L.A. Times Issues (Inadequate) Correction on “Collaborative Relationship” Assertion in McCain Story
This was published on March 27, 2008:
McCain on Iraq: An article in Sunday’s Section A about Republican Sen. John McCain’s positions on the Iraq war said investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report and a report this month financed by the Pentagon, found no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. The commission report said there was no evidence of a “collaborative operational relationship” between the two.
This correction implies that the Pentagon report included the phrase “collaborative relationship,” when in fact, it did not. So: close, but no cigar.
By the way, I explained the significance of the word “operational” in this post.
I doubt many people even noticed that correction, let alone realized its significance.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 8:15 pmHey! One small step, etc.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/30/2008 @ 6:41 amAnd, one wonders if the LAT even realizes the significance.
Brain-dead morons!
In your original post on this topic, you refer to what Lehman said
after the issuance of the staff report (the findings of which were very similar to those of the final report).
In the update, you say that you told Ms. Gold
where the phrase “collaborative relationship” comes from: a “staff statement” prepared by the staff for the Commission
As I explained to you several days ago, the “staff report” and the “staff statement” are one and the same document. Why do you refer to it in the update as a staff statement, as if it had not previously been mentioned in your post?
Foo Bar (03f778) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:04 am