http://www.spinsanity.com/columns/20011008.html

From the article (emphasis mine in bold):

---

Many pundits sling jargon or make blithely irrational arguments. Some, however, seem to specialize in twisting the facts to fit their ideology, continually making assertions that are at best unsupported and at worst blatantly false until they--and presumably their readers--come to accept these false tropes as truth ...

An overview of Scheer's writing reveals that one of his favorite tactics is to create a politically potent trope and repeat it over and over until it seems true. When faced with criticism, Scheer simply dismisses his critics without addressing their arguments and continues to repeat his idea, as if the more he says it, the truer it becomes.

An excellent example of this tactic can be found in what my co-editor Brendan Nyhan has labeled the "Taliban aid trope." Scheer created this trope in May, when he attacked a "gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan," saying it "makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God."

Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

Click the link for more.

---

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Answers

whores need to make a living too. Be compassionate.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

I am talking about Scheer, not Cherri.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Lars:

That isn't the way it read: but the way it read was out of character for you so I ignored it.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Lars,

I wondered myself, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. :)

You've never struck me as the name-callin' type.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Scheer pedals his views to a certain breed of political "John" who pays money for his services. By that standard, every opinion journalist is a whore and every person like Cherri and me who post their columns is a pimp.

Hey Cherri, N. 3rd St and Central is my corner.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

uh, pedal = peddle.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Lars, I knew what you meant after reading it a second time. But we're all whores in the strictest sense. We all have something to sell; we flaunt it, advertise it, promote it, and hope to hell that someone bites and buys it. Journalists are no exceptions. Some professions of course are nobler but we still need to put the best 'front' on ourselves, otherwise we don't eat.

I think that Anita finds more 'spunned' articles than anyone here. Cherri's posts are blatantly slanted but Anita's use more subtlety with just a few sprinkled adjectives to persuade the reader. IMO

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2001

THIMK

Consider this:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed
six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that
those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five
US military personnel, Mr. Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia,
which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel,
Mr. Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which
killed 224 and injured 5,000, Mr. Clinton promised that
those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17
and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Mr. Clinton promised that
those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept ONE of these promises, the
WTC would still exist and an estimated 7,000 people
would be alive today.

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show.
Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.

There are two men, both extremely wealthy.  One
develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds
of millions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.

That being the case, why is it that the US government
has spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the
past ten years than Osama bin Laden?

From a President that stated that "it depends on the
meaning of what 'is' is"...

Apparently it also depends on what the meaning of
"will be hunted down and punished" is...

And Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, is now
running for (a more) political office...

America MUST not forget.

 

</b></html>

 

 

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2001

maybe if the republican congress hadn't called clinton's proposed anti-terror initiatives overkill and had passed them instead of playing the usual partisan political bullshit they're famous for (remember the shutting down of the government? a republican deed), the wtc would still exist.

but no, it was much more important for the republican congress to protect the american people from clinton's sex life than it was to protect the american people from terrorists. and the republican congress spent even more money trying to get into clinton's pants than trying to protect the american people from terrorists, nevermind going after bill gates.

nice going assholes.

btw, i've seen maria and poole both claim that clinton "emasculated" and "decimated" the military. i don't remember dubya adding any more military since he's been in office. yet we seem to have been more than ready for this "war" in afghanistan. got an explanation for that?

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2001

Can't speak for Maria, but *I* said that during the Clinton administration, the *CIA* had been emasculated -- a fine, but subtle distinction.

But otherwise, you're entitled to your opinion (even when you're wrong).

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2001

"yet we seem to have been more than ready for this "war" in afghanistan. got an explanation for that?" Surplus from SS and emergency funds, back to deficit spending. Another reason to thank Bill Clinton.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Stephen I did say that Clinton decimated our military but I had no mention of the CIA or 'emasculated'.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001