[chiller]

This piece explains the confusing "he said, he said" better than I've seen to date.

[Tribune7]

The BBC, The New York Times, what more can you say.

[GOP_Proud]

< ... life in hell is just heavenly. >

I love this line. What a way to expose journalists with an agenda. They could be in hell and report this line if it suited their agenda.

Sad fact is someone, somewhere will believe it.

[JennysCool]

Bump for later reference. Thanks, Chiller.

[foreshadowed at waco]

The Kelly "scandal" — if "scandal" is what it is — is like an exploded diagram showing exactly how modern journalism covers modern politics. Sixteen words, 45 minutes — it's all a game of numbers and nuance and nonsense. Cynical, superficial, inconsequential, Gilligan's story signified nothing. It was simply another shot in the dark, hoping to bring down a prime minister who had done the unforgivable, ignored the wishes of the media and sided with the Americans. He used Kelly because he couldn't find any sources anyplace else to support his tired thesis.

Whenever I feel depressed that our side is losing the PR war I find comfort in the fact that the clear headed people of the world are on our side--Charles Krauthammer, Tony Blankley, Brit Hume, Mark Steyn, for example. This article is simply wonderful IMHO for its clarity and elegance.

[txzman]

Bottom Line for ALL Americans to understand:

"From the conversation I had with [Gilligan] I don't see how he could make the authoritative statements he was making from the comments that I made." He flatly denied saying that Campbell had added the 45-minute claim to the dossier. Gilligan's reaction? Kelly's a liar, he told the press in a written statement."

[Dr. Scarpetta]

BUMP

[Monitor]

BTTT! Great article.