Wednesday, May 18, 2005


The answer is "yes".

A Malevolent Magazine?

The White House wants to be able to put out "news" without anyone calling them on it.

And reporters use "anonymous sources" to put out garbage and not have to bother with any of these pesky "facts" people are always harping on.

The White House lecturing the media on ethics is the illustration in the dictionary under the definition of "hipocracy". But why would anyone be surprised by the White House trying to deflect attention from it's own mistakes and lies? All of Iraq is one giant deception they used to divert attention from the fact that Bush had no idea how to deal with problems at home. Or his plan was simply intended to put money into the pockets of his CEO friends and supporters.

Well someone named Andrew Sullivan makes a lot of allegations I haven't seen anywhere else about torturing detainees to death and some other things. Based on the performance of the media the last few years I'll wait for any other "facts" which shed more light on all these allegations ... Ah, he's just some bozo who blogs (which is to say that anything he posts has no more basis in fact than anything I post here). He says a lot of things about incidents at Guantanamo Bay but I see no verification and it seems to me that using the detainee, who has every reason to hate the US and make up all kinds of baseless accusations, as a truthful source is as bad as believing the White House.

I would feel a lot better if there were some sort of independent investigatory authority appointed who could look into the situation unbiasedly. Having the Pentagon investigate itself isn't really going to prove anything given the nature of the military.

There is an amusing piece in there on a site called "Think Progress" comparing Newsweeks lack of fact checking and using a single unconfirmed source (reading further they used not only a single source but a single source who was five times removed from the documents in question, talk about a tenuous connection! "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy") with the Presidents exact same activity when he tried to justify invading Iraq. Nice. This is what I think intelligent commentary should contain. It doesn't directly condemn either side but cleverly points out the irony and allows us to come to our own conclusion comparing McClellan's comments in both cases to illustrate the Administrations "flip-flopping" (why yes, that was a poke).


Post a Comment

<< Home