Lemme phrase it another way... Unless I know someone to be a habitual/chronic liar, I'll generally accept what they say as true. UNLESS it involves matters that could have an effect on me, others, or even society; and more importantly, do I care. If I care, it becomes a matter that requires investigation. Here's the kicker; too many people don't care. The useful idiots on the left don't know, and furthermore, don't want to know. Most conservatives, if they think about it at all, discount it and move on, rarely sharing their misgivings about the faux press.
Gotta run.
FGS
"We captured an Iraqi brigadier general in the raid," he said. "He was completely surprised there were American tanks in the city. He believed their propaganda that the Americans were a hundred miles south, dying by the thousands. All of a sudden he's coming to work and there is a tank battalion rolling down the center of Baghdad."So propaganda was causing people to try to kill American soldiers.It became apparent to Perkins that the propaganda being put out by Saddam's regime was giving the Iraqis a false sense of security and emboldening them to continue to fight.
But Peter Arnet had an absolute right to parrot that propaganda line in an interview with al Jazera. </sarcasm>
Remembering the 3rd Infantry Division's Thunder RunsNotwithstanding the obvious fact that the terrorist attacks on our troops in Iraq over the past year were motivated by the hope of unfavorable PR for our president and our armed forces, print journalism could not, constitutionally, be constrained to withhold that payout to the terrorists without imposing martial law in America.
(American Forces Press Service)
www.defenselink.mil | By Jim Garamone
But the question is, "Was/is the payout to the terrorists of negative PR for the President of the United States in the interest of the United States? Was/is it justifiable for government-licensed broadcasters to provide that payout for murder? Do government-licensed broadcasters have a constitutional right to use neutral terms to describe the attempted murder of American soldiers, merely because those soldiers are on foreign soil, and in uniform? Did/do government-licensed broadcasters have the right to insinuate that the regime of Saddam Hussain remained legitimate when the U.S. government had overthrown that regime and established the policy of replacing it with a constitutional democratic republic?"
Journalism, print and broadcast, would answer that in the affirmative. I say, "No!" But then, I dont' think CFR is constitutional, either . . .