Home > Near-Naked Propaganda > And the walls crumbled…

And the walls crumbled…

October 24th, 2007

Been pretty busy all day and don’t have a lot of time to comment on this right now, so I’ll just leave it at: pwned, bitches.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of lying, arrogant, propagandizing asshats.

Update! More. And how.

Updated update! CY Bob does the hokey pokey with Old Media dead-enders, and he damn sure knows what it’s all about.

  • Share/Bookmark
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Martin
    October 24th, 2007 at 15:23 | #1
    Reply | Quote
    Cue up TNR's declaration of Beauchamp's stories as "fake but accurate" in 5...4...3...
  2. torrentprime
    October 24th, 2007 at 15:32 | #2
    Reply | Quote
    I think what's scariest is that both sides of this debate think this somehow validates or invalidates the war itself. Like Beauchamp lying somehow fixes Bush's terrifying errors in prosecuting the war, or that Beauchamp telling the truth somehow proves that all soldiers commit crimes.

    It's telling that Malkin et al., are so on this story, since it proves a nice distraction from the on-going disaster created over there, Michael Yon's optimism notwithstanding.

  3. Erin_Coda
    October 24th, 2007 at 22:05 | #3
    Reply | Quote
    Point of clarity: there are many times when the anti-war side has unfortunately been caught with their collective pants down, when the documents and statements they were using against the war turned out to be inaccurate or downright false (Dan Rather, Beauchamp, the "miracle bullets", etc). Attacking the arguments does NOT automatically prove that the war is just-- but it definitely casts doubt on some of the arguments that say it isn't.
  4. Martin
    October 25th, 2007 at 13:40 | #4
    Reply | Quote
    Torrent, nobody here is saying that Scott Beauchamp's fabulism means the war is going great or that no mistakes have been made.

    What we're saying is that (a) the gullibility of TNR is evidence of their bias and that (b) because of that, you have to take what they (and other, similarly situated members of the MSM) with a grain of salt, because they've shown themselves as being susceptible to manipulation by those whose views they share.

    As for the "mistakes made", I've got news for you: There has never been a war in human history in which significant mistakes have not been made, and there never will be. Whether mistakes were made or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the war was justified. There were plenty of mistakes made in WWII but that doesn't mean it was wrong to go to war against Japan and Germany.

    For someone to say they oppose the war because of "mistakes" is to imply that they would be supporters if there were no mistakes. Surely that's not what you're saying, is it?

    There is no field of human endeavor - medicine, law, education, journalism, war, or anything else - that is free of mistakes. Never has been and never will be. To shrink away from doing what is neccessary because of a fear of "mistakes" is to live in a cave, forever afraid of your shadow.

  5. Randy Rager
    October 25th, 2007 at 19:35 | #5
    Reply | Quote
    "terrifying" errors? Man, that's a far stretch. Sure, I'd like to see more border security, more vigorous and open prosecution of the war on terror against more of it's sponsors, (Syria and Iran spring to mind) but seriously now. I don't see error one that scares me all that much.

    And what Martin said about errors in warfare. In fact, quite aside from all the other bromides, Victory is often defined as making fewer mistakes than your enemy. In this regard, I'd say we're well ahead, especially if you factor in magnitude of mistakes made.

Comments are closed.