Look at this:
Contempt Orders a Proxy for Impeachment?
By LAURIE KELLMAN – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats really didn't expect the Justice Department to present their contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury for prosecution.
But the effort and having a civil lawsuit at the ready as a backup in their fight against the White House over the 2006 firings of nine federal prosecutors has satisfied, for now, some liberals who for a year have wanted much more: Bush's impeachment.
OK, interesting. But not really why I'm posting this.
Here's why:
On Friday, Mukasey said he would not refer the citations to a grand jury and that neither Bolten nor Miers had committed a crime. Pelosi then announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to sue Bolten and Miers in federal court.
The reasons for the Democrats' two-pronged approach were about much more than the balance of power. They were unmistakably political, a point the White House highlighted in its response.
Democrats did not even spend much energy denying it. One, in fact, even protested the contempt citation by voting "present" rather than yes or no.
Rep. Jon Porter, D-Nev., already had made his stance on the firings clear by calling for Gonzales' resignation, which happened in September. His spokesman denounced the vote as "politically charged tactic by Democrats" and sounded downright Republican by echoing the GOP's calls for the House to get back to debating the president's surveillance program.
How does reporter Laurie Kellman know Democrats did not even spend much energy denying it? It can't be from talking to Porter, because Porter's not a Democrat. Geez, I wonder if that's why he "sounded downright Republican by echoing the GOP's calls?" What do you think, Laurie?
Well, she's probably just some cub reporter, right?
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Laurie Kellman has covered Congress and politics in Washington for a decade.
D'oh!
How interesting, though, that the editor took the time to add a note, but none to actually, you know, edit the article.
No, editors can't catch every error (although this was a particularly egregious one, given the extra mile Kellman went with the "downright Republican" stuff). But then again, an editor might have seen this:
But the effort and having a civil lawsuit at the ready as a backup in their fight against the White House over the 2006 firings of nine federal prosecutors has satisfied, for now, some liberals who for a year have wanted much more: Bush's impeachment.
...and then asked Kellman why she didn't provide any quotes from any liberals who wanted impeachment, but were "satisfied" with the contempt actions.
Go ahead and look. They're not in there.
Not good work, folks. Not good.
UPDATE: AP writes to note that a corrected version of the article is already online. The editor's note:
(This version DELETEs references to GOP Rep. Jon Porter, who was incorrectly listed as a Democrat.)
No word on whether there's a version coming that actually quotes a liberal who was "satisfied" with contempt as a proxy for impeachment.
And observe how the note identifies the problem as incorrectly listing Porter as a Democrat. Why would you have to delete references to Porter just because his party label was wrong? Why not just change the label? The answer, of course, is that the real embarrassment wasn't the incorrect labeling, it was including Porter in the article in first place, and Kellman is probably mortified at having marveled so at how Republican he sounded. Given that he's a Republican and all.