After leading a campaign against supposed errors in a military story in The New Republic for months, it's revealed The National Review Online has been covering up even more blatant lies in its military reporting.
For months reporters in Lebanon have been communicating with the National Review that reports it had from a blogger were fabrications. They were ignored. Finally, as they begin to show up in print, NRO issues a non-specific acknowledgement of possible errors by its brave reporter. These errors were blatant, extensive and could easily cause harm to other journalists. They make the TNR mistakes pale in comparison. The blogger invented over 4,000 terrorists up out of whole cloth to push the neo-con agenda. He has yet to apologize, NRO praises him.
What do you want to bet that the NRO lies are ignored in the So-Called-Liberal-Media that extensively covered the TNR controversy?
See Glenn Greenwald for the details. He notes that even Michelle Malkin now criticises the lies and mistakes in the reporting.
ADDED - John Cole has his thoughts. Matthew Yglesias posts the NRO editor's excuse, "Arabs lie." Funny how a white neo-con blogger lying gets excused by saying its because Arabs lie.
Matt writes The National Review and The Weekly Standard lie quite often, why should the NRO war blogger be any different?