wow, NYT can't get the story straight on detainee bill signing

I found two articles @NYT today by the same author on the detainee bill signing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/washington/18detain.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/washington/18detaincnd.html

They're *nearly* identical. Neither mentions that evidence obtained by torture is not allowed in the tribunals. The only really substantial difference is the first article lacks this paragraph:

With the midterm elections three weeks away, Mr. Bush hoped to use the bill signing to turn the political debate back to the war on terrorism, a winning issue for Republicans, and away from scandals like the Mark Foley case, which have dominated the news in recent weeks. The president said he was signing the measure “in memory of the victims of September the 11th.”

Is the author attributing that to someone? Did Mr. Bush say the signing was timed to distract from Foley? Or, was it timed, you know, after the bill was passed??

Of course, this isn't filed under Opinion....