Appeased?

Today, (Sep 7) Carl Hulse, of The New York Times, gets it wrong.

In an otherwise forgettable article about a failed Democratic Party initiative to hold a (non-binding) vote on the Defense Secretary, the reporter incorrectly records a comment about Secretary Rumsfeld's recent speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City. In an effort to justify the procedure, Senator Charles Schumer of New York claimed that the speech was a "a low point." The journalist then noted by way of explanation that Secretary Rumsfeld, in that speech "...compared critics of Bush terror policies to those who appeased Hitler before World War II."

Not quite.

Here is what Secretary Rumsfeld actually said:
"With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Not exactly the same as calling one's opponents appeasers. Further, it demonstrates that Senator Schumer didn't read the speech either as he called it "...a lot of name calling..."

Here is where it gets disappointing -- why didn't any editors of The Times note the error? Groupthink, anyone?