Comments on: Dogs And Whistles http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/26/dogs-and-whistles/ Like Kryptonite To Stupid Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:30:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: fredfarkle http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/26/dogs-and-whistles/#comment-60269 fredfarkle Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:03:26 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=4891#comment-60269 Strong work preachingt the talking points oliver...keep this up your handlers may give your website your hit counter back... However, the ARMY didn't make any decisions about being a feeder source, it was a leak. The army is investigating that leak, and like most all of the other scandals (i.e. abu ghraib) they will punish the leaker when found. So, how about your criticism of TNR now for their sloppy reporting and dishonesting in retracting it? Yea, I won't hold my breath... Strong work preachingt the talking points oliver…keep this up your handlers may give your website your hit counter back…

However, the ARMY didn’t make any decisions about being a feeder source, it was a leak. The army is investigating that leak, and like most all of the other scandals (i.e. abu ghraib) they will punish the leaker when found.

So, how about your criticism of TNR now for their sloppy reporting and dishonesting in retracting it?

Yea, I won’t hold my breath…

]]> By: SaveFarris http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/26/dogs-and-whistles/#comment-60268 SaveFarris Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:41:13 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=4891#comment-60268 June 3, 1784. Frankly I'm a little disapointed. Where were these leakers when Kerry "allegedly" signed his Form 180? June 3, 1784.

Frankly I’m a little disapointed. Where were these leakers when Kerry “allegedly” signed his Form 180?

]]> By: Jay Tea http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/26/dogs-and-whistles/#comment-60267 Jay Tea Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:16:08 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=4891#comment-60267 Beauchamp has decided, apparently, to try to put the whole matter behind him and atone directly to those who were most aggrieved by his fabrications -- his fellow soldiers whom he libeled. If they're willing to give him a second chance, I don't see anyone else with standing to disagree. But the story is now not about Beauchamp, but his enablers at The New Republic. Their egregious offenses against basic tenets of journalism and honest are still uncorrected, and they show every sign that they intend to just ignore the situation as long as they can, then dismiss it as "old news." I don't think that's right. They broke so many rules (allowing the wife of the author to "fact-check" his articles is probably the least of them) that they NEED to be held accountable. Hell, from your side of things, Oliver, look at how easy it would be now to dismiss future allegations of similar acts by US troops? "Heard that one before. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now." For your own future arguments against the war, you ought to be going after The New Republic harder than anyone. J. Beauchamp has decided, apparently, to try to put the whole matter behind him and atone directly to those who were most aggrieved by his fabrications — his fellow soldiers whom he libeled. If they’re willing to give him a second chance, I don’t see anyone else with standing to disagree.

But the story is now not about Beauchamp, but his enablers at The New Republic. Their egregious offenses against basic tenets of journalism and honest are still uncorrected, and they show every sign that they intend to just ignore the situation as long as they can, then dismiss it as “old news.”

I don’t think that’s right. They broke so many rules (allowing the wife of the author to “fact-check” his articles is probably the least of them) that they NEED to be held accountable. Hell, from your side of things, Oliver, look at how easy it would be now to dismiss future allegations of similar acts by US troops? “Heard that one before. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now.” For your own future arguments against the war, you ought to be going after The New Republic harder than anyone.

J.

]]>