Dean Esmay bloviating in his comments section:
A) The administration and military establishment do not “routinely lie,” and
B) Apparently, actual lies and agitprop by terrorist organizations are not worthy of anywhere near as much skepticism in John’s world as the “lies” of an administration he simply disagrees with sometimes.
Whatever, indeed. We won’t go into the ‘lies’ in too much detail, just brush up on a few of them. I guess we could start with the lie about the cost of the Prescription Drug Plan. We could move on to virtually any one of Cheney’s utterances about Iraq over the past few years (if you want to claim he is not ‘lying,’ and just wrong, you then need to articulate why we are continuing to advance policies based on the ‘wrong’ assumptions and ideas advanced by Cheney. Pick your poison.) We were lied to about secret prison camps. We were lied to about ‘just a few bad apples’ at Abu Gharaib, when there is more than ample evidence that the abuses were caused by administration policies. We were fed heapings of lies about stem cell research and the threat of gay marriage.
And those are just a few, off the top of my head. And that does not count the thousands upon thousands of acts of daily spin that take place- bullshit, that when fed to unwitting or willfully ignorant audiences, portrays false impressions designed to ease the passage or acceptance of flawed policies. So maybe Dean Esmay is content being lied to by the people he elected to represent him. Maybe he is just an idiot and really doesn’t realize he is being lied to. Or maybe Dean, after fabricating and slandering for months in regards to the Schiavo affair, is simply incapable of discerning the truth from lies anymore:
I don’t think it’s reasonable to call anyone a liar when you simply disagree with them. I think that degrades discussions considerably. It’s also unnecessarily demeaning.
Furthermore, I stand firmly and staunchly with Austin Bay, Glenn Reynolds, and others. In fact, let me just go ahead and stoop to John’s level:
John Cole’s a liar. He calls people liars when he knows perfectly well they may just disagree with people. So if John Cole will lie like that, why should I not be skeptical of anything John Cole ever says?***
Really, does that sort of thing to ANYTHING to promote dialogue? One day, Aziz, you’re going to have the wonderful experience of pulling the lever for a man you really like, and see him be elected President, and feel really good about it–and then spend four to eight years having his critics call him a liar and an incompetent non-stop and in almost anything they ever say or do. Then maybe you’ll think back and say, “wow, did I sound that nasty back when Bush was in charge?” And the answer will be: yes.
Otherwise: I prefer a media which is NOT automatically more skeptical of our government than everybody else on the planet when our government is in the middle of a war. I’d prefer a media that’s on our side, and that stopped with the vile, hateful, stupid idea that “our side” means “the administration’s side,” or that our side is best served by being more skeptical of our government than our enemies.
Furthermore, it’s very clear where the media drops the ball to me:
1) By not being skeptical enough of our overseas critics, especially the rent-a-rioters and other anti-American demonstrators.
2) By ignoring most tales of valor and achievement by our troops.
I think they’re four-square guilty of that. Completely.