Truth in Journalism (Commentating?)

I wish I knew what this post was trying to say. It appears that new information that I was not privy to has surfaced on many fronts: ... reviewing the latest critique of the CIA's failures ... ... the Pvt. Beauchamp fables published at The New Republic ... ... the latest phony wire-photos from Iraq ... Well then. I guess a new national understanding has recently occurred, which prevents us from analyzing our past performance in order to learn from it and prevent it from occurring again (CIA "critique"). Also, it seems that it has been demonstratively proven that the abuses described by Pvt. Beauchamp never occurred. Strange, I hadn't heard that either. I guess we have evidence that pictures being sent to various location from Iraq are fake, and (I can only assume) specifically designed to discredit the administration. Could someone link me the story on that? Now, in removing my tongue from my cheek, I will make the point clearly: The premise for this article is based on nothing more than the author's in-expert opinion on a myriad of disconnected topics. As such, why should we bother to read the rest of the article? There is obviously nothing to learn here except more opinion from the author. I'm afraid this is about par for the journalistic course, unfortunately.