Jennnifer Rubin continues to fine tune her ability to intentionally deceive the reader.
Today she states that "In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the" supposed truth about Benghazi.
Note that she credits Solomon for having worked at the A.P. and at the Washington Post. She neglects to mention that he more recently was at the Washington Times. (May the Rev Moon rest in peace.) In fact, acccording to a newspaper that Ms Rubin does find worth mentioning, (the WaPo) Solomon was back at the Washington Times as recently as June 6. How odd that she did not mention this?
Back in August of 2012,Solomon was characterized in the Columbia Journalism Review thusly:
"Then again, Solomon has a history of bending the truth to his storyline. As a reporter for the AP and The Washington Post, he dug up his share of genuine dirt, but he also was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals
Similarly, reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor—seven of whom were interviewed for this article—say he often pressured them to mold the truth to his vision of the story. “He had this sort of thesis or idea of what the story was,” says one Center staff member. “Facts be damned.”"
Looks like both Rubin and Solomon could have a bright future at Fox.
It's hard to imagine a more apt description of Bengazi than calling it a "phantom scandal."
I will allow your “phantom scandal” comment on Benghazi to simmer until the dust clears and I will retrieve it at the proper moment for you. No charge. My treat. Consider that it was republicans lead by Goldwater, Baker and others who drove Nixon from office for the cover up of a, compared to Benghazi, minor event. Perhaps there are senators of that same level of character among today’s democrats. Do you think that might be possible? We are all going to witness just how much this country has really changed.
That you believe Taibbi is spot on about anything speaks poorly of your judgment. He is a gaping a--hole by pure definition. Of course I have watched you sing the praises of other socialists like Krugman so I guess I am really not surprised; only disappointed. Your generalization about democratic and republican economies is typically Swiss cheese. If one looked objectively at the Clinton economy pre and post Jan 95 when republicans took control of congress, then looked at the Bush economy pre and post Jan 2007 when the dems took control, the numbers scream off the pages. However when the facts do not fit the narrative it is wise to ignore or excoriate them. Historically speaking, no democratically controlled congress has balanced the budget since 1969 and any accounting historian writes that the 69 balance was an accounting shell game perpetrated by the Johnson administration to hide the real cost of the Vietnam war. So the real date is probably earlier than 1959. All the broad generalizations fly in the face of these simple facts and we would all be better off if government would simply remove its finger from the pot and allow market forces to work.
Posted by: Rick | November 18, 2012 at 05:39 PM