[source]
Washington Post reporter Mary Beth Sheridan spent some time with the troops in Iraq, and came away with some valuable lessons:
…[Sheridan] said she was “overwhelmed by the military,” but she did learn by being embedded that members of our armed forces were not “blood-thirsty maniacs.” Yes, she really did say that.
In fact, she said, they were “really decent people.” And even “sweet.” Of course, after being shot at they were eager to shoot back — a military attitude that seemed to surprise her.
Why am I not surprised that a reporter for a major Old Media organization sent to cover the troops in Iraq is surprised about the fact that soldiers were eager to return fire? Still, I have to give her a credit for being open to actual evidence instead of using her opinions to rewrite facts.
[source]
Yesterday Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) hosted a community forum in Ithaca, New York, on The Future Of Social Security.
An LGF reader was present in the audience and happened to be recording as Rep. Hinchey launched into a barking moonbat conspiracy rant worthy of Democratic Underground, telling the audience he believed the fake CBS memos were planted by Karl Rove to discredit Dan Rather, and divert attention from President Bush’s “draft dodging.”
When our reader asked Hinchey if he had evidence for these charges, he first said, “Yes, I do,” but when asked a second time he admitted he did not.
I’m still missing something basic here. Suppose Hinchey’s conspiracy theory is cold hard fact. Doesn’t that still mean that Dan Rather and CBS News chose to put out a story based on forged evidence? Didn’t Rather&Co. still overlook numerous red flags? It’s like Gary Hart and his little escapade — the central issue remains the bad judgement and political bias of Rather&Co, that they were willing to go ahead even with alarms ringing and then hunker down even after it was obvious that the evidence was forged.