September 12, 2008
WaPo Reporter Distorts Palin Deployment Speech
The willingness of the press to lie to undercut Sarah Palin is really getting obscene:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.
Anne E. Kornblut, just stop.
Unless Kornblut buried the lede, Palin said precisely nothing about Saddam Hussein or his government at all or any roll they may have had in 9/11. Kornblut simply made that up, because she wanted Palin to say that.
When Palin referenced "...the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans," is was an obvious reference to al Qaeda in Iraq, an offshoot of the parent al Qaeda organization that plotted and executed the 9/11 attacks, and while still funds and loosely controls the failing Iraqi branch.
And the parent organization is not happy with the branch office:
Al Qaeda's senior leadership has lost confidence in its commander in Iraq and views the situation in the country as dire, according to a series of letters intercepted by Multinational Forces Iraq earlier this year.The letters, which have been sent exclusively to The Long War Journal by Multinational Forces Iraq, are a series of communications between Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, Abu Ayyub al Masri, al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, and Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq. These letters were intercepted by Coalition forces in Baghdad on April 24, 2008. One of the letters written by Zawahiri is dated March 6, 2008.
[snip]
"The letters confirmed our assessment that Al Qaeda has suffered significant damage and serious reverses in Iraq, including widespread rejection of [al Qaeda in Iraq's] indiscriminate violence, extremist ideology, and oppressive practices," General David Petraeus, the Commander of Multinational Forces Iraq told The Long War Journal. "Even Zawahiri recognized that [al Qaeda in Iraq] has lost credibility in Iraq."
Sarah Palin was obviously addressing the living al Qaeda terrorists that soldiers would face in Iraq, no the ghosts of a regime long dead. How biased or simply dishonest does a reporter have to be to twist that?
Here's a novel concept: why don't reporters limit themselves to reporting facts.
Or is that simply too much to ask for a media more interested in selecting a President than electing one?
Keep on 'em. Thanks.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at September 12, 2008 07:10 AMThe story doesn't even make any sense, because obviously her son isn't going to fight Saddam's government, which is long out of power, and Saddam himself of course is dead.
Posted by: David Bernstein at September 12, 2008 07:19 AMReporters write what will sell, not what is true. It's a business, not a public service organization.
Look to the audience, not the reporter, as a ridicule target.
Public service is just the media's promotion package, and like any other press release.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 12, 2008 07:29 AM"Reporters write what will sell, not what is true. It's a business, not a public service organization."
Except that the public is not purchasing what the MSM is selling as evidenced by falling revenues. If the media wants people to purchase their product, they should report the facts straight.
Posted by: PaulD at September 12, 2008 07:43 AMNow it appears that Palin isn't just a problem for Obama.
By the way, I think you misspelled the writers name with an extra "l".
Posted by: Neo at September 12, 2008 07:52 AM"Reporters write what will sell, not what is true. It's a business, not a public service organization."
In that case, let's stop treating news operations as if they were PSOs. That is, take away certain privileges and (whatever is left of) the respect they currently enjoy, above those provided by the first amendment: shield laws, extreme latitude concerning libel, their semi-official status as the 'fourth estate' and the 'watchdog of government'.
Nope, just another eeeeeevil capitalist exploiter of the proletariat...ya think International ANSWER and MoveOn could be counted on to pick up that line?
"Because the press is in a persistent vegetative state." Ms Kornblut is another example of a main stream moron who thinks the readership is too dumb to discover the truth. This pervasive attitude continues to drive readers and viewers away -- faster, please!
Posted by: DoneThat2 at September 12, 2008 08:01 AM"The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon..."
The Bush admin never promoted this idea.
Posted by: ben at September 12, 2008 08:13 AMSlamming Palin has not worked so well for the Obama campaign, yet there are those who repeat their mistake and hope for different results.
Could the Clintons be having anything to do with it?
Posted by: Ralph Thayer at September 12, 2008 08:24 AMQ: Here's a novel concept: why don't reporters limit themselves to reporting facts ?
A. That changed with Watergate. Because of Watergate, reporters now want to Make A Difference.
So it goes.
Any chance we in Virginia can have a "do over" on the George Allen/Jim Webb election now?
Posted by: Walter Smith at September 12, 2008 09:09 AMBUT...if we don't elect Sen Obama, the Euros will be extremely disappointed. Can you blame the media for trying to prevent such a horror?
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA at September 12, 2008 09:09 AMIn addition, those same insurgents in Iraq have killed thousands of American Soldiers who are there trying to bring security and stability to the people of Iraq in accordance with a UN Security Council Resolution and the request of a democratically elected Iraqi regime.
Posted by: brian at September 12, 2008 09:35 AM"Ms Kornblut ... thinks the readership is too dumb to discover the truth."
I strongly suspect that Ms Kornblut thinks what she wrote *is* the truth. It's the echo chamber effect.
Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2008 09:43 AMThe Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 09/12/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David m at September 12, 2008 10:25 AMThe real people have long distrusted, if not hated the moron media and more so with each anti-American column they publish. One the other hand, those same people love Sarah Palin so the more the media tries to smear her, the more staunch our support. So I'll just say, keep it up!
Posted by: kiwikit at September 12, 2008 10:45 AMWhen I first heard about this I thought, well, maybe her statement was abmiguous in some way. Not.Even.Close. It could not possibly be more clear what Palin was refering to and that Anne Kornblut is lying.
Posted by: Cory at September 12, 2008 11:15 AMPalin never distinguished who she was talking about in her quote, so you can't assume she was talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq. You assumed that Obama was talking about Palin in his lipstick comment. It seems like there is alot of ASSuming going on with Republicans these days.
Posted by: mj at September 12, 2008 12:21 PMGimme a break, you have to be 14 kinds of stupid to think that she was talking about Saddam, and not AQ in Iraq.
Of course, looking at who it is that's making that claim, it's no surprise the moonbats are attempting to make that case.
Hypocrite much?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 12, 2008 01:38 PMmj--
She would have spelled it all out for you, but she thought you were smarter than that.
Guess not.
Posted by: Trish at September 12, 2008 09:53 PMPaul replied: "I strongly suspect that Ms Kornblut thinks what she wrote *is* the truth."
That's it in a nutshell. And if anyone tried to correct her she would defend her belief.
Saying there's some kind of conspiracy to fool people with outright lies implies the conspirators are capable of recognizing the truth in the first place.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 14, 2008 12:54 PMCell Phone lookup reviews, Cell Phone Number Lookup, Reverse Phone Lookup, Reverse Phone Unlimited, People Search By Phone, Reverse Phone # Lookup, Lookup Cell Phone Number - Search Now, Free Reverse Cell Phone # Lookup, Reverse Cell Phone Save! Unlimited, Cell Phone Lookup - Search Free
Posted by: cellphonelookup at August 23, 2009 08:10 PM
