1. Who exactly is doing the pressuring?

2. It seems to me that the Republicans are in charge of the administration, so why would they want to do this? Or do you really think they'd be sneaky enough to do it so they could get articles like yours denouncing Dean?

Perhaps the Dean family is not responsible for pressuring the POW/MIA organization into fast-tracking the results, but I don't think your implication that the Bush Administration is doing it as some sort of an effort to discredit Dean is all that credible either. It would be interesting to find out exactly why Charles Dean's remains have received a different treatment from that of other recovered civilian remains.

Aside from all of that, it is still wrong that his remains received an honor guard, no matter who is doing the pressuring.

Are you saying now that you meant to imply (because you never said) that it was the Dean family applying the pressure? And with no substantiation whatsoever?

I find that considerably less than admirable behavior, and a contradiction of the righteous tone you're taking.

And I'd still like an answer: who is supposed to be applying the pressure?

Since you posted the item attempting to discredit Dean, I think you're responsible for providing an accurate answer.

Or an apology.

As to the implication that it was the Bush administration, that was quite clearly inherent in your post.

Whoa, look who's taking a righteous tone.

It is my opinion that the Dean family has a hand in this situation. It is my opinion because I don't see anyone else with a truly vested interest in doing so.

I never outright stated my opinion in my post. The implication you allude to is inherent in the story, who else would you think would so something like this?

That is my answer, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for it.

Also, you implied that Bush's administration may have staged this event as a way to cast Dean in a poor light, with "no substantiation whatsoever."

Why is it ok for you to imply such a thing of the republicans, yet turn around and be offended at a perceived implication against the democrats?

Nah, Robbie, it's you that slung the mud with your orignal posting, so don't try to shovel it onto me.

I'm just asking you to show us that you have clean hands to go along with the righteousness. Anonymous claims of unsavory actions shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Nor should unsavory actions, of course, but so far, I see no proof of those.

(Sigh.) Airtight (see link below entry) has the real story. I've warned Robbie Port about parroting anything he reads at a far Right site. Still, he refuses to weigh the credibility of such sources or consider whether what is being said makes sense. If he did either, he would have left this kettle of fish alone. Oy vey!

The implication is clear in the story, Dean's brother is benefiting from honors he did not earn. I don't care who is behind it, its wrong. I happen to think the Deans are behind it. Big deal, its just my opinion.

Mac, why don't you just run off and accuse me of calling you names again? You seem to do better with lies.

You've warned me...Now that's funny.

Well, I've made a mistake:

Though Charlie Dean and his friend were civilians, they were given military honors, officials said, on the chance that the remains include those of service members missing in the Vietnam War.

"We don't know who we have until the lab says who we have," said Lt. Col. Gerald O'Hara, a spokesman for the Joint P.O.W./M.I.A. Accounting Command, which runs the international recovery missions and the forensic laboratory here. "Ninety-eight percent of the missing from this war were service members. We're treating everyone as if they could be a service member."

Perhaps 'suggested' is better. I am telling you the same thing I tell journalism students when I teach.

1) Consider the source.

2) Don't publish the information unless you have substantiation of it.

You choose to do neither. So be it. It is your credibility you are squandering.

Credibility? Mac, you'd better not go there. You are not credible. When it became clear that you were losing an argument with me on another post, you resorted to accusing me of calling you names (which I proved never happened) while you were the one who refered to me as a racist and a bigot.

Now I have just posted an apology, or retraction I guess, on the above post. I've made a mistake and I've admitted it, but I won't have you implying that I've made the same mistake on every one of my posts. I have grown weary of your constant lies and personal attacks on my reuptation and character.

I have apologized about this post because I am an honest person. I have also posted a retraction on my website because I am an honest person. You, Mac Diva, are not an honest person and are the last person that I would ever listen to regarding my writing or opinions.

Mac Diva says she is a lawyer, a journalist, a published author of books. She is none of those things. She is more full of shit than a septic tank.

Personally, "I have grown weary of" the constant lies and innuendo, misinformation and disinformation from the hard right, then their expectation that when caught, all they have to say is "Oops, sorry" and everything is now okay.

It's not okay with me.

And liberal democrats have never been guilty of "constant lies and innuendo, misinformation and disinformation?"

I made a mistake. Me, a normal guy from North Dakota, not some political consultant for the political party. But I can see you're bent on dragging this issue through the mud to further your cause.

If you were really sincerely repentant, you would at the very least change the headline and most of the content of your post.

You're the author. You can do it. If you meant what you said.

PS: I'm neither a liberal nor a Democrat, and in fact have no party affiliations of any sort.

My interest when I made the first post was in finding out the truth because it seemed such an anonymous sliming, not even saying who was being slimed (though obviously some was meant to stick to Dean).

The way it worked out, it seems my interest was justified.

I'm not going to change the original post because I don't want to be accused of trying to "cover up" my mistake or anything like that. I think the fact that these comments are evident at the bottom of this post as well as trackbacks to my website where I have also retracted my statements.

Duh. Rob, I gave you good advice. It is too bad you lack the wisdom to appreciate it.

I'm with Hal and MD on this, and I am no Dean fan to be sure, but guys -- he made a mistake! He 'fessed up! He's not a pro!

Some advice from a 20+-year journalist: Get three independent corroborations before printing something as gospel.

Okay, instead of changing the exisiting content, how about adding some? Visitors to BC see the following when they look at the list of Et cetera items:

Dean's Brother Given Military Honors For Being A Tourist
From the Drudge Report: Active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are upset over being forced take part in a...

You could at least change what they see without changing any of the original by adding a bit of text in the "Excerpt" box of the editing page. This could be something as simple and innocuous as:

(Ignore ... Drudge got it wrong).

Similarly, at the beginning or end of the original text, you could add something like:

UPDATE: ... and here you could put the content of your message with the real story, or simply refer to your messaage.

As it stands, the entry still connects Dean with hordes of upset "Active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines".

And it's not that I'm picking on you, an amateur, but public posts can do serious, professional damage.

It's a free country, do what you will. I'm just saying what I would do.

Robbie, you made a mistake, MD offered good advice on how to cut down on the likelihood of it happening again. Personally, I stay the hell away from Drudge because his "scoops" are wrong more often than they are right and he doesn't give a shit either way as long as the scoops keep coming. I would place his reliability somewhere in the same range as a tabloid.

Having said that, you certanly owned up to the mistake right away, handled it with honesty and lack of defensiveness. EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES so how you handle them and the steps you take to prevent making the same mistake again count much more than making the mistake in the first place.

I would add an update at the bottom of the post correcting the situation, explain how it happened, explain what you learned from the mistake, and call it a day.

Right, Eric. And let me revise my statement: Get three independent corroborations before printing something as gospel. Get four if one of those three is Matt Drudge.

I agree - getting a scoop is great, but having to retract it sucks.

I've referenced the new articles and information in comments on this post and on my website. I've also sent trackbacks to all appropriate posts. I think that's retraction enough. I'm not going to go back through and re-edit posts for anything other than spelling errors, I think that can lead to a slippery slope.

I think the best way to handle it is a simple UPDATE at the end of the post. You just add to it - you don't have to change anything in the body of it.