Want to take a crack at deciphering this correction from today's NY Times?

[BurtWorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

For the Record

Because of an editing error, an article on Wednesday about the leak in which an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, was publicly identified referred incorrectly to the issue before the prosecutor. He is examining whether there was an intentional effort within the Bush administration to retaliate against the officer's husband, a critic of the Iraq war, by naming her - not after naming her.

[swag]

1. At least their crossword puzzle is still fun.

[madeline_con]

2. They're just clarifying their position.....

by mentioning the original text. :evilgrin:

[rosesaylavee]

3. They will never gain their credibility back. n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. They mean to substitute the word "by" for the word "after", which was

the word they used originally.

[BurtWorm]

8. How could they have let that mistake through, I wonder.

It's a peculiar mistake to make for a paper that is at the center of the story. Granted, writers and editors are human. But everyone at the Times has got to be very self-conscious about the stories they're allowing to be printed about this case. It struck me as odd that they would confuse retaliation AFTER Plame's identity was leaked with retaliation BY leaking Plame's identity.

It just seems odd to me. Almost like a Freudian slip, reflecting the subconscious of the paper.

[Lancer]

5. Ummm. . . OK. NYT, ya cleared it right up for me!

[Der Blaue Engel]

7. I think it's a very important distinction and I'm glad they made it

"After" says nothing about treason. "By" makes all the difference in the world...it says they deliberately outed her.

[JDPriestly]

6. Interesting because

Rove, et al. are probably hoping to squeeze through by arguing they had already named Plame before her piece was published. Of course, the problem with that is that they knew all along that he was the point man in Niger and, in alternatively or even in addition, it is quite possible that Wilson submitted his op-ed piece -- or discussed submitting it with higher ups -- to the NYTimes well before its publication date. If that is the case, and the "if" is big, then Miller might have been investigating ways to avenge Wilson for making his statement much earlier. It does not seem unreasonable to me that Wilson would have submitted his piece to the NYT or discussed submitting it with the NYT in mid or late June. If so, the June 23 conversation could be an important bit of evidence.