Really, is anyone suprised that this turd simply made stuff up? This is getting to be the Norm, not the exception

The MSM is hopeless, as is being an integral part of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Regardless of what the situation is in Iraq in September it is going to be a total failure as far as the spin is concerned.
duff65 on July 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Makes more sense to me that way.

- just thinking here, but in a hundred years or so when historians sort all this out, will they point to the 8 years of the Clinton admin where this erosion of decency, ethics and morals really took hold? The beginning of the end, so to speak.

That’s an important point. It wasn’t Clinton’s policies so much as his amoral character and narcissism that really upset so many of us. No one remembers his sensible welfare reform but everyone remembers that he was a man of low morals. Aside from the Lewinsky affair, he used to eat pizza in the Oval Office. He never had any respect for the office he held.

I hope people remember this comes the next election. They have to remember that “elections do have consequences”. And in this case the consequences are very bad!

Amen to that brother…

Nope.

People need to be stood up against a wall and shot over this stuff!

When they tell deliberate lies (and this IS a deliberate lie, the claim of a “source” is a lie to cover up the deliberate lie) with the intent to sabotage the war and on-going operations, then this isn’t just “malfeasance in reporting,” it’s an attempt to cause the defeat of the United States while it is at war.

Once again, my favorite liberal Supreme Court Justice:

When a nation is at war many thing which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and no court could regard them as protected by any Constitutional right. [Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenk v. US, 249 US 47, 52 (1919)]

I think “Fabulism Credulism” is exactly right. Taking your scenario as correct (and I think it’s the most likely case), what we have credulism for fabulisms that match the reporters internal narrative. Bryan captures that dynamic perfectly.

If they had the integrity to go to their base and say “Look, things seem to be improving in Iraq, so we’re going to give it a chance and see what happens.” they’d lose all their credibility with them. Unfortunately, they believe they have to keep the nutroots happy to have a chance to win in 08.

McElroy’s reportage seems designed to destroy the Petraeus-Maliki relationship reputation.

Same thought, same sentence structure, just a little different slant.

If the surge is working in September and General Petraeus still has a reputation for integraty, then the Democrats will lose the battle in Congress to lose the battle in Iraq.

Being unable to affect the results of the surge, the attacks on General Petraeus have already begun.
Murtha has cast doubt on the Military.
Reid has referred to the Sept. report as “If honest”.

Expect the drumbeat to continue.

But the Clintons brought it to the forefront, made a laughing stock of our laws with ‘what the definition of IS, IS’, and “I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman”, plus defying the FBI and the CIA from within the White House from the first week in office.
The Clintons made a mockery of America and the world laughed.
Terrorists figured out how semantics in our laws can be used against us. EVERYTHING has become exponentially worse during, and since, the Clintons.
Death and suicides are suspect when the Clintons are involved.
Quite simply, they set the tone for chaos and unethical immoral behavior to be the norm, almost in vogue.

History will tell our children, or their children, if we survive.

Good point, Bill. “Fabulism” may be a bit strong. But it’s just amazing that all of these mistakes over all of these years in the press run almost entirely in one direction. Maybe “Credulism” ought to be the word, because these reporters certainly seem to approach things coming from that direction with great credulity.

In the case of the Telegraph, certainly. In the case of Scott Thomas, I get a fabulism vibe, as in, they may have actually published a fabulist.

In the case of legit news organizations trusting Iraqi stringers and sources, “credulism” is certainly accurate. And it’s highly problematic, when there is so much BS coming from certain Iraqis in Iraq. You can get two diametrically opposed stories in the space of a 5 minute interview. If you don’t apply proper skepticism, you’ll get burned.

Eh. I think “Liberalism” pretty well covers it, as volsense reminded us.

All the News that’s Fit to Print has become:

All the “News” that’s fit to Imprint (the Meta-Narrative)

Good point, Bill. “Fabulism” may be a bit strong. But it’s just amazing that all of these mistakes over all of these years in the press run almost entirely in one direction. Maybe “Credulism”Sedition ought to be the word, because these reporters certainly seem to approach things coming from that direction with great credulitySeditiousness.

You know, I think this is perhaps more accurate…

No, sorry it started way before the Clinton Years, way back before WWII. It started when the Soviet Union started sending communist infiltrators into American academia in the mid thirties. They began teaching communism masquerading as socialism pretending to be liberalism. They infected the liberal arts and hollywierd then the legal profession (The ACLU was founded by the American Communist Party)and since then they have slowly but surly assimilated the Democratic Party.

They are paying for it, slowly but surely, it seems.

And it seems instead of fixing their problems they’re just deciding to go down … uh … lying? I guess. Is there a word for “fighting to not tell the truth”?

Spreading enemy propoganda.

Pretty simple to me…

BillINDC on July 30, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Good point, Bill. “Fabulism” may be a bit strong. But it’s just amazing that all of these mistakes over all of these years in the press run almost entirely in one direction. Maybe “Credulism” ought to be the word, because these reporters certainly seem to approach things coming from that direction with great credulity.

The testimony of Patreaus, on the other hand, is more relevant.

Maybe we need to go a year WITH OUT ANY of the ‘MSM type’ media.

shooter on July 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Can that be arranged???

If the Telegraph reporter got his information from an Iraqi source (which he states he did), and that source burned him or offered up an inaccurate characterization, it’s not a lie or story fabricated by the reporter.

Should it be verified by another source? Ideally, yes. But some of this is inherent risk with trusting sources.