Bill Sammon on Dana Milbank of the Washington Post (and why you should never believe Milbank)

Fighting Back | November 12, 2002 | Bill Sammon

[Mo1]

Milbank is to be trusted even less than Bill Kristol, and you know how I feel about THAT GUY!!

Thanks Miss Marple .. I haven't bought Bill Sammon's book yet .. but I assure you I will tonight ..

As for Milbank .. he sounds like a real

[aristeides]

Remember, Milbank was one of the authors of that front-page Washington Post article that distorted Bush's criticism of the Dems being about Iraq, not homeland security, that Daschle used as his excuse for throwing a fit on the floor of the Senate. We had plenty of evidence at the time that Daschle was already planning that fit before Milbank's piece appeared, and indeed before Bush's speech that was the ostensible subject of Milbank's piece.

[kcvl]

Media Reality Check -- 07/17/2002 -- Washington Post’s Bizarre ...

... Disgruntled White House Correspondent Dana Milbank Floats Silly Cheney
Stock Selling Theory. Washington Post’s Bizarre Halliburton Spin. ...
www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/ 2002/fax20020717.asp



Washington Post’s October Surprise? Reporter Paints Bush as ...

... That seems to have been the game the Post and its White House correspondent, Dana
Milbank, were playing this morning when the paper disguised an op-ed by ...
www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/ 2002/fax20021022.asp

[rdb3]

Why do so many people here jump to accept at face value a statement about the Bush administration by a reporter/columnist whom they excoriated previously because that person praised x42?

Step back for a moment, kayak. Think about 'who' and 'why.'

Now it should become crystal clear. The 'why' is self-evident. But now we should focus on the 'who.' What I mean is this: When you see FR members with posts coming from seriously left-leaning sites and sources like Reuters, NYT, WP, LAT, Boston Globe, etc. about something Bush has done or supposedly will do that would most certainly upset conservatives, and the poster immediately goes off into full scale "attack Bush" mode without questioning the source itself, just pay attention to who is doing it.

Head games are being played, people. Normally a conservative, as you have noted, would pick up on a bias from questionable news sources, right? But when the biased news source is unquestioned, yet Dubya gets attacked by what's in the biased article, that should tell you guys something.

Open your eyes. You're being gamed, BIGTIME.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rdb3]

#44 was meant for you as well.

[agrace]

GREAT book. I'd be reading it again if my dad hadn't snagged it as soon as I was done. :)

[Miss Marple]

Agreed. Not all here are as they portray themselves.

[Mo1]

point taken

[prognostigaator]

bttt

[hchutch]

Thanks for the reminder vis-a-vis Millbank earlier.

I will admit, I find Kristol's push for empire quite appealing and possessing some merit, though.

[bvw]

The harpooner's barb has sunk into your outer flesh. Beware the pull to the gaffer.

[Miss Marple]

No empire, please! I am not adverse to wielding our influence in the world, but countries should be sovereign and self-determining.

Besides, running an empire would consume a whole lot of money and manpower.

I prefer to get rid of the bad guys and then go home.

[hchutch]

I'm not entirely sold on empire, but in my more cynical moments, I do tend to think along the lines of "we already did the time, might as well do the crime."

I do think we need to be active, and Kristol's case has some merit as well. I don't want to clean up a mess and have to go back a decade later.