tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post5425506807940321703..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Milblogging wankery: Let the hysterical tap-dancing begin.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-55941812338535330242007-12-03T22:21:00.000-05:002007-12-03T22:21:00.000-05:00Is this anything like the tendency that led Americ...<I>Is this anything like the tendency that led Americans to believe that their enemies, the Iraqis, had WMDs?</I><BR/><BR/>But ... but ... that's completely different - after all, IOKIYAR. Or when in Canada, IOKIYAHC. Is anyone else really tired of all this bullshit spinning? Maybe it's just the snow ...LuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-35466630786122637242007-12-03T21:38:00.000-05:002007-12-03T21:38:00.000-05:00Bingo! We have a winner.Bingo! We have a winner.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-50829244309096066312007-12-03T20:51:00.000-05:002007-12-03T20:51:00.000-05:00“The Arab tendency to lie and exaggerate about ene...<I>“The Arab tendency to lie and exaggerate about enemies is alive and well among pro-American Lebanese Christians as much as it is with the likes of Hamas.”</I><BR/><BR/>Is this anythink like the tendency that led Americans to believe that their enemies, the Iraqis, had WMDs?M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-32692899992152726002007-12-03T17:03:00.000-05:002007-12-03T17:03:00.000-05:00Christ Jesus, someone needs to tell KLo to shut th...Christ Jesus, someone needs to tell KLo to shut the fuck up. Posted at NRO yesterday at 6:42pm (money quote in bold):<BR/><BR/><I>What This is Not [Kathryn Jean Lopez]<BR/>A few additional words on what the situation with the Smith Lebanon reporting is and what it isn’t: It isn’t a case of fabrication, as some of Smith’s accusers have alleged. With regard to the two posts in question, it is my belief, based on an investigation in which NRO discussed the matter with three independent sources who live and work in Lebanon (as well as other experts in the area), that Smith was probably either spun by his sources or confused about what he saw. <BR/><BR/>That’s why I wrote, in my first editor’s note on the subject, that we “should have provided readers with more context and caveats” – the context that Smith was operating in an uncertain environment where he couldn’t always be sure of what he was witnessing, and the caveats that he filled in the gaps by talking to sources within the Cedar Revolution movement and the Lebanese national-security apparatus, whose claims obviously should have been been treated with the same degree of skepticism as those of anyone with an agenda to advance.<BR/><BR/>As one of our sources put it: <B>“The Arab tendency to lie and exaggerate about enemies is alive and well among pro-American Lebanese Christians as much as it is with the likes of Hamas.”</B> While Smith vouches for his sources, we cannot independently verify what they told him. That’s why we’re revisiting the posts in question and warning readers to take them with a grain of salt. <BR/><BR/>As editor, my position is mistakes are mistakes and they're all bad. But because of what I'm reading in other blogs, I feel the need to add: The Smith matter is not the Scott Thomas Beauchamp episode. For one thing, Beauchamp himself falsified the details of his story — claiming that he witnessed things in Iraq that he later claimed happened in Kuwait, etc. If Smith was too trusting of his sources, that is a journalistic faux pas of an entirely different sort. It does not, contrary to some bloggers’ claims, make him a fabulist.</I> <BR/><BR/>Actually, now that I think about it, she should just keep on talking - she's doing an outstanding job!LuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-81465720855417470192007-12-03T16:09:00.000-05:002007-12-03T16:09:00.000-05:00Yes, it would be nice to give K-Lo credit for rapi...<I>Yes, it would be nice to give K-Lo credit for rapid response here, except for one small problem: When you've been nailed absolutely dead to rights, beyond any reasonable doubt, you really don't have a lot of choice, do you?</I><BR/><BR/>Not only that, but K-Lo knew about these problems for a long as <B>6 weeks</B> prior and even her "correction" does no real correcting. Glenn Greenwald has it all <A HREF="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.counter-coulterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01942904236425440011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-7008552703931106002007-12-03T09:50:00.000-05:002007-12-03T09:50:00.000-05:00I'm sure some of the Idiotsphere is going to be al...<I> I'm sure some of the Idiotsphere is going to be all over yours truly for why I've so thoroughly ignored talking about Beauchamp all this time. It's for a very simple reason -- I could never understand the sputtering outrage over his original claims</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for reminding me why I didn't bother with this either (aside from the fact that <I>The New Republic</I> is a stupid American rag that, along with the rest of them, are not worth paying attention to at the best of times). It seemed a hell of a lot discussion over alleged fabrications that were, not only plausible, but of minor import in any case.<BR/><BR/>Not like W. Thomas Smith's fabrications, which, when taken at face value (which he obviously wanted his audience to), cause people to have a radically different understanding of events than what has actually manifested itself in real life.<BR/><BR/>As for Wingnut <I>mea culpas</I>; fuck them up their stupid arses. These people can't or won't distinguish between evidence and fact and only admit culpability when it's no longer humanly possible to avoid. The only charity I'll show people like Special Ed and Kathryn Jean Lopez is that both of these people are incomparably stupid and naive, and are quite often preyed upon time and time again by the rightwing psychopaths who tell them what they so desperately want to hear.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-79870286941518502432007-12-03T08:30:00.000-05:002007-12-03T08:30:00.000-05:00Nice to see the “situational ethics” of the right-...Nice to see the “situational ethics” of the right-wing exposed (again) in such a stark fashion. The only thing sweeter would have been to have stumbled across the articles in the first place to have been able to point out how absurd some of contentions being made were. <BR/><BR/>Specifically, the one about the 4,000-5,000 Hezbollah militants that he claimed had deployed to Christian areas of Beirut that numerous journalists have since confirmed “simply never happened” because had such a thing occurred it would have resulted in a riotous explosion of violence and general uproar. In his excuse-filled mea culpa he writes “this is a case where I should have caveated the reporting.” It turns out it was “drive-by” journalism in the most literal sense of the word. From a moving car, he witnessed some men he thought were Hezbollah at intersections (because they had radios) and was later given the (clearly incorrect) “broader details” by his “reliable sources.” Uh-huh. <BR/><BR/>At the end of the piece he has the temerity to offer readers this laughable pledge: <BR/><BR/><I>I assure anyone reading me that I am constantly verifying, never assuming, often distrusting — not because I’m a good guy, but because I owe that to my readers, and because my honesty — no matter my opinion — will always protect me.</I><BR/><BR/>Excuse me? “Constantly verifying” and “never assuming”…. Wasn’t the problem here precisely that he <I>did</I> make egregious assumptions — in fact, quite a number of them in this one claim alone — and that his verification extended only as far as blindly accepting the word of people that he continues to assure readers he trusts implicitly (even though they’ve demonstrated their unreliability). <BR/><BR/>But the key part there, which goes a long way to explaining the reaction of Cap’n Ed and others in the Chairbound Brigade in drawing a distinction between Smith and Beauchamp, is the presumption made (and confirmed by Smith) that he’s “a good guy.” By contrast, a “steaming vat of bad faith” (to borrow Wolcott’s expression) awaits anyone unsympathetic to Iraq war or American interests in the Middle East because as a “liberal” it is assumed they must be perfidious and morally suspect. The presumption would never be made that someone reporting disturbing news from the war was “a good guy.” Indeed, this is part of the reason why it’s always so expedient for right-wing hacks to destroy the character of the individual in question and thereby rubbish their credibility by impugning their motives. <BR/><BR/>Another significant difference between the two cases for you.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.com