One might even call it "the exception that proves the rule," except...

Glenn:

Paul:

First off, it needs to be said that there's nothing the least bit unusual about this story, IMHO. Unless there's a powerful interested party--which Saddam Hussein obviously was not--a series of blatantly false reports will never be retracted or apologized for in any way. Simply not going to happen.

Who was the "powerful interested party" that led to the New York Times publishing its mea culpa Editors Note admitting that much of its journalism on Iraq's WMD claims was shoddy and overly gullible?

This was a rare case in which the Times was so eggregiously wrong about such a high-profile matter of such supreme importance, and the political mood had shifted significantly, that a combination of pressures from more amorphous, but nonetheless powerful groups--the community of journalists, reality-based intelligence analysts and foreign policy experts who are important sources for its reporters, its more-liberal-than-elsewhere readership--combined to squeeze out a rather minimalist confession of error, with its equally minimalist impact on its ongoing coverage of the GWOT.

This was such a spectacular journalistic failure that it should have warranted a major shakeup (8.1 on the Richter scale), yet it was a mere blip compared to the far more trivial Jason Blair affair. There is far more concern over the appearance of journalistic integrity on small matters than there is over the substance of it on the gravest matters imaginable.

Much more often, a journalistic entity will apologize for getting a major story right, but treading on the wrong toes. The Cinncinati Inquirer and Chiquita, for example. Or the San Jose Mercury-News and the CIA's role in contirubting to the 1980s crack epidemic--a story that the CIA's own inspector general's report actually validated, but that reportery Gary Webb lost his job over anyway.

"Now where do you think that idea came from?"

I would like to know how much GE (parent company of NBC) has received in defense contracts since the beginning of The Ongoing Strugle Against Global Islamo-fascist Terror™.

Moreover, I really relied on the analysis of Edward Fox

You mean Fox? I have only skimmed your post but I have known about him for some time because of my interest in the unsolved mystery aspect of the case, and your positive assessment of his research only gives me more confidence in it. I was always quite impressed before and thought he was the go to guy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/aponline201158_000.htm

"On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved."

see also

George Bush went on Anti-anthrax "Cipro" on 9-11

http://www.aztlan.net/bushcipro.htm

Lake! Ed Lake.

78% of respondents think Saddam was responsible. Now where do you think that idea came from? It certainly wasn't Bush.

Perhaps from the 'source' as the likely 99% of respondents in western Europe in 1491 who would have responded affirmatively to the poll question "Is the Earth is flat?".

After all, back then everybody just knew the Earth was really flat as a pancake and you'd sail off its end if you went too far out.

Obviously they were wrong.

What people believe or disbelieve at any given point is so rife with their own opinions, prejudices, and preconceptions its difficult to trust it (certainly during a crisis like 9/11). Its been established as far as humanly possible that there was no Saddam-Al Qaeda link back then and certainly no involvement by the Hussein regime in 9/11.

Why I'm bothering to even trying to explain this to you, I've no idea. You've shown neither the intellectual nor moral capacity to actually discuss these issues in an intelligible manner.

Still, one feels the obligation to be the adult here.

For we are living in an age when mundane lies flow past us in a steady, undifferentiated stream, like the commuters in the subway station, and if a sparkling ray of truth shines forth--and it's not immediately overwhelmed with character assasination--it will simply be utterly and routinely ignored. -- Paul Rosenberg

In the mid-eighties, I had occasion to spend several weeks in Manhattan. It seemed to me that there were as many Julliard students fiddling in the subway in those days as there were break dancers in Washington Square. A very high level of musicianship, too, but I was able to appreciate it only in passing -- places to go, and people to see, etc.

How many Grecian urns do you have to encounter before you're prepared to write Ode on a Grecian Urn? Sometimes only one; in fact, I suspect that seeing only one is better for the emotion-recollected-in-tranquility impulse than debarking from a tour bus and being herded past dozens by a bullhorn-brandishing tour guide.

Context is everything, and the creation of context is a lifelong endeavor. Even so, such moments are both rare and fleeting. Unfortunate, perhaps, but true nevertheless.

The only e-mail address I could find for ABCNews (god what a stupid web site) is:

support@abcnews.go.com

If anyone has a better one, please post.

With all the "queers who want beer" and "clothes that make the stars" headlines, I was getting a bit frustrated.

You'll NEVER get into the MSM talk shows with an attitude like that! Responding to criticism? How dare you?!? I mean, you'll set a bad precedent for other members of the Beltway Media. As in, responding to reality.

In the paragraph that set the scientific and arms control communities abuzz, Beecher writes: A "widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html

It reminds me of the "widely circulated misconception" of those EFPs the Iraqis were incapable of manufactuuring. They were so sophisticated they had to come from untermenschen in Iran.

That was from ABC entertainment, even though it was presented as a documentary.

This was not a sin of ABC News, but rather of their corporate overlords.