Earlier in the week the press was falling all over itself discussing the legality of the President authorizing a leak of classified information. Other than being a 3 year old story it was a non story.

Dont forget this phony headline in the New York Times earlier this week:

Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate

Which the story itself proved was untrue.

and our favorite jerkoff Sy Hersh with his exclusively anonymously sourced article full of hokum.

and today the Reuters headline reads: White House denies report on Iraq WMD

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday angrily denied a newspaper report that suggested President George W. Bush in 2003 declared the existence of biological weapons laboratories in Iraq while knowing it was not true.

I hope the President is angry since its a bald faced lie!

the Washington Post joined in with this:

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

Brainster demonstrates the incompetent at best and more likely intentionally misleading reporting by by providing a timeline of events.

Call me crazy but when people tell lies about me I get a little upset so just imagine if a major newspaper suggested you were lying about life and death matters leading to war?

Do you think you might be a little miffed? How far is the MSM press prepared to go? how many lies are they prepared to tell in their attempt to get George Bush?

How far is too far for the MSM?

other bloggers exposing the MSM’s distortions, fabrications, and lies:

SEIXON

Ouch. Warrick claims that this mission had not been made public until now, yet it was made public by our darling Judy Miller three years ago. Not only that, both the Guardian and the Times point out that the third group, of which Warrick is speaking, were sharpy divided. I don’t find “unanimous” under “divided” in my thesaurus, do you? Warrick claims that this third team had nine experts from the US and Britain.

Captains Quarters

Sounds damning, and if that was the only report on the trailers, it certainly would be. What the Post neglects to mention in its sensationalist zeal is that this was one of several teams that investigated the trailers, and the totality of their evaluations came to a different conclusion that that of the leakers who supplied this story. Skip down to the 12th paragraph, which is when Joby Warrick finally gets around to providing the context:

Confederate Yankee

Framed the way Joby Warrick presents it in these opening paragraphs, it seems like a slam-dunk case of the Bush Administration lying… but the Post is being less than forthright with it’s readers, attempting to bias and shape their perceptions before giving them all the facts.

What facts would those be?

That the one team of inspectors Warrick cites in his opening paragraphs were not the only team to examine these trailers, and that two other teams that initially inspected the trailers did not agree with the team highlighted in the Post article’s opening paragraphs. As a matter of fact, one has to navigate a carefully parsed and misleading claim of the “unanimous findings” that were far from unanimous before finding out in the twelfth paragraph that two other teams reached the exact opposite conclusion:

Blue Crab Boulevard agrees with me: the MSM will stop at nothing to get GWB.