BellSouth Demands a Retraction
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, BellSouth demanded that USAToday retract portions of their story alleging that BellSouth, Verizon, and AT&T had provided the NSA customer call records.
According reportage in the Washington Post:
"BellSouth is now insisting that USA Today retract the false and unsubstantiated statements that it made in regards to our company," said BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher, noting that his company on Monday said its preliminary review found that it had no contract with the NSA and that it had not provided customer data en masse to the intelligence agency…
Privacy advocates believe statements from the companies leave open the possibility that they may have provided calling data to the government, even if they did not do so under a contract with the NSA as the USA Today story said…
In its denial on Monday, BellSouth did not address whether it might have provided such records outside of a contract or to an agency other than the NSA, but the BellSouth spokesman said it had not. "To the best of our review, we have not provided any bulk or wholesale customer calling records to any governmental agency," Battcher said. "People are thinking we are trying to be cute and trying to mince words here and we're really not."
There is much that has and does stink about this story.
Read on.
[editor's note, by streiff] Human Events has a rundown here
[editor's note, by streiff] Marc Schulman at American Future has more.
[editor's note, by streiff] Powerline has more
[editor's note, by streiff] fake but accurate is the way it is shaping up.
First, the USA Today story was a recycling of old reporting. As documented over at NewBusters, the New York Times had covered the same territory in December 2005.
And for all of the hype, there may not even be much “news” here. Last December 24, a few days after they spilled the beans about the NSA terrorist surveillance program, New York Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen disclosed how U.S. phone companies were helping the NSA by giving them “access to streams of domestic and international communications.”
It seems that USA Today buffed up a stale story and used the May 8 nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to head the CIA as a hook to get some attention and sell a few papers.
Second, almost from the beginning there have been rumors that there might not be much there, there in the USA Today story, in fact, that it might even be a deliberate leak.
A Washington Post-ABC Poll showed that 63 percent of American said they approved when asked:
“It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?”
I was a bit skeptical of the whole deliberate leak concept until yesterday’s hearing when Sen. Carl Levin made a most curious statement to GEN Hayden:
"Disclosing parts of the [NSA] program that might be the most palatable and acceptable to the American people, while maintaining secrecy about parts that may be troubling to the public until they are leaked, is unacceptable," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, at the opening of Thursday's hearing.
It is understandable that Levin would be upset if the NSA was leaking information that made it and the Administration look good. Were this Henry “Nostrildamus” Waxman I would have written this off to the latest moonbat conspiracy theory his staff filched off dKos, but, as moonbats go, Levin is pretty reasonable.
Lastly, the reporter herself lends credence to all theories, that not only was the story used to bash GEN Hayden but that the story might very well have been designed to embarrass USA Today.
According to the sleuths at NewsBusters, Leslie Cauley is a major Democrat contributor, though not a particular bright one having given $2,000 to the cigar-store-Indian-wannabe Dick Gephardt. This explains the attempted sandbagging of GEN Hayden. While she was being beatified in the afterglow of a story that would surely bring down the evil Chimpy McBushitlerHalliburton regime she made this rather incredible claim about her now evaporating story and credibility.
“Like any reporter,” she says, “one thread leads to another leads to another” in the “messy process of reporting.”
Part of the messy process was clearing the use of anonymous sources, on which the story was based.
Says Cauley: “This further validates the use of confidential, unnamed sources. They have a real value in our business.”
A real value, eh? I’m sure Mary Mapes thought the same thing.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The making of an ex-Marine? — Comments (23) »
BellSouth Demands a Retraction 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
- I haven't but they have paper boxes by the Metro stations in DC so I assume some does, either that or they just pay people to keep the papers new.
- I qualified it by saying "as moonbats go", I'm not comparing him to the universe of rational people.
- Agreed.
...now is for USA Today to issue a statement (ala Dan Rather) that although the facts are made up the story is still true.
McPaper always had great baseball coverage, although they've squeezed the space they give to stats now that that's more easily available on the web. The paper also covers the Supreme Court better than most MSM outlets.
In the spirit of your recent coverage on Atrocities and PTSD recycling, I thought you should check out this link http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyi
d=2006-05-19T171220Z_01_N19384748_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-HOMELESS-VETERANS.xml&a
mp;src=rss&rpc=22
It's chock full of the same clichees that are forever spouted about the military. 'Experts say' that the soldier, whose lower-class neighborhood was preyed upon by recruiters, fell behind her peers...neglecting to mention how many are now dead or in some stage of the criminal justice system.
Regardless of the truth of the story, the class action against them will almost certainly be thrown out on national security grounds. That leaves the court of public opinion as the only court of competent jurisdiction. A forceful denial is obviously in their interests vis-a-vis public opinion.
I would rather read one of those free papers with all the massage parlor ads in the back. They usually have much better reporting and sometimes their stories are even detailed enough that they need to be continued on another page.
That's what I was seeing on some unmentionable sites. Yet again the liberal small fry and camp followers are led like nose-ringed pigs to another 72 hr non-scandal. Oh, but the thrill while it lasted! Do these apes ever realize, or even suspect, that they're being played for fools.
The proof being in the pudding, Haydn had a fairly easy time of it from some who were outraged the day before. Now on to the next non=scandal. this one being about six months old.
How would you like to be the journo with 'the big inside story' only to have it crash on you...
She got the 'big inside tip' from some half drunk idiot that was shuttled to the letter room or something.
I can't wait till these big telcos sue the newspaper for defamation.
A single anonymous source - you have to love it
That story is a blatant lie. It states, unecuivocally that she is a single mother and suggests that her son is a couple years old. Only thing is that it would be rather illegal to deploy a single mother. In fact, she'd have been discharged for becoming pregnant while single at all. And before I hear cries of sexism, the same is done to single fathers when the mother leaves them with the child (it happens more than people like to believe).
...Then again, perhaps it Is accurate. It wouldn't be the first time a female soldier purposely got herself pregnant while deployed. It typically ends in a bad-conduct discharge, which would contribute to her inability to find a home or a job (seeing as how such a discharge will follow her for the rest of her life and carries the same weight as a Felony conviction...)
After rereading the story, I find that they don't mention the character of her discharge. Or the reason for it...
They simply ask that the soldier maintain a family care plan. Frequently a single mother or father will be discharged, but often it is voluntary and far from universal. Regardless of the character of her discharge she would have had ample resources at her disposal. They frequently compare vets to the GP rather than to the socioeconomic group of origin; were they to analyze soldiers on this basis I think they would find they fare remarkably well.
They are discharged. Yes, it's usually "voluntary," because the unit wants to make it easier for the soldier to get back in once the dependency issue is dealt with. Occasionally they get to stay in, but if the unit is deployed, they're gone. That is 100%
In the case of a BDC, there are No government resources to help them. The DD214 that is usually such an aid to finding work, among other things, now becomes a liability as it tells the employer, landlord, etc that the veteran is unreliable and of weak character.
If she got herself pregnant while deployed, she very well might have gotten one.
"They frequently compare vets to the GP rather than to the socioeconomic group of origin; were they to analyze soldiers on this basis I think they would find they fare remarkably well."
You said it.
was facing a felony charge for domestic violence and still ended up with a general reverting to honorable in six months. I can say honestly that of all the discharges I have seen I have never seen a person dishonorably discharged. Of course it happens, but you have to screw up royally AND all the COC's legal ducks have to be in a row for it to work.
USAToday ... to sell a few papers
Has anyone ever actually bought USAToday --- I mean with, like, actual money, Dude :-)
...but, as moonbats go, Levin is pretty reasonable.
If you say so but only because I have great respect for you.
"This further validates the use of confidential, unnamed sources"
Ms. Cauley has a strange defintion of validation.