Other Liars of the Day: Maura Reynolds and Matea Gold
Patterico catches two L.A. Times reporters with their pants down. Money quote:
The Kerry quote Bush referred to came from an op-ed article in March 2003, in which he argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations.
That op-ed is here. Bonus points to anyone who can find the part where Kerry argued for any efforts, let alone tougher ones, to find and destroy terrorist organizations.
Read the whole thing. Patterico’s entry, that is.
UPDATE: I sent an email to the “Reader’s Representative” informing him/her/it of the misstatement. Associate Reader’s L.A. Times representative Kent Zelas responded with this smarmy statement:
Thank you for writing.
Maura Reynolds and Matea Gold said this in their piece:
“The article claims that, in the op-ed, Kerry ‘argued for tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations, saying the threat of preemption was inadequate on its own.’ ”
The passage from Sen. Kerry’s March 2003 essay that’s referred to by Reynolds and Gold appears to be supported by this quote from it: “It is troubling that this administration’s approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is long on rhetoric but short on execution. It relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found but will not be deterred by our military might.”
Kent Zelas
Asst. Readers’ Representative
UPDATE x2: Patterico didn’t have much luck with the “Reader’s” Representative, either, but that’s no reason for you not to drop them a line yourself. Volume has got to count for something.
October 20th, 2004 at 6:00 am
“Not that I’d actually use anything as tacky as military force, but since you did you should have done it perfectly.”
Fits right in with my notion that Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq purely as a saber to be rattled, and was caught off guard when Bush acted on it.
October 20th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Give their e-mail addresses, as I did. I take it as an article of faith that anyone who writes them with this perfectly indisputable complaint, and gets the kind of thoughtless brush-off that we have both received, is going to be pissed off.
For my part — when I regain internet access at home — I’m going to take another run at Managing Editor Baquet directly. Will he give the same kind of contentless, maddening “defense” given by Gold and Zalas?
The amazing thing is that, if you bother to read the Kerry op-ed, this isn’t an arguable point. There is no “find and destroy” proposal there — period. Nothing remotely like it.
The problem is that, while it’s blatantly false, it’s hard to conclusively demonstrate its falsity in 10 words or less. When they say “Paul Bremer didn’t give a speech” and you show them two speeches he gave, it’s tougher for them to pretend they’re right, because even a four-year old can understand their mistake. (Even then, it took an Instapundit link to move the ball forward.) But when the falsehood is harder to explain, like here, they appear to be willing to try to bluff their way through it. The more people who write them, the tougher that gets.
October 22nd, 2004 at 3:38 pm
Los Angeles Times Decides To Let Misrepresentation Stand
Yesterday, I told you that the Los Angeles Times had published a falsehood benefitting the Kerry campaign. It looks like they’ve decided to stick with their misrepresentation, despite being put on notice that it’s false. On Monday, President Bush quo…