(Sound of intense retching followed by coughing and, lastly, a hearty sigh)
Now that I’ve finished vomiting over yesterday’s CYMSMA (Cover your mainstream media ass) editorial from the pointy heads at the S&D, I’d like to offer a written comment.
Newsweek prints a story – albeit a small item – that turns out to be utterly without merit, the story leads to riots that result in 17 deaths and the radical Left Wingers at the S&S accuses the W of pressuring the media and intimidating journalists who ask tough questions: The White House response fits a pattern of trying to intimidate the press from exploring issues the administration doesn't want explored.
The S&S editorial board has gone start raving mad. It’s no wonder they’re trying to land the rights to reprint the blather Old Scout is going to be penning beginning in July. It seems they, too, believe Republicans to be lying, cynical, bastards.
"They continue to cling to the irrational notion that any allegation leveled against W’s administration is true until proven false. It doesn’t matter that there is no proof. To these morons, the lack of proof is proof enough that an investigation must be carried out: Only after the report had been printed did the original [unidentified] source back away from his assertion that he had seen the confirmation in a military report on abuse at Guantanamo. On reflection, he thought perhaps he saw it in other reports or drafts; but he did see it"[emphasis added].
Honest injun. I saw it somewhere. Can’t quite recall exactly where, but you can trust me. Just don’t use my name, OK.
And how did Newsweek describe this unimpeachable source, as a "senior government official". Someone the S&S further described as “a Cabinet secretary or someone fairly close to that rank.”
Hmm, “fairly close to that rank”. Define for me the term “fairly close”. Does that mean one of similar rank or one who sits in close proximity to someone of that rank?
I move on. Why is it that the S&S only mentions the riots in Afghanistan? Because writing about the ones in Pakistan and elsewhere won’t fit their agenda.
And you just knew this comparison was coming:
Besides, the White House itself committed much more egregious errors in the way it so casually used dubious intelligence to make a case for going to war in Iraq. As the blog Daily Kos pointed out Tuesday, McClellan seems to have a double standard. In his discussion with reporters on July 17, 2003, he was asked: Bush is "president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That's his fault, isn't it?"
McClellan responded: "No."
Apples and F*&% oranges you idiots.
Newsweek used one unnamed source with no corroboration, no second source, nothing to prove the allegation true.
Last I saw, and you on the Left can continue to ignore, W used intelligence gather from the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Australia, etc. etc., etc., even your beloved UN, to prove the case against Saddam.
Not one of those countries or the debating club disagreed with the findings. Even those who were on the take or disagreed with going in did not disagree with the findings of the intelligence.
Let’s bring on the intimidation:
The White House response fits a pattern of trying to intimidate the press from exploring issues the administration doesn't want explored. Compare it, for example, to the Dan Rather report on President Bush's military service. To this day, we don't know if what Rather reported was accurate or not, or to what degree it may have been accurate. Nor do we know whether the documents he cited were genuine. All we know is that CBS can't verify that they were genuine.
Get your heads out of your collective buttocks. They can’t verify the documents were genuine because they weren’t. Yet you continue to continue to claim the report may have been accurate, but we just don’t know for sure.
That’s right, the evidence central to Danny-boy’s allegation is proven – to all but the true believers – good for only wiping ones ass, and you still think the story has merit.
For the love of Pete, are really that dense, or are you simply so blinded by your Liberal ideology that you can’t simply say, “Holy shit, our guy Dan got caught. I hope the others in the Brotherhood are more careful.”
The least you can do is chastise him in public while yanking his wanker in private. Maybe then you’ll hang on to what little credibility you have left.
Now for the punch line:
Yet the hullabaloo caused by that incident appears to have intimidated other journalists from trying to pin down the full truth about Bush's military service. And now there will probably be less enterprise reporting on prisoner abuse or anything else that might embarrass this administration.
It also fits neatly in with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's effort to muzzle public television and radio. This behavior seems so Nixonian, except that the current crew is much better at the press-intimidation game than William Safire and Vice President Spiro Agnew were. For Newsweek and other media that come in for this treatment, we have one word: Resist.
“Resist”. Kinda like Mr. Rather’s old ill-fated sign off, “Courage.”
Spare me the dramatics.
Am I to believe that all of the Woodward and Bernstein wannabes have been cowed into reporting on what the First Lady is wearing instead of taking down W.
W doesn’t need to strong arm the press into silence. You folks are doing a pretty good job of digging your own graves.