Washington post misinformation

In a story entitled "Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered
" there are 31 paragraphs bolstering Richard Clarke, yet the second and third paragraph read:

"Since former White House counter terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke charged March 24 that the Bush White House reacted slowly to warnings of a terrorist attack, his former colleagues have poked holes in parts of his narration of the early months of 2001 and have found what they say is evidence that Clarke elevated his own importance in those events.

The most sweeping challenge to Clarke's account has come from two Bush allies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Fred F. Fielding, a member of the investigative panel. They have suggested that sworn testimony Clarke gave in 2002 to a joint congressional committee that probed intelligence failures was at odds with his sworn testimony last month. Frist said Clarke may have "lied under oath to the United States Congress."

F**king Post - they make an attempt to tell the truth but hide it behind two paragraphs that make it seem as if it's just another story revealing shrubcos innocence and his detractors immoral compulsion to label him as less than Jesus.

:kick:

*sigh*

In order to provide "balance," they put information already established to be completely false and misleading.

:eyes:

Is the Post making a statement that there ARE holes in his statements? Or are they saying that the WH punks claim that there are holes in his narration.

big difference.

They'll print lies as long as there is an attribution to the claim.

Pathetic.

poked in the narration. Pathetic propoganda that is a deliberate attempt to tell readers that Clarke's claims have been successfully refuted in part.