|
Washington Post equals White House propaganda on IraqBy John AmatoCrooks And Liars Nov. 29, 2006 |
Popular 
Mark Levin Accuses Me of 'Trying to Commit Violence' Against Him by Clipping His Show
Ben Shapiro Pushes Noahide Laws at TPUSA Event, Throws a Fit Over Being Quoted Word-For-Word
From Aid to Dependency: Israeli Agent Reveals the Real Goal of 'Merging' U.S. and Israeli Militaries
ADL, Jewish Groups Lobby California to Classify Jews as a Race, 'Not Just a Faith'
Trump Welcomes 'The Highly Respected' Alan Dershowitz Into The GOP, Shills His New Book
|
 This is an unbelievable segment which shows how screwed up the Washington Post is. Dana Priest says that The Washington Post doesn't label the incredible amount of violence in Iraq a "civil war" because government officials won't. Am I missing something here or are they getting an Armstrong Williams check or committing "negligent journalism?" Priest: Well, I think one of the reasons the President resists that label is because it equates almost with a failure of U.S. policy. I'll say for the Washington Post, we haven't labeled it a civil war and I've asked around here today to see why not or what’s the thinking on that and really our reporters have not filed that. We try to avoid the labels, particularly when the elected government itself does not call its situation a civil war. Certainly—and I would agree with General McCaffrey on this — absolutely the level of violence equals a civil war… Just tell the TRUTH. Please just beat me with a stick. |
