CNN Challenges Politico's Carson Story, Politico Backpeddles

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

Everyone entering West Point gets a full scholarship. Shall we say it again?

 

[bripat9643]

There's probably grounds to sue Politico for that headline and article as defamation.

He could except political candidates can't sue for anything said about them.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true. the one document may not have been.

bush still ran off from his service in the national guard.

ben carson is still a loony liar.

your point?

How do you know Rather's story is true if there's no legitimate documents to support it?

I love this special brand of libturd stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

Everyone entering West Point gets a full scholarship. Shall we say it again?

Goddam you people are funny.

He was never offered a full scholarship. He never even applied.

He said he was offered a full scholarship to West Point. There is no way that statement is not a lie.

How can it not be a lie?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

There's probably grounds to sue Politico for that headline and article as defamation.

He could except political candidates can't sue for anything said about them.

Interesting, seems that's about right.

Suing Over False Political Advertising

 

[bripat9643]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

Everyone entering West Point gets a full scholarship. Shall we say it again?

It's not really a scholarship since they incur an obligation to serve for 6 years, but it's understandable why Carson might call it that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Carson had a press conference in Florida last night and for those who claim he has no backbone, that guy turned it back on the press and beat them at their own game. I don't know if I'll vote for Carson in the primaries but this guy looked good last night.

What I find amusing is that Obama had a connection with Wright and the press said it didn't matter. But the press digs out a story from back in the 60's and they want to hang the guy. Hillary claims her mother named after Sir Hillary and it is a big lie and the press nor the Dems give two shits.

With Carson the left and the press get hung up not that he was offered a scholarship or not but whether it was a full scholarship or not.

The hypocrisy of the left is so blatant that it is laughable. For them to call anyone out on honesty with Hillary being their front runner is just plain hypocrisy. The left is already getting desperate but if this is all they have on Carson, then they have nothing.

 

[jknowgood]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true. the one document may not have been.

bush still ran off from his service in the national guard.

ben carson is still a loony liar.

your point?

You have no credibility, you support a president that was awarded lie of the year and it didn't matter to you. So go pound sand.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true. the one document may not have been.

bush still ran off from his service in the national guard.

ben carson is still a loony liar.

your point?

Prove it without using manufactured evidence! Rather could not do it and neither can you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

He was not offered a full scholarship.

He lied.

Spoken like someone who did not read the thread because their mind was already made up!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

He was not offered a full scholarship.

He lied.

Spoken like someone who did not read the thread because their mind was already made up!

My post has nothing to do with making up my mind.

The quote from Carson's book is:

“Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,”

..since that never happened and Carson said it did, he was lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe Carson should have gone the Charles Barkley route,

and claimed he was misquoted in his autobiography. lol,

 

[Misty]

Politico fucked up severe.

They are already in trouble for printing lies. I guess they thought this would save them but it backfired.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true. the one document may not have been.

bush still ran off from his service in the national guard.

ben carson is still a loony liar.

your point?

Liar

 

[Misty]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

He was not offered a full scholarship.

He lied.

Spoken like someone who did not read the thread because their mind was already made up!

My post has nothing to do with making up my mind.

The quote from Carson's book is:

“Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,”

..since that never happened and Carson said it did, he was lying.

You don't know that. Carson interpreted the offer to mean a scholarship.


Department of Social Sciences - Scholarship Opportunities

For additional information on these scholarship opportunities, please contact Dr. Robert Person at [email protected].

 

[Stephanie]

ran across this. Polutico is famous for releasing crap and then other new outlets follows. SURE they retract it later, but the damage is already DONE. THEY ARE the DNC hit/goon squad along with gawd knows how many more out on the internet. but FOR these lamestream medias to print a story they haven't vetted? it's become all the common.


and the big reason for it: they don't have to talk about the CORRUPTED old lady Clinton so they just STIR THE POT
time to wake to this and keep our eyes on the big picture. kicking out the Democrats in 2016

 

[jknowgood]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

He was not offered a full scholarship.

He lied.

Spoken like someone who did not read the thread because their mind was already made up!

My post has nothing to do with making up my mind.

The quote from Carson's book is:

“Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,”

..since that never happened and Carson said it did, he was lying.

He was offered a chance to got there, since it cost nothing to go there. Common sense thinking people can see how you could think of it as a scholarship. He chose not to because he wanted to become a doctor and save lives. What did your liar in chief decide to do? Snort cocaine and become a community agitator. You really need to stop proving yourself to being a complete dumbass. Oh yeah, when has Hillary told the truth? You have no credibility on calling a republican a liar.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So Carson might not take a hit on this after all.
Trump ain't happy.

 

[mudwhistle]

This was a bad story to run with, as key parts of it are clearly subject to interpretation.

The only time a "news" organization is going to run with such a thin story is if it has an agenda.
.

Bill Or'Reilly showed his liberal bona fides last night by accusing Ben Carson of being a liar.

He also got in an argument right after that by calling George Will a hack when George Will questioned the validity of parts of his book "Killing Reagan".

The argument centered around a dispute over parts of the book that G.Will called unflattering to Reagan. He asked O'Reilly why he didn't talk to members of the Reagan Administration instead of outsiders. O'Reillys excuse was they put conditions on the interview.

Shit.

O"Reilly interviewed Obama.....and Obama never does an interview without placing conditions on what questions can be asked, so this lame excuse was horseshit.

 

[mudwhistle]

So Carson might not take a hit on this after all.
Trump ain't happy.

This is how the left destroys their opposition. They make false accusations...and you end up spending more time defending yourself than talking about what is important.