American Secrets in the Mountains of Afghanistan

**NewsBoy** · 09-24-2006, 05:20 PM

its commander had nominated each of his men ? as well as himself ? for medals for valor. The team's performance was heralded as evidence that the Guard could play as equals with the regular Army in the war on terrorism. .......But the team also had come home with secrets.

More at link...

**Gaffer** · 09-24-2006, 05:40 PM

First thing I look at is the source. the latimes. yeah there's a good source of unbaised news.

Once again they went digging for something to defame the military with. And then they spout how the islaomists are growing in recruitment. This is an example of why.

If the military looks bad, Bush looks bad, and that is the overall goal here.

**uscitizen** · 09-24-2006, 06:17 PM

Bush needs no help to look bad

**Care4all** · 09-24-2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Gaffer

First thing I look at is the source. the latimes. yeah there's a good source of unbaised news.

Once again they went digging for something to defame the military with. And then they spout how the islaomists are growing in recruitment. This is an example of why.

If the military looks bad, Bush looks bad, and that is the overall goal here.

which newspaper source would you consider right wing slant as you see the la times as left wing slant?

and what newspapers used as a source would you accept?

ps. i haven't even read the article yet so this is not really on topic...

just trying to set the ''gaffer parameters'' in case i ever debatewith you!

Care

**Gaffer** · 09-24-2006, 08:05 PM

I don't look for a right wing source. I just look for facts. But anything that comes out of a paper or magazine with times in the name is immediately suspect to me.

The washington post tends to lean right, tho depends on the writters. And the weekly Standard is definately right wing.

Jihad Watch, Michele Malkin, Hot Air, Truth Laid Bear and Abagrav are all good blogs.

The times story may be a legitimate one for moral reasons. But I think, due to the times record, it is purely polical and has nothing to do with morals. An early October surprise from the libs.

**Care4all** · 09-24-2006, 09:55 PM

the dems couldn't pull off an october surprise if their mother's and their own life depended on it imo.... they probably wouldn't agree on what the surprise should be, and definately would not be able to agree on how to pull it off!

and i love them for their lacking ability in this area!

***Damocles*** · 09-24-2006, 10:01 PM

LOL. Wow. What partisan blinders! The feed for the See B.S. story made it the "October Surprise" of the Ds last election. The only "unfortunate" part was that it was let out one week early rather than the weekend before the election which gave people time to figure out it was an outright lie.

**Care4all** · 09-25-2006, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Damocles

LOL. Wow. What partisan blinders! The feed for the See B.S. story made it the "October Surprise" of the Ds last election. The only "unfortunate" part was that it was let out one week early rather than the weekend before the election which gave people time to figure out it was an outright lie.

???

**uscitizen** · 09-25-2006, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Gaffer

I don't look for a right wing source. I just look for facts. But anything that comes out of a paper or magazine with times in the name is immediately suspect to me.

The washington post tends to lean right, tho depends on the writters. And the weekly Standard is definately right wing.

Jihad Watch, Michele Malkin, Hot Air, Truth Laid Bear and Abagrav are all good blogs.

The times story may be a legitimate one for moral reasons. But I think, due to the times record, it is purely polical and has nothing to do with morals. An early October surprise from the libs.

So Opinion blogs are good trusted sources of information but traditional print media is not to be trusted ???? Wow....

***Damocles*** · 09-25-2006, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Care4all

???

Care, "October Surprises" are released in regular news outlets, you don't remember the See B.S. Story? You know the one with made-up documents... You really don't remember? Whoever was feeding that story was creating the Ds "October Surprise" and it was supposed to come out 3 days before election, instead it was released a week earlier because it was supposedly going to be "scooped" by another station. That timing problem made it so that we found out that the "memos" were all pretend before the election. That they were what the secretary "believed" his commander felt, not any actual memos.

**Gaffer** · 09-25-2006, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by uscitizen

So Opinion blogs are good trusted sources of information but traditional print media is not to be trusted ???? Wow....

when traditional print media is bias and tells outright lies then I have to trust in other sources. Those sources use links and other sources of their own to follow up on their stories.

Lie to me once and I will not fully trust you. Lie to me multiple times and I will never trust you. That's how I feel about the print media and most MSM's.

**uscitizen** · 09-25-2006, 07:06 AM

Yeah it has gotten hard to believe any sources. But I believe that was one objective of the Bush administration. Easier to fool people that way.
ie the liberal media mantra....

***Damocles*** · 09-25-2006, 07:07 AM

Right... They infiltrated See B.S. news and secretly planted a fake memo story...

The regular media did this to themselves.

**uscitizen** · 09-25-2006, 07:12 AM

Yeah the media shoots themselves in the foot too sometimes, but this does not invalidate my statement.

**Care4all** · 09-25-2006, 08:49 AM

You can tell by reading the different sources whether an article is truthful....and most newspapers are truthful.....they may have a slant in their stories to the left or to the right, but the facts in the stories are truthful imo.

They are not going to make things up....

just as Rather DID NOT make things up.....95% of his story was backed up with actual facts.....but the 5% that could not be verrified could NOT be proven as being real documents.

Rather did not make up these documents or fabricate them himself. He and his staff and his producer who STILL says the documents are legitimate and says it was a preplanned republican assault on Rather before the show even finished being aired....

She says the typewriter garbage was all wrong and she has legitimate showings that those type writers DID EXIST in the department that this document supposedly came from....but the internet media ambushed them on the day of the airing and the other media followed much to her dismay, instead of trying to verify the memo themselves.

But regardless, the media is fairly accurate, but with either left or right wing spin.... if you get around this spin, the facts are ususally there in the article is how I look at it.

rather wasn't close to being an "October" surprise....it was late summer, I thought?....like the first week in september or the last week in august or something like that, which is fairly early to be called an October surprise, if it were late september then it would be close enough to the election, to where the info being spouted can't be verified.....imho.