Patterico's Pontifications

4/24/2006

Still Nothing in the L.A. Times to Counter Saturday’s Misleading Article

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 5:46 pm



Still nothing on Mary McCarthy in today’s L.A. Times. Despite all the revelations over the weekend about her and Dana Priest, it looks like they’re allowing their recent misleading story to stand.

I suppose they could be working on a big story that reveals all of these facts, and more. But who really believes that? And how long does it take to put together such a story, anyway? Bloggers had this stuff nailed down with lightning speed.

I’ll keep my eye on the situation.

9 Responses to “Still Nothing in the L.A. Times to Counter Saturday’s Misleading Article”

  1. The AP is now posting a story that Rand Beers, a friend of McCarthy, who is authorized to speak on her behalf, says McCarthy told him she was not the leaker to Priest.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_firing

    kyle (dca2a1) — 4/24/2006 @ 6:00 pm

  2. Patterico,

    I looked for an e-mail here and couldn’t find it. Am I just missing it?

    Anyway, my first posts are up The Houston’s Chronicle online paper!

    Here I am!

    I am TexasSparkle there, but I will still be Rightwingsparkle of course!

    They put my intro at the bottom for some reason. I e-mailed them to change it. They had to review my first ones. Then I am on my own. One of the posts is about the Mary McCarthy thing.

    Thanks!

    Rightwingsparkle (934a68) — 4/24/2006 @ 6:38 pm

  3. You must have missed the post at the top of my blog, where I already announced this.

    Patterico (156eed) — 4/24/2006 @ 6:41 pm

  4. I notice that 60 MInutes last night decided to air another rebuttal by Clueless Joe Wilson about Bush’s famous 16 words. Any mention of Mary McCarthy was notable by its absence. I am sure we will never see the whole story there, or anywhere except maybe Fox. I only wish the Justice Dept. would charge her criminally. She will never talk until then.

    Patricia (2cc180) — 4/24/2006 @ 6:55 pm

  5. The purges may be just beginning:

    “The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042201442.html?sub=AR

    If you clear the decks of non-sychophants, of course, future administrations will to have to replace entire bureaucracies because prior administrations had cherry-picked their own loyalists. A vicious circle.

    steve (2552b4) — 4/24/2006 @ 8:23 pm

  6. “Non-sycophants.” Is that how you describe a top donor to the Kerry campaign?

    Patterico (156eed) — 4/24/2006 @ 8:33 pm

  7. Non-sycophants to THIS president, that is. 😛

    One president’s sycophant is the next’s leaking weasel!

    Dan S (4f3e88) — 4/25/2006 @ 5:29 am

  8. Let them do what they want. Let them allow the misleading story to stand. How is it possible for bloggers to nailed down this stuff with lightning speed?
    These non-sycophants. No other word suits them.

    anna (9254e1) — 4/25/2006 @ 6:14 am

  9. […] UPDATE 6: You will be shocked to know that the L.A. Times’s coverage of the leak investigation is also missing a few relevant facts here and there. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » CIA Leak: A Blog Primer (d4224a) — 5/5/2006 @ 5:29 am


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0806 secs.