8/17/2005 - MMFA Angered Because The Wall Street Journal Failed to Note That Though There is Some Good Coming from Iraq, It Still Isn't Good Enough

An August 17, 2005 item on Media Matters for America's website complains that the WSJ failed to note that things in Iraq really aren't going all that well after all and failed to advance the undeniable truth that we are losing in Iraq. (Ok, so that's hyperbole, but it is pretty ridiculous.)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170005

The article, entitled "Wall Street Journal didn't provide full story on Iraqi troop readiness," literally starts off with this:

In an August 16 report, titled "Gauging Iraqi Readiness Centers on 'Feel,' " The Wall Street Journal reported a Pentagon estimate -- based partially on "subjective assessments" -- of the number of Iraqi troops capable of engaging in counterinsurgency operations when backed by U.S. forces. But the Journal failed to note a recent assessment the Pentagon sent to Congress indicating that a far smaller number are capable of engaging in counterinsurgency operations without U.S. support.

Oh, no! The Wall Street Journal reported some good in Iraq, but forgot that it really isn't all that good! Oh wait, that's right: They do report the bad; it just isn't the total focus of the article!

MMFA says this:

[...]he Journal reported the Pentagon's estimate that "more than three dozen of the 110 Iraqi battalions" are capable of engaging in operations, "albeit with U.S. forces providing some logistics and medical support." The Journal report acknowledged that the new system has "pitfalls":

The new system has its own potential pitfalls, however. One U.S. officer involved in Iraq policy says he fears that pressure from Washington to show progress can skew subjective evaluations. Moreover, the U.S. advisers themselves may be hesitant to admit that their time training troops in Iraq hasn't been productive.

But the Journal neglected to mention that the Pentagon recently gave Congress an estimate of Iraqi troop readiness that indicates a far smaller number of Iraqis capable of leading counterinsurgency operations without U.S. support.

Did it really fail to report that? Nope! The article says, in full:

Based on the advisers' assessments, more than three dozen of the 110 Iraqi battalions have been judged "capable" of taking the lead in counterinsurgency operations -- albeit with U.S. forces providing some logistics and medical support.  The remaining units either are still in training or capable of fighting with U.S. troops in the lead.

What more does MMFA want? THAT SENTENCE SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING, IT JUST DOESN'T DIRECTLY QUOTE THE PENTAGON!

MMFA then goes into another panic attack because --once again-- the WSJ said the same thing that MMFA said but it didn't directly say "THE PENTAGON SAID THIS!" MMFA says:

Further, when the Journal reported that "oday U.S. commanders say there are 178,000 trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers and police," it noted only that "[s]ome military analysts worry that the U.S. definition of 'trained and equipped' is still lacking." In fact, the Pentagon itself has acknowledged that its tally of "trained and equipped" soldiers includes Iraqis who have not received extensive training or advanced equipment. According to the Pentagon's report to Congress, roughly 171,300 members of the Iraqi armed forces had "completed individual entry training" and were "equipped with basic equipment."

The same implication was made except that the WSJ did not make a blatant reference to the Pentagon. This hardly seems like a large-scale massive conspiracy to promote "conservative misinformation" for the sake of the Bush administration.

8/17/2005 - MMFA Outraged Over Limbaugh's Use of Common Sense

In an August 17, 2005 item on Media Matters for America's website, MMFA assailed Rush Limbaugh for using some common sense.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170007

In a broadcast of Limbaugh's radio program, he attacked Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and those who hold similar viewpoints as being responsible for the surge in oil prices:

Rush: Marty Meehan is a no-growth socialist, and a whole bunch of no-growth socialists like him are responsible for the price hikes. These no-growth socialists who will not allow development of any kind, particularly oil, are responsible for this, more so than the president. Yeah, even more so than OPEC , because their no-growth socialist policy is what makes us a prisoner to the world price of oil.

What's the problem? Doesn't it make sense that if we were allowed to do more oil drilling in the U.S., we would have lower oil prices? MMFA failed to prove why this was incorrect.

8/16/2005 - Verified!

For those wondering--Yes, I am the poster on MMFA named "thiswebsiteisfulloflies." No, I am not financed by anyone. I just wanna help out and clear through the lib propaganda.

8/16/2005 - MMFA Takes Seemingly-Shocking Rush Quote Out of Context

In an August 16, 2005 item, Media Matters for America distorted a quote from Rush Limbaugh to imply that he believed that Cindy Sheehan forged her story on her son dying.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160009

The item quotes the following in full:

Rush: I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

MMFA responded by saying that "Sheehan's 'story' is, in fact, that her son died while fighting in Iraq. A Humvee mechanic, Spc. Casey Sheehan was one of seven U.S. soldiers killed in Baghdad's Sadr City on April 4, 2004, by rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire." However, this is not what Limbaugh was talking about.

Just a few minutes before making that statement, Limbaugh said the following (bold added):

"She probably is a genuine peacenik herself and she's been such even before her son was killed in Iraq, but isn't it painfully obvious to all of you the media is grasping onto her with nothing but a wing and a prayer?"

Limbaugh was not questioning her story on her son dying. MMFA's distortion is gross and ridiculous.

8/16/2005 - MMFA Angered By Simple Speculation

On August 16, 2005, Media Matters for America posted an item entitled "Conservatives baselessly linked Sandy Berger to Atta investigation," despite the fact that the so called "linking" they are referring to has never been treated as absolute fact.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160002

MMFA then uses speculation from conservatives to prove this. Problem is, none of them endorsed their speculation as absolute fact.

Conservatives were speculating that documents that Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives may have been to cover up anything linking the Clinton administration to a purported failure to act upon intel linking Mohammed Atta to a terrorist cell.

All of the conservatives admitted they were speculating. Speculating tends to be "baseless" until it is further investigated in to.

Rush Limbaugh admitted that his speculation was "Just a wild guess to throw out there...":

 What was Sandy Burglar taking out of the National Archives? We may now have some kind of an idea. Just a wild guess to throw out there, but now we may know what Sandy Burglar was doing and trying to take out of there or put back in once he had left with things. We also know that the 9-11 Commission was not told accurately about the wall that existed during the Clinton administration and that they didn't take it up because one of their commission members, Jamie Gorelick, wrote the wall.

John Gibson from FOX News said this:

And another thing, what makes -- makes me wonder what Sandy Berger was stuffing in his socks when he pirated documents out of the National Archives that might have been papers the 9-11 Commission was interested in seeing.

President Clinton has been honorable lately in refusing to attack George W. Bush for his decision to go to war in Iraq. He might have been forced to make the same decision. But he and his underlings should also be willing to let out all of us -- let out to all of us the information so we can figure out what went on back then when Usama [bin Laden] and Mohammed Atta were scheming. Don't you think?

Oh my word! DECEIVERS!

Columnist Jack Kelley was also assailed for this intentional distortion:

Was [Berger] removing references to Able Danger? Someone should ask him before he is sentenced next month.

You can just tell he's trying to lie!

MMFA's anger over conservatives speculating is ridiculous. All speculation is "baseless" until further investigated. None of the conservatives cited ever tried to portray a link to Berger as fact, but rather admitted it was speculation that should be looked in to.

MMFA should know this. Maybe they just posted this because they haven't had any updates in a while.

8/16/2005 - MMFA Hates Dissenting Opinions!

Click the following in order.

http://conservativesalwaysright.myblogsite.com/MMFA1

http://conservativesalwaysright.myblogsite.com/MMFA2

http://conservativesalwaysright.myblogsite.com/bleh.bmp

http://conservativesalwaysright.myblogsite.com/bleh2.bmp

http://conservativesalwaysright.myblogsite.com/bann.bmp

Oh well.

8/16/2005 - MMFA Distorts the Truth About the "Wall"

In an August 15, 2005 item, Media Matters for America sorely distorted the fact surrounding the "wall" that held back the intelligence community pre-9/11.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508150002

MMFA responded to a Michelle Malkin column. This column cited a Wall Street Journal editorial that accused then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick of causing the so-called "wall" that caused communications failures between the various intelligence agencies to be "raised even higher" after Gorelick issued a 1995 memo that, as the Journal editorial says, "instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of 'appearances' they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required." MMFA disputes this, saying in response to that exact quote, "But the Journal's suggestion that Gorelick's memo established rules that prevented critical intelligence sharing is unfounded." Unsurprisingly, saying that is unfounded. MMFA then goes on to distort the words of the 9/11 Commission (which, interestingly, held Gorelick herself as a panel member) and the Ashcroft Justice Department, saying the following in full:

Both the 9-11 Commission and Ashcroft's Justice Department have noted that if the "wall" further stymied intelligence sharing in the years following the Gorelick memo, it was due to a misinterpretation of the memo and the guidelines that it established. The 9-11 Commission wrote, "there was far less information sharing and coordination between the FBI and the Criminal Division in practice than was allowed under the department's procedures," because the 1995 guidelines adopted from the Gorelick memo were "almost immediately misunderstood and misapplied." Similarly, in its report on the Patriot Act, the Ashcroft Justice Department determined that information sharing was "more limited in practice than was allowed in theory under the Department's procedures" because of "confusion about when sharing was permitted" and concern that "improper information sharing could end a career"

In other words, it was all lost in translation.

Well, if Gorelick meant to have a result other than what she got, she definitely needs to learn better communication skills, inasmuch as her 1995 memo instructed the intel community to "go beyond what is legally required... prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." (Emphasis added) So, if people were doing more to segregate the intel community than what the law actually required, then they were doing exactly what Gorelick wanted them to do.

Gorelick did escalate the wall. Many claim that Gorelick was regulating procedures implemented by FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) as it was construed by federal law. This is obviously not true, seeing as Gorelick demanded going "beyond what is legall required." Gorelick thickened the wall on purpose, for the sake of appearance. MMFA is wrong, as usual.

8/15/2005 - We are famous!

Well, not really. But we did get an e-mail from from Tim Graham down at the Media Research Center thanking us for responding to Media Matters for America's idiotic and hypocritical complaints about MRC not offering condolences to Peter Jennings when he died. The e-mail read:

Yeah, ok, so we aren't famous but it was really cool.

8/15/2005 - O'Reilly Formulates an Opinion using Basic Logic; MMFA Offended

In an August 12, 2005 item, Media Matters for America documented a reasonable opinion made by Bill O'Reilly, entitling the item "O'Reilly Econ 101: Those who 'fail in this country' are 'stupid,' 'addicted,' or have 'mental problems.' "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508120002

Apparently, that is an offensive comment. In an August 10th broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly said the following:

"Now, in order to fail in this country, you've gotta be one troubled individual. We have a 5 percent unemployment rate here. We have people from Haiti, from the Ukraine, from Mongolia, from Vietnam, who come over here with no skills, no education, no language, and they can make 40 grand, and they can buy a house, and they can have a life. Yet we have a permanent underclass that does not succeed.

If you go to this permanent underclass and speak with them -- and I have, I have -- there are two reasons -- three reasons, really, why people can't make a living. All right? First reason: They are stupid, ill-educated, have never, ever taken an interest in acquiring knowledge about anything. So these are the people who are so staggeringly dumb, you can't hire them. Uncharitable? Yes. True? Absolutely.

Two, the addicted. These are the homeless people you see scarfing money from you, OK? Addicted to whatever substance. Can't hold a job because they have to be in a constant state of intoxication.

And three, those with mental problems that society doesn't know what to do. OK? You can't put them in the mental facilities anymore, the ACLU gets them right out. But they're schizophrenic or bipolar, whatever, so they can't conduct themselves in the workplace.

All of those things encompass all of our underclass. Because if you're a hard worker, if you become educated, and you're honest, you'll make a living in this country. That's the beauty of the country. That's why we have millions of people trying to get in here, millions of aliens trying to get across the border, who don't have any education.

They're coming from South, Central America, Mexico -- they can't -- they'll do anything to get here. Why? Because they can make a living here. Got it?"

O'Reilly's comment is reasonable. As he points out, immigrants flood America and succeed in the work place. Some do not even speak English. This being said, how can an illegal immigrant who cannot even speak English easily get a low-paying job but yet some Americans who can speak English are incapable of getting a job? Easy: They are either stupid, spending all their cash on their addictions, or have a serious mental disorder. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable opinion using basic fact and logic. So does that fall under "conservative misinformation"?

8/13/2005 - MDMTA Weekly Response to MMFA Weekly Summary

At the end every week, Media Matters writes up a summary of the "lies" they have debunked that week. Well, here we will respond each week to just two of the segments from their article. We could respond to them all. But it's the weekend, and who has time to do that on the weekend?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508120007

War moms, beware: Don't criticize the president

Here, MMFA continues to tout their victory in debunking a non-existent lie that Matt Drudge began on his website. MDMTA has already responded to MMFA's defense of Sheehan (which basically states that Sheehan did not change her opinion on her meeting with President Bush) here:

http://www.journalhome.com/mediadoesntmatter/8218/

Rest in peace

Here, MMFA once again credits themselves with the Media Research Council's decision to post a message of condolence to Peter Jennings after his death on its website after MMFA whined about it. This has been previously discussed on this website. Of course, MMFA still continues its hypocrisy in that they have offered no message of condolence to Jennings. MMFA has instead used Jennings death to, in their own words concerning the Media Research Council, "advance its own agenda." MMFA then announces that it turns out there is an even meaner guy in the Jennings ordeal, and that is David Horowitz. The week-in-review article cites a quote from right-wing activist David Horowitz. The article states that Horowitz said  "While he was alive Peter Jennings did considerable damage to the cause of civilization and human deceny [sic] by his sympathy for Jew-hating terrorists and their supporters." What the article does not include is what David Horowitz said before making this statement. So here is the statement in full: