WORLD EXCLUSIVE! DRUDGE A LYING SACK OF SH**

[radwriter0555]

Published: January 20, 2004 Author: Dylan Otto Krider

Developing...

There’s an old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” If that’s true, then the people who should be ashamed about the media frenzy that resulted from Matt Drudge’s cut and paste job of Clark’s prior testimony before the Armed Services Committee is the press. Drudge’s creative editing of transcripts is routine, but the media’s reporting of these hack jobs is also routine. Yet like the good little masochists they are, they keep begging for another flogging. “Thank you, daddy, may I please have another?”



Here is the headline as it appeared on the Drudge Report on January 15:



Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'



Here are some quotes from the opening statement and testimony that did not appear in Drudge’s transcript:



“As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to al-Qaida.”



“According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons.”



“Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network.”



“The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force.”



“The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.”



“In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible.”



“Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as preemptive.”

Making this testimony appear to be an unqualified call to arms wasn’t easy. To achieve this effect, the Sun Herald says Drudge not only selectively chose Clark’s words but added words that did not appear in the original transcript, though in all fairness to Drudge, it’s possible the reporter simply couldn’t find the sections being quoted. In one instance, Drudge used ellipses to leap 11, 500 words from Clark’s opening statement, and then back to the beginning of his testimony. He used other nifty tricks as well. According to Columbia Journalism Review’s Campaign Desk:

Drudge's selective excerpt ends with Clark suggesting that the situation with Iraq has "been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Drudge would like you to think that Clark's thoughts on the subject end there. In fact, only moments later, Clark clearly stated, "but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it."

Drudge leads into the final excerpt with the words, "Clark explained," implying that Clark's statements in the final excerpt modified his statements in the previous excerpt. Once again, however, Drudge is cavalierly skipping through Clark's testimony: There are 3,798 words in-between these two statements -- enough to fill four pages of Time magazine.

Although some reporters caught the fabrication, many didn’t, including the Associated Press and Reuters who supply the news for most daily papers in the country. They should have known better.

On September 26 of last year, Drudge posted: "Clark on President George Bush: 'President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship'" ("GENERAL CLARK PRAISED CONDI, POWELL, RUMSFELD AND BUSH: 'WE NEED THEM THERE'", Drudge Report, Sept. 26, 2003)

Here’s what Clark actually said:

"But the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall was down. And President George Bush had the courage and the vision to push our European allies to take the risk to tell the Russians to leave, and to set up the conditions so all of Germany and later many nations of Eastern Europe could become part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, part of the West with us. And we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship." ("Politics Has to Stop at the Water's Edge", Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Sept. 26, 2003 )

Clearly, Drudge’s intent was to make it look as though Clark was praising the current President – and it worked. Tucker Carlson posted the quote that day on Crossfire, saying, “This is about president George W. Bush.”

There have been others: stories of Sydney Blumenthal’s history of spousal abuse, mass weapons staches in Syria and headlines of airplanes heading toward the President’s motorcade. Sometimes the distortions are just downright petty. Take a look at this quote:

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." ("General Clark Praised Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush: 'We Need them There'", Sept. 25, 2003 )

The ellipse in this case is used to edit out a single name – Paul O’Neill.

As slimey as this is, we can at least be thankful to Drudge for giving us a means to track down the lazy reporters who relied on him for their quotes (who else would excise O’Neill from Clark’s praise?). The offending parties include, but are not limited to, AnnMarie Timmins of The Concord Monitor, Rachel Marsden, American Daily and Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.

In today’s media market speed is emphasized over accuracy. Reporters have had to make shortcuts and it’s tempting to rely on information partisan groups hand them. Although they know the information is slanted, they assume at the very least what is quoted was actually said. But when a conservative foot soldier like Drudge fails to even meet that minimum standard of integrity, why do they continue to rely on him?

The problem is no one has an incentive to change. The publishers sell just as many newspapers with invented stories as factual ones, and Drudge and the RNC get to dictate the evening news. But the damage to democracy is vast. Public perception is not won or lost by the answers our politicians give but the questions they’re asked. An equally valid question to arise from Clark’s testimony would have been, With people like Clark testifying about all the problems we would face in an Iraq occupation, how could the Bush administration not see it coming? Instead, the topic of discussion is whether or not Clark flip-flopped.

So Clark, as with Gore and the “invented the Internet” urban legend before him, will be answering questions about his testimony for the rest of the campaign. FOX news and conservative pundits will continue to repeat these false charges over and over to a far wider audience than will ever read a correcting of the record here for long after the mainstream stories illustrating Drudge’s dishonesty fade from memory. And eventually, reporters will have heard the charges so often that even they will begin to believe them, and Clark’s “inconsistency” will be referred to as fact without ever having been established. And yet again, the truth will not be served.





http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=1287668&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

[GOPisEvil]

1. Break one story, and you're a genius apparently...

:eyes:

[liberalnurse]

2. Should we feel better now? Will this make the gossip stop?

Is this evidence? I'm not sold yet........