Patterico's Pontifications

2/10/2007

Froomkin: Assume Administration Is Lying — And Uncritically Lap Up Anything Said by Administration Opponents

Filed under: General,Media Bias — Patterico @ 4:41 pm



Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post has some interesting advice for journalists:

  • Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
  • Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
  • Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines [sic] . . . .

He also advises “reasonable speculation” about hidden Administration motives.

Note that Froomkin is not merely advising general skepticism of all sources, which would be an admirable journalistic trait. He actually advises journalists to “assume” that Administration positions are lies.

The implicit corollary is that journalists should “assume” that Administration critics are telling the truth. And indeed, the Froomkin Doctrine calls for suspension of skepticism when the source is an Administration opponent:

  • Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.

There’s nothing there about being skeptical of critics’ assertions, or demanding evidence from them, or speculating about their motives.

I’m all for skepticism, but this isn’t skepticism. This is anti-Administration bias, pure and simple, dressed up as skepticism.

It’s a good thing that the actual journalists working for the Washington Post aren’t following Froomkin’s prescriptions. Otherwise, they might throw all their skepticism out the window when taking information from Administration critics, like Carl Levin.

Yeah, it’s a good thing that they don’t do that! Because that could be embarrassing!

P.S. Froomkin is a liberal columnist. I figured you knew that, but in case you didn’t, there you go.

45 Responses to “Froomkin: Assume Administration Is Lying — And Uncritically Lap Up Anything Said by Administration Opponents”

  1. “Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
    Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate”

    The common tactic of the far left and pretty much the mantra of the MSM. Demand proof, then deny it.

    Skul (6be780)

  2. Just for clarification: Froomkin is an openly liberal advocacy columnist. That was one of the reasons the WaPo sought to hired a conservative counterpoint. His position is rather anomalous, and some of the regular reporters on the WaPo disliked being confused with him.

    Political reporters at The Post don’t like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin’s “White House Briefing,” which is highly opinionated and liberal. They’re afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

    [Bradley: I added a P.S. to make that crystal clear. to the reporters, I’ d say this: if you don’t like being confused with Froomkin, don’t act like him. — P]

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  3. Blacques Jacques Shellacques from Mon’real has some interesting advice for citizens:

    * Don’t assume anything the MSM journalists tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

    * Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

    * Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines [sic] . . . .

    BlacquesJacquesShellacques (83acf5)

  4. BlacquesJacquesShellacques,

    Classic! Don’t forget the corollary:

    * Give voice to the conservative critics; don’t marginalize and mock them.

    DRJ (605076)

  5. Given that he thinks that only evil people would oppose socialism, why does any of this surprise you?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  6. As disturbing as Fromkin’s list are the commenters affirmations. As Goldstein once said, “they have the story told to them the way they want to hear it, and they are sticking to it!” I suspect that “Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them…” applies specifically to the Bush Admin, generally to GOP admins, and never to Dem Administrations, congresscritters, or sources.

    Hand-wring and forced outrages aside, the Fromkin left is far more likely to usher in the totalitarianism they publically decry. Of course, from their perspective a socialist autocrat is definitionally not a totalitarian… because, you know… socialist autocrats are concerned about the children… and committed to saving just one life.

    bains (dd1157)

  7. Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

    Isn’t it interesting how they, and the Democrat Media in general, have been covering for the administration on this Border Agents scandal, when big fat scandalous lies are being served up on a tee?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  8. The stupidest thing about Froomkin and his scary lists of truths? He’s on the Townhouse email list!..nothing that comes out of his mouth isn’t “considered” and coordinated without Glenn, Markos, Chris or Jane.

    Think of Dan as their chief MSM “vicious rant – important action alert” puppet.

    It’s just hilarious they think we don’t know how programmed Froomkin actually is.

    topsecretk9 (8f84b0)

  9. The implicit corollary is that journalists should “assume” that Administration critics are telling the truth. And indeed, the Froomkin Doctrine calls for suspension of skepticism when the source is an Administration opponent:

    Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.

    I think this part is a misreading. Assuming somone is lying to you, after a long history of them doing so, is prudent.

    “Giv[ing] voice to skeptics” doesn’t mean talking to the unwashed ranter outside your local Uni. It means making sure that the sort of people who were, in fact, calling crap on Administration assertions back in the day get heard this time around.

    As much as you like to bash the ‘MSM’ (and sometimes with good reason), they were enablers for this last war, based, at the time, on biased information. Froomkin is asking for an end to simply writing down the words of “senior officials”, “intellgence sources”, and “Former hill staffers” as if they were unbiased gospel.

    Surely, you’d like better than that sort of crap, no?

    fishbane (3389fc)

  10. Bill’s Nibbles — 2007.02.11…

    Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the items within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the…

    Old War Dogs (72c8fd)

  11. Froomkin: Assume Administration Is Lying — And Uncritically Lap Up Anything Said by Administration Opponents …

    Froomkin: Assume Administration Is Lying — And Uncritically Lap Up Anything Said by Administration Opponents Patterico Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post has some interesting advice for journalists: Don’t assume anything administration officials t…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  12. 7.
    Based on that, one would indeed be prudent to assume that every story out of the NYT, CBS, NPR, BBC, LAT, and WaPo was a complete and utter fabrication.

    Most of us don’t take it quite so far. There’s usually a kernel of truth somewhere in the story that has been distorted to sound like its opposite.

    Bostonian (d94f26)

  13. Really. Is there some reason(s)to trust the veracity of what this administration says? What is
    the documentation for such claptrap?

    I am far beyond Froomkin.

    I say, if the Bush criminals announce the sun sets in the West, we should ALL do a factcheck.

    semanticleo (ec1279)

  14. Given the Bush track record, can any sane person think otherwise?

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  15. Pat there is no such implicit collary as you say..

    The implicit corollary is that journalists should “assume” that Administration critics are telling the truth

    That is your own understandably defensive thought process that causes you to say this.
    Lets face it Pat Bush administration has been wrong or lying on just about every thing to do with Iraq

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  16. Charlie,

    Such claims are often asserted by partisan Democrats, but somehow there’s never anything to back up the claims.

    On the other hand, when the press lies, it is often quite easy to prove that they have lied.

    Bostonian (d94f26)

  17. Bostonian.. ( neighbor of mine RI here) There is plenty of evidence that Bush lied but you wont see it if you are unwilling to look at it and continually make excuses.

    Bush lied when he said, referring to the UN inspectors, “Sadam chose defiance over this is the worst disaster in American history next to the Civicooperation…he would not let us in” LIE! Check it out yourself. The inspectors were there the day before Bush attacked and the UN said it was Bush that ordered them out. This was his reason to attack and start this war and its a lie. The UN said the inspectors were making progress and wanted to continue but Bush ordered them out.

    Even on the surface of it, its incredible to think that a country that was far less able to defend itself than before the first Gulf War and under UN sanctions would actually opt for war with the US.

    Bush says all the other nations also believed there were WMDs in Iraq but France and Germany were smeared because they found Colin Powells case at the UN unconvincing.

    Bush said that “whenever you talk wiretaps you talk court order because we are protecting the Constitution” Well, you know the story on that one. LIE and by Bush own admission,he is not protecting the Constitution.

    Our intelligence agencies said was no evidence that S H tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger but , in his State of the Union address Bush left that out and cleverly said “British intelligence has learned….” Tell me that was not deceptive.. and then his administration smeared the man that checked out the facts and found no evidence to support that claim.

    Bush was asked in Poland about the WMDs and said ” “We found them” Lie

    Cheney continued to repeat the story about a high ranking Iraqi intelligence office meeting in Prague with a member of Al Quida long after that story had been debunked. LIE

    The Downing Street memos said the Bush administration was “fixing facts around the policy”..in other words cherry picking evidence to support a policy they already had decided on. I would call that lying to the public wouldnt you?

    And finally Bush has repeatedly said that a Congressional committee concluded that his administration did not improperly influence intelligence gathering. True but he fails to mention that an investigation into how that intelligence was used was blocked after repeatedly repeatedly promised. That is not deceptive?

    Whole books have been written about Bush lies and they are much more explicit and detailed that I could ever be. Check them out and decide for yourself where the truth lies.

    Now the bottom line is that you can, and most likely will,make excuses for this but at the very least you will have to admit that Bush and crew were incompetent and rushed to war when they should have called for more inspections and exhaused every avenue before war.

    Now we are in a war started by Bush first on flimsy evidence for WMDs that did not exist, then for implied links to international terrorism and now for a crackpot scheme to bring democracy to a land torn by centuries of internal strife and hate. Iraq was an artificially created country and a bulkwork against Iranian expansion. The Iranians are the clear winners here. I would not be surprised if they provided false evidence to lure Bush into this war. I think the neo cons know that and that is why they want war with Iran.

    Considering all the lives, money, and international good will we have lost in this NEVER ENDING WAR, Bush must be held accountable and the fact that he either lied, shaded the truth, or was just plain incompetent and negligent doesn’t change the fact that Bush’s policies have strengthened both Iran and international terrorism and are bleeding and bankrupting the USA. He is clearly the worst President ever! I dont see how anyone can dispute that but I am sure many will..

    Charlie (55cd2b)

  18. Man, that’s quite a compendium of lefty myths, misstatements, and outright lies, Charlie. If I didn’t have to go to work (and if I weren’t such a lazy bastard), I’d take the time to find all the links that debunk virtually every assertion you’ve made here. Maybe some enterprising reader will do it.

    CraigC (aa6a7c)

  19. ” If I didn’t have to go to work (and if I weren’t such a lazy bastard), I’d take the time to find all the links that debunk virtually every assertion you’ve made here.”

    That's Funny (3bb0f2)

  20. Yes, because if my stated reason weren’t true, the only real alternative would be that I just wanted to publicly make myself look like an ass. Ok, wise guy, be back here at around 9:00 PST and I’ll have all the links. I can’t believe I’m letting you goad me into slogging through all that shit to find them. Oh, well, I made my bed.

    I do have to give Charlie props for originality on one thing, though:

    Our intelligence agencies said was no evidence that S H tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger but , in his State of the Union address Bush left that out and cleverly said “British intelligence has learned….” Tell me that was not deceptive.. and then his administration smeared the man that checked out the facts and found no evidence to support that claim.

    Leaving out the fact that various agencies, including the Select Committee, found that Clown Wilson’s report in fact bolstered the claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake (Don’t you guys pay attention to anything?), I haven’t seen his take on Bush’s statement anywhere else. That’s a nice variation. So, for years, the Left has been mischaracterizing Bush’s statement, but now you admit that, well, he didn’t actually say that Saddam tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger, but what he said was meant to hide the fact that that’s what he was actually saying. You guys are pathetic.

    CraigC (aa6a7c)

  21. I wonder if BDS sufferers like Charlie and semanticleo realize just how identical they are in what they say and think. They might as well be programmed robots for all the nuance and individuality they show in their accusations.

    Yeah, guys, we know:

    BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We got that part many years ago, including the inevitable all-caps screeching: You pathologically need to hate the man. Move on already. Your constantly vented emotions year after year after year after year are neither interesting nor productive, even for those of us as disappointed by Bush as you are.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  22. bush lied people died.
    Is that better?

    The british report was known at the time to be based on limited information, and should not have been used as reference. It was in fact as we now know based on forgeries. Powell refers to his UN speech as the low point in his career. His presentation was based on bullshit.
    Mush of the press cheerleaded for the war and parroted government propaganda. Judith Miller described her job as to do precisely that. Yesterday in the TImes, her partner in dereliction of duty did so again in his stenography on Iran. The job of the press in a democracy is to be loyal to the people, not the government. The press has betrayed that trust again and again.

    The war was based on lies. The press parroted those lies. The disaster that is our current foreign policy is the result. Still, the press has become better, as the situation has gotten worse.
    read a book

    As the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, Chandrasekaran has probably spent more time in U.S.-occupied Iraq than any other American journalist, and his intimate perspective permeates this history of the Coalition Provisional Authority headquartered in the Green Zone around Saddam Hussein’s former palace. He presents the tenure of presidential viceroy L. Paul Bremer between May 2003 and June 2004 as an all-too-avoidable disaster, in which an occupational administration selected primarily for its loyalty to the Bush administration routinely ignored the reality of local conditions until, as one ex-staffer puts it, “everything blew up in our faces.” Chandrasekaran unstintingly depicts the stubborn cluelessness of many Americans in the Green Zone—like the army general who says children terrified by nighttime helicopters should appreciate “the sound of freedom.” But he sympathetically portrays others trying their best to cut through the red tape and institute genuine reforms. He also has a sharp eye for details, from casual sex in abandoned offices to stray cats adopted by staffers, which enable both advocates and critics of the occupation to understand the emotional toll of its circuslike atmosphere. Thanks to these personal touches, the account of the CPA’s failures never feels heavy-handed.

    Your loyalty to the administration is not loyalty to the country. You refuse to listen and to learn. And the country is worse off for it.

    That's Funny (3bb0f2)

  23. “Your loyalty to the administration”

    How utterly, goddamned stupid. I expressly stated disappointment with Bush. Read a post.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  24. “How utterly, goddamned stupid’

    Feral Dog;

    “I expressly stated disappointment….” does little
    to elevate your status as ‘not stupid’.

    Ar you clinging to the WH inSURGEncy as the new
    ‘Great White Hope’. Your legend of your intelligence hangs in the balance.

    semanticleo (ec1279)

  25. This is why the Media has failed. Their hatred for Bush and Reps and hard-left admiration for hereditary dictators and anti-American thugs (Hezbollah, Iran etc).

    No hard questions have been asked on Iran’s decades long terror attacks on the US (Khobar Towers, Freeh’s assertion that Clinton covered up Iran’s involvement after obstructing his investigation went un-noted). No hard questions on China’s military build ups and militarization of space. No hard questions on Iran’s nuclear program and use of North Korean, Chinese, and Pakistan outsourcing assistance.

    No questions on Iran and Al Qaeda ties, no questions on how much control Musharaff has over Pakistan or bin Laden for that matter. No hard questions about the limits of “surrender” or “negotiation” with terrorists. No questions on the prevalance of jihadi support and sentiment here in the US Muslim community for terror attacks here in the US (akin to the UKs).

    NO JOURNALIST EVER would investigate mosques and Muslim organizations and see what they say about Jews and Christians, their ties to terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda, and support for terror operations.

    This has nothing to do with GWB, but derangement to hatred of Bush and America has led journalists to ignore the biggest stories for pure partisan advantage and toadying to America’s enemies.

    Missing from these rules for bashing Bush at every account is looking at Hezbollah for example and their record of killing Americans (#2 behind Al Qaeda) and the risk that organization poses to security for America, and their penetration of the Democratic Party (which has a Hezbollah Imam giving the DNC convocation and an outright Hezbollah supporter as the first Muslim Congressman, Keith X).

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  26. [Note: this commenter is AF. I’m not sure why he’s calling himself a different name. — P]

    “This is why the Media has failed. Their hatred for Bush and Reps and hard-left admiration for hereditary dictators and anti-American thugs (Hezbollah, Iran etc).”

    Jimbo,
    The Shah- installed by the CIA. Saddam Hussein- installed with CIA support, and our friend [sic] before the invasion of Kuwait.
    Saudi Arabia. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile and the various other military regimes in South America that had US support, and usually support for the coups that brought them to power.

    Iran is Shia. Al Qaeda is fundamentalist Sunni and the two do not get along. Pakistan is a big problem, much bigger than Iran and close to Al Qaeda, but Bush keeps calling the dictator Musharraf our friend, as he does the Saudis and Mubarak in Egypt. Why? good question. Iran is more democratic than any of those. And it has a bigger jewish population too, at about 25,000. Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia. Here are two articles I know you won’t read:

    The BBC

    Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.
    About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures – as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.

    The Jerusalem Post

    Ishak can’t wait to get “home” to Teheran.
    After he immigrated to Israel two years ago, said the short man with dark circles under his eyes, his life became increasingly miserable.
    Standing and fretting inside his empty shop on Jerusalem’s Rehov Ben-Yehuda, Ishak (not his real name), a 51-year-old Jewish-Iranian who is in Israel now only for a final visit, said the jewelry shop he opened here never sold anything, the renters to whom he leased a property did not pay and his heart began to fail him from the stress of monthly mortgage payments and no income.
    So 10 months ago gray-haired Ishak gave up on the Zionist dream and began to move his family and belongings back to Iran. He filled some of his numerous suitcases and trunks with the Persian carpets, silverware, and home decorations he came here with, and flew to Turkey with his two sons. There they sent their new Israeli passports by express mail back to his daughter in Israel. Then they took out their Islamic Republic of Iran passports and boarded a flight to Teheran.
    When he arrived, his Muslim friends were incredulous.
    “I have a lot of Muslim friends and they all knew I’d moved to Israel,” he said. “They asked me, ‘Why did you come back?'” His Jewish friends in Iran already knew the answer…

    Here’s a fun one for you:

    Since… the winter of 2001, Tehran had turned over hundreds of people to U.S. allies and provided U.S. intelligence with the names, photographs and fingerprints of those it held in custody, according to senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials. In early 2003, it offered to hand over the remaining high-value targets directly to the United States if Washington would turn over a group of exiled Iranian militants hiding in Iraq.
    Some of Bush’s top advisers pushed for the trade, arguing that taking custody of bin Laden’s son and the others would produce new leads on al-Qaeda. They were also willing to trade away the exiles — members of a group on the State Department’s terrorist list — who had aligned with Saddam Hussein in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government.

    Officials have said Bush ultimately rejected the exchange on the advice of Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who argued that any engagement would legitimize Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism. Bush’s National Security Council agreed to accept information from Iran on al-Qaeda but offer nothing in return, officials said.

    And there’s more here

    Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she doesn’t remember if she saw a fax detailing an Iranian diplomatic overture in 2003. Today, Michael Hirsch of Newsweek has something that should jog her memory: the fax itself.

    and here

    It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

    But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

    The first articles make clear that it’s not easy being Jew in Iran, and there used to be many more, but that’s not your point is it?
    You know nothing about middle east politics, other than what you want to know. You know noting about the history of US foreign policy other than… etc.

    I could go on for days, but I have better things to do. [I keep reminding myself that!]

    Noah Beery Jr. (3bb0f2)

  27. BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Teddy drank, people sank.

    Mike in S.A. (72da8a)

  28. 1. Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

    2.Demand proof for their every assertion.

    3. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

    4.Then assume that the proof that the proof is accurate is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof of their proof is accurate.

    5. Then assume that the proof that the proof of the proof is accurate is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof of their proof of their proof is accurate.

    6. Don’t worry, the Administration will get tired of this long before you will. Repeat after me: “Oh, yeah? Prove it.” Can be used in any situation containing an assertion.

    Jinnmabe (517b2c)

  29. “Teddy drank, people sank.”
    [Laura[ Bush drives, people die.
    etc. etc….

    Noah Beery Jr. (3bb0f2)

  30. Bush lied when he said…

    Always trust someone who starts of thusly… of being an absolute loon so plagued by BDS that irrefutable evidence contrary to their dogma placed in seven course fashion before them is dismissed as… as, well everyone knows the earth is flat.

    bains (dd1157)

  31. Charlie misquoted the Downing Street Memo and did not source a single thing in his screed.

    That’s why I’m ignoring it.

    OHNOES (d573a4)

  32. I love the 25k jews live in Iran so it must not be so bad theme… ever wonder why 25k and not 100k jews live there? A drop that big should point to something no?

    LordNazh (d282eb)

  33. “The Downing Street memos said the Bush administration was “fixing facts around the policy”..”

    “Charlie misquoted the Downing Street Memo…”

    Down Street Memos

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    I guess you could call that a misquote, if you want.

    Noah Beery Jr. (3bb0f2)

  34. “I love the 25k jews live in Iran so it must not be so bad theme… ever wonder why 25k and not 100k jews live there? A drop that big should point to something no?”

    How many Jews live in “Banadar Bush’s” Saudi Arabia?

    Noah Beery Jr. (3bb0f2)

  35. In Osama Bin Ladin’s Saudi Arabia?

    Noah Beery Jr. (3bb0f2)

  36. Yeah, funny thing about that passive tense. Makes Charlie’s quote completely wrong, as the DSM did not tell him that the Bush Administration was lying, much doing what the very ambiguous language of the document in question said it did.

    Counter-arguing quote mining is quite tedious because, a) conspiracy theorists NEVER cite their sources, and b) the effort in making half-assed claims about such things is a LOT smaller than the effort involved in correcting them.

    Take it elsewhere, Beery/AF.

    OHNOES (d573a4)

  37. “conspiracy theorists NEVER cite their sources”
    wow.
    I do nothing but cite sources.
    Here’s another!

    In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the “Axis of Evil.” Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush’s controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq. At the time, Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn’t ready to say so. Gerson says it was Condoleezza Rice, then national-security adviser, who told him which two countries to include along with Iraq. But the phrase also appealed to a president who felt himself thrust into a grand struggle. Senior aides say it reminded him of Ronald Reagan’s ringing denunciations of the “evil empire.”
    Once again, Iran’s reformists were knocked back on their heels. “Those who were in favor of a rapprochement with the United States were marginalized,” says Adeli. “The speech somehow exonerated those who had always doubted America’s intentions.”

    James Garner (3bb0f2)

  38. I don’t think journalists needed Froomkin’s advice.

    Its something they’ve practices for decades. The big difference is how deficient Bush and his administration has been at making their case. It’s made the media’s tactic effective this time.

    jpm100 (851d24)

  39. Once again, Iran’s reformists were knocked back on their heels. “Those who were in favor of a rapprochement with the United States were marginalized,” says Adeli. “The speech somehow exonerated those who had always doubted America’s intentions.”

    Such a pity. Iran was always perfectly willing to not only cooperate but operate in America’s best interests… you know, until the cowboy rhetoric of Dubya made every Iranian realize how truly evil America was.

    Then again, same thing happened to the Iranians when they denounced [Read, called for the destruction of] Israel. That’s how causality works, right?

    OHNOES (d573a4)

  40. Also, there’s no link there.

    Needless to say, that is an entertaining outlook of the world presented by your excerpt in that it follows the comically quixotic idea that Iran can be made to operate in opposition to its national interests by offering carrots.

    OHNOES (d573a4)

  41. You’re right.
    Sorry

    [Honestly, AF, can you just pick one name and stick with it? — P]

    James G. (3bb0f2)

  42. Bush keeps calling the dictator Musharraf our friend, as he does the Saudis and Mubarak in Egypt. Why? good question. Iran is more democratic than any of those.

    Because you’d be saying the opposite thing if the situation were inverted? Or if we were friends with all of them? Or if we were enemies with them down to the last man?

    OHNOES (175469)

  43. “Because you’d be saying the opposite thing if the situation were inverted?”

    The cynicism of the truly lazy: assume everyone is as shallow as you are and attack them as hypocrites for pretending to be more.
    This is the sheer stupidity of the reactionary. You don’t listen because you know why I disagree with you, you know that it’s as personal for me as it is for you. How can anyone argue with that?. I could come up with volumes of data and you would ignore it all (as indeed you have) because to you this is about some sort of hatred we have for each other.
    I’m sorry, but this is not about your sense of entitlement or your ego, this is about what is best for this country. I have opinions because I’ve worked at following the news ever since I could read the words on a page. And it makes you angry that I seem to know things you don’t even though you never bothered to learn, so your response is to say “opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!”.

    And presidents are elected on this logic. And people are sent to die in wars on this logic. What a waste.

    I’m done. I’m done commenting here, under any name. I wish I could say it’s been fun, but it hasn’t. Mostly it’s made me sad.
    So long Pat.

    Jimmie "AF" Garner (400cbc)

  44. Not that he ever suggested what was better for the country.

    He posted naught but snipes against the administration, random grabs at ‘hypocrisy,’ and interesting, but not particularly substantial takes on foreign policy events from journalists that he took as the gospel truth.

    I ask you all, do you all doubt that, had we gone after the “bigger problem” Pakistan, and befriended Iran, he’d be breathlessly quoting the same articles about how we alienated Pakistan blah blah blah.

    OHNOES (b494da)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0904 secs.