doublegunshop.com - home Forums NY Times admits Iraq had WMD'S after all !

Re Obama and Bush scrubbing, I believe, as you say, "It's easy to speculate what would be found."

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154

If the Financial Post article from February 1974 actually exists, I have not been able to find it or "look it up". Actually, I personally believe it does exist because King the Bloviator never misses an opportunity to pump up his credibility.

The question to me becomes, where did Harry Bruce get his information about King? Since so much of what he claims is unverifiable, it's only natural to assume that it is either exaggerated or simply the product of a wild imagination. If Harry Bruce got some or all of his biographical information from King himself, I don't think it's worth the paper it's printed on. Scan it and copy and paste it here... So what? It's about as believable as Obama's computer generated Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth.

I also found a reference that told of King having lunch dates with Jackie Kennedy. Again, there is no other mention, photo, or anything to corroborate it in any Search Engines massive servers. So again, it appeared to me that some poor Canadian journalist merely regurgitated the bullshit that King fed him.

I particularly enjoyed the recent wild assed claim by King that he was not only close to JFK, but Bobby and Teddy Kennedy as well. He spoke of the jealousy that American reporters had over his higher "security clearance" that gave him greater access to the Kennedy campaigns than any of them had. I'd like to again remind you all that until RFK was assassinated, security for presidential candidates was almost non-existant. The security for RFK at the Ambassador Hotel the night he was shot was a part-time rent-a-cop from Ace Security Service. There were not even any LAPD officers on duty there.

As King says, "look it up." I myself take anything King says with a huge grain of salt. I too could tell you anything about myself in order to boost my credibility. That wouldn't make it true. And especially if I had been caught in as many lies as he has.

I am obligated to correct the unconscionable slur against Harry Bruce, one of the finest journalists, editors and authors in Canada, now in retirement.

Writers check sources, backed by editors and fact-checkers. I was a familiar face on national television networks of the 50s and 60s. My work is on the public record.

As for security, I was referring to access to the White House, Pentagon and State, not campaigns where candidates beg for publicity. Attributing sloppy journalism to Harry Bruce is a disservice to all members.

After graduation, I went off to become an Army Officer. I had worked as a Freelance photojournalist in college, but I had been trained by my father, who had also been one in the past. We had our own darkroom, I was a fairly competent photographer by the time I began High School. I found the journalism classes in college to be totally corrupted by leftist ideology, as we were in the post-Watergate era. Since I had an extensive background in history, it was easy to identify the ideology of their attempted indoctrination. What the classes provided me was the understanding of how journalism is used to indoctrinate, using the typical pattern of Denial, Dismissal, and Demonization. A pattern which continues to this day. Philosophical context is everything, an analysis omitted during statist religious indoctrination.

I totally understand where you're coming from, as you are an old-school Red, with your responses being totally doctrinal, according to the Sociopathic Religious Statism of the old Soviet Union. I assume that this is a Family Tradition.

The person your posts really remind me of is Georgi Arbatov, the old Kremlin Spokesman. I had a chance to listen to and meet him in the early 1980s. He was very good, and you've been taught the same methodology. A more current example of the technique is CAIR, which uses the same techniques of denial, dismissal, and demonization whenever points about Islamic terrorism are brought up.

I don't fault you for your ideology, only the sociopathically unconstitutional willingness to inflict it on others against their will.

Ask yourself this question:

If Bush had been a Democrat, would this have been a relevant issue? Of course not. If anything, he would have been celebrated. Especially since it was during Vietnam. What this issue was really used for was statist religious demonization, designed to suppress the Republican vote.

There's no question newsrooms are filled with "afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted." It's less to do with owners than persons attracted to the trade. It came to me naturally, seeing callousness all around me, coastal fishermen neighbours of subsistence living, woodlot owners either giving their wood or labour away to the foreign international corporations.

In my last year of high school in the capital of Halifax, when events were leading toward full-blown McCarthyism in the US, I came second in a city-wide essay competition with a defence of communism, not what it was but anticipated by starry-eyed idealists.The winner was the son of a spices manufacturer and president of the Lions Club which sponsored the competition.

My social studies teacher said later my 92 was only one less than the winner, "pretty good considering jingoism usually wins." Another lesson learned. There is a religious aspect to my affliction on publics, I won't deny. I felt its weight to ease burdens, all the while feeling and seeing conservative as an euphemism for selfishness. Generally. Lot of great conservatives.

Another good read from Sharyl Attkisson a real journalist,she call that the �Substitution Game�

http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/former-cbs-reporter-explains-how-the-liberal-media-protects-obama/

Ex-CBS reporter�s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.

When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, �I give up, Sharyl . . . I�ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.�



Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn�t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. �Goddammit, Sharyl!� he screamed at her. �The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You�re the only one who�s not reasonable!�

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: �[The stories] are pretty significant,� said a news exec. �Maybe we should be airing some of them on the �Evening News?� � Replied the program�s chief Pat Shevlin, �What�s the matter, don�t you support green energy?�

Says Attkisson: That�s like saying you�re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.

A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm � your tax dollars sent to Korea! � at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin �hated the whole thing.�
�Let�s not pile on�

Attkisson mischievously cites what she calls the �Substitution Game�: She likes to imagine how a story about today�s administration would have been handled if it made Republicans look bad.

In green energy, for instance: �Imagine a parallel scenario in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally appeared at groundbreakings for, and used billions of tax dollars to support, multiple giant corporate ventures whose investors were sometimes major campaign bundlers, only to have one (or two, or three) go bankrupt . . . when they knew in advance the companies� credit ratings were junk.�

Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She�s the reporter who brought the public�s attention to the absurdly small number � six � who managed to sign up for it on day one.

I don't nor does anyone know how the electorate would have responded if a presidential candidate was a military wash-out from drug abuse.

It wouldn't matter if Bush was Republican or Democrat. The privileged protect would should be in the public domain. We can't.

Funny. How would the 'writers check sources, backed by editors and fact-checked'. Does it really matter what the electorate would do in the voting booth, or did we dodge the question of how influential media spin would be.

How many lib political careers have been resurrected after scandalous drug abuse by the pc media. How many US presidents have been elected after admitting in writing to illegal drug use prior to an election. Even the original first black president had to use the bully pulpit to explain about not inhaling.

Is the communist party, the party for partiers. I guess they have other redeeming qualities?

King, of course conveniently forgets (aka �The first casualty of ideology is the truth.�)
Dan Rathers attempts,with LIES and FORGED documents at smearing Bush and the scandal that followed :

http://archive.mrc.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp

Since then, his on-air liberal bias has become the stuff of legend. For Rather�s 20th anniversary in 2001, the MRC compiled some of Rather�s most quotable bias, along with illustrations of his nearly-nonsensical �Ratherisms�

March 2005: After the embarrassing scandal involving Dan Rather�s use of forged documents in a one-sided 60 Minutes hit piece aimed at President Bush just before the 2004 presidential election, CBS announced Rather would leave the CBS Evening News on March 9, 2005, a year earlier than planned. To mark the end of Rather�s liberal reign, the Media Research Center compiled The Dan Rather Files, an exhaustive text and video library.