| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Hooded Iraqi in photo: the NYT got it wrong
Earlier this week I blogged about the speculation that the Iraqi featured in this NYTimes story (using the CommonDreams reprint link because the direct link to the NYT story is no longer free to access) who identified himself as the man who was photographed hooded and standing atop the box during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses was not, in fact, the detainee in the photo.
As a followup to their story, the NYT featured an article today where the man admits he is NOT the detainee in the photo.
This is what their “Editor’s Note” states on the error:
The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi’s insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi’s account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.
Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi’s claim.
The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.
Perhaps in their rush to run a hit piece on the Bush administration via reminder of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, they got a little sloppy with their fact checking. Surprise surprise.
(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)
Also blogging about this: Michelle Malkin, Tom Maguire, Sundries Shack, Decision ‘08, Mediacrity, TigerHawk, Jawa Report
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
17 Responses to “Hooded Iraqi in photo: the NYT got it wrong”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Isn’t this the same newspaper that thought Joe Stalin should be sainted??? When ever these guys run a story then blame everyone else when it wasn’t a good story you have to wonder if Dan Rather is on their staff. I can just see the defense; “You see this man is a compilation of all the people tortured in abu ghraib”. Ohhh well that makes the spirit of the article correct.
Just give us the facts, if I want Spirit you will find me in church. – Lorica
The NYT published the lies of Judith Miller, which gave cover for bush to start an illegal, preemptive war in Iraq, as well. Peace
This war is illegal??? No Steve it isn’t. It is a resumption of military action after the leader of the country surrendered unconditionally. If this war is illegal then so was Desert Storm. I have explained this to you atleast a dozen times, and why you don’t listen is just beyond me.
1) On several occastions we have found WMDs in Iraq, not “Stockpiles”, but where there is 1 there are more. The whole smoke and fire logic.
2) We have found over 200 sites that are identified as Mass Grave sites. These graves contain between 400,000 and 500,000 Iraqi bodies.
3) We have found illegal military technologies sold to Iraq by our “allies”. Russia sold the lastest Migs. The French sold night vision equipment. Thanks guys, with friends like you….
4) More on illegal technologies. Sadamn had his own un-manned air vehicle, which was capable of spraying chemical or biological agents. Even Hans Blix said that was illegal for him to have.
5) Constant challenges to no fly zones. He surrendered and agreed to the terms of surrendered. The 1st time a no fly zone was challenged should of been the only time.
6) Attempted assasination of a former U.S. President. Saddamn was the money and man behind the attempted assination of President George Bush. That is illegal and should of been dealt with by the bb brained individual that was President at that time. It was not.
7) Payments to suicide bombers. He had ties to Hamas and was financing suicide bombers. Illegally attacking Israel thru this activity.
9) Bribing of heads of state in various countries & organizations. Unlike the screwed up logic of those on the left it is ILLEGAL for Saddamn to pay a bribe, not just for the bribe to be taken.
Here are 9 Damn good reasons for this war to happen. If there was illegal activity going on Steve, it was on the part of Saddamn. Pull your head out of the sand, wake up. This was a good and the right thing to do. 25 million plus Iraqi’s are in agreement that this was the right thing to do. Why you would align yourself with the few hundred who don’t is just idiotic. – Lorica
How about Judith Millers lies and all the other lies, that convinced the American public that this was a good war, even though it was illegal. Obviously, Orica you bought bush’s propaganda hook, line and sinker. Repent the end is near. Peace
As if we needed further examples of steves disrespect and junior high school mentality….. Lorica provides you points on which you have the option to debate. You take the low road and as usual, avoid an intelligent reply by calling him Orica. Why is that Eve? Are you aware of anything remotely adult-like?
If you want people to consider your points, try answering the facts laid out for you or questions put to you. If you just want to hide behind your keyboard and display your moronic disgust for the people here trying to hash things out, go away. You offer zero and are a complete waste of time.
The New York Times lied again – talk about a dog-bites-man story! When does the Times not lie on behalf of Democrats?
I am wondering – does McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” apply to the MSM? If not, why not? Personally, I think that it would be fun to see our moral and intellectual betters in the MSM sweating in prison cells alongside Jack Abramoff. It might cool the MSM’s enthusiasm for criminalizing free speech.
Hey steve thanks for the reply, IF ONLY you had something to contribute. I am pretty full of your stupidity, and I am to the point where I am going to call you on it in stronger verbal terms from here on out. I mean lets face it a dumba** is a dumba**, and you pal are the biggest one i have seen ever. Even my union friends aren’t as stupid stuborn as you. You are truly Satan dressed as an angel of light, deceived by idiocy to the very end. You are the enemy and you should have much to fear. Your kind are going to be standing there wondering why Christ left you standing. Then you will deny the Christ good luck Steve you are going to need it. All you had to do is address a point but you are to stupid to even do that. Take Care I hope you find some common sense and Jesus for real not this idiocy you seemed to have created by farting in the wind. – Lorica
The point is that you warmongers will use any double-speak to justify your contention that war is not only a necessary thing, but also a good thing. I’m here to tell you that you are wrong. I am also here to tell you that the lives you are losing in all of the wars are being lost to protect the wealth of a very small group of people, so the jokes on you. Your warlike attitudes are making America less safe not more safe. Christ was for Peace and aginst war. I’ll stand with Christ, how about you? Peace
Yeah, Lorica, how dare you interfere with Saddam’s Constitutional right to commit genocide? How dare you stand against blowing up the Zionist infidel women and children in Iraq? How dare you use politically-incorrect facts and Zionist-capitalist reasoning in your arguments instead of sacred bluster like Brother Steve? Avoid Hell and repent, sister! Bow to the Most High American Caliph, Michael Moore! Join the Holy Jihad against Warmongers and Other Infidels today! Allah Akhbar and Legalize Marijuana!
LOL I almost fell out of my chair laughing first at Steve’s reply then at Mwalimu’s. I find it ironic that the master of double speak is lecturing me. Every point I list above is truth, but Steve refuses to acknowledge it. But I am the one who “speaks with fork tongue”.
It is wrong of me to stand against what is evil, and not stand with it like Steve. According to Steve it is Saddamn’s constitional right to kill his own people. Thanks Mwalium. As a man that knows the difference between right and wrong I am here to tell you Steve you are aligned with Evil, and your thinking is evil. God help you. – Lorica
In the last post Andrew was …
…
WRONG
I think Ron White’s New CD was made with steve in mind…
You can’t fix stupid.
It is not “that” you stand against evil, it is “how” you stand against evil. “You cannot wash out blood with blood”. Peace
Yes Steve, it is the fact that I am standing against evil, and that you stand with evil. – Lorica
No Steve. But your weakness got those woman’s kids killed if you were there.
Nobody wants to wash out blood with blood. That is a meaningless cliche. What we want to do is remove evil before it kills more or prevent evil from killing more. Your solutions (or lack of) cause more blood just like those kids you would’ve watched get killed as you did nothing more than plead with the husband to stop. Your solution fails to stop bloodshed. Simple. The simple concept fails you.
You want to remove evil, begin with your own country and let the Iraqis tend to their own affairs, you arrogant soul you. Peace