It doesn't matter what those sources say, the claims haven't been correct yet.

A lot of the citations are unfiltered, the reference being to the entire output of the blogger for the last 15 years.

A lot of it is totally anecdotal and cherry-picked stuff which can't be verified. Much of it doesn't seem relevant to the issues being discussed at the time. It's true the MSNBC piece was a snapshot which may not reflect the entire situation, AND the folks who did it are out there, open to public scrutiny, names were named. It was a powerful short video, I thought, as opposed to blogs which could well be supported by the DoD. Which has a tragic history of lying to the public in this war.

I'm remembering your post about the torture chamber next to Arafat's office. Nonsense on it's surface, and while you did have a mild statement about the source, you posted it. Or the belief in Chalabi and his material.

I guess that's why. You could quote George W. Bush himself, the President of the United States, with access to untold amounts of information, and if the quotations don't match the preponderance of evidence which has to be taken for reality, I would have to doubt them. If the source has lied before, it is tainted, not taken at face value. That's another problem.

And it's easier to not doubt. One has to be trained to doubt.

Arf