And you guys pile on the dittoheads as true believers!

Let's take a quick trip down memory lane just to see where this Hanley guy is coming from. He's written that Bash-Powell piece so wonderfully it appears like a news item when in reality it is an opinion piece posing as a news article - so better to inflame the true believers.

Exhibit A

What confronting Iraq's regime would create -- a review of world opinion makes clear -- is a stark image of America as enforcer of the status quo: an exclusive "nuclear club" of nations, a protective relationship with Arabian oil princes, an Israel of unrivaled superiority in its neighborhood

At least in this piece it's not posing as news. His political viewpoint and motivations are very clear:

The eventual air campaign was not carpet-bombing, but it was devastating. History's most powerful nation dropped more than 18,000 bombs and missiles on one of the world's poorest lands.

The sanctimonious and judgmental prose flows freely here and without hiding behind half truths and innuendo.

His anti-US stance is well documented on the web. Here is his "Look! the US elimination of the Taliban has turned Afghanistan into Opium growers!" article.

But the U.S.-led war that ousted the Taliban late last year prompted Afghan farmers to plant poppy again over tens of thousands of acres.

Yep. It's called freedom. Something Afghanis didn't have anything resembling under the Taliban. But, no matter, it's just another blot on the big ol' bad USA under Bush.

The ultimate irony is that shortly after Hanley was awarded the Pulitzer prize for investigative journalism - the whole thing No Gun Ri incident fell apart as a fraud.

A Pulitzer for fooling the world - and feeding the anti-US agenda. Finding any retraction from Hanley is impossible. He simply laid low until Afghanistan and Iraq gave him a hungering for more easy anti-US pieces.

So, Hanley, hardly very chastened by his failure to sniff out the lies he was eating up about US servicemen goes on to try and damn the US military a few years later after the heat is off of him and now he's going after Powell - whom he likely loathes as much as Harry Belafonte does.

You and Mary Anne may think Hanley is really good at pointing out the errors in Powell's presentation - but he is just another smoke and mirrors guy going after his agenda full throttle. He's got a built in audience who'll eat up any full lies, swallow up delectable half-truths and freely believe the worst about America, or America's military - and any member of the Bush administration without bothering to analyze that it may be political slander gussied up as facts.

The guy's a self-aggrandizing sleazeball who sees opportunities to use suffering or misfortune to further his career - just as do many other journalists. Sure, like all people and events he can do some good even being erroneous often. I find it helps to be able to discern fodder pieces for "the agenda" from the real news even though it can be difficult at times. That's why I don't listen to Limbaugh or watch Hannity - I don't need to be persuaded into joining a political camp or fed a viewpoint to parrot, I know exactly where the land lies...or where the lies land.

The left is throwing everything they can, including the kitchen sink, at Bush - hoping some of it will sway the fickle public. Hanley's just another pitcher who get's his turn at the mound to throw his spitballs.

As a writer, you well know how easy it is to craft a piece. Writing fake news has jaded me. I know too well - It's very easy to fool people. Inserted truths, a few half-truths, a good number of omissions and the ability to lead the reader into one's own viewpoint is part of the opinion writers job. The NY Times, and many institutions hire full time "fabricators" to make up their agenda driven news. Perhaps I should apply? ;-) I can say I helped write the fake news found on MSNBC. ;-)

Scientists sometimes craft their writings as well - especially when they write a white paper. Selecting and cherrypicking facts to fit your scientific conclusion is part of the process.

Good journalists, like good scientists, present as balanced a view as possible to their work.

SDAI-Tech1