Major contradiction in NYT and WaPo Rove headlines!

[Presstitutes]

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/10/ny_times_direct.html

NY Times Directly Contradicts WaPo On Rove Testimony

Homepages have directly opposing versions of who initiated Rove's testimony:

Washington Post: "Rove Offers to Testify Again"
New York Times: "Rove Summoned to Testify Again in C.I.A. Leak Investigation"

One of these stories is wrong.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. there might be a truth in both. I just don't see it, though.

still, both read GREAT!

[Jackpine Radical]

18. It's deceptively simple, I think.

Rove asked in July to testify. Fitz says "We'll get back to you if we want to hear from you."

Fitz says, "OK--Now, Karl," thereby summoning him.

[Halliburton]

2. the Times is wrong

Karl volunteered, Fitzgerald accepted his offer. He wasn't summoned.

[AX10]

7. Rove was ordered to testify again.

Also, I'd like to see Cheney in cuffs too.

[Halliburton]

11. no he volunteered

if he was ordered to testify again, Fitz would have to send him a target letter indicating that he was a target. Which is why Luskin's spin is technically correct.

[emulatorloo]

16. he offered in july, fitz ignored his offer. Now is October. Fitz summoned

him. JMHO

That was then, this is now. Luskin can spin all he wants to.

[Spazito]

20. I disagree, Fitz contacted Rove's lawyer requesting Rove appear

before the Grand Jury again. It is Rove's lawyer that is using the term 'volunteered' and the media have picked it up. Rove did ask to appear again before the Grand Jury in July, he was told no. I suspect Rove volunteered to avoid a subpoena.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. Times? WRONG? After Bushmiller, Miller, Jayson, how could they be wrong?

I have lost all faith in their editorial staff. I wonder if they are beginning to realize that they have squandered a very precious resource. The trust of their readership.

Bush squandered the trust of the US, and he is polling 37% (still too high, in my opinion). You do NOT recover from that kind of stuff.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Maybe he offered

and then was summoned?

[Canuckistanian]

4. Well, maybe he was summoned

Then decided NOT to barricade himself in his office shouting, "you got nuthin' on me, copper!"

[AX10]

5. NYT is right, WAPO is wrong.

Neither paper is a prize package, but the NYT is fairer and relativly more honest than the WaPo.

[flordehinojos]

6. SEEDING CONFUSION: so Rovian or is it ROVERIAN?

[panader0]

8. Guilty

Obviously, someone is guilty. There must be at least some indictments.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi panader0!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Toots]

23. It must be Clinton

Be ready for an indictment of Clinton because every "Loyal" Amerikan knows it is all Clinton's fault.......

[DemsUnited]

9. They are actually kind of both right.

As far as I can tell, here's the chronology.

In July, after Matt Cooper testified, Rove offered to go back to the grand jury to "clarify" any questions that might have arisen as a result of Matt's testimony. Fitzgerald said, "I'll get back to you on that."

Now, two months and one Judith Miller testimony later, Fitzgerald calls and says, "like to take you up on that offer now. And, oh, by the way, this time, I can't guarantee you won't get indicted."

Heh.

[tocqueville]

10. Here is the WAPO article

Fitzgerald has yet to indicate whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, but legal sources close to the investigation said Fitzgerald could signal his intentions within days.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said his client has not received a so-called "target letter" indicating that he is likely to be indicted. "The prosecutor has affirmed that he has made no charging decision," Luskin said.

However, legal sources said Fitzgerald has made no guarantees to Rove that he would not become a target later.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601092.html?sub=AR

[Generator]

12. Lawrence O'Donnel on Countdown said Rove voluntered

I'm hoping he's right, since he's so certain of indictments.

[PDittie]

13. Now how much does it really matter?

His tit's in a wringer either way.

[librechik]

14. "offered" appeared in the second generation of AP wire stories

the more complete stories that arrive after the first red-alert bulletins.

I was surprised to see that word mentioned, because I assumed of course that he was being summoned. But after AP printed it, everybody went over to that phrasing.

now, why?

Did WH/Rove insist on the "offered" phrasing because it makes the court visit appear voluntary and thus less serious? But then doesn't a voluntary visit indicate a certain anxiety to rebut earlier testimony, perhaps correct the record or make an admission? Like, oops, I just remembered that I DID mention to Judith Miller that Valerie Plame was the beeotch who threw a wrench in Shrub's nice new Iraqmobile.

Or did the court itself use that word in its release to AP? Did the Times go with an earlier source than AP? and thus the difference?

hmmm

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. Correct headline: Rove begged to be allowed to explain one last time

I'm guessing.

[Rex]

17. He was summoned and offered to testify again.

This should get interesting.

[paineinthearse]

19. Waas sezzzzzz......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4992104

Murry's been spot on so far!