EXCLUSIVE OFFER: 60% Off VIP Membership. Today Only!
Is Donald Trump Going to Get Convicted? Of Course, He Is.
Tired of Waiting for Border Agents, Illegal Aliens Call a Lyft and Become...
Will Chinese Athletes Get Away With Doping at the Paris Olympics?
Secretary Blinken Confronted Over Biden Admin's Withholding of Military Aid to Israel
U.S. Forced to Take Action As Hamas Continues Attacking Gaza Pier
A New National Poll With Key Data on the Trump Trial Just Dropped
Germany Would 'Of Course' Arrest Netanyahu If ICC Issues Warrant. Israel Responds.
'Clowns': Kathy Hochul Denigrates New Yorkers Who Dare to Support Trump
This Axios Headline on the Economy Is Something Else
This State Enacted a Law Allowing Cops to Arrest Illegal Aliens. Here's How...
ICJ Issues Ruling in Case Against Israel
Republican Governor Banned From All Tribal Lands in Her State
Someone Needs to Go to Jail
What Do We Make of These Latest Battleground State Polls?
Tipsheet

Sigh: Reuters At It Again...

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has been en fuego in his criticisms of Reuters recently.  Over the past 48 hours, he's flayed the news agency -- which is no stranger
Advertisement
to scandal -- for biased and inaccurate reporting.  First, it was their use of air quotes around the phrase "terrorist attack" in describing...a terrorist attack:

This is from a Reuters story on the Jerusalem bombing earlier today:
Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.
Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a "terrorist attack"? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a "teachable moment."

That was yesterday.  Today, they've stepped in it again:

This is from a just-released Reuters news analysis of President Obama's alleged travails:
Obama is committed to partnering with other countries rather than going it alone as did his predecessor George W. Bush, which both broadens and complicates the decision-making process.
This, of course, is wildly inaccurate and misleading.

How inaccurate and misleading?  Over to you, Foreign Policy:

President Barack Obama has touted his emphasis on multilateralism in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, but, for political, operational, and legal reasons, Obama's "coalition of the willing" is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.

The Cable compiled a chart listing all the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the last 20 years: the 1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.

Advertisement


Eric Alterman, take note!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement