The real story was Bush's NG service, or lack thereof.
Richard Bennett
· 4 years ago
The real story is shoddy journalism, actually.
Dr. Weevil
· 4 years ago
The other real story is the continuing willingness of many on the left to tell obvious lies about Bush. If John K. had written "the real story is Bush's NG service, or the deficiencies therein", he would have said something true, or at least arguable. But he had to lie and act as if Bush had never been in the Guard at all.
Richard Bennett
· 4 years ago
Indeed.
anon
· 4 years ago
Well you're braver than Glenn Reynolds, Instafluffer, who is to afraid (or smart) than to allow comments on his silliness.
Greg
· 4 years ago
It was right wing bloggers that led to Trent Lott's resignation, after he made some stupid comments about Strom Thurmond and his legacy.
From my observation, bloggers on the right are more likely to promote an interesting story, without regards to which side it benefits. Journalists on the left, and apparently bloggers on the left, tend to gloss over things like sexual abuse of subordinates and hit-and-run journalism, as long as it's the left that is the bad guy.
Cincinnatus
· 4 years ago
bloggers on the right are more likely to promote an interesting story
I guess Iraq isn't that "interesting" because I never hear jack about it at Instaclown's site---ever since the war started to go south all we hear about is ipods and dan rather. Not to mention he didn't post anything with one little exception about armstrong williams. . . . .
And I loved your response to Atrios's observations. Way to address it on the merits.
Richard Bennett
· 4 years ago
"Instafluffer?" That's rude, anon, like commenting on somebody's supposed lack of bravery while posting under a pseudonym.
Sortelli
· 4 years ago
"And I loved your response to Atrios?s observations. Way to address it on the merits."
Hee hee hee. Yeah, that wacky Atrios. Address his merits! Don't you see? Even assuming that Dan Rather really is a liberal partisan media hack working for a media outlet blinded by ideology, that just PROVES there is no liberal media!!! If Chewbacca is from Endor, you must acquit!
Dan
· 4 years ago
I love the 'selective silence' outrage. Why doesn't the right tumpet the untrustworthiness of the Bush admin? From Education to EPA to FDA to Legal Counsel to National Security Advisor etc. this administration is corrupt and fraudulent through and through. The Democrats should oppose everything that comes out this administration on the general principle that you can be sure it isn't being genuine.
Sortelli
· 4 years ago
You really convinced me there, Dan, thanks for opening my eyes!
Trapeze
· 4 years ago
Uhh Dan, don't wear your panties too tight. If there were "untrustworthiness" to trumpet, we'd trumpet it. As it is, Bush's supposed "corruption" and "fraud" exists only in your own mind. It's why you're so angry. You think that because you saw Fahrenheit 9-11, you have all the answers, and we're just a bunch of stupid hicks. Michael Moore's joke's is on you. Is Bush perfect? No. Was Clinton perfect? No. But unless you can get beyond the mindless talking points of Michael Moore, or come up with solid evidence, I'm afraid you will only ever sound convincing to the "true believers".
PW
· 4 years ago
I guess Iraq isn?t that ?interesting? because I never hear jack about it at Instaclown?s site
Speaking of lefties' habit to say demonstrably untrue (and stupid) things...
HH
· 4 years ago
So Atrios tells us that stories that REALLY matter were ignored and this, about Bush's Guard service doesn't... except it does and it's all true, except for "window dressing" - that being, you know, the EVIDENCE that it was true, aside from some old partisan secretary's word. Then he tells us that it's SENSIBLE to accept that Rather is biased to the left, and this somehow proves that if there's any bias, it's to the right.
Spin of the year nominee!
eugene
· 4 years ago
I think Atrios' point is that to merely focus on one example of media screwups without taking on the whole of the problem is itself a whitewash.
The fact is that the right wants to use memogate to further convince folks that the media is hopelessly biased for liberals and will stoop to any low to achieve that bias. The actual fact of media lies is not at all important, since the whole controversy is a stalking horse for another issue (liberal bias).
Atrios, however, quite rightly asks why these other egregious examples of media dishonesty don't merit a mention on any of these righty blogs. We can surmise an answer (that this dishonesty only matters if it's committed against the right), but I think it's perfectly fair to respond to a claim of ignoring an issue by pointing out that you, in fact, ignore the real issue.
Richard Bennett
· 4 years ago
Atrios' examples are absurd because all of those cases were discussed on center-right blogs at the time they were relevant. The CBS News (whitewash) report came out today so it's topical, and yes, it clearly shows Rather's bias. Whether the whole of the MSM is similarly biased is an interesting discussion, but it should start with the admission that Rather's bias can no longer be hidden.
And BTW, Atrios calls The New Republic a "conservative" publication, which is obviously absurd as well. I can't figure how he writes that crap with a straight face.
M. Simon
· 4 years ago
Yeah.
And what I want to know is why the Right is not up in Arms about Clinton's use of torture. They called it "rendition".
Clinton sent people to bad places for torture and the Right is practically silent.
I think they are hiding something.
We lefties have to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
My God. Torture. Approved by the President. Has the Right no shame?
Ernest Brown
· 4 years ago
"I guess Iraq isn?t that ?interesting? because I never hear jack about it at Instaclown?s site"
'Speaking of lefties? habit to say demonstrably untrue (and stupid) things?'
The leftist pro-fascist liars take their cues from Goebbels and Pravda.
kim
· 4 years ago
Ernest, strange as always to hear folks speak of the left as "pro-facist"--it shows little understanding of what fascism is. Facism has always been against leftist ideology. Conventional wisdom is that the extreme left is communism, the extreme right is fascism.
But I guess nowadays it's okay to just mix up terms however one pleases.
Ernest Brown
· 4 years ago
Kim,
When you support Saddam and the Baathists against those who would bring liberal democracy to Iraq, you objectively and gladly support fascism. That is what the Baathists are, openly and proudly I might add.
You only show your ignorance of the history of fascism. It is the bastard child of leftism, and as such merely substitutes national or race war for class warfare. That is why Germans found it so easy to go from being Communists to being Nazis, the phenomenon even had a name, "Beefsteak Nazis." (i.e. brown on the outside, red on the inside)
David Ramsey Steele, no Bush partisan he, explains the findings of socialist historian Zeev Sternhell here:
By supporting the Baathists and religious fascists against those who fight for liberal democracy in Iraq, you objectively support fascism. Is that hard to understand?
Ernest Brown
· 4 years ago
Finally, Kim, tell me what a "Beefsteak Nazi" is.
kim
· 4 years ago
Ernest,: Yes,I know the site you directed me to. My earlier comment refered to "conventional wisdom." It still stands. Of course, fascism is more complex than "conventional wisdom". Fascist elements exist in many corners, but I think it is best defined as revolutionary form of nationalism which sets out to be a politcal, social, & ethical (some supporters would even say spiritual) revolution, wedding an concet of the "people" to a dynamic national community unders new elites infused with new (thought sometimes presented as "traditional") heroic values. The core myth which inspires fascism is that only a populist, trans-class movement can offer a cathartic national "rebirth" that can stem the tide of decadence. This can apply to all shades & colors of what we term as "fascism".
Why do say I support Baathists & religious fascists? What gave you that idea?
And what's the point of asking me about "Beefsteak Nazi"?
Ernest Brown
· 4 years ago
Kim,
Change it to the hypothetical statement "If you support Baathists..." if you oppose the war on the grounds that Arab Muslim culture doesn't provide fertile ground for liberal democracy. That's one way of opposing the war without calling the fascists there "minutemen."
Fascism is much more than what you mention, it actively opposes liberal democracy and free-market capitalism as much as Marxism does, and for the same dubiously statist & "populist" reasons.
Ernest Brown
· 4 years ago
Beefsteak Nazis were Communists who found it easy to convert to Nazism. ("brown on the outside, red on the inside") In reality, all they had to do was substitute race and national struggle for class struggle.
kim
· 4 years ago
Ernest,
Yes, my comments on fascism were brief, but I think overall a good nutshell description. The "national rebirth" myth is at the core of it. Thus, fascism can take root in many gardens.
The war in Iraq is complex. It's not just "about" establishing liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.
Yes, you're right in suggesting that the question as to whether or not Arab Muslim culture is fertile ground for liberal democracy and free-market capitalism remains open.
PS: Thanks for explanation of "Beefsteak Nazis."
edwardpig
· 4 years ago
If the left is too silent about the outcome of Memogate, then the right is too self-congratulatory. I believe a fair summary of Memogate and the sins committed by all is available here.
I also believe that Atrios' critics miss his point. When bad reporting with a liberal bias occurs, heads roll. When bad reporting with a conservative bias occurs, usually nothing happens. And sometimes, those responsible are actually rewarded. If the mainstream media had an inherent liberal bias, it would be the other way around.
Richard Bennett
· 4 years ago
Ed, Saddam did try to acquire uranium from Africa, it's a fact. We don't believe he was successful, but he certainly tried; even Joe Wilson admitted that much.
John K.
· 4 years ago
You know what's also a fact?
If you go to Blogpulse, Dan Rather's been behind Jacko (since early December) and Armstrong Williams (this week).
I guess it's that liberal blogosphere...
Richard Bennett
· 4 years ago
Michael Moore is behind Ashlee Simpson, so what?
SmarterThanBennet
· 4 years ago
After everybody has gone to bed, Kevin Drum sneaks a post onto Political Animal endorsing the ?sloppy journalism but no evidence of bias? line. Give me a break. A commenter observes that racing to be the first to air a story they knew was false doesn?t really rate as competitive journalism. It was politically-motivated bias, nothing more and nothing less.
What a stupid observation. Did you read what drum wrote? He was so shrill, if you didn't know it was Drum you'd have thought it was someone from the Freeper Gallery of The Wing Nuts (TM)
But this was an issue to be shrill about, because CBS blew it.
All Comments
From my observation, bloggers on the right are more likely to promote an interesting story, without regards to which side it benefits. Journalists on the left, and apparently bloggers on the left, tend to gloss over things like sexual abuse of subordinates and hit-and-run journalism, as long as it's the left that is the bad guy.
I guess Iraq isn't that "interesting" because I never hear jack about it at Instaclown's site---ever since the war started to go south all we hear about is ipods and dan rather. Not to mention he didn't post anything with one little exception about armstrong williams. . . . .
And I loved your response to Atrios's observations. Way to address it on the merits.
Hee hee hee. Yeah, that wacky Atrios. Address his merits! Don't you see? Even assuming that Dan Rather really is a liberal partisan media hack working for a media outlet blinded by ideology, that just PROVES there is no liberal media!!! If Chewbacca is from Endor, you must acquit!
Speaking of lefties' habit to say demonstrably untrue (and stupid) things...
Spin of the year nominee!
The fact is that the right wants to use memogate to further convince folks that the media is hopelessly biased for liberals and will stoop to any low to achieve that bias. The actual fact of media lies is not at all important, since the whole controversy is a stalking horse for another issue (liberal bias).
Atrios, however, quite rightly asks why these other egregious examples of media dishonesty don't merit a mention on any of these righty blogs. We can surmise an answer (that this dishonesty only matters if it's committed against the right), but I think it's perfectly fair to respond to a claim of ignoring an issue by pointing out that you, in fact, ignore the real issue.
And BTW, Atrios calls The New Republic a "conservative" publication, which is obviously absurd as well. I can't figure how he writes that crap with a straight face.
And what I want to know is why the Right is not up in Arms about Clinton's use of torture. They called it "rendition".
Clinton sent people to bad places for torture and the Right is practically silent.
I think they are hiding something.
We lefties have to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
My God. Torture. Approved by the President. Has the Right no shame?
'Speaking of lefties? habit to say demonstrably untrue (and stupid) things?'
Right here:
http://instapundit.com/archives/020375.php
The leftist pro-fascist liars take their cues from Goebbels and Pravda.
Facism has always been against leftist ideology. Conventional wisdom is that the extreme left is communism, the extreme right is fascism.
But I guess nowadays it's okay to just mix up terms however one pleases.
When you support Saddam and the Baathists against those who would bring liberal democracy to Iraq, you objectively and gladly support fascism. That is what the Baathists are, openly and proudly I might add.
You only show your ignorance of the history of fascism. It is the bastard child of leftism, and as such merely substitutes national or race war for class warfare. That is why Germans found it so easy to go from being Communists to being Nazis, the phenomenon even had a name, "Beefsteak Nazis." (i.e. brown on the outside, red on the inside)
David Ramsey Steele, no Bush partisan he, explains the findings of socialist historian Zeev Sternhell here:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
You simply show your ignorance of fascism:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
Of course, fascism is more complex than "conventional wisdom". Fascist elements exist in many corners, but I think it is best defined as revolutionary form of nationalism which sets out to be a politcal, social, & ethical (some supporters would even say spiritual) revolution, wedding an concet of the "people" to a dynamic national community unders new elites infused with new
(thought sometimes presented as "traditional") heroic values. The core myth which inspires fascism is that only a populist, trans-class movement can offer a cathartic national "rebirth" that can stem the tide of decadence. This can apply to all shades & colors of what we term as "fascism".
Why do say I support Baathists & religious fascists? What gave you that idea?
And what's the point of asking me about
"Beefsteak Nazi"?
Change it to the hypothetical statement "If you support Baathists..." if you oppose the war on the grounds that Arab Muslim culture doesn't provide fertile ground for liberal democracy. That's one way of opposing the war without calling the fascists there "minutemen."
Fascism is much more than what you mention, it actively opposes liberal democracy and free-market capitalism as much as Marxism does, and for the same dubiously statist & "populist" reasons.
Yes, my comments on fascism were brief, but I think overall a good nutshell description. The "national rebirth" myth is at the core of it. Thus, fascism can take root in many gardens.
The war in Iraq is complex. It's not just "about" establishing liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.
Yes, you're right in suggesting that the question as to whether or not Arab Muslim culture is fertile ground for liberal democracy and free-market capitalism remains open.
PS: Thanks for explanation of "Beefsteak Nazis."
I also believe that Atrios' critics miss his point. When bad reporting with a liberal bias occurs, heads roll. When bad reporting with a conservative bias occurs, usually nothing happens. And sometimes, those responsible are actually rewarded. If the mainstream media had an inherent liberal bias, it would be the other way around.
If you go to Blogpulse, Dan Rather's been behind Jacko (since early December) and Armstrong Williams (this week).
I guess it's that liberal blogosphere...
What a stupid observation. Did you read what drum wrote? He was so shrill, if you didn't know it was Drum you'd have thought it was someone from the Freeper Gallery of The Wing Nuts (TM)
But this was an issue to be shrill about, because CBS blew it.