Note: Edward Snowden, usi
ng KGB supercomputers, has managed to hack in to the White House. On Wednesday Snowden leaked to VT a marked-up copy of President Obama’s remarks before Monday’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is believed that the original text was written by Obama himself, who is known to loathe Netanyahu, after which it was edited by Obama’s Zionist handlers. The handlers crossed out much of Obama’s original text, and substituted their own words in boldface.
“I’ve said before and I will repeat, we do not have a nastier and more vicious, devious, and downright odious closer so-called friend or ally than Israel…”
Full article:
I enjoy your Veterans Times columns and those of the site's other writers. VT is my favorite site.
Occasionally I'm frustrated with what I think are preposterous VT posts. I think they detract from the credibility of VT and its columnists. Your "Latest Snowden Leak" is one. On so serious an issue, it should have been identified as a parody. There've been a few others that I remember, too. Jim Fetzer, who I think is the most brilliant of the JFK assassination researchers, has a whack-job belief that the Moon landing was put together on a Hollywood stage. Michael Shrimpton, when writing about the Germans reads like Erskine Childers incarnate. I think neither one of those two were writing spoofs.
While I have a high regard for VT columnists and the site, I think that now-and-then VT posts, which to the average reader might seem unbelievable – those mentioned above are examples – should be more supported by accurate references and explanations than most writings. Fetzer when he wrote about the Zapruder film, or the Oswald doorway photo, is an example. He convinced this Doubting Thomas and, I suspect, others. Otherwise VT editors should squelch columnist's wild conjectures or fully explain them so that no one mistakes VT for The Onion.
I agree that some posts at VT are, or appear, preposterous. Comes with the territory. Shrimpton's often way out there. Fetzer believes what he writes – investigate to find out whether or not you agree with him. He doesn't do satire.
This piece is obviously satire. Leading writers on public affairs have often done satire without identifying it as such – think of Swift's "A Modest Proposal," Poe's balloon hoax, Mencken, etc. They assume their smart readers will get it. If the dumb ones don't, that just makes the joke even funnier.