The Crazies Go Crazy
John Byrne, the guy who runs The Raw Story, sent me a copy of an email that someone, I have no idea who, sent to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, and asked for my comment. The email apparently reflects buzzing that is going on over at The Daily Kos:
<<<
Dear Howard,
Re: "Doubts Raised On Schiavo Memo"
You said "The typos somehow vanished." You're accepting at face value this statement by Hinderaker: "the four typos ... were all corrected" (from Hinderaker's 3/28 Weekly Standard article).
That's not so, as Hinderaker is well aware. On 3/23, Hinderaker said "three of the four typographical errors have been corrected" (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009953).
Frankly, it appears that Hinderaker is indulging in an outright lie, in the hopes that no one will notice. And indeed, you didn't notice. ABC pointed out 4 errors. On 3/23, Hinderaker acknowledged that only three of those errors were fixed in the second version of the document. But on 3/28, he claimed that "all" these four errors were corrected. This is incorrect, and you are repeating his incorrect assertion.
The difference is significant. Hinderaker now claims all the errors pointed out by ABC were later corrected in the version of the document posted on Raw Story. This claim, which is false, is intended to create the impression that someone saw the ABC corrections and used them as the basis for a reissued document. In Hinderaker's implied conspiracy theory, this is supposed to create the impression that a Democrat is behind this.
But the set of corrections (3) applied to the second version of the document is indeed not the same as the set of errors (4) that ABC highlighted. The set of corrections applied to the second version of the document, is, however, exactly the set of corrections one would make as a result of using a grammar/spelling checker.
In other words, it seems that an early draft of the document ended up circulating before the author went to the trouble of applying a grammar/spelling checker. It's as simple as that.
>>>
This kind of thing goes on all the time; if you participate in any way in public discussion of issues, you are a "liar," at best. We never read Kos, Atrios, et al--hey, it's possible we might only live to be 100 or so, and we don't want to waste our time--so we wouldn't normally hear about this kind of thing. But this pretty well typifies the dismally low level of argument that leftists engage in.
Whoever wrote the email to Kurtz apparently didn't bother to compare the version of the memo posted by ABC with the one that was later leaked to the Raw Story.
This is a bit tiresome, and the point is a relatively minor one in any event, but here goes:
The ABC version, which is quoted rather than scanned, is here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937).
The version leaked to Raw Story, apparently by Democratic staffers, is here. (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=202)
If you look at the ABC version, you will see four errors identified with a "sic": "teri" in paragraph 1; two "ors" and "withdrawl" in paragraph 6; and "withdrawl" in paragraph 7.
If you now look at the Raw Story version, you will see that all four of these errors have been corrected, exactly as I wrote in my Weekly Standard article.
In addition to these four errors that were identified by ABC, the ABC version of the memo had two more mistakes: the Senate bill number was wrong, and in paragraph 6, it says "applicably" instead of "applicable."
These errors, apparently missed by ABC, were not corrected in the version leaked by the staffers to Raw Story--just as I said in the Weekly Standard piece. It's really annoying to be called a "liar" by someone who is apparently too lazy to compare the two memos.
It's true, as the email says, that in an earlier post I said, quoting a reader, that three out of four errors had been corrected. When I later went back and studied the documents more carefully, I realized that the fourth correction had been made, and also noticed the fifth typo, "applicably," which was not corrected. (And, as I pointed out on both occasions, the bill number was also wrong.)
What is the significance of all this? At a minimum, it shows how little we know about the origins of these memos. We don't know how they were produced, or when, or by whom, or why; or whether the same person produced both versions. Beyond that, to the extent that the evidence suggests that someone may have corrected the memo after ABC's version was posted on March 21, I would think that points in the direction of the people who leaked the corrected version, whom I understand to be Democratic staffers. At this point, of course, that is speculation; and, as noted above, this is a relatively minor point in the controversy over the origins of the purported "talking points memo."
The broader point, I guess, is that this illustrates the hysteria and unreliability we see so often on the left. Why would this emailer try to convince the Washington Post, or anyone else, that I am a "liar" for saying that all four errors noted with a "sic" were later corrected, when anyone can compare the two versions of the memo and see that what I wrote was precisely accurate? Beats me. But that's the state of political discourse on the left these days.
Posted by Hindrocket
powerlineblog.com
rawstory.com |
