Yesterday Matt Drudge reported distortions, out of context quotes and an outright fabrication in his reporting of Fmr. General Clarks testimony prior to the Iraq war.
Various major news orgs. quoted Drudge in reporting this story last night...obviously without researching Drudge's assertions.
Will they retract or appologise for using a tainted report as the basis for their own? I think it's highly doubtful all will.
Here's a snipet from a story debunking the Drudge story and a link to the whole article that, IMO, won't get air time because of 'media bias'....
Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.
For example, Drudge quoted Clark on possible links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as (fellow witness) Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts," Clark testified. "It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information."
But Drudge didn't include Clark's comment that: "As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to al-Qaida."
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark testified, according to the full transcript, which was reviewed by Knight Ridder. "He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we … The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely … ."
In addition, Clark said: "If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition, including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post-conflict Iraq are prepared and ready."
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7720762.htmIt is true that Mr. Clark has misspoken on a few occasions and has had to retract...or backtrack if you will, statments in the past but to have outright lies reported as news by the major news orgs. is, to me, a clear sign that the reported 'liberal media bias' is, in most cases, smoke and mirriors.
I won't post a link to the Drudge Report...his site makes me ill.
BTW, Sean Hannity was realy hammering Clark on the basis of Matt Drudge's article...think he and Faux will retract or appologise for using such an easily proven false and distorted story? I won't hold my breath.
