WaPo's Meyerson, Why Bother With Facts.
The good thing about being an editorial writer, like Harold Meyerson at the Post is that when editorialising, you don't have to be quite as accurate with facts as an actual reporter should be.
Take Harolds editorial today, with this statement "Cindy Sheehan, whose down-the-line dovishness is more than offset by her standing as the mother of a soldier killed in Bush's war" it would be a good statement, if it was complete. It should also include the words (between of a and soldier) 'volunteer, who reenlisted knowing he'd go back to Iraq'.
(click "read the full post" for the rest of the story)
His line to finish the paragraph "Not a Michael Moore in the bunch. Nothing there for the Roves and the Reeds and the Swift Boat slanderers to work with.", is funny too. Did he see who sponsors Cindy's anti-war rally in DC, ANSWER, is a communist backed organization with stated goals like "ending private property ownership". (check the october archives, there's a link to their 8 page manifesto)
He also attacks Jean Schmidt for her statement on the House floor last Friday, attributing the statement directly to her, like the Democrats, and not to Col. Bubp, whom she was relayin the message from. But it sounds better to call her a "pipsqueak freshman congresswoman" than to say "From a Marine Colonel", which would have been the accurate way of doing it.
Finally, he says our reason for staying in Iraq now is to prevent a war between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims, which only exists because we invaded. Actually, it exists because we didn't finish the job in 1991, and then allowed the Shiite's (and Kurds) to be slaughtered throughout the 1990's, by not stepping in and confronting Saddam when he started breaking the dozen or so UN Resolutions passed to end the 1991 Gulf War. But again, to point out that fact wouldn't work as well for Harold's story line.
linked at Don Surber and Postwatch.
Take Harolds editorial today, with this statement "Cindy Sheehan, whose down-the-line dovishness is more than offset by her standing as the mother of a soldier killed in Bush's war" it would be a good statement, if it was complete. It should also include the words (between of a and soldier) 'volunteer, who reenlisted knowing he'd go back to Iraq'.
(click "read the full post" for the rest of the story)
His line to finish the paragraph "Not a Michael Moore in the bunch. Nothing there for the Roves and the Reeds and the Swift Boat slanderers to work with.", is funny too. Did he see who sponsors Cindy's anti-war rally in DC, ANSWER, is a communist backed organization with stated goals like "ending private property ownership". (check the october archives, there's a link to their 8 page manifesto)
He also attacks Jean Schmidt for her statement on the House floor last Friday, attributing the statement directly to her, like the Democrats, and not to Col. Bubp, whom she was relayin the message from. But it sounds better to call her a "pipsqueak freshman congresswoman" than to say "From a Marine Colonel", which would have been the accurate way of doing it.
Finally, he says our reason for staying in Iraq now is to prevent a war between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims, which only exists because we invaded. Actually, it exists because we didn't finish the job in 1991, and then allowed the Shiite's (and Kurds) to be slaughtered throughout the 1990's, by not stepping in and confronting Saddam when he started breaking the dozen or so UN Resolutions passed to end the 1991 Gulf War. But again, to point out that fact wouldn't work as well for Harold's story line.
linked at Don Surber and Postwatch.
posted by Crazy Politico at 4:16 AM
4Comments:
"it exists because we didn't finish the job in 1991,"
Hostilities between different factions of the Muslim religion go back over a thousand years. Add to that a warlord-mentality in the region and any government in Iraq or Afghanistan is destined to be problematic in perpetuity.
Yeah, it is irritating how the media won't tell the whole story. Did you happen to read the AP article about that "anti-war" rally? Pitiful.
Mark, I was referring to the current, not historical disputes between the Shiite and Sunnis.
Yeah, Rebekah, I read the AP story, I think there's a post in my archives about it. Another case of why bother with facts. You won't find many newspapers showing what ANSWER stands for.
I know, and I was just underscoring that it certainly isn't our fault, not by any stretch of the imagination!
Post a Comment
<< Home