The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Advice for Rolling Stone magazine: stick to music
Andrew McCarthy goes toe to toe with Rolling Stone "journalist" James Bamford regarding Bamford's 'hit piece' on Michael Ledeen--and finds Bamford's piece severly flawed--if not downright dishonest. It makes you wonder about the shadow associations of people like Bamford; what are his connections to members of the shrill Move On crowd, the sociopathic Democratic Underground, or other power brokers of the hard Left (Soros, etc.). Because this is beyond irresponsibility; fabrications like these not only do a great disservice to excellent reporters like Ledeen; it misleads the very public it is attempting to propagandize (which of course is what propaganda is all about). Goebbels would have been proud...
McCarthy begins:
In a screed Rolling Stone is passing off as journalism, James Bamford becomes the latest in a growing crowd of hacks to smear our friend Michael Ledeen.
Up until now, the fiction recklessly spewed by disgruntled intelligence-community retirees and their media enablers — some of whom have conceded that the claim is based on zero evidence — has been that Michael had something to do with the forged Italian documents that, according to the Left’s narrative, were the basis for President Bush’s “lie” in the 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein had obtained yellowcake uranium (for nuclear-weapons construction) in Africa. Of course, Michael had utterly nothing to do with the forgeries (the source has actually been identified); the forgeries were not the basis for the president’s statement; the president did not claim Saddam obtained yellowcake — merely that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam had sought to obtain it; and the British intelligence reports that actually were the basis for the president’s statement were true (the Brits stand by them to this day). But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Read the whole thing here--it is quite thorough. McCarthy systematically obliterates Bamford's twisted arguments, falsified "facts", and allusions to "consipiracy theory" where none existed--which are right up there with those near-psychopathic moonbats who believe that Bush and Rumsfeld "engineered" the destruction of the Twin Towers and Pentagon. These people need mental help, not increased circulation. And Rolling Stone is marginalizing itself as nothing more than an irresponsible home for partisan hacks.
In my college days, I had over 1000 record albums and subscribed Rolling Stone religiously because of its great music reporting. But as I said earlier, if they have to fabricate truth to make a political point (a la Rather at CBS), then they need to stick to music or else just fold operations; for this pathetic excuse for hard hitting "reporting" is a disgrace to that magazine and a disgrace to the plummeting integrity of Bamford.
Count me out on picking up that partisan rag ever again. It's a shame: once upon a time you could read Rolling Stone and actually believe what it was telling you. Those days are long gone.
McCarthy begins:
In a screed Rolling Stone is passing off as journalism, James Bamford becomes the latest in a growing crowd of hacks to smear our friend Michael Ledeen.
Up until now, the fiction recklessly spewed by disgruntled intelligence-community retirees and their media enablers — some of whom have conceded that the claim is based on zero evidence — has been that Michael had something to do with the forged Italian documents that, according to the Left’s narrative, were the basis for President Bush’s “lie” in the 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein had obtained yellowcake uranium (for nuclear-weapons construction) in Africa. Of course, Michael had utterly nothing to do with the forgeries (the source has actually been identified); the forgeries were not the basis for the president’s statement; the president did not claim Saddam obtained yellowcake — merely that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam had sought to obtain it; and the British intelligence reports that actually were the basis for the president’s statement were true (the Brits stand by them to this day). But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Read the whole thing here--it is quite thorough. McCarthy systematically obliterates Bamford's twisted arguments, falsified "facts", and allusions to "consipiracy theory" where none existed--which are right up there with those near-psychopathic moonbats who believe that Bush and Rumsfeld "engineered" the destruction of the Twin Towers and Pentagon. These people need mental help, not increased circulation. And Rolling Stone is marginalizing itself as nothing more than an irresponsible home for partisan hacks.
In my college days, I had over 1000 record albums and subscribed Rolling Stone religiously because of its great music reporting. But as I said earlier, if they have to fabricate truth to make a political point (a la Rather at CBS), then they need to stick to music or else just fold operations; for this pathetic excuse for hard hitting "reporting" is a disgrace to that magazine and a disgrace to the plummeting integrity of Bamford.
Count me out on picking up that partisan rag ever again. It's a shame: once upon a time you could read Rolling Stone and actually believe what it was telling you. Those days are long gone.
