Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

malthaussen

(17,187 posts)

2. 67 years later, big whoop

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Fri May 4, 2012, 07:55 AM

May 2012

These apologies 'way after the fact amaze the hell out of me. Or soldiers who are "awarded" decorations fifty years after the deed, and when they've been dead for 20 of them. Of course his daughter says she's "overjoyed." It would take an exceptional human being to tell the AP to put their "apology" where the sun don't shine.

-- Mal

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

AP apologizes for firing reporter over WWII scoop [View all] Omaha Steve May 2012 OP

He promised to embargo a story exboyfil May 2012 #1

They should not have apologized at all naaman fletcher May 2012 #3

Except that's not how it went down: Alcibiades May 2012 #11

Sounds right to me, Alc. elleng May 2012 #25

Agree. He shouldn't have agreed to the embargo if he was going to break it Politicub May 2012 #31

67 years later, big whoop malthaussen May 2012 #2

Now now, he's only been dead 49 years... (nt) Posteritatis May 2012 #32

Censorship is censorship... trumad May 2012 #4

He Didn't Have To Agree To The Embargo Fastcars May 2012 #5

Good luck becoming a journalist. FailureToCommunicate May 2012 #8

It wasn't censorship Confusious May 2012 #9

If you read the link that is not what happened. former9thward May 2012 #18

The US Army did NOT break its word, happyslug May 2012 #23

+1 Thanks for elaborating in such detail independentpiney May 2012 #24

The reporter acted correctly. former9thward May 2012 #26

Sorry, just because someone else Confusious May 2012 #27

Once the military broke their word there was no point to the embargo. former9thward May 2012 #28

Your word is your word Confusious May 2012 #29

A contract is only good if both parties abide by it. former9thward May 2012 #30

It wasn't a contract Confusious May 2012 #33

Very True. Basil Clarke should have spilled the beans on Operation Torch LanternWaste May 2012 #12

Huge diff don't you think. trumad May 2012 #14

"and those who advocate it our idiots" WilliamPitt May 2012 #20

Douche trumad May 2012 #21

Win WilliamPitt May 2012 #22

So now we have the timeline gratuitous May 2012 #6

So AP, Churchill, Truman all colluded SemperEadem May 2012 #7

I think the Soviets were entitled to a surrender ceremony, that was the right thing to do independentpiney May 2012 #10

Cold War RitchieRich May 2012 #13

Agreed. 20 million Russians died...Russia was on OUR side FailureToCommunicate May 2012 #15

They were first in Berlin. They could have prepared such a place for a ceremony if they wanted one may3rd May 2012 #17

You're right,in fact we should have just marched straight on to Moscow independentpiney May 2012 #19

Is this considered LBN ? may3rd May 2012 #16