Oops.

April 7, 2005 6:55 AM

Senator's aide admits to writing "Schiavo Memo".Hoping for another "memogate" story, bloggers have been pushing accusations for the last few weeks that the highly-criticized GOP memo indicating the "political advantage" of the Terri Schiavo situation was a forgery or "dirty tricks" from Democrats. Today, the legal counsel to Florida Sen. Mel Martinez admitted to writing and distributing the memo (and promptly resigned.) Many bloggers who pushed the accusation are, shall we say, not exactly jumping at the opportunity to print mea culpas. Considering the growing debate about bloggers being treated as journalistic equals, what obligations does the blogosphere have to simply admit it was completely wrong on a story?
posted by XQUZYPHYR (64 comments total)

While the left/right stuff is unavoidable here, this story really reflects another issue- this isn't as much about Schiavo as it is about a major pet peeve found in the blogosphere- the apparent inabilty for bloggers to admit wrongdoing.

I've been reading a lot of stuff in the last few weeks/months about "citizen journalists" and yet these same bloggers seem to feel they should be given the same clout and integrity as journalists but in no way be beholden to the same standard of ethics. (Not to say many mainstream journos are devoid of those, either.)

I've always found it ironic that bloggers, who among all writers have the most extensive available archives on their sites, seem to be the group most resilient to ever correcting anything they said in the past. There almost seems to be a subconscious mentality among bloggers that they're never wrong- and if proven so, they just twist another angle.

I guess my question is, do cases like this prove that bloggers are a new breed of journalists in the vein of print media? Or are they merely a new breed of pundits akin to talking heads on shows like Crossfire and Hannity & Colmes? Long story short- is the Terri Schiavo "memogate" issue an overall positive or overall negative for "citizen journalism?"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:04 AM on April 7, 2005

I think it's wrong to generalize this too much wrt "bloggers" in the effort to construct a fpp-worthy post.

IMO, the Powerline folks are just rightwing partisan asshats with a net connection. Full stop.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:08 AM on April 7, 2005

I guess my question is, do cases like this prove that bloggers are a new breed of journalists in the vein of print media?

What a profoundly fucking stupid pretending-to-be-cutesey statement. ;)
posted by dhoyt at 7:12 AM on April 7, 2005

This was all due to a bunch of rightwing nutjobs talking about things that they knew nothing about. Schadenfreude is so very very sweet.
posted by bshort at 7:16 AM on April 7, 2005

Heywood, I think it has everything to do with bloggers. The entire argument that the memo was fake was conceived, written, and pushed by bloggers, mainly PowerLine. Because bloggers are the "in" thing, the media is taking cues from them in ways no source has ever been listened to before. Five years ago, the "evidence" bloggers presented on this story would have been laughed at if suggested as rock-solid proof. Powerline actually has posts saying "it's clear that these memos are fake." So does Malkin, and so does the Washington Post because they listened to them. Now they're all wrong, and the response isn't to appreciate ethics, but pretend they don't exist.

That's why I'm asking about the "new breed" thing. Are bloggers really going to "replace" mainstream journalism like this? My opinion is no. I think it lowers the credibility of the bloggers fighting for journalistic rights (and protections) when top-tier bloggers act as though they have no responsibility.

What a profoundly fucking stupid pretending-to-be-cutesey statement. ;)

Huh? Other than stalking me with a petty personal grudge, what does that link have to do with my question?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:21 AM on April 7, 2005

When this story broke, did anyone doubt that PowerLine would refuse to admit error for items like Answer: Yes, which accepted as a given that the Schiavo memo was fake?

PowerLine was so certain the memo was fake they were pre-emptively outraged to have received no credit for breaking the story.

Heaven knows we're not in this for the glory (Ed.: No, it's the money.), but wasn't it a little cheesy of the Times not to acknowledge that this story was broken and pursued by us and a handful of other bloggers? We know that we are widely read at the Times; the day is long past when newspapers and magazines can fail to credit bloggers in the expectation, I assume, that no one will notice.

I visited that blog this morning knowing they would find a way to avoid eating crow.

There's nothing about the medium of blogging that prevents its authors from being self-important and tendentious blowhards who are criminally incapable of admitting their own mistakes, even as they obsess over the same flaws in other writers. Call it Hinderaker's Law.
posted by rcade at 7:22 AM on April 7, 2005

Sorry dhoyt. The linked question was stupid. The one you quote (poorly, as you left off the following "Or.." bit) is at least an interesting discussion.
posted by jalexei at 7:24 AM on April 7, 2005

Never admitting that you're wrong -- about WMDs, the Saddam-9/11 connection, troop deployments, evolution, and same-sex marriage -- isn't just some tic of the blogosphere, it's how this former democracy is now run. Why should they admit anything, when the stonewall technique has worked so well for our President, and for alcoholic fathers, for years?
posted by digaman at 7:24 AM on April 7, 2005

It's plain and simple - Martinez is a paid Demorat.
posted by iamck at 7:30 AM on April 7, 2005

the media is taking cues from them in ways no source has ever been listened to before

Right. This is a problem with the media, not the bloggers.

Kinda like people complaining about lawyers when arguably silly personal injury awards come down when it is the judges + juries making the decisions.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:30 AM on April 7, 2005

I guess my question is, do cases like this prove that bloggers are a new breed of journalists in the vein of print media? Or are they merely a new breed of pundits akin to talking heads on shows like Crossfire and Hannity & Colmes?

Yes.

Long story short- is the Terri Schiavo "memogate" issue an overall positive or overall negative for "citizen journalism?"

Positive. Discerning readers begin to see who are pushing agendas with no regard to truth. Undiscerning readers never cared and probably never will.
posted by mania at 7:32 AM on April 7, 2005

Did Harkin (or possibly someone else) misinform the reporters about the source, nature and distriubtion of the memo, or did the reporters see the memo and leap to the wrong conclusion?

They not only fail to offer a retraction, at the bottom of their post, while they're effectively trying to line up Harkin for the fall, they even back away from the bit that rcade posted, pretending that they did not (now) break the story. Which is it? Did Harkin misinform them, or did they fail to get credit for Harkin misinforming them?

The larger question is a good one, an yet another reason that the New Journalism is a lot like the New Economy-something built on image that cannot sustain that image with the substance that it lacks. I like blogs, but what they lack is the kind of regulatory functions that newspapers have built in to the process of printing a story. This is partly because too many blogs are only frequented by those that already agree with them and are willing to overlook errors in fact if it fits the political agenda. This is true on Right and Left.
posted by OmieWise at 7:32 AM on April 7, 2005

I agree that this basically comes down to Powerline and their ilk being delusional hacks.
posted by McBain at 7:34 AM on April 7, 2005

I think these bloggers are trying to get their facts wrong. Didn't you know? If you get your facts wrong, you get rewarded with plum positions at The World Bank.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:42 AM on April 7, 2005

This thing is absolutely hilarious. My favorite update on powerline is that the new scandal is Tom Harkin's fault.

I'm learning to enjoy right-wing absurdism, now that it's clear that I have to live with it for a while. Left-wing absurdism is good too, but the right-wingers seem to more reliably humorous.
posted by mosch at 7:44 AM on April 7, 2005

The lack of apology or retraction hardly surprises. When all of your readers have one political bent, anti-Dem, no one will call you to account for your inability to admit you were wrong. Sites like Powerline are not about news but rather about shoehorning news into a preconceived belief system. They are designed to produce compliance not knowledge. Combine that with the desire to get the next big blogosphere scoop on the "MSM" and you are going to get lots of these false accusations with no retraction later. It's silly in some respects as the next time they will be just that much less credible to the general public. However, the kool-ade drinkers at the site will buy their lame non-excuses and they are the real audience anyway. Preaching to the choir is so much easier than to the grubby masses anyway.
posted by caddis at 7:50 AM on April 7, 2005

What's most shameful about all this is that Howie Kurtz (the putz) actually publishes their spin in the Washington Post while ignoring reporters at his own paper who were saying otherwise.

If anyone gets their facts wrong, they owe it to their readers to print/blog a prominent apology/correction--whether print or online.
posted by amberglow at 7:55 AM on April 7, 2005

and ignoring the sourced vouching for the memo by ABC and others. Apparently that means nothing to Kurtz if he can propagate Rightwing spin and lies.
posted by amberglow at 7:56 AM on April 7, 2005

also--the Legal Counsel for a Senator is not an "aide"

It's an important position.
posted by amberglow at 7:59 AM on April 7, 2005

from abc story:

"Until this afternoon, I had never seen it and had no idea a copy of it had ever been in my possession," Martinez said of the document.

[from page 2] Martinez, in his statement, said Harkin had asked for background information on the bill ordering a federal court to review the Schiavo case.

He said he pulled a one-page document from his coat pocket and handed to Harkin. "Unbeknownst to me … I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo."

hmm. . . just blindly passed out a paper from his pocket in response to a question without looking at it, a paper he claimed he didn't know was ever there.

Otherwise, I like the question posed by this thread. Power needs to have accountability. While MSM accountability sometimes seems threadbare, for bloggers, it's non-existent. So far. . . Are we going to soon run into a high profile defamation case against bloogers?

With spell-check, I prefer bloogers to bloggers.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:16 AM on April 7, 2005

“Before this year, blogs were a curiosity, a cult phenomenon, a faintly embarrassing hobby on the order of ham radio and stamp collecting. But in 2004, blogs unexpectedly vaulted into the pantheon of major media, alongside TV, radio and, yes, magazines, and it was Power Line, more than any other blog, that got them there,”

--TIME Magazine's Lev Grossman
posted by sharksandwich at 8:19 AM on April 7, 2005

This reminds me how LGF is still gloating over the "Dan Rather memos" and how they broke the story on them being fake.
But no one to this day has found out who faked them, and they sure aren't trying to find out THAT little detail.
posted by Balisong at 8:22 AM on April 7, 2005

i think blogs should have "accuracy ratings" much like the ebay score. As more and more people turn to blogs for their news sources, the cream will rise to the top and the crap will sink to the bottom.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 8:23 AM on April 7, 2005

the apparent inability for bloggers to admit wrongdoing.

every day, in cities across the nation, "real" journalists smear and print sensational rumors about people. in every case the people involved have been suspected, accused, or alleged to have committed some crime or ethical breach. in those instances where said people are later judged blameless, i have NEVER seen "real" journalists commit equivalent time, effort or page space to the fact. ever. until such time as bloggers consistently and habitually outperform their "real" counterparts in fair and ethical behavior they will remain amusing journalist wannabes. besides, most bloggers are more pundit than reporter.
posted by quonsar at 8:26 AM on April 7, 2005

The point that needs to be made here is that it was ludicrous to ever believe with any sort of outrage that these kinds of talking points are not 'usual business' for the Republicans. Get real.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:32 AM on April 7, 2005

It's wholly dependent upon us to not buy into the "bloggers are journalists" hype. If an online writer wants to be a journalist, then I suggest they take some journalism courses and try to get hired at their local rag. Until they have a byline and answer to an editor, all of this crowing is for naught and the reading public can neither demand nor expect retractions, apologies or corrections.
posted by gsh at 8:41 AM on April 7, 2005

It's warm outside. Last night, there was baseball on the radio. And look - the first douchebags of the new year are already in full bloom.

It's Spring again.
posted by trondant at 8:43 AM on April 7, 2005

Bloggers are unable to admit wrongdoing for the same reason you can't change your Dad's mind about Bush, or you can't win an argument with that guy in the bar, or people on Crossfire can't agree on anything, or Hannity or O'Reilly or Coulter exist, or your roommate won't admit that he peed in the sink last night.

People are stubborn jerks. That's all. If there's no immediate penalty for maintaining your position in the face of overwhelming evidence, then why change your mind?
posted by fungible at 8:44 AM on April 7, 2005

Metafilter: the first douchebags of the new year are already in full bloom.

(I know that little joke is annoying and stupid, but I just can't get enough of doing it. I might need an intervention.)
posted by OmieWise at 8:57 AM on April 7, 2005

Metafilter: I might need an intervention.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:02 AM on April 7, 2005

How many pundits and op-ed writers ever issue corrections or mea culpas? I know that I've read a few but mostly they just keep going forward making predictions and never publicly score how well (or not) they did in the past. It seems like they think that if they admit that they ever get anything wrong, then no one will listen to them again. Or maybe they just think that objective truth is irrelevant.
posted by octothorpe at 9:03 AM on April 7, 2005

Metafilter: I love this joke!

--

I always thought the whole Schiavo thing was political grandstanding, but what isn't? Rare is the politician that does something right, or good, for the sake of the people. Reminds me of another great Empire, long ago.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:12 AM on April 7, 2005

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! "
posted by cows of industry at 9:12 AM on April 7, 2005

Enough about this supposed inability to admit being wrong -- it's definitely not proper to bloggers. In fact admitting wrongdoing, whether it is at the corporate (remember Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers?), political ("Saddam could deploy chemical weapons in 45 minutes") or journalistic level, is positively a rarity.

I'd go so far as to say that Dan Rather's resignation was pretty much the only example of honorable behaviour I've seen at the higher levels of American society in quite some time, and his name keeps getting dragged through the mud precisely because he's taken the intellectually honest stand and admitted that he was wrong.

Let's face it, the honorable way just doesn't pay off. What happens to people who obstinately stick with erroneous ways as though they were correct? They're re-elected (W), promoted (Rice), or given cushy new political appointments (Wolfowitz).
posted by clevershark at 9:14 AM on April 7, 2005

quonsar has a point. Traditional media don't bother with big retractions or admitting wrong doing, so why would the online wannabes be more willing to admit culpability? When you want to be like your big brother, and be treated as his equal you're not going to start going around apologizing for stuff big bro would brush off. That'd make you uncool.

On Preview: exactly what clevershark said.
posted by raedyn at 9:16 AM on April 7, 2005

I was unfortunate enough to watch some CNN a few weeks ago. I don't even remember what the topic was, but I almost lost my lunch when the well-groomed newsbot commentator said something like "Let's turn to the blogosphere for some commentary." And then the swoosh-swoosh sound and the other female newsbot, only this time with glasses on. Cuz, like, people on the internets wear glasses.

Thank God for the Daily Show.

And memo to Republicans: "Culture of Life" my ass.
posted by bardic at 9:19 AM on April 7, 2005

the highly-criticized GOP memo indicating the "political advantage" of the Terri Schiavo situation was a forgery or "dirty tricks" from Democrats.

I'm a Democrat and let me tell ya, we're just not smart enough to do stuff like that...
posted by Doohickie at 9:20 AM on April 7, 2005

And memo to Republicans: "Culture of Life" my ass.

Few people are picking up on the irony that Tom DeLay, who led the Schiavo charge, is an exterminator by trade -- he used to literally sell death.
posted by clevershark at 9:26 AM on April 7, 2005

Blogosphere
posted by fixedgear at 9:33 AM on April 7, 2005

what does that link have to do with my question?

never, as always. dhoyt just doesn't like you so he's trying to crap on your post, he is unable to comment on substance whenever the right wing looks bad (which, thankfully, happens daily). anyway to be disliked by fascists -- even by two-bit ones -- is always a honor, XQUZ. a sign you're doing the right thing
posted by matteo at 9:35 AM on April 7, 2005

i think blogs should have "accuracy ratings" much like the ebay score. As more and more people turn to blogs for their news sources, the cream will rise to the top and the crap will sink to the bottom.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 11:23 AM EST on April 7 [!]


Good idea but I need details. The only reason it works on ebay (even there it can be abused) is that the only 2 people allowed to comment were involved in a (potentially) mutually desirable transaction with each other. Can you imagine what would happen if anyone could get into someone's feedback and just post whatever they want? Don't like the guy that sells those support the troops magnets or blow up dolls? No problem. Just get your posse to "get the word out" by posting negs.
posted by a_day_late at 9:46 AM on April 7, 2005

Few people are picking up on the irony that Tom DeLay, who led the Schiavo charge, is an exterminator by trade -- he used to literally sell death.

Probably because it's a laughable overstretch, unless DeLay's business was to exterminate people instead of pests. I've never heard a culture of lifer extend the principle outside of humankind and fetuskind. There's much better irony in the culture of life's feelings about the death penalty and war.
posted by rcade at 9:55 AM on April 7, 2005

The NY Times Sucks! although they seem to admit their mistakes, which we don't actually do
posted by destro at 9:59 AM on April 7, 2005

...what obligations does the blogosphere have to simply admit it was completely wrong on a story?

Absolutely none. Caveat emptor baby, caveat it's the freakin' internet emptor.

This sort of issue has no form of recourse unless the blogs were part of some group that had a code of ethics and the power to enforce it. Don't see that happening any time soon.
posted by furtive at 10:02 AM on April 7, 2005

There's much better irony in the culture of life's feelings about the death penalty and war.

That's not irony, that's just pure hypocrisy.
posted by clevershark at 10:10 AM on April 7, 2005

Caveat emptor baby, caveat it's the freakin' internet emptor.

Nah... this transcends the internet. It's just human behaviour to never want to admit "wrongness" (if that's even a word), and it's also human behaviour (I think) to automatically think worse of someone who admits to being wrong, as opposed to someone who is wrong but will not admit it, even though in terms of pure reasoning it's clearly the wrong course.

I think that as humans we naturally want mind to triumph over matter, and this is just how that belief is expressed. That's why someone who lies in one matter, must keep lying even when there is evidence of the lie.
posted by clevershark at 10:16 AM on April 7, 2005

I wonder how ParisParamus feels about this...
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:23 AM on April 7, 2005

I have a fault: I always want to be right. I learned a time back that when I quickly admit I was wrong, #1. I will be right in saying I was wrong; #2. I will not continue being wrong. #3. I will gain some street credibility in admitting when I was wrong. #4. So what? I was wrong.
There have been a number of competent politicians that were able to admit to being wrong. Lincoln on McLellan, Eisenhower made a number of speeches that admitted to the limits of his and human abilities in decision making.
One of my favorite philosophies is from Truman. Don't wait to be certain you are right. First, make a decision. If its wrong, acknowledge that and correct it.
Truman got a lot accomplished. And made a few mistakes along the way.
You don't have to follow the George W. model.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:37 AM on April 7, 2005

why, PP is at this very moment in court filing indictments for Bush and crew, no? /in our dreams

The problem isn't that bloggers lie. It's that their lies (and it's only those coming from Rightwing blogs) are immediately picked up and propagated by the mainstream media. They've already become part of the noise machine they have going. How many Powerline references have there been in mainstream sources already this past year? How much of that dealt with fact? Can anyone name an equally-cited leftwing or even moderate blogger?
posted by amberglow at 10:39 AM on April 7, 2005

Daily Kos has coverage of this, and proves my point that this phenomenon is far from being limited to bloggers.

I was going to say that this and the Americablog article give one a handy list of "journalists" (and I use the word very loosely indeed) whose integrity could use some questioning, but then let's face it, I already have no trust whatsoever for the likes of Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin anyway, nor do most people who haven't drunk Dubya's kool-aid.
posted by clevershark at 10:49 AM on April 7, 2005

As for the rating, perhaps some sort of, I dunno, watchdog group what could rate the veracity of claims made by major media sources, including blogs? I've heard of these things, I think that they exist...
posted by klangklangston at 10:51 AM on April 7, 2005

There almost seems to be a subconscious mentality among bloggers that they're never wrong- and if proven so, they just twist another angle.

We see that around here plenty. Not only people refusing to admit when they're wrong, but often not even open to the possibility that then might be (and it comes from both sides.) (My opinion: Righties are more often guilty of the former while are Lefties more often guilty of the latter.) We just do it as a group while other people are doing it solo.
posted by Cyrano at 11:17 AM on April 7, 2005

Damn the facts, many loud white men with commanding voices told me it was a forgery last week and my heart tells me to believe them.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:26 AM on April 7, 2005

One may be certain, and be wrong. In fact the more certain one is, the greater the probability of his being wrong.
posted by clevershark at 11:29 AM on April 7, 2005

Clevershark: I am certain that 1+1=2. My certainty is pretty strong. I have a greater probability in being wrong about that than my belief in God, which I have a very low certainty in?
I think your aphorism is shallow.
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 PM on April 7, 2005

I think your aphorism is shallow. and his mother dresses him funny.

The serious issue for me is not blogo- vs. soybasedinko-sphere but our devolvement back to the bad old days of Father Coughlin and the sad fact that lies repeated often, and loud enough become accepted truth.

It's not about right or left for me (even though in my mind it does come down bad on one side more often) but rather it comes down to acting ethically because it is the right thing to do, not the ends-justifying-the means behavior so prevalent in elected office these days.
posted by beelzbubba at 12:48 PM on April 7, 2005

Blogorrhea The "Huffington Report," as Ms. Huffington has dubbed it, will also feature such boldface bloggers as Senator Jon Corzine, David Geffen, Viacom co-chief Tom Freston, Barry Diller, Tina Brown and Gwyneth Paltrow. If the name seems to echo that of the Drudge Report—the mega-site operated by the rightward-tilting unofficial editorial director of America’s news cycle, Matt Drudge—well, it’s supposed to. And Mr. Beatty approved of that.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:52 PM on April 7, 2005

Few people are picking up on the irony that Tom DeLay, who led the Schiavo charge, is an exterminator by trade -- he used to literally sell death.

They don't seem to be getting the irony of DeLay and his family suing the manufacturer of the tram product that eventually landed his father on life support until he and his family decided to pull the plug either.

In fact, most stories in the newspapers stop at the part about the life support and don't even mention the law suit.

Tort reform. suuuuure.

Chicago Tribune article (sub req)
Los Angeles Times article (sub req)
posted by terrapin at 1:30 PM on April 7, 2005

The serious issue for me is not blogo- vs. soybasedinko-sphere but our devolvement back to the bad old days of Father Coughlin and the sad fact that lies repeated often, and loud enough become accepted truth.
Yup. They've taken to a new level now, tho--with only lies all the time--from 9/11 to Iraq to SS to everything.

Father Coughlin (and his radio topics) (for those who never heard of him) Known as "The Fighting Priest," he was very controversial with his anti-Semitic, pro-Fascist broadcasts.

He and Roy Cohn are in my mind a lot lately.

RawStory already is an Anti-Drudge, i find.
posted by amberglow at 2:31 PM on April 7, 2005

CNN anchor and Limbaugh's girlfriend Daryl Kagan today: ... what's the big deal? .... But here's what I don't get it, when I look at it, it just seems -- is this town just too sensitive. It just seems the fight over removing Schiavo's tube, it was a political issue, it did come up, and the Democrats did have a tough time with it. I think a lot of people felt they didn't speak up like they should have. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:05 PM on April 7, 2005

More on the DeLay-Alexander Strategy-Memo connections: The Alexander Strategy Group was formed by Rep. DeLay’s former Chief of Staff Ed Buckham, who also introduced Rep. DeLay to corporate lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Former DeLay aide Jim Ellis, who was indicted for money laundering, was a consultant to ASG. Former DeLay staffer Tony Rudy, former DeLay PAC director Karl Gallant, and Rep. DeLay’s spouse, Christine DeLay, all worked for ASG.
posted by amberglow at 5:17 PM on April 7, 2005

While waiting for the Corey video to download, with time on my hands, I thought I'd add to this thread.
The rightwing bloggers by creating this conspiracy have given this memo much more significance. They have essentially been claiming, this memo is so awful it must be a left-wing smear conspiracy campaign. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:43 PM on April 7, 2005

"The NY Times Sucks! although they seem to admit their mistakes, which we don't actually do
posted by destro at 9:59 AM PST on April 7 [!]" -

" In this meticulously researched study—the first part of a two-volume work—Howard Friel and Richard Falk demonstrate how the newspaper of record in the United States has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States. From Vietnam in the 1960s to Nicaragua in the 1980s and Iraq today, the authors accuse the New York Times of serial distortions. They claim that such coverage now threatens not only world legal order but constitutional democracy in the United States.

Falk and Friel show that, despite numerous US threats to invade Iraq, and despite the fact that an invasion of one country by another implicates fundamental aspects of the UN Charter and international law, the New York Times editorial page never mentioned the words “UN Charter” or “international law” in any of its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2003"
posted by troutfishing at 11:11 PM on April 7, 2005

Hello troutfishing, and welcome back. I haven't seen you in, like, forever (and no, we've never met, though I emailed you once before I became a filthy $5 noob in November).
posted by Doohickie at 9:24 PM on April 11, 2005