A single retraction on page 2 read by Tony is supposed to ease the sensibilities of military supporters who had to live through weeks of printed and televised reports on military museum looting.

Somehow, it fails.

I'm glad it was there, Tony, and I'm glad you say it was, but too little too late is usually -- just too little too late.

I get the Sunday paper, not the daily, so when the media errs, I don’t think the phrase “Whoops, we were wrong” should appear anywhere but the front page, where the error occurred -- and should be aired/printed for the same number of days as had the erred report.

Won’t ever happen, though. Errors don’t sell papers nearly as fast as sensationalized stories do.

The War-Trophy error is rather like the taunts I still see on the telly regarding the Bush charge that he was AWOL. Not on news programs, but they, the War-Trophy and Bush-Awol charges, are still aired, and the public still believes it, even though the only documents bearing this to be true are military review documents. No actual charge was ever made -- implying the lie was the result of some moron digging through public documents for anything that might be used against his enemy, then presidential nominee G.W. Bush.

What a sorry loser.

And just to set this old record straight -- since I brought it up:
As anyone who has ever been in a position to review military personnel will know, the "Not Observed" comment is very common. I, personally, was "not observed" for 3 separate review periods. Funny, I was told this was not good for career development, but then I wasn't aiming for a high-level government position, either. Maybe I should have applied myself?

The phrase "Not Observed", merely means the reviewee was not available on his review date to be reviewed, likely having PCSed, ETSed, or moved to some temp duty assignment elsewhere.

Dan