# Pitting the National Review over 'reporter' W. Thomas "Moving Car" Smith, Jr. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 2, 2007, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508 "2007-12-02T01:41:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/1 "2007-12-02T01:41:02Z")
W. Thomas Smith, Jr. reports from Lebanon for the National Review Online. Apparently he’s got a bit of a reporting problem. Here’s his [September 25 post](http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGRkZDFmMGFiODFjZTI0ODQzNTg4NjVkMjUyOTZhNDM=): > [@](#): > > Between the airport and the committee’s office, we (my escorts and I) passed by the sprawling Hezbollah tent city — some 200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen — positioned between the parliament and the Serail, basically the headquarters of the prime minister, his deputies, and all the cabinet members. Here’s his [recent clarification](http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdkYzYyODZmY2ZjZjU2Yjc0Mjg2MzUxMWUxOWQ2MjM=): > [@](#): > > On September 25, I filed a post, in which I described a “sprawling Hezbollah tent city” near the Lebanese parliament as being occupied by “some 200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen”: According to the e-mail, my detractors said that, “…there are rarely 200 people there at all — much less ‘heavily armed,’” and, “…at least once a week I walk or jog through this area. I have never seen a civilian carrying a weapon.” > > I can’t possibly know what someone else saw or witnessed or where they were jogging or on what day. But I do know this: The Hezbollah camp in late September — and up until the time I left in mid-October — was huge (“sprawling”). And though the tents were very large and many of them closed, I saw at least two AK-47s there with my own eyes. And this from a moving vehicle on the highway above the camp. And in my way of thinking, if a guy’s got an AK-47, he’s “heavily armed.” > > Did I physically see and count 200 men carrying weapons? No. If I mistakenly conveyed that impression to my readers, I apologize. I saw lots of men, lots of them carrying walkie-talkie radios, and a tent city that could have easily housed many more than 200. I also saw weapons, as did others in the vehicle with me. And I was informed by very reliable sources that Hezbollah does indeed store arms inside the tents. So he reported a tent city with 200 heavily-armed Hezbollah militiamen. On what basis? A brief view from a moving vehicle. He saw “lots” of men, “at least two” AK-47s, tents that “could have” housed 200 men, and he had it from what he considered “very reliable sources” that there were arms stored in the tents. (Of course, he’d been in Lebanon “less than two hours” at the time - plenty of time to suss out who’s reliable and who’s not, I’m sure.) On September 29, four days after his arrival, [he reported](http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzUzMDFmZmU5ZGZhNDZhMzIwNmY3OWU2NTMyM2IwNTc=): > [@](#): > > Hezbollah is rehearsing for something big here. Not sure what or when. But a few days ago, between 4,000 and 5,000 HezB gunmen deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling “show of force,” positioning themselves at road intersections and other key points throughout the city. He’s had to [backtrack on that](http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdkYzYyODZmY2ZjZjU2Yjc0Mjg2MzUxMWUxOWQ2MjM=) a bit too: > [@](#): > > Second, with regard to the post I filed September 29, in which I reported that between 4,000-5,000 Hezbollah gunmen had “deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling ‘show of force’”: My detractors have said this event, “simply never happened,” because “every journalist in town would have pounced on that story, and he’s the only one who noticed?” > > In retrospect, however, this is a case where I should have caveated the reporting by saying that I only witnessed a fraction of what happened (from a moving car), with broader details of what I saw ultimately told to me by what I considered then — and still consider to be — reliable sources within the Cedar Revolution movement, as well as insiders within the Lebanese national security apparatus. As we were driving through that part of town, I saw men I identified as Hezbollah deployed at road intersections with radios. I was later told that these were Hezbollah militants deploying to Christian areas of Beirut, and there were four or five thousand of them. > > Since then, I have not been able to independently verify that “thousands” of armed Hezbollah fighters deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in late September, but my sources continue to insist that it happened. All quite interesting. The National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez (“K-Lo” to her fans) [has this comment](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmI4NzI5ZmRhZGMxZDg5MzUzNWZkZWFhYzExOThjMzU): > [@](#): > > Long story short: Questions have been raised about some reporting in NRO’s “The Tank,” which W. Thomas Smith Jr. addresses here. > > Bottom line: NRO strives to bring you reliable analysis and reporting — whether in presenting articles, essays, or blog posts. Smith did commendable work in Lebanon earlier this year, as he does from S.C. where he is based, as he has done from Iraq, where he has been twice. But rereading some of the posts (see “The Tank” for more detail) and after doing a thorough investigation of some of the points made in some of those posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall. And so I apologize to you, our readers. > > I thank Smith for his good, brave work. He’s a smart, reliable reporter with a great patriotic spirit and sense of service. We owe him and our readers better — we should have gotten you more context and information before a post or two went live. It’s understandable how it happened — the nature of blogging being what it is — but given what an underreported tinderbox we’re talking about, especially, we owed you more. We weren’t blogging about Dancing with the Stars there. > > So I’m grateful to the reporter who contacted Smith with questions. He brought them to my attention. We did due diligence. We’ve reported this back to him. And now we’re reporting back to you. So the National Review has a reporter who’s basically been making shit up - claiming to see stuff he barely glimpsed, and had to take the word of others about the existence of that which he gave the impression of being an eyewitness to - and this is their “due diligence.” Shorter K-Lo: Smith is good and brave, smart and (politically) reliable, and, well, slipups like this happen, you know? We got complaints, we told Smith about them, and now we’re telling you. We’ve got a liar as a reporter. _Caveat emptor._ After all, he might not be the only one - it’s not like you can expect us to fire every wingnut who makes shit up and publishes it under our name. It’s not like the truth is very kind to the conservative cause these days. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/2 "2007-12-02T01:54:58Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] So the National Review has a reporter who’s basically been making shit up - claiming to see stuff he barely glimpsed, and had to take the word of others about the existence of that which he gave the impression of being an eyewitness to - and this is their “due diligence.” [/quote] It is approximately the same due diligence that the hallowed _New York Times_ showed with Jayson Blair. Or that the _Boston Globe_ showed with Mike Barnicle. > [@](#): > > After all, he might not be the only one - it’s not like you can expect us to fire every wingnut who makes shit up and publishes it under our name. It’s not like the truth is very kind to the conservative cause these days. See above. While I would ordinarily ignore this as trite and petty, this is yet another in the ongoing saga of **RTFirefly** and his continuing decline into madness. Why you spend so much time and effort tilting at windmills is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/3 "2007-12-02T01:55:57Z")
Reality has a liberal bias and cannot be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/4 "2007-12-02T02:40:37Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] It is approximately the same due diligence that the hallowed _New York Times_ showed with Jayson Blair. Or that the _Boston Globe_ showed with Mike Barnicle. [/quote] And are those gentlemen still working for the employers you’ve named? Yep, both institutions should have exercised greater due diligence while Blair and Barnicle were working for them. But when they realized they had fabulists and plaigarists on their hands, they at least did the one basic thing you’ve got to do in such a situation: fire their asses. The National Review’s failure to exercise that absolute minimum of due diligence is really quite impressive. Certainly worthy of a Pitting, IMHO. > [@](#): > > While I would ordinarily ignore this as trite and petty, this is yet another in the ongoing saga of **RTFirefly** and his continuing decline into madness. And here I thought I was just being a grouch with an axe to grind. 🙂 A descent into madness is far more romantic. If I was single, I’m sure that would get me more traction with the babes than simple grouch-hood would. 😉 > [@](#): > > Why you spend so much time and effort tilting at windmills is beyond me. _To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe…_ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/5 "2007-12-02T03:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Shorter K-Lo: Smith is good and brave, smart and (politically) reliable, and, well, slipups like this happen, you know? We got complaints, we told Smith about them, and now we’re telling you. We’ve got a liar as a reporter. Caveat emptor. After all, he might not be the only one - it’s not like you can expect us to fire every wingnut who makes shit up and publishes it under our name. It’s not like the truth is very kind to the conservative cause these days. I think it is worthy of pitting. The reporter’s comments will influence the thinking of people who will never know about the retractions. Any idiot in his job should know that you report what you see and not what you hear from one source as if it were what you had actually seen. His pants are on fire. And it is so about _the New York Times_. Pit them again when they do it. That’s no reason to call off the dogs in this case. _The National Review_ is one of the few reasonably reliable conservative sources of news. At least they make an attempt to practice the principles of journalism. That’s why there is a retraction. He would not get a third chance if he worked for me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/6 "2007-12-02T03:08:28Z")
Arty? Look, if you’re descending into madness, could you bring some pie? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/7 "2007-12-02T05:36:16Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] It is approximately the same due diligence that the hallowed _New York Times_ showed with Jayson Blair. Or that the _Boston Globe_ showed with Mike Barnicle. [/QUOTE] In the case of the New York Times, the due diligence included an investigation that lasted for months and resulted in many changes, including the resignations of the executive editor and managing editor (in addition to firing Jayson Blair, as mentioned by **RTFirefly** ). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/8 "2007-12-02T06:02:39Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] It is approximately the same due diligence that the hallowed _New York Times_ showed with Jayson Blair. Or that the _Boston Globe_ showed with Mike Barnicle. [/QUOTE] Ding ding ding! It’s our _tu quoque_ award winner for the week!! Careless or fabricated reporting, no matter who’s doing it, is worthy of censure. And while being “patriotic” is a fine thing, it is far less important an adjective for a reporter than “accurate”. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/9 "2007-12-02T07:59:26Z")
It hardly needs to be said that a bad story doesn’t make a bad journalist. People get things wrong sometimes, and reporting in this part of the world isn’t easy. NR has an obligation to report on the controversy and get other views on record. If the reporting is fundamentally flawed, it should be retracted. But sometimes the right thing is just to publish the “letter to the editor”, as it were, and let things either go from there or end there, depending. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/10 "2007-12-02T11:05:21Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] It hardly needs to be said that a bad story doesn’t make a bad journalist. People get things wrong sometimes, and reporting in this part of the world isn’t easy. [/quote] Is there something about Lebanon that makes it more difficult for a reporter to distinguish, for his readers, between facts he can attest to personally, and things that should be preceded with “sources say that…” ? Your sympathy for the reporter is impressive. Need I dig out the things you said about the reportorial accuracy of Scott Thomas Beauchamp? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/11 "2007-12-02T11:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] People get things wrong sometimes, and reporting in this part of the world isn’t easy. [/QUOTE] Neither in [Haiti](http://www.theonion.com/content/video/breaking_news_something_happening), where something apparently is happening. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/12 "2007-12-02T13:33:14Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] It hardly needs to be said that a bad story doesn’t make a bad journalist. People get things wrong sometimes, and reporting in this part of the world isn’t easy. [/quote] Are you kidding? The reporters job is to report what they see, not what sounds really cool. There is a big difference between “sprawling tent city with 200 heavliy armed militia men” and “a sprawling tent city containing two AK-47s and some guys with walkie talkies.” If his sources say that the tents contain weapons, then he reports that sources say the tents may contain weapons" and not some little over dramatized fantasy. > [@](#): > > NR has an obligation to report on the controversy and get other views on record. If the reporting is fundamentally flawed, it should be retracted. But sometimes the right thing is just to publish the “letter to the editor”, as it were, and let things either go from there or end there, depending. Fundamentally flawed is selling this short. The difference between story and event is large enough that there had to be intent involved. This isn’t just sloppy writing or a minor typo. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/13 "2007-12-02T21:16:22Z")
Glenn Greenwald [has a post today](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/02/nro/index.html) about “Moving Car” Smith (although he doesn’t use that moniker). About halfway down, he has a plethora of links to the National Review Online’s demands of greater accountability on the part of The New Republic in the Beauchamp affair - including posts by K-Lo and Moving Car. Looks like they missed the log in their own eye, whilst going after the speck in TNR’s. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2007, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/14 "2007-12-02T22:01:56Z")
Looks like someone I get to add to my list of reporters to ignore. Still, though, he has a long way to go before he catches up to the idiocy that is Fisk. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/15 "2007-12-03T00:57:25Z")
Disgraceful, and the guy should be fired. His retracting tap-dance about what caveats he should, or should not, have included only make the case against him clearer. He can explain to his next employer how he’s smart, reliable and has a great patriotic spirit and sense of service. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/16 "2007-12-03T04:42:29Z")
[QUOTE=Harborwolf] Are you kidding? The reporters job is to report what they see, not what sounds really cool. There is a big difference between “sprawling tent city with 200 heavliy armed militia men” and “a sprawling tent city containing two AK-47s and some guys with walkie talkies.” If his sources say that the tents contain weapons, then he reports that sources say the tents may contain weapons" and not some little over dramatized fantasy. [/QUOTE] Certainly. I shouldn’t have given the impression that such a thing ought to be the standard. Nor should Smith’s explanations be the end of it, necessarily, especially considering that he admitted to some practices that aren’t the norm in journalism. _National Review_ seems to feel that Smith was spun a bit by the folks he was with, but their identities weren’t made known so that that sort of agenda could be divined. That certainly has affected lots of Middle East reporting in general, where access to not only government officials but even neighborhoods is controlled by translators and fixers who can indeed steer stories. The biggest example probably was the CNN Iraq bureau scandal. Wrong is wrong, but I do want to know why he was wrong. If he was deliberately lying, that is inexcusable. If he was sloppy and passing along the opinions of his host as gospel - that’s wrong but excusable with a clarification. If we were to punish every journalist over there played by an Arab, we wouldn’t have a very active press corps in the whole region. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/17 "2007-12-03T09:06:05Z")
This W. Thomas Smith, Jr. is also the co-author of “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design”, along with a Episcopal chaplain from the University of Massachusetts. His book discusses physics, chemistry, biology, the history of science, the life of Charles Darwin, and “How Darwin’s theory gave rise to atheism within scientific community”, subjects on which he presents himself as an authority based on his experience in journalism and the marines. His book is also completely unmentioned on the bio to his blog at NRO. So either this guy is the world’s most modest polymath, or else he’s a huckster who makes a living talking about whatever bullshit someone will pay him to talk about. Currently that “someone” is the “Family Security Foundation”, which is the tax-deductible arm of “Family Security Matters”, which is a front of the right-wing think tank the Center for Security Policy. He’s no more an unbiased reporter than I am. He’s a paid shill. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/18 "2007-12-03T10:43:21Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] _National Review_ seems to feel that Smith was spun a bit by the folks he was with, but their identities weren’t made known so that that sort of agenda could be divined. [/quote] As pointed out (repeatedly) above, he didn’t just fail to make their _identities_ known. He failed to make their _existence_ known, writing as if he were the firsthand witness who had personally ascertained the ‘facts’ his sources fed him. This has **not** “certainly has affected lots of Middle East reporting in general, where access to not only government officials but even neighborhoods is controlled by translators and fixers who can indeed steer stories.” > [@](#): > > Wrong is wrong, but I do want to know why he was wrong. Your sympathy for the reporter continues to be impressive. > [@](#): > > If he was sloppy and passing along the opinions of his host as gospel - that’s wrong but excusable with a clarification. If we were to punish every journalist over there played by an Arab, we wouldn’t have a very active press corps in the whole region. And your presumably deliberate obtuseness is even more impressive. As I said a few posts back: > [@](#): > > Is there something about Lebanon that makes it more difficult for a reporter to distinguish, for his readers, between facts he can attest to personally, and things that should be preceded with “sources say that…” ? Gonna keep pretending, or are you going to join the actual discussion here? ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/19 "2007-12-03T12:42:36Z")
I’d like to write a regular column reporting on news I garner through what I can see from a moving car. I’d call it “Rollin’ On.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2007, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508/20 "2007-12-03T17:50:46Z")
[http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZDI3YzI3ZDhiZDBlMGY3Yzg0ZTk4MWNjZDJkMDE=](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZDI3YzI3ZDhiZDBlMGY3Yzg0ZTk4MWNjZDJkMDE=) > [@](#): > > As one of our sources put it: “The Arab tendency to lie and exaggerate about enemies is alive and well among pro-American Lebanese Christians as much as it is with the likes of Hamas.” Well, yes. Those Arabs. Yeppers, that’s how they are, all right. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-national-review-over-reporter-w-thomas-moving-car-smith-jr/428508.md?page=2)