how severely chatised I was after suggesting that the Press was hoodwinked or was possibly a willing participant in staged Qana photos.

Say it isn't so Doc. Anyway it just doesn't matter.

reports from Michele Malkin. There goes the last of your credibility.

However CNN was **not** the only news organization to point out Hizbollah's masterful use of propaganda.  I heard about that-- on NPR.

The ambulence story was obviously fraudalent.  I thought looking at the "damage" it was far too light for missile hit.  I thought that before the comparisons.  Too many journalists are stenographers these days.  I don't know if some of the reports about ambulences being completely burned were referring to those ambulences, however.  I have to conclude the journalist wasn't totally lying: he wasn't.  The stories have been mixed and matched.  

As for "murdering" 6 Israeli soldiers-- that was propaganda.  They were soldiers, in uniform, KIA.  The UN letters on that vehicle looked like they had been spray-painted on.

It's instructive how the theme of the beginning of the clip is: Israelis are justified for bombing ambulences, but at the end it's: we didn't bomb ambulences.  Putting that all together: "We didn't do it, but if we did sometime it's justified and the evidence is faked anyway."  It's clever propoganda in itself as it actually covers three ass-cheeks.

I would say, yes, it's immoral and a war crime to use ambulences as war-transport vehicles.  Still, to say that you could bomb from the air in a country friendly to the enemy and miss ambulences that are clearly being used as emergency vehicles is unrealistic.  

However, trying to make war on a faction within a country and not on a country is unrealistic.  A limited, undeclared war is always going to look bad for the instigator.  It has humane and moral claims that can never be met.    

As for not targeting civilians: a satellite comparison of Beruit before and after the bombing is instructive.  No civilians killed there: