AP scrubbed Hadley's reportedly mistaken reference to "Nepal"
SUMMARY: In an article on appearances by national security adviser Stephen Hadley on two television news programs during which he discussed President Bush's decision to attend the Olympics opening ceremonies, the Associated Press did not note that during his appearance on ABC's This Week, Hadley repeatedly referred to Nepal when apparently talking about Tibet and reported: " 'The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue,' Hadley said. 'I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about' Tibet." In fact, Hadley had said, "This whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about Nepal [emphasis added]." By contrast, The New York Times reported that Hadley "referred at least a half-dozen times to Nepal when he seemed clearly to be speaking of Tibet."
An April 13 Associated Press article on national security adviser Stephen Hadley's appearances on that day's episodes of ABC's This Week, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, during which he discussed President Bush's decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the summer Olympics in Beijing, reported: " 'The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue,' Hadley said. 'I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about' Tibet." In fact, Hadley said on This Week, "This whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about Nepal [emphasis added]." Bush has been criticized for his refusal to boycott the opening ceremonies in light of China's violent crackdown on demonstrations in Tibet, not Nepal. The AP did not note Hadley's repeated references during the appearance to Nepal in talking about China's alleged human rights abuses in Tibet.
By contrast, in an April 14 article, The New York Times reported: "In his ABC interview, Mr. Hadley referred at least a half-dozen times to Nepal when he seemed clearly to be speaking of Tibet. A White House spokesman later confirmed that Mr. Hadley had misspoken."
An April 13 post on the Daily Kos blog noted that the AP substituted the word "Tibet" in reporting Hadley's comment.
From the April 13 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): Let's talk about the Olympics. President Carter came out against a boycott, but President Bush has been under tremendous pressure to stay away from the opening ceremonies. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain won't go. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany won't go. The president has said his plans have not changed. Does that mean he'll attend the opening ceremonies, or not?
HADLEY: What the president said is that he will go to the Olympics. He wants to support our Olympic athletes -- the wonderful men and women who are going to participate.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means he'll go see events but he won't go to the opening ceremonies?
HADLEY: The president has said he is going to the Olympics. I think this whole issue --
STEPHANOPOULOS: How come you can't -- how come you don't want to answer the question?
HADLEY: This whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about Nepal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So does that mean the president will be going to them?
HADLEY: The president is going to the Olympics. The president is going to -- thinks that the way to deal with the issue of Nepal is not by some -- a statement that you're not going to the opening ceremonies and say, "Therefore, I've checked the Nepal box."
STEPHANOPOULOS: But he may not go to the opening ceremonies, you just don't want to say it.
HADLEY: No, the president is going to the Olympics. What he's doing on Nepal is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels, and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights, of concern for what's happening in Nepal, urging the Chinese government to understand that it is in their interest to reach out to representatives of the Dalai Lama, and to show while the whole world is watching China that they are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect.
There is an opportunity here. And if countries are really concerned about Nepal, we shouldn't have this sort of nonissue of opening ceremonies or not. They should do the hard work of quiet diplomacy to urge the Chinese government, in their interest, to take advantage of this opportunity to do something about meeting the concerns about people in Nepal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you call it a nonissue, yet you won't say clearly that the president is attending the opening ceremonies, and I'm just trying to figure out why.
HADLEY: The president at this point is going to the Olympics. We haven't worked out the details of his schedule at this point in time. But from his vantage point, if you listen what he has said, he has no reason not to go. Because what he has said is, we need to be using diplomacy to try and deal with the issue of Nepal.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Looks like ABC beat you to the punch and corrected the misinformation.
"... A White House spokesman later confirmed that Mr. Hadley had misspoken."
WITH?
Iraq / Iran, Osama / Obama, Nepal / Tibet -- it's all so confusing . . .
to MORONS!
I hope someday we don't invade the wrong country because of one of these types of screw ups. OH WAIT ! . . .
TR,
Are you saying we should have invaded Iran? ;-)
TR -Iraq / Iran, ...-- it's all so confusing . . .
to MORONS!
I hope someday we don't invade the wrong country because of one of these types of screw ups. OH WAIT ! . . .
Me - The logical inference is that morons are confusing Iraq / Iran. In the next sentence you hope we don't invade the wrong country because of this screw up. The logical confusion is the right country to invade, using your argument, should be Iran.
;-)
Real nice. I'll bet big bucks that you're too stupid to be ashamed of making such a horrid implication.
Don't do it again.
Are you saying we should have invaded Iran? ;-)
I'll type this slow so you can understand it, AA.
1. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
2. Osama bin Laden (the mastermind behind the attack) was hiding in Afghanistan.
3. Bush invaded Iraq.
NOW do you see what TheRick was talking about when he referred to us invading the wrong country???
Hahaha....
There was n=more cause-and-effect justification for invading Saudi Arabia as a terrorist haven than there ever was for Iraq. The only thing that saved their Saudi butts is that Dubya's father has all sorts of business dealings with the Saudi Royal Family and other high-ups in the Saudi government - such as the bin Laden family.
In fact, when the planes were crashing into their targets on 9/11 Poppy Bush waws having breakfast with Osama bin laden's broghte at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in DC...
Wiz,
AA was trying to be funny. Hence the ;-)
Humor sometimes doesn't translate well here, though I got what he was doing. You Libs really do need a better sense of humor ;-) [note winky face]
Your humor misses the mark 93.7% of the time.
;-)
Trying?
Thanks for your continued support! ;-)
Haha. Sorry AA, I should have said AA was being funny. But had I done that there would have been a dozen posts demanding me to explain just how what you said was humorous.
Ya know how it is!
There's also a 93.7% chance that no one would care.
; )
Haha. Sorry AA, I should have said AA was being funny.
Then you'd have been lying.
"Looks like ABC beat you to the punch and corrected the misinformation."
ABC cited and corrected the AP article?
I'm not trying to be condescending, but I must have missed that, can you point it out or link to it?
Pete,
Not to worry. My point was ABC corrected Hadley by substituting Tibet in place of Nepal so there is no need, IMHO for MMFA to point out a mistake that was admitted to be a mistake by the WH and already corrected by ABC.
AA
Could it be because MMFA wants to further embarass Hadley because they hate this admiminstration?
I'm Nepal'd at such a suggestion!
(Okay deduct points. I used that one already.)
Ok. If you want to use somebody like Hadley whom hardly anybody has heard of, for misstating Nepal when he should have said Tibet, go right on ahead. Run with it. (You won't go very far. This story has no legs.) ;-)
Snoop,
McCain? Oh I forgot, it's all about him isn't it! ;-)
Ok. If you want to use somebody like Hadley whom hardly anybody has heard of
He's Bush's NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR! Took over for Condi, which I must say, is an improvement because you know that at least Hadley would not be shoe shopping while New Orleans was drowning!
Condi also has a doctorate in Russian studies and she was the only person in Washington who didn't see the fall of the Soviet Union coming.
No wonder W hired her.
Accusing most of us of not knowing who the administration's National Security Advisor is?
Sounds like an elitist statement to me.
You're not French too are you?
Sue,
Do you also have a theory surrounding the AP's scrubbing of Hadley's words?
Yeah, they knew what he was talking about and understood it was a slip up. It was not an event that killed anyone or caused any harm. Now tonight I guess we want specials on this on Countdown and Abrams though.
Maybe a special report on MSNBC at 10pm tonight on this mistake.
Snoop,
I would suggest that there is a world of difference between the wife of the leading Democratic Party Presidential Contender saying she she is for the first time either "proud" or "really proud" of her country and an advisor mistakenly substituting Nepal when he should have said Tibet.
"I would suggest that there is a world of difference between the wife of the leading Democratic Party Presidential Contender saying she she is for the first time either "proud" or "really proud" of her country and an advisor mistakenly substituting Nepal when he should have said Tibet."
and I would suggest that if she was "really proud" for the first time in her life, she wasn't necessarily "not proud" at any other given time in her life. "Really" implies a sense of the heightened, whereas just "proud" (which was misused in this attack on her) implies a sense of all or naught. In other words, if she was really proud of America for the first time, she could definitely still be proud all the other times. But if she had said (and how it was often misquoted) "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" then that implies she was never proud before this moment.
I can understand how you'd get that confused, though.
Julia,
She said it both ways in two different speeches from what I've gathered. You can pick the one you like.
Yes, the logical inference if it is the first time she was really proud can be she might have been proud at some other time. However in the context of the speech, it does not come across that way at all.
She's entitled to her opinion but it was a pr disaster to say it the way she did. Add in the influence of Rev. Wright and one wonders what exactly she really thinks about her country.
Heck, I know our country has its faults. Lots of them. There are many things about our country that I am not proud of. However I would say to anyone that overall, even with it's faults, I have been and will continue to be very proud to be an American and I think it is the greatest country on Earth. I am blessed to have been born here.
I hope you can see the difference between my attitude and Michelle's.
You want to hold the wife of a presidential candidate responsible for something she said about the way she feels, yet you're willing to give a pass the the NS Advisor who repeatedly refers to the wrong country involved in one of todays most important international conflicts.
Isn't it Hadley's job to know what he's talking about and to not make this kind of mistake? And if he does make that mistake, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard, especially the second or third time he makes the same mistake? Don't we pay his salary?
As far as I know, Michel Obama has not had her hand in my pocket yet. I don't pay her salary. What she says or what Cindy McCain says is of no importance to me.
Worrier,
I view it as simply a momentary confusion on the part of Hadley. I think we've all made a similar mistake when speaking. Maybe you haven't, but I have.
I'm willing to be he does know the difference between the two so to me it is a non-issue. A simple gaffe and nothing more. If you want to read more into this than what is actually there, by all means you are free to do so.
I don't really have a problem with it, and I don't have a problem with other candidates mis-statements.
But lets hold everyone accountable or no-one.
and an advisor mistakenly substituting Nepal when he should have said Tibet.
Not just "an advisor" THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, who didn't screw up once, but over and over again, demonstrating he doesn't know the difference between Tibet, Nepal, and Shinola.
"Yeah, they knew what he was talking about and understood it was a slip up."
Yeah, and that's their job. To cover for the MAN, right?
No wonder this country is in deep s**t.
Once is a slip-up... Five times, Sue. FIVE TIMES.
Five effing times proves it: Heckuva Job Hadley is yet another in a long long line of Bush Administration incompetents.
Exactly, I didn't see it as any kind of "attack" on Hadley, but the fact that the AP scrubbed his quotes without issuing a correction
Seems that a lot of these posts get misrepresented as attacks against the object, rather than the subject.
One needn't attack Hadley when his own words display out his massive incompetence.
"Looks like ABC beat you to the punch and corrected the misinformation."
That's ABC, not AP. Read the article.
It raises serious questions why a news organization like AP would not just scrub, but EDIT, an administration gaffe.
The corporate media is corrupt and on the take. There's no other explanation for this deliberate fabrication of AP's. They are nothing more than propaganda-meisters.
I've got a question. Why didn't Stephanopoulos correct him? Guess he wasn't paying attention?
I must protest. A comment like that takes Lhasa nerve. :-)
No wonder everyone thinks you're an Apso...
I was thinking the same thing yesterday, why no correction from George? We always get threads on here that someone failed to correct someone, so I am bewildered as to why he gets a pass on this one?
Regardless, it is not a big deal in my mind afterall Hillary Clinton said she was under sniperfire , but she mispoke and we all took her word for it. I did not see any MMFA article on that one.
Considering this entire thread is about accuracy, it is quite accurate in the AP report that they end the "quotations" before Tibet.
Unlike the above from MMFA where they reference the AP article and place the " marks after Tibet. Why?
Read the two and compare, MMFA did not repeat it accurately in their summary with regard to where the quotation marks ended, why not?
I mean, when you place a thread like this about someone else's mistake/inaccuracy, shouldn't you be held to the same standard?
I just told you why not. It's because MMFA is quoting the AP, not Hadley. When you quote within a quote, you use apostrophe's to indicate it, which is exactly what MMFA did.
From the MMFA summary: " 'The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue,' Hadley said. 'I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about' Tibet."
Everywhere you see an apostrophe (') above, you instead see quotations (") in the AP article.
Copy and paste of the MMFA summary, with pertinent punctuation in bold:
" 'The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue,' Hadley said. 'I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about' Tibet."
Copy and paste of the AP article, with pertinent punctuation in bold:
"The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue," Hadley said. "I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about" Tibet.
MMFA quoted the AP accurately and indicated AP's quote of Hadley accurately, including the AP's unquote one word before Hadley uttered "Nepal."
MMFA had to distinguish Hadley's words within the AP quote by using apostrophe's.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, there's nothing wrong with MMFA's quote of the AP.
Pete,
I accept your reasoned explanation, I can see where I was wrong here. I apologize. My punctuation skills need work.
"Exactly. MMFA is inaccurately quoting the AP article by their own placement of the quotation marks. Can't you see that?"
They are doing no such thing. And the point of MMFA here is that the AP was covering for the administration.
MMFA is correct. You're not.
Wrong again Tom. The correct way to "repair" the quote is thus:
"This whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about [Tibet]."
MMFA quoting the AP: " 'The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue,' Hadley said. 'I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about' Tibet."
MMFA is showing you where the quote was accurate, and where it was incorrect.
""The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue," Hadley said. "I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about" Tibet."
Better?
~ We might view it the same had you [~] have taken the MSU journalism courses I did. ~
How dare you!? As a pround Alumnus of Tilda University, I repeat: How dare you!?
Can't wait TILDA next time we talk. See ya.
Let the record show that I never graduated due to my poor spelling...
~ = tilde.
Is it rue that the Board of Directors of the thing called "the Associated Press" is now under the influence of the person called "rupert murdoch"?
Let's start a public dialogue shall we, outside (of course) of the idiot "media" public dialogue, as to what does and does not constitute a threat, to the American People, and their National Security, and their Democracy...
A dialogue about the person rupert murdoch:
Devil and murderous (saudi 9/11 and Iraq) threat to the American People?
Or Saint and Saviour?
I was watching, and Hadley made this mistake at least four, and maybe half-a-dozen times. I'm still wondering what led to this. My first thought was that it might be an overly subtle way of gaining credibility for his excuse that he kept "forgetting" that the sixteen words about Iraq and Niger's yellowcake were untrue, and kept trying to put them into speeches until they finally made it into the SOTU.
I think it's more likely that this crowd doesn't really know, or care, about the differences between those backward, roof-of-the world countries.
No, i just think it was a mistake, arent people allowed to make mistakes sometimes?
Sue, in the grand scope of things, the Bush administration doesn't really matter, and in the grand scope of things, the earth as a whole doesn't really matter.
btw, "In the grand scope of things" is a terribly subjective phrasing.
conch,
Time to MOVE ON my friend. You are repeating a canard about those 16 words. A quick check at factcheck says the following:
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
- A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
- A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
- Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
- Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.htmlNice cherrypicking there AA. If you finish reading the article, it seems that this would be an important item:
"None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech."
TR,
You are moving the goalpost. I only proved conch was wrong saying Bush lied in those 16 words.
If Mom asked if I did the dishes, and I said yes, (while thinking: "I did them yesterday," am I lying?
Bush knew there was no attempt by SH to purchase uranium, but he said it anyway.
Therick wrote:
>>
Nice cherrypicking there AA. If you finish reading the article, it seems that this would be an important item:
More importantly, factcheck gets it wrong. (The problem with so-called neutral fact checking agencies is, who checks them?) The British report is completely sealed, so we can't check its veracity. It was viewed as a whitewash in Britain, something factcheck leaves out. It is very doubtful that the 16 words are based on anything other than the bogus document. Certainly, nothing has come out since, and given how hard it is for any country to acquire uranium, I doubt there is any other. It should have been pretty obvious before the war that Saddam had no way to secretly purchase uranium.
The US report is seriously flawed, which you would expect, since the report was produced by members who voted for the war (both Dems and Repubs). The report doesn't explain why in December the CIA removed them from a speech, but then put them back in The State of the Union speech. And again, no serious analyst would have believed that Saddam really tried to buy yellowcake. It would be like a famous criminal under 24 hour survelliance trying to rob a bank.
Did y'all hear Bill this morning...
"You know, I got tickled the other day. A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me. But there was a lot of fulminating because Hadley, one time late at night when he was exhausted, misstated — the geography of Nepal and Tibet. Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up.
And you woulda thought, you know, that he'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 at night, too.”
That oughta fix everything.
Wes,
It all depends on what your definition of "Nepal" is. ;-)
-- What he's (Pres. Bush) doing on Nepal is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels, and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights -- Hadley
And I can't believe the left doesn't get the diplomatic nuances of Pres. Bush's strategy...if we can't stop the communists in Tibet...what's next...Nepal? Cowboy...hah!
It all depends on what your definition of "Nepal" is.
It's definitely not defined as "Tibet."
And frankly it isn't surprising considering his disregard for the sanctity of human life, that he might confuse Tibet with Nepal and be unaware that the Chinese government has been committing genocide in Tibet since they invaded it in the 1950s.
And people are supposed to know the difference between the religious groups in Iraq.
Let us simplify this for the Administration...
Nebet and Tipal....there, our president can learn about these two new countries. That should keep him busy on the learnin' stuff 'til January and keep him out of Iran.
You would think the former assistant to the National Security Advisor would know the difference between Nepal and Tibet wouldn't you?
DUHHHHHH!!!What am I thinking he worked for Condi and Bush. I'm just Joanna Blow average citizen and I know the difference between Tibet and Nepal. Cripes these people are dumb. =0
No. If he showed Hadley's stupidity, he probably wouldn't get any more Administration guests on his show.
W - Not just stupid, but petty, too.
Yellow,
The scrubbing was probably more to protect Stephanapoulos than Hadley. GS looks ridiculous for not catching the gaffe.
"Never attriboute to malicious conspiracy what can adequately be explained as simple stupidity."
If you got three journalists together, they couldn't agree on where to have lunch -- much less engage in a "conspiracy" to cover up some policy wonk's verbal mistakes.
AP is a wire service, rushing stuff out on deadline. I would argue that the way they placed the quotation marks was simply a way to correct the obvious mistatement.
While something like the NY Times may find it useful to go into details like Hadley's mistake (and Stephanopoulos' failure to correct him), AP is feeding to a broad market that is more interested in the actual policy than the inside-the-Beltway "gotchas." Also, many (most?) of the papers picking up the AP feed are likely to use only part of it in a brief or an insert to another story -- they just want the relevant facts.
And THERICK? You need to check out a copy of the AP Stylebook. Square brackets are specifically forbidden because they do not transmit on the wire -- the use of quote marks in the AP piece is exactly the way the Stylebook says to do it.
But the point is, MMFA is blasting the AP for doing exactly the job it is supposed to do: Feed material that subscribers can use.
Whether you like it or not, most local/regional papers wouldn't run a "policy wonk suffers fumble mouth" piece -- and if they did want it, they could get it from the NY Times wire.
Here's the video of Hadley's comments. He definitely says Nepal where he means Tibet; and these are the kind of people we have running our country.
http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=9130