Dean should just be fired. The incompetence of this guy is just amazing!!! He is underhanded, a back stabber, unprofessional etc etc etc. Just look at this “mess” ! Dean has an agenda and it certainly isn’t finding the truth …
4 Likes
But THEY think everyone is as horrified as they are about it. This is the same insular thinking that hurt them in the budget wars and why they still think that repealing the ACA is a huge winner for them.
Where they might have a point is demographically. White voters are projected to be less than 70% of the electorate in 2016. The GOP needs to set records both for their turnout and for their margin, especially since they are doing everything possible to reduce their support among minority populations. A Benghazi ‘stunner’ might not resonate outside of the Foxiverse but whipping the faithful up into a slightly higher froth could add part of a % to their total.
2 Likes
“It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.”
Easy peasy… you did not do your job and are still trying to point the finger at everyone but yourselves… seems nothing has changed over the years, Whitewater smears, WMD (Judith Miller) lies, now this and not a single time have you, The Times, admitted it was your fault. One time yea could be true, twice starts to smell, third time and it is an institutional problem.
9 Likes
Too little, too late, NYT!
1 Like
Not from the NYC “intelligentsia”…
Now me, too. Is Pam Tillis still making records? I haven’t listened to country radio is quite awhile. Hell, if you can’t play a Loretta or Dolly now and again–and they are still recording–then you’re not trying hard enough.
1 Like
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were the staffers because they live to humiliate HRC, but how do you know that?
1 Like
If the original story merits the Front Page, the retraction/apology merits the Front Page. Many will guffaw (I know, I know) but if the NYT has a smidgen of journalist ethics left, they have no other choice.
7 Likes
Since you don’t read it you’d be very surprised to know that current reporting on HRC is the opposite of this particular article, admittedly a terrible lapse in professional journalism. They’ve been non-judgemental, factual, concise and between the lines one senses it’s part of what they’ll cite when they endorse her for president next year.
1 Like
It’s not even that! THE NYT STILL DOESN’T HAVE IT RIGHT!!
Look, this is way more prosaic than even TPM can conceive of. This original story was nothing more than bull shit made up spin off a FOIA CASE.
The FOIA application is, yes, media-based, and yes looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton. But like EVERY FOIA application, the various USG agencies and departments, present and past, have a REGIME set up for getting their say in the process. And this is particularly so with the NSA customer list, a.k.al. the US intelligence community. There are SO MANY offices and officers and retired government workers, agents and contractors involved, this process typically takes months into years, particularly for the big flashy applications like this one.
Each and every even POTENTIALLY involved officer or contractor, going back not just into the GWB administration but all the way back to the Reagan administration, is, by policy and supported in the FOIA law, entitled to a say in the review process that precedes release. With this many departments involved, with this many interests involved, including the CIA and military intel branches, it could easily take YEARS before this process gets worked out. Certainly, there’s zero chance it will get completed before HRC’s appearance before that goofy Standing Special Congresional Committee on All Things Beeeeennnnggggghhhhaaazzziiii this fall.
What happened here is that State is taking on heat, embroiled in endless loud pointless arguments, obfuscations and walling-offs by other USG departments and agencies. So State, which BY DEFINITION, cannot act in this process to ADJUDICATE where State itself is being characterized as a player in the process, wants to off-load the internal adjudication to the several offices in the DoJ that might be capable of handling this role: FBI Cointel, the office that handles US federal court national security wiretap applications for orders and rulings, the office that provides constitutional advice to the DoJ and White House, those sorts of folks.
This is all totally unsurprising given who and what are involved in this FOIA application.
4 Likes
“But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a ‘criminal referral’ but rather a ‘security referral,’ meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information,” the note continued. “It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.”
And STILL they elide the essential point, that the “potential mishandling” in question was with regard to what was released in the FOIA request, not anything Clinton did. Weasels.
4 Likes
Except for that little Senator Clinton from NY thing of course.
1 Like
Even if the story turns out to be 100% bullshit, as this one has, it leaves a stench of “drama” and “controversy” in its wake. So even when it gets retracted, debunked and/or “clarified” it still damages the target’s approval ratings.
So there is no real downside for the hunting of Clinton to continue.
3 Likes
Sadly, I do. Worse, it seems to be the best, most generally truthful news source overall. Which makes this lapse particularly disappointing.
So apparently if you lie to the NYT about a presidential candidate and then confirm the lie the NYT will publish it. Gee so why aren’t there any fake stories about the GOP candidates? (Although they are so bad you don’t need to make anything up). Meanwhile the story and impression is out there among voters that Clinton is not to be trusted which explains in part why her poll numbers are dropping.
2 Likes
My tax dollars being used to exploit the tragic deaths of 4 Americans in a transparently cynical effort to smear the most competent presidential candidate in the field makes me want to fucking rip Trey Howdy Doody Gowdy’s head off and shit down his neck.
7 Likes
The Times owes both Clintons a front page apology for the smears of the last 23 years. Only then can they begin to restore their credibility, destroyed by their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
4 Likes
Well, they always want to be able to go back to those very same sources that burned them in the first place. They are kind of like crack addicts in that regard.
Regardless of who is responsible, the liars got the headlines they wanted. Many metro papers published the NYT article or a re-write, but not the corrections or the editors’ quibbles about how they got fooled by “sources.” Just like Roger Ailes, they got an impression “out there” that can’t be erased. Given what we know about its retailing the lies of the anti-Clinton mafia, its refusal to correct stories created in Dick Cheney’s war-manufacturing shop, and its simpering support of abusive NYC police practices, it’s important that “consider the source” always be adjacent to the words “New York Times.”
6 Likes
So much for journalistic integrity at the grey lady. I fear she’s lost her virtue and grown a pair of round heels.