Michael Gordon and the NYTimes enter a whole new level of shilling
Oh my God!!!!
There's a giant NYTimes story framing the decision on "the surge" as a courageous Bush moment when he made a risky decision despite the doubts of so many...... But what you need to know is the full context of the article.
First off, you need to understand it's written by Michael Gordon who has a long reputation as an administration shill. (He was aluminum tubes means Iraq nuclear. He was the furthest on the discredited Iran intelligence in Iraq story. He was the one overhyping the Israeli military exercise on the front page when the administration wanted him to.... I could do many more.)
Next, you have to understand that George Bush's speech at the GOP convention is going to praise John McCain's "unique" judgment on Iraq in supporting the surge. That's going to be the theme and primary endorsement.
Then, today, one day before that Bush speech, we get a Michael Gordon "framing piece" reporting how difficult and unique such a choice on "the surge" was. A storyline that just happens to exactly support the theme and endorsement in the Bush speech.
I don't even know what to say.
One day before Bush is going to make his endorsement of McCain, a framing story "leaks" through an administration shill, complete with interviews and internal memos, praising Bush (and indirectly McCain) for their foresight in seeing past all those in the military and administration to be the only ones who wanted "the surge."
This is a whole new level by Michael Gordon and the NYTimes.
And nobody else is going to tell you that.
PS. Since this is a Sunday story, I'd be really curious if it's used the way Cheney used the aluminum tubes or Mohammed Atta story (Gordon,) leaking a story for Sunday publication, then going on the Sunday shows and citing the story they leaked/sourced as independent verification of their viewpoint.
(On the other hand, it is possible that Bush won't even attend the convention if the hurricane looks bad, but, I'm sure, the story was already in motion. (Taped message?))
There's a giant NYTimes story framing the decision on "the surge" as a courageous Bush moment when he made a risky decision despite the doubts of so many...... But what you need to know is the full context of the article.
First off, you need to understand it's written by Michael Gordon who has a long reputation as an administration shill. (He was aluminum tubes means Iraq nuclear. He was the furthest on the discredited Iran intelligence in Iraq story. He was the one overhyping the Israeli military exercise on the front page when the administration wanted him to.... I could do many more.)
Next, you have to understand that George Bush's speech at the GOP convention is going to praise John McCain's "unique" judgment on Iraq in supporting the surge. That's going to be the theme and primary endorsement.
Then, today, one day before that Bush speech, we get a Michael Gordon "framing piece" reporting how difficult and unique such a choice on "the surge" was. A storyline that just happens to exactly support the theme and endorsement in the Bush speech.
I don't even know what to say.
One day before Bush is going to make his endorsement of McCain, a framing story "leaks" through an administration shill, complete with interviews and internal memos, praising Bush (and indirectly McCain) for their foresight in seeing past all those in the military and administration to be the only ones who wanted "the surge."
This is a whole new level by Michael Gordon and the NYTimes.
And nobody else is going to tell you that.
PS. Since this is a Sunday story, I'd be really curious if it's used the way Cheney used the aluminum tubes or Mohammed Atta story (Gordon,) leaking a story for Sunday publication, then going on the Sunday shows and citing the story they leaked/sourced as independent verification of their viewpoint.
(On the other hand, it is possible that Bush won't even attend the convention if the hurricane looks bad, but, I'm sure, the story was already in motion. (Taped message?))
posted by mikevotes at
6:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home