The mainstream media’s palpable disinterest in the Berger case is hardly justified. Many questions remain unanswered. Of the few explanations Berger and his defenders have actually provided, none passes the laugh test.
Berger claimed in court last year that smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives was about “personal convenience,” but the inspector general report states that he walked out of the building and down the street, found a construction site, looked to see if the coast was clear, then slid behind a fence and hid the documents under a trailer.
Which part of that elaborate procedure was “convenient”?
According to the New York Times story last April following Berger’s guilty plea, “Associates attributed the episode to fatigue and poor judgment.” While lying to authorities is poor judgment, it is also illegal. And how exactly did fatigue drive Berger to use his scissors to shred three versions of the top-secret document?
I think we know how this would have been covered if it had been a former Republican National Security Advisor. One of many reasons to not allow the Democrats near the White House at war time.
I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but many people think that the Iraq reporting has been inaccurate and biased:
…overall, about one-third of Americans believe that the news media present too negative a picture of what is happening in Iraq; one out of five believe that the news media present too positive a picture, and the rest say that news media coverage is about right or have no opinion.
As the party breakdown shows, the lunatics who think that coverage has been too “positive” are part of the “reality-based community.”
I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but many people think that the Iraq reporting has been inaccurate and biased:
…overall, about one-third of Americans believe that the news media present too negative a picture of what is happening in Iraq; one out of five believe that the news media present too positive a picture, and the rest say that news media coverage is about right or have no opinion.
As the party breakdown shows, the lunatics who think that coverage has been too “positive” are part of the “reality-based community.”
I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but many people think that the Iraq reporting has been inaccurate and biased:
…overall, about one-third of Americans believe that the news media present too negative a picture of what is happening in Iraq; one out of five believe that the news media present too positive a picture, and the rest say that news media coverage is about right or have no opinion.
As the party breakdown shows, the lunatics who think that coverage has been too “positive” are part of the “reality-based community.”
Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as “the mother of all surprises,” noting that “Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are.” The reason, of course, is that Iraqis know what is going on in their country while Americans are fed a diet of exclusively negative reporting from Iraq.
Of course, it would have been better if he’s written “almost exclusively negative,” given that he was citing a positive Newsweek story as evidence.
And also of course, expect my anonymous and cowardly moronic leftist troll to show up in a minute or two with the daily “chickenhawk” stupidity, and demands that I go to Iraq.
Am I the only one who thinks it strange that Rosie O’Donnell is described by Baba Wawa as the “moderator” of The View? Seems like “extremator” would be a better title.
I observed that three articles on conditions in Ramadi and al Anbar Province had appeared within a week of each other giving entirely different points of view. Mine and one in the Times of London said we’re winning the war in Ramadi; a Washington Post A1 story co-authored by “Fiasco” author Thomas Ricks claimed exactly the opposite. The difference, I said, could be explained simply. I and the Times writer reported from Ramadi. Ricks and his co-author have not only never been to Ramadi, they wrote their piece from Washington.
Preemptive note: we can expect Anonymous Moron in the comments section to chime in with the chronic mindless “chickenhawk” attack on me any minute now, because, you see, I’m not allowed to criticize the media reporting in Iraq unless I go myself. He or she never disappoints.