WaPost Lies About Iranian IEDs

We're going to see a march up to war in Iran, because the Bushpublicans have nothing else going for them.  That will be aided and abetted by the editorial board at the Warshington Post, who continues to lie in service to a reactionary agenda.

John Aravosis has the goods.

The Washington Post editorial board is intentionally shilling for the Bush administration in an effort to provoke war with Iran. It's what the Post did to help get us into the Iraq war, and now they're doing it again. What other possible excuse is there for the Post editorial board printing informtion they know to be false?

Here's what the Post claimed in today's editorial:

In Iraq -- where American soldiers are dying from Iranian-supplied roadside bombs...

Powerful sentence. Only problem? It's not true.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us this week that there is no evidence that Tehran is behind the road-side bombs in Iraq. None. Zero. Now sure, Bush and Rumsfeld claimed it was true earlier this week. But anyone who actually follows the news knows that the chairman was asked about this the day after and said he'd seen no proof whatsoever to back up the charge.

This is just completely inappropriate.  I saw the documentary Street Fight recently, about a mayoral election in Neward, and it really just revealed how journalists simply act like cynical sycophants, afraid to veer from the conventional wisdom and point out that rampantly illegal actions were going on all over the place.  And that's what these Washington Post editorial board members behave like: cynical sycophants.

So here's a goddamned simple message.

War is a big deal.  It shouldn't be based on lies.  Again.

There's more...

Disastrous Katrina Recovery: Bush blames Congress

 With news of his approval rating reaching new lows in yet another poll, the President while visiting the devastated New Orleans, puts the blame for slow reconstruction at the feet of Congress. It is a bit like a drunk driver attending the funeral of his victim to blame the Victim's mother! The President said:"Congress heard our message about improving the levees, but they shortchanged the process by about $1.5 billion," Bush said, calling for the money to be restored. (from the Washington Post)

There's more...

It's the incompetency, stupid

Folks, THE word has finally appeared in one of our national newspapers regarding President Bush.

No, it's not impeachment (but keep lighting those candles!)

It's competence, or rather, the incompetence of President Bush.

There's more...

WP Editorial at odds with its own reporting, again

I have not seen this anywhere today so I thought I would highlight it.  I undertsand that criticizing a Washington Post editorial is like batting a pinata, its fun and easy but one can only have so much candy.  So today I take my turn.
The Post says that "senators complained that they had not been notified... though the companies had issued a press release." On the opposite side, in a column by Dionne Jr., he reports that on a hearing on February 15, Homeland Secretary Chertoff could not discuss the deal with Rep. Sweeney because the committee's work was "classified" and that Secretary Snow told another congressional committee that he was not permitted to discuss the specific transactions.  So which is it, was Congress in the loop or not? It appears as if the administration intentionally kept Congress in the dark (maybe because the secret clauses seemingly allowing the company to avoid all legal responsibility), and thus Congress is within its rights to complain.  And the Post excusing Bush's ignorance because president cannot now when one foreign company takes over another is certainly laughable when the property that is been transferred happens to be your front door.  I am sure Bill Clinton would have known, but we have to recognize that we have a disenagaged president.  Finally, calling Dubai our "friend" especially because of 9/11 is rich.  First, we are not friends but allies sharing some common goals (Britain is a friend if we must use the term). UAE is a monarchy that discriminates against half its population and is anti-semitic. In fact because of its growing prosperity and intelligentsia, the country may represent an increased danger similar to rebels coming from prosperous families; and access to US ports would provide an excellent target of opportunity to those individuals. Let's recall that most of 9/11 terrorists came from good families. And precisely Mr. Washington Post Editorial Board, because of 9/11, we need to be more circumspect and vigilant.        

There's more...

Jim Brady Acting Up Again: It's the Accountability, Stupid

With this nasty letter in the Washington Post, online editor Jim Brady shows just how aggressive he is willing to be to avoid accountability at his newspaper.  It's quite remarkable, actually.  He still does not understand what went wrong.

Howell committed an act of journalistic malpractice.  She was caught in an error on a very important story, and her reaction to the readership who commented on it was to stonewall.  Then she grudgingly admitted an error four days later, decrying partisanship and namecalling the whole time.  It was a pathological incapacity to take responsibility.

And now Brady comes back with a truculent regurgitation of right-wing bias, as if to prove that he might be accountable to someone, but that someone is not 'the left' or 'partisans'.  In his bitchy little note, he wouldn't even name Jane Hamsher or Atrios by name, even though he quoted both of them.  They were intentionally nameless and faceless mean angry bloggers.  Jane of course is an accomplished screenwriter, novelist, and journalist, Duncan has a PhD in economics.  Riff raff.

But here's the money quote on what this is all about:

In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans.

That's just nonsense.  The American Prospectshowed as much in a study done by a nonpartisan research group:

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it's highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

So even if Brady's claim were true, and I would concede that it could be technically true (though no one to my knowledge has proved it), it obscures the larger and much more relevant point that Abramoff was a key cog in a Republican political machine.  That is the point that Brady is effectively covering up.  I'm sure he isn't covering it up because he is a right-wing political operative, as he derisively would snort.  He isn't.  The Washington Post has done excellent work on the Abramoff scandal, far outpacing the New York Times.  But that doesn't mean that the paper is acting responsibly, for it isn't.

Jim Brady repeated something that isn't true, or at least, is extremely misleading.  And he did it to prove, childishly, that Jane Hamsher didn't 'win'.  That he's not accountable to her, because she's mean.  Well having comments on a blog, or allowing technorati on your site, or doing online chats, doesn't mean anything if you don't actually act based on the feedback.  It's not accountability or transparency, it's entertainment for riff raff.

In other words, I disagree with Jay Rosen's insulting comments to Jane Hamsher:

Meanwhile, flaming the friends of transparency isn't helping anyone. Get it, Jane?

Is Brady a friend of transparency?  That's hard to tell, since he's certainly not acting in good faith.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads