Posted on 07/30/2007 6:43:38 PM PDT by lowbridge
By Dave Pierre | July 30, 2007 - 15:29 ET
On July 25, 2007, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page article with the blaring headline, "Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11." The article centered on this important speech last week (July 24) by President Bush.
One alert reader noticed a big problem with the piece: The President did not do what the headline said he did. Here's a letter to the editor from the July 29 Times:
Nowhere in your article headlined "Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11" (July 25) does the president do any such thing. Nor has he done so anywhere else. Instead, he has made an argument that, at present, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda has some operational control over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Experts can argue about whether or not this is an exaggeration, but the president's claim hardly deserves a front-page headline.
Jay Groutt
Burbank
Good job, Mr. Groutt.
But the article also had other problems. Times staffers Josh Meyer, James Gerstenzang and Greg Miller wrote that "Bush's comments were met with skepticism by some terrorism experts and former U.S. intelligence officials, who said the president exaggerated or even misrepresented the facts in Iraq." Among those they cited was a guy by the name of Rand Beers. The article merely identified Beers as "a former senior Bush and Clinton administration counter-terrorism official." What the Times conveniently failed to mention is that in 2003 Beers "volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss" (WaPo, July 16, 2003). Gee, is it any surprise that Beers didn't like Bush's speech?
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
bump
L.A. TIMES LOOKS TO LAYOFF 150 JOBS
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232007/business/l_a__times_looks_to_layoff_150_jobs_business_.htm
might as well rub it in on occasions like this
Story true, even if the evidence had to be manufactured. <./ Dan Blather comment>
Leftists love all lies, but this lie may be the all-time favorite of American leftists.
They consistently use the front page as an editorial page extension, never provide any balance in any of their stories, and are second only to the NY Times as an arm of the DNC and ANN (Al Qaeda News Network).
.
Free Republic mentioned in comments...
You mean the Lying Times is caught again??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Re the L.A. Times:
We have our opinions - Please don’t bother us with facts!
Or “We follow the Dan Rather School of journalism: If it sounds like we want it to, then it is true. Facts not need apply.”
Vietnam veterans to Dan Rather: We wanted to shoot you for your treason when you covered I Corps. The same for his buddies Webster and Safer.
JMHO
LAT is "correct." You don't understand the mind emotions of the liberal.
Here's how President Bush lied claiming that Saddam was connected to 9/11, for example.
Never mind, that I at least cannot find any quotes other than the President saying that Saddam WAS NOT involved. Liberals cannot provide a quote that states otherwise but that does not change how they feeeeeeeeeeeeel.
You see, a large number of the public mistakenly believes that Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
OK. Now the liberals say that Bush does not do enough to correct that misconception therefore Bush effectively claims that Saddam was involved with 9/11 and he's lying.
I am not making this up. I read it, I think Ted Kennedy was one who said it but I cannot locate his statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.