Hey, maybe while we wait for Mr. Conason to grace us with his presence we can all play a game. Let's play the "why did Joe do it" game. I'll go first:

1. He was on deadline for his weekly article and he slapped a piece together so quickly that he transposed the numbers. You know a sloppy but honest mistake (give him the benefit of the doubt).

2. He's been hanging out with so many beltway journalists lately that he just assumed the poll was wrong, because after all the poll doesn't reflect beltway thinking.

3. He is one of the 34% of people who thinks nothing should be done so he figured everyone else should think the same way. (the helping his readers see the light mistake).

4. He decided that the poll must be wrong so he just fixed it. (the taking action mistake).

5. He was on deadline and needed something to back up his "how to protect war criminals" suggestion so he purposely reversed the results figuring no one would notice. (the gotta protect war criminals at all costs mistake).

6. He thought he was writing a piece for a right-wing paper and figured no one would notice if he lied about the poll.

7. He's dyslexic and we all owe him an apology

8. He hates his job and didn't really give a blank that he used bogus numbers to support his theory.

9. His readership has been falling so he needed something to generate more interest in his work even if it was negative interest. After all in media circles it's all about the hits.

and finally

10. He's so wrapped up in the cocktail party circuit that he ordered an intern to write the piece for him and the intern got even with him.

Anyone else want to play?

A Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble For Bush Lawyers

By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK

Nice of Isikoff to provide them with heads up.

Link in sig

"There is no system in place to punish the high level people who were, ultimately, responsible for the abuses."

Well that's news to me. I always thought that we had a criminal justice system that was for EVERYONE, not just the "little people". Evidently you believe that there should be a separate system available for "high level people". Do you not believe in equal justice under law? Do you really think that there is a certain group of Americans that should be given special treatment under law? How sad.

Most Americans want some kind of investigation and want us to not torture anymore. They don't care if people are prosecuted.

According to the recent USA/Gallup poll:

of those Americans who want an investigation

39% favor criminal

24% favor an independent panel

Hi Joan.

What is Salon's policy on correcting blatantly wrong information on Salon's website? In case you haven't noticed there is a long overdue cleanup needed in the most recent Conason column.

"39% is not most. That means that 61% (most) want an investigation or don't care, but do not (at this time) want criminal proceedings.

Wow. Talk about twisting the facts. Your numbers are so obviously wrong it's unbelievable. You are trying to lump the 24% who want investigations with the 34% who don't want investigations and the 3% who have no opinion to come up with your 61% who you say want an investigation or don't care. You can't lump apples and pears with oranges and say they are all apples.

The real number of Americans who want an investigation or don't have an opinion (don't care in your words) is 39% (criminal) + 24% (non-criminal) + 3% (no opinion). It does not include the 34% who don't want investigations period. Sheesh!

The 34% who don't want investigations did not say they "don't care" as you would have us believe. They said they don't want investigations. If they don't want investigations how in the world can you combine them with people who do?

39% favor criminal investigations

24% favor independent panels

34% don't want any investigations

3% have no opinion

Of the 63% who favor investigations, most(39% vs 24%) favor criminal investigations with 3% who have no opinion and only 34% who don't want investigations.

On a related note, Conason, in the very first paragraph of Friday's article, plainly misstated the results of a new Gallup poll on the question of whether Bush officials should be prosecuted and/or investigated. I have no doubt it was unintentional, but his error highlights a very important point about how this debate has proceeded.

Glenn, did you actually talk with Mr. Conason and that's why you feel it was unintentional or is this statement just based upon past experience with him?

If it were unintentional, as you believe, do you have an opinion as to why he hasn't corrected the piece or responded to the emails of Jim White and others?

By the way thank you for addressing the Conason piece. I know it's never easy having to address a problem with a colleagues work but, based on my experience in reading your work, I never doubted that you would do so in this case.

Glenn,

Thank you for your quick response to my questions and many, many thanks for your tireless efforts at so eloquently communicating what so many of us believe.

While some people may expect superhuman abilities from you at times I'm content to have you write honest, original pieces that reflect your view of our world. And so far you've never disappointed me. Your integrity always shines through in your pieces and that, more than anything else, is what makes me such an avid reader of your blog.