Tuesday, 27 March 2007

TONY SNOW'S CANCER AND LEFTWING COMPASSION

Ken Berwitz

I have posted examples of the comments made on leftwing sites before.  But today I think it is necessary to do so again, because of what is being said about White House press secretary, Tony Snow, who has had a recurrence of cancer.  Unfortunately, the news is especially bad -- it has spread to his liver.

This sampling is from www.crooksandliars.com, a site that is notorious for the sickness of many of its regulars.  In fairness, quite a few people there put aside politics and had positive words for Mr. Snow.   But the "compassionate" left being what it is, here are some of the others.  Everything below is taken verbatim from the comments section.  You can see them all, and every additional comment that will have been posted after this blog, at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/crooks/100115709

Gravatar Couldn't have happend to a nicer guy. I'm starting to believe in Karma.

I wish him godspeed in beating this once again. It does however beg to question how much the stress of lying, deceiving, and missleading the public in support of people ruining the world had do with it. It has to right?

While I do hope the best for the evil bastard I'm more concerned about the political cancer Mr. Snow has helped to spread in America.

God has struck this evil agent of Bushco down. Just like Katrina.

Colon cancer to the liver? Man, he is so done for. Colon cancer has if I recall correctly the highest or second highest mortality rate amongst cancers and throw on liver cancer, too?  I really think he is done for. Can't say I'll miss him, though.

No fair! We want all these genocidal maniacs to go to the gallows after a fair trial in ruddy good health.

Tony, get some rest, get yer resistence up. I want ya back lyin' to ma face real soon. I bet you'll look GREAT bald!

Hope he gets better so we can get back to hating him again.

Gravatar There is a GOD.

"...Tony Snow is a human being..." Yes, he is. He's a human being that lies on behalf of a war criminal and that criminal's gang.  When that gang ends up killing a friend or relation of yours, tell me how much you think of the humanity of Mr. Tony Snow when he tries to brush it aside, dismiss it, deny it.  He's a puke. I don't wish cancer on him or anyone, but until I learn more, I don't believe a word of it.


Gravatar I'm sorry If i offended. I know we are suppoosed to be "Better" but I can't feel compassion for killers, theives and their enablers....You go ahead and keep wishing him well so he can go back to conning his loyal veiwers. Do you feel compassion for other killers and their apologists when something bad happens?. I just dont get it. Compassion where compassion is desrved. Frankly im's suprised it's not cancer of the mouth.

Sorry if I'm wrong, but I just don't believe Tony Snow had surgery or that he has cancer again. I think he wanted to quit and this is how they are spinning it.  This administration has never told the truth before about anything. I don't care how insensitive it may sound. I see no reason to give them any benefit of the doubt about anything.

Gravatar I won't wish him well. Running deceitful PR for the Bush crime family is killing thousands. Repent Tony: turn on Bush and you will have my compassion.

Folks, this is a tiny sampling of the sick, hateful bile being poured out at crooksandliars.com (along with many other leftwing websites, based on other blogs I have read.  No surprise there at all).

And as bad as what you just read is, the site owner (John Amato) had to delete a large number of even WORSE comments because he didn't have the stomach to leave them there.

Are there haters on the right?  Of course.  But you would have to look long and hard to find any rightward website that comes close to this kind of filth.  If you are able to produce any, let me know which one(s), and I'll be happy to list them as well.  I have no problem exposing and condemning hatred wherever I find it.


THE NEW YORK TIMES' DAN RATHER MOMENT

Ken Berwitz

Maybe the title would be more accurate if it read "THE NEW YORK TIMES' LATEST DAN RATHER MOMENT"

On March 18th, the Times' Sunday magazine ran a feature story detailing the problems military women have after coming back from Iraq.  This is their 1,343,826th negative article about Iraq (ok, I'm exaggerating, but only slightly).

However, the Times was in so great a hurry to show you their latest propaganda salvo against President Bush and our Iraq war policy that they didn't bother to check the accuracy of what they were writing.  That's too bad because, as it turns out, part of the story WASN'T accurate.  Read this article from the Marine Corps Times and see for yourself:

-

War story told by former sailor disputed

Deployment to Iraq not in personnel record; paper issues correction

By Robert Hodierne - Staff writer
Posted :
Sunday Mar 25, 2007 12:34:28 EDT

The March 18 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.

One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who served six years as a Seabee. Randall told the Times that while in the Navy, she was raped twice in 2002 while she was stationed in Mississippi, and again in Guam in 2004. She also told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.

The story was written by Sara Corbett, a contract writer for the magazine. Heres how Corbett presented it: Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. I dont remember as all of it I dont know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome.

The story goes on:

According to the Navy, however, no after-action report exists to back up Randalls claims of combat exposure or injury. A Navy spokesman reports that her commander says that his unit was never involved in combat during her tour. And yet, while we were discussing the supposed I.E.D. attack, Randall appeared to recall it in exacting detail the smells, the sounds, the impact of the explosion. As she spoke, her body seemed to seize up; her speech became slurred as she slipped into a flashback. It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness.

The Navy, while expressing sympathy to a woman it believes is suffering from stress, is annoyed that the Times did so little to check the womans story. A Times fact checker contacted Navy headquarters only three days before the magazines deadline. That, said Capt. Tom Van Leunen, deputy chief of information for the Navy, did not provide enough time to confirm Randalls account of service in Iraq. Nonetheless, Van Leunen said, by deadline the Navy had provided enough information to the Times to seriously question whether shed been in Iraq.

Aaron Rectica, who runs the magazines research desk, disputes that. He said that by deadline, the Navy had not given the Times any reason to disbelieve Randalls claim of service in Iraq. Rectica said the Navy only told the paper that Randalls commanders believed shed been in Iraq but that no one in the unit had been in combat.

Unlike daily newspapers, which are usually printed very early on the day they are distributed, the Times magazine is printed a week ahead of time. The March 18 magazine went to press Friday, March 9. On the following Monday, March 12, the Navy told the Times that it had no record of Randall ever receiving hazardous duty pay or a combat zone tax exemption. One of the reasons for the Times apparent error was a medal. Randalls personnel file includes a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which is only awarded to troops who have served in a war zone. The Navy now says that medal was given to Randall in error.

Reached by phone at her home in Grand Junction, Colo., Randall declined to talk but gave the phone to her fianc, Gregory Lund.

This lady was sexually assaulted twice in the Navy and no one was ever punished for it, he said. While the Navy says it can find no rape complaint, Lund says she told her doctors about the assaults.

She went through a lot. Lund said. But he admits he doesnt know for sure if Randall was ever in Iraq.

If she wasnt, it was a bad mistake on her part, he said. But, he added, For her to cope with [all shes been through], her mind somehow believes she was in Iraq She doesnt remember anything in Iraq . If she was wrong about that, shes sorry. But what you folks need to realize is how traumatized she is. If shes wrong, I dont know. She doesnt know.

The editor of the magazine, Gerry Marzorati, said he now suspects Randall was never in Iraq.

I think she thinks she was in Iraq, he said. I dont think she was trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

The magazine did not call the Navy to check Randalls Iraq story sooner, Marzorati said, because they believed that checking rank, years of service and time in Iraq would be a perfunctory thing.

He added that no one has challenged the military records of the 30 other women mentioned in the article.

On Sunday, The Times published a correction to the March 18 cover story. In it, the Times states that it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did.

The correction also noted that since the article was published last week, Randall herself asked a member of her unit as to whether she served in Iraq. According to The Times, the sailor told Randall that she had not been deployed there.

I don't know where Dan Rather is these days, but I have a feeling that if he sees this he will be grinning, if ruefully.

The parallel, of course, is that, like Rather, the Times got a story that they liked so well (i.e. it was sufficiently anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war) that it was too good to check.  They had to pump it out immediately.  And when you do that, this is the accuracy level you often wind up with.

Yes, they did issue a correction. But:

1) The correction was almost as lame as the inaccuracy they were correcting.  Instead of just leaving it at the fact that they were wrong, they implied that maybe the woman in question was delusional instead.  Lovely, just lovely;

2) In any event, only the tiniest fraction of readers will ever see this correction.  And even those who do see it will have already digested the incorrect story and made judgments about it.

The New York Times is often characterized as the paper of record.  Yeah, right.

 


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!