha has a very serious challenge at home: http://www.irey.com/

    Don’t let the website fool ya. She has 800 volunteers working the 12th district, and quite a number of local Veterans are in her corner – plus – rumor has it that she has recently garnered support from several 527’s. She is currently receiving a lot of free press coverage.

    (disclaimer: I am in no way associated with her campaign, nor do I belong to any other organization working for or against her election. It’s a Marine thing.)

    Warren Bonesteel (84ecb5)

  21. Web Reconnaissance for 08/17/2006…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

    The Thunder Run (59ce3a)

  22. Murtha In Hot Water…

    Patterico: I can only speculate about where Murtha got his information, but according to Gen. Hagee’s Public Affairs Officer, it wasn’t from General Hagee himself (as Murtha had claimed to the Philadelphia Inquirer). Not only did Murtha make his st…

    Say Anything (e43591)

  23. While the reader’s rep is supposed to represent the readers’ interests, she is still an employee of the L.A. Times. I don’t suggest a coverup by the readers rep. What I would assume happen is that she took Patterico’s question back to the reporter who said, “It’s accurate,” then she came back and said “It’s accurate” to Patterico. In other words, she’s not the newspaper cop with a mandate to fix everything. In this instance, she acted more as a liaison between Patterico and the reporter. The fault lies with the reporter.

    sharon (03e82c)

  24. Patterico Strikes Again!…

    The Los Angeles Times’ personal bete noire, Patterico, has struck again. Patterico esplains how, for reasons unknown (giggle), the Times decided to carry water for Jack Murtha and to distort the facts in the process.

    The Times reported that……

    Dean Barnett (95d97e)

  25. Excerpted and linked at Old War Dogs. My Dogs and I have been circling and waiting for a good shot at Murtha’s throat from the day we formed the pack; being pissed about his Haditha comments was the only thing that got some of us off the porch and back in the fight. We appreciate you.

    Bill Faith (3cc7e8)

  26. Patterico Busts The LA Times Covering For Murtha…

    Back on May 26th, the LA Times reported that John Murtha was briefed by Gen. Hagee on Haditha before Murtha publicly declared that the Marines involved had killed innocent civilians “in cold blood.” It’s obvious now from various sources that……

    The Political Pit Bull (64479c)

  27. […] Via Patterico (emphisis his): I heard back from General Hagee’s office yesterday regarding my inquiry about when Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha about Haditha. The bottom line: Gen. Hagee’s office has directly contradicted an assertion by the L.A. Times that Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha on Haditha before Murtha accused Marines of killing civilians in cold blood. Gen. Hagee’s office confirmed to me that the General’s first briefing to Murtha took place a week after Murtha had already made his public accusations. […]

    A Soldier’s Perspective » Blog Archive » Blood Still Boiling, Murtha Still the Reason (8323fa)

  28. I may have figured it out: the story is accurate because the story (in their eyes) is about what Murtha claimed, not about what happened in Iraq. They’ve reported Murtha’s claim accurately; that it’s not true is Murtha’s problem, not theirs.

    Accomplice after the fact.

    htom (412a17)

  29. “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION REP. MURTHA’S PATRIOTISM!!!!!”

    “YOU RIGHT WING SLIME ARE ALL THE SAME, WITH THE SMEARS AND THE PERSONAL ATTACKS!!!!!!!1!one”

    I CAN’T TALK WITHOUT SCREAMING!!!!!

    IT’S ONLY A PERSONAL ATTACK WHEN YOU GUYS DO IT!!!!

    WE CAN CALL GWB A EVIL, LYING MORON WITH IMPUNITY!!!!

    Howard Dean (03a310)

  30. […] Don’t expect the New York Times to cover this, but it looks like Murtha may have made his infamous “in cold blood” damnation of US Marines before being briefed by the military: I heard back from General Hagee’s office yesterday regarding my inquiry about when Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha about Haditha. The bottom line: Gen. Hagee’s office has directly contradicted an assertion by the L.A. Times that Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha on Haditha before Murtha accused Marines of killing civilians in cold blood. Gen. Hagee’s office confirmed to me that the General’s first briefing to Murtha took place a week after Murtha had already made his public accusations. […]

    Fresh Tasty Ideas » Murtha’s in trouble (90df21)

  31. Patterico,

    I hesitated whether I should say it but decided that you can never go wrong giving somebody a pat on the back. “You did a man’s job here, sir”. In my estimation, it is in a different (higher) class altogether than anything I have read here before.

    nk (4cd0c2)

  32. Im all for setting a timetable. I propose something along these lines.

    We can pull out a division When Harry(We defeated the Patriot Act and thereby condemned more Americans to danger) Reid Steps down. The second division when John(Reporting to duty with several movies of my exemplary service in Vietnam so I can return to America and run for President one day) Kerry Resigns. The third divison when John(America is the most dispicable nation on earth)Murtha steps down for the good of his country.

    And Id be willing to promise never to go to war again if Cindy(Are the camera’s rolling so I can pretend Im sad my son died and roll around on his grave for the magazines to take several antiwar pictures) Sheehan was forced to write on the terrorist blackboard America is Great, Terrorism is evil one Million times before they released her.

    Upinsmoke (292438)

  33. I’m not sure it really matters who briefed Murtha, or when.

    From what I’ve read, the briefing just announced that an investigation was starting. The jump from “we are starting an investagation” to “they murdered a couple dozen people in cold blood” is all Murtha.

    seybernetx (f17a18)

  34. Hey angry “clam” how about me calling fat ass Murtha a traitorus bastard which is holding back what I really think he is. As to your wimpy ass “dare”–up your cowardly ass (which by the way is under your nose). Have a good day!

    jhow66 (6fdb2d)

  35. #35. Angry Clam is a guest-poster here although it’s been a while since he has posted anything. He was parodying liberals.

    nk (947b03)

  36. Great job Patterico, and a fine piece of original reporting. I’m sure you’ll get the page one correction the story deserves, now, since the LA Times is a fine institution, seeking to uphold the common journalistic virtues of patriotism, good sense, truthfulness and objectivity.

    MTF (335f9f)

  37. Brig. General John Kelly of the Marines
    Kevin Diaz of the Minnesota Star Tribute

    just a couple more people you might want to contact.

    hazel (4d5522)

  38. Patterico, outstanding job, Sir !
    Your skill at weaving a narrative with facts is second-to-none.

    Have you ever considered a career as a prosecutor ?

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  39. And I fine job of parodying by Angry Clam, indeed.

    iowavette (0a3b06)

  40. I was so hoping someone would be unfamiliar with who I am and take me seriously.

    #35 = success.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  41. Clam = The Other Red Meat.

    :)

    Anwyn (03d912)

  42. Someone is Lying…

    Gateway Pundit and Patterico have got details about the John Murtha vs. General Hagee situation. This is not going to…

    Isaac Schrödinger (72c8fd)

  43. newspapers lie some of the time. the blogosphere can catch them and hold them to account.
    the most oft-quoted newspaper editorial in history is a lie…
    “yes virginia, there is a santa claus.” virginia grew up and suffered the same disillusionment common to patrons of journalism today.

    assistant devil's advocate (b33803)

  44. […] Again. Ain’t it funny, though, how these “honest mistakes” all cut the same way: for the Left, against soldiers, conservatives, the war, and America itself. […]

    Cold Fury » Caught in a lie (6f4592)

  45. […] No, it’s not one of those “Carnak the magician jokes.” It’s a serious disagreement on the timeline: Mr. Murtha said he was briefed by the Commandant and went forward with his ill-judged “cold blood” accusations on 17 AUG. General Hagee’s office insists that the CMC’s first brief to Murtha, et al, was on 24 AUG. Patterico puts it all together. I can only speculate about where Murtha got his information, but according to Gen. Hagee’s Public Affairs Officer, it wasn’t from General Hagee himself (as Murtha had claimed to the Philadelphia Inquirer). Not only did Murtha make his statements before the investigation was complete, he didn’t receive his preliminary information from the top brass before accusing Marines of cold-blooded murder.  […]

    Neptunus Lex » Murtha, Hagee and Haditha (f67377)

  46. As I said in a previous post, “This is going to get interesting.” The answer from Gen Hagge is just what I expected. Therefore, the LA Times (aka ‘dog trainer’, ‘low quality fish wrap’, etc.) is either calling the General a liar or the Times is again full of crap. Per past performance by the LA Times alone, the answer is obvious.

    I do wonder if the Times will deign to respond, or if we, once again, will be deafened by the winsome sound of Crickets Chirpping….

    Bill M (d9e4b2)

  47. Patterico Questions The Timing…

    Of the LA Times’ Murtha-Haditha story…and offers proof that something fishy is going on here. Possibly there was a leak from Hagee’s office to Murtha before Hagee briefed Murtha. But why would the LA Times be covering for Murtha, or…..

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  48. A “progress update” suggests follow-up and further details on something Hagee’s staff might have disclosed to Murtha earlier.

    steve (7ac17d)

  49. patrick,
    I want to second the comment of #32 and congratulate you.There are times when reading you
    I’m reminded of the scene in “Winds of War” when Capt. Henry’s son explains to him why FDR values him:”He’s up to his nates with people who want something from him,Dad.You only want to do what’s right.He still recognizes a patriot.”

    Lincoln (5e98a8)

  50. steve has a point. It’s not conclusive by any means, but it does serve to indicate there’s lots of weasel wording going on around this issue.

    Clearly, John Murtha got his information somewhere, apparently not from General Hagee himself, and just as clearly, the LA Times isn’t much interested in pursuing the question of who told Murtha prior to May 17th.

    However, the conspicuous and unnecessary use of the phrase “progress update” not only raises red flags, but also confuses the exact nature of when and who first notified Murtha. I smell a rat.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  51. […] Today, though, California state employee Mike Patterico really took picking nits to a new level of pointless hysteria. He’s obsessed with proving the use of the word “later” in one LA Times piece back in May was wrong. […]

    Fixateur D. Perspective and the case of mountains v. molehills at PunkAssBlog.com (c1b5b0)

  52. I have replied to #52 at his site, thus –

    “The most effective lies are small ones, endlessly repreated.”

    Whoops, it is now gone… for moderation, or forever? Check back.

    Sherlock (a58e20)

  53. Ah, my comment was apparently only being moderated – it is now visible.

    Sherlock (a58e20)

  54. Thanks for defending California state employee Mike Patterico.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  55. Former Marine colonel, John Kline, R-Minn, issued an apology to Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich in order to avoid a law suit. Wuterich has brought suit against John Murtha for similar remarks.

    http://www.startribune.com/587/story/614418.html

    Kline, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, made his remarks after being briefed on the Haditha investigation by General Hagee’s legislative assistant, Brig. Gen. John Kelly. At that time, the investigation had not been completed.

    Kline emphasized that since conclusions had not been reached, “As a Marine officer, I would never want to publicly insinuate, implicitly or explicitly, that I have prejudged what took place that day on the battlefield or afterwards…”

    If John Murtha was also briefed by Kelly, it would not be unusual to attribute the information to General Hagee since it came from his legislative assistant, presumably with Hagee’s authorization.

    It would be helpful if the Public Affairs Officer for the Commandant could tell us if Brig. Gen. John Kelly briefed Murtha on the Haditha investigation prior to Murtha’s statements of May 17th.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  56. Mad Murtha…

    Patterico has some interesting news about John Murtha and the Haditha issue.
    Gen. Hagee’s office has directly contradicted an assertion by the L.A. Times that Gen. Hagee briefed John Murtha on Haditha before Murtha accused Marines of killing civilian…

    Gulf Coast Pundit (31a5b1)

  57. The L.A. Times Readers Rep did write back.

    This was the response:

    Thanks for writing, Mr. Dollis. I appreciate your thoughts on this; but I’m not the only one who cares a lot about accuracy.

    This is an unfolding and controversial news story that was and is still being reported out. As new information comes in, editors and reporters are continuing to ask questions about this situation and look into it. So far, there have been a number of published reports on blogs, newspapers and other websites, some of which contradict each other. But The Times is continuing to cover this story, and as it evolves, if developments shed new light, the Times will continue to publish updated, verified information. There’s a bit of nuance in the official pronouncements; I can tell you that the May 26 L.A. Times article does not need correcting.

    Thanks again for your thoughts on this.

    Jamie Gold

    Readers’ Representative

    [emphasis mine]

    Well, it may not be much of a reply in the sense that it doesn’t categorically state whether the L.A. Times made up something Murth didn’t say, whether Murtha actually did say it because it’s true (in which case General Hagee is lying) or whether Murtha lied.

    But at least it was longer than your response.

    :-p

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  58. I did not quibble with the facts of the story.

    I inquired of the rep whether she thought the general public was more likely to believe the LA Times or a Marine officer.

    IOW, the fact that the LA Times lied is a given.

    Question is what they expect to get out of it, now that they’re busted.

    Richard Aubrey (d7e382)

  59. I got essentially the same e-mail from Gold as #58, but there are differences, which I’m not in the mood to over-analyze, because the bottom line is the same — they think no correction is needed.

    +++++++++++++++++

    Thanks for writing.

    This is an unfolding and controversial news story that was and is still being reported out. As new information comes in, editors and reporters are continuing to ask questions about this situation and look into it. So far, there have been a number of published reports on blogs, newspapers and other websites, some of which contradict each other. But The Times is continuing to cover this story, and as it evolves, if developments shed new light, the Times will continue to publish updated, verified information.

    The May 26 L.A. Times article does not need correcting.

    Thanks again for writing.

    Jamie Gold

    Readers’ Representative

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Mine came in at 3:19 EDT.

    Tom Blumer (df3157)

  60. I received the identical e-mail as #60.

    The LA Times obviously thinks they can outlast or outrun interest in this story. And, sadly, they may be correct.

    Jal (926a19)

  61. More proof that the truth no longer matters. Murtha misinformed the public as to when he spoke to the general. The facts are uncovered and it turns for the Murtha supports the truth doesn’t matter. Not to the LA Times and esp not for the folks with the caps lock button on. This “long war” has created a deja vu momemnt for America, but is it 1966 or 1936 or most scary 1856?

    John Pitchford (5f37c6)

  62. I don’t understand why you talk as if Hagee is the only possible source for Murtha’s information about this story. How do you know that? If Murtha was briefed by someone else, this whole hullabaloo is for naught.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  63. All right, I see. Youre just picking on the LA Times, not Murtha. This is much ado about nothing is it possible that Hagee talked to Murtha before the formal briefing (as Steve above is trying to ask)?

    [That’s not what his public affairs officer says. I asked her. Read the post again. — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  64. Benedict Murtha lied. Let’s keep things simple. What are the chances that anyone of authority within the Corps briefed a sitting congressman with facts that could be presented as “killed civilians in cold blood”? I’ll help the bedwetters here. Zero.

    That’s first. Second, the L.A. Times is doing what all good disinformation outlets do. They can claim that their story requires no correction because Murtha really said what he said. That they don’t question him on sourcing or accuracy only betrays their bias, not their reporting accuracy. (in their small minds only, of course)

    When the subject of a story isn’t “on their side”, they hammer, suggest, insinuate, and otherwise impugn the integrity of the one being quoted, whether it’s Reagan, Bush, Tancredo, Sheriff Joe, etc. But if they are quoting Murtha, Sharpton, Carville or Ahmanidejad, no questions asked. If it is discovered that they lied, well, “we only reported what he said, it isn’t our fault”. Very convenient for them.

    In this case, it isn’t quite as ridiculous as CBS and memo-gate (“fake but accurate”), but it isn’t good reporting. I think it’s now fair to say that Jamie Gold knows what truth there is to be known from within the Times’ walls, and has to be seen as an apparatchik just doing her job, after so many email opportunities for her to add to what the public knows. Just what is the job description for the reader’s rep, if not to assist the reading public regarding the details of a story?

    Bottom line, the Times can claim they reported accurately while continuing to enable a lie.

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  65. FYI, I received a reply from the Readers’ Rep that approached something approaching clarity.

    The first reply from her (quoted above) ended, “I can tell you that the May 26 L.A. Times article does not need correcting.”

    I wrote back asking, “So, the story is accurate? Or do inaccurate stories not need correcting?”

    She replied in part, “The story that appeared May 26 was accurate, yes, sorry if I wasn’t clear,” and goes on to say, “The L.A. Times hasn’t learned of new details that warrant publishing an updated story on this.”

    Well, at least that logically and gramatically makes sense.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  66. In all the commenting, I am sure that each side has garnered it’s own converts. NOT!
    No one’s mind has been changed. Those who support the action to keep the terrorists on foreign soil and fight them and those who want to wait till they fight on our own soil. I think the choice we have made is a wise one.

    Gary (a99f7c)

  67. […] – Murtha made his statements a week before he was briefed. Filed under Media/Entertainment | | Trackback URI Leave aComment […]

    Pursuing Holiness » Blog Archive » AP Admits Democrats Soft On Terror (bc33d8)

  68. Patterico, General Hagee makes some interesting comments upon his retirement that I think you’d find interesting.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  69. As opposed to interesting comments you’d find uninteresting.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  70. […] August, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) called the Haditha Marines “cold-blooded” murderers and condemned them as guilty without […]

    UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Haditha Marine Cleared by Investigator (d0cee9)

  71. […] goes around*, comes around*. Sometimes, the idea of tit for tat emerges something more like motes and planks; […]

    An Aphorism regarding the state of United States political discourse, year 2007 A.D. (e95a11)

  72. Black Pussy Huge Black Cocks Black Sexy Models…

    I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

    Black Pussy Huge Black Cocks Black Sexy Models (08fc82)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6522 secs.