The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, September 13, 2007
All the Law that's Fit to Break
Day by Day by Chris Muir (click to enlarge)
Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus
NYT Nabbed in Felony for giving discount to MoveOn.Org
The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Meanwhile, it is good to see that guys like Uncle Jimbo are willing to hit back. And Rudy Giuliani wants the same deal for his ad:
Rudy Giuliani blasted Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org for "smearing General Petraeus" today!Meanwhile Fred Thompson and the RNC had more to say about this outrage:
Rudy is demanding he get the same discount from The New York Times for his ad that will appear tomorrow.
Yes!-- Here's the TERRIFIC AD...
Click to Enlarge
FRED THOMPSON also attacked the Democrats and MoveOn for their campaign against General Petraeus today:(h/t Gateway Pundit).
Fred Thompson fired back on Hillary and democrats for their despicable attacks on General Petraeus:"It’s more and more apparent to me every day that the average 20 year old who is serving us in Iraq knows more about national security than many of the 20 year veterans in Congress."Amen.
And... The GOP came out with an ad today against the democratic attacks on Petraeus:
HotAir has the video.
Rudy did well in this interview, too.
Labels: Media Bias, Media War, MoveOn.Org, NY Times, Petreaus
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
It's Official--NBC is Anti-War... Who Knew??
We wrote here about the television commercials that Freedom's Watch has produced, featuring veterans and their families, that urge Congress and the public to continue supporting the Iraq war. The commercials are well done, and convey the simple message that the Iraq war is important and winnable, and that we should allow our troops to see the mission through. The ads are appearing in the context of a blizzard of anti-war ads by left-wing groups, intended to pressure Senators and Congressmen into pulling the plug on the Iraq effort.
Freedom's Watch has placed its ads on Fox and CNN, but CNBC and MSNBC have refused to run the ads. Ari Fleischer wrote this morning on behalf of Freedom's Watch to let us know that CNBC and MSNBC have stubbornly refused to air the pro-war ads, even though they have run issue ads on other controversial topics. Freedom's Watch has written to CNBC and MSNBC to protest their decision; here is the text of that letter:
John Kelly
Senior Vice-President of NBC News Network Sales
30 Rockefeller Plaza
12th Floor
New York, NY 10112
Dear Mr. Kelly,
We understand that MSNBC and CNBC (the “Networks”) are refusing to sell advertising time to Freedom’s Watch (“FW”) to air a series of educational advertisements. It is our understanding that the purported basis for the denial is a Network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance.
Given your recent history of airing such ads (see below), we must wonder if your denial to FW is a subjective decision because the network officials disagree with the FW ads’ message? If you continue to refuse to air FW’s advertisement we request an explanation of your basis in writing or station policy within two (2) days from the date above as time is of the essence.
FW has requested time on your networks to air advertisements discussing the War Against Terrorism. Your reporters and commentators discuss this issue on your programs at every hour of the day so you clearly agree this is an issue of great public importance. FW’s advertisements, to be sure, present a view of this debate that rounds out your coverage. These ads feature Iraq War Veterans and their families discussing their sacrifices in personal terms and their belief that we must allow the military time to complete its mission in Iraq and seek victory. This is a side of this issue that should not be silenced by national cable networks. We believe that rather than censor these American heroes, you should let the American public hear their story.
As noted above, it’s troubling that the Networks appear to be airing messages on issues on a selective basis. Our research indicates that your network has accepted and aired advertisements dealing with controversial issues of national importance in the recent past. For example, the Networks aired an advertisement entitled “Shameless Politicians” sponsored by Move America Forward regarding the war on terror in October 2004. In November 2006, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the American Medical Association entitled “Patient Voice” concerning the controversial issue of access to health care and coverage for the uninsured. During July 2007, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition. Your history of airing other issue advocacy advertisements makes the denial of FW advertisements troubling and raises the issue of whether your denial is based on an editorial disagreement with FW's message.
These ads are about important issues that will shape our national security policies for years to come. These ads present a point of view that your viewers are not now receiving.
Your viewers deserve to hear all sides of this issue so that they can make informed judgments about the future of their country.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Please respond to me through Larry Weitzner at Jamestown Associates.
Very Truly Yours,
Bradley A. Blakeman
President and CEOFreedom of speech: at some of our cable networks, you can't even buy it! We'll follow up with any response that may be forthcoming from NBC.
Labels: America War Support, Enemy Propaganda, Hearts and Minds, Media Bias, Media War, The Left
Scratch 100 More Bad Guys
U.S.-led and Afghan troops battled suspected Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday in ground clashes and airstrikes that left over 100 militants dead, the coalition said.In eastern Afghanistan, a suicide bomber attacked NATO troops helping to build a bridge, killing three American soldiers, a U.S. official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because not all families had been notified.
The battle in southern Kandahar province's Shah Wali Kot district started after the joint force was ambushed by a large group of insurgents who tried to overrun their position several times, before being strafed by airstrikes, the statement from the coalition said.
"Coalition aircraft destroyed the reinforced enemy emplacements and sniper positions as well as two trucks used to reinforce and re-supply the insurgent force," the statement.
More than 100 suspected insurgents and an Afghan soldier were killed, coalition said. The casualty figures could not be independently verified due to remoteness of the area.
Labels: Afghanistan, Media Bias, Media War, War Successes
Monday, August 27, 2007
Suicide...or Victory?
This powerful column highlights a discussion I've seen in several places recently, most notably in Lee Harris' tremendous new book The Suicide of Reason: that is, when you are at War sometimes you have to do the unpleasant thing for the greater good. Since the beginning of time, societies have had to take actions which reasonable men would not otherwise take, all for the greater good of winning a war. And there can be no argument that these unpleasantnesses do not always jive with the fact that at core Americans are a decent and compassionate people. One need only look at the firestorm generated by the benign abuses at Abu Grahib to understand this. Here is the rub though: for an enemy--who has no such decency or compassion; and who is stoked by the fires of a nihilist religious fervor, not caring how many civilians are killed (the more the better, for them), nor caring whether they themselves die (many want to die for their cause because the religion holds a special place for "martyrdom")--can our tolerant and reasonable democratic society marshal enough will to defeat an enemy like this under our current rules of engagement, and with an electorate who has a very low tolerance for "unpleasantness", or of much anything else except their own personal self-interest?Now that Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10," is a national bestseller, maybe Americans are ready to start a discussion about the core issue his story brings to light: the inverted morality and insanity of U.S. military rules of engagement.
On a stark mountaintop in Afghanistan, Leading Petty Officer Luttrell and three Navy SEAL teammates found themselves having just such a discussion back in 2005. Dropped behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban kingpin who commanded between 150 and 200 fighters, the SEAL team was unexpectedly discovered in the early stages of a mission whose success, of course, depended on secrecy. Three unarmed Afghan goatherds, one a teenager, had stumbled across the Americans' position, presenting the soldiers with an urgent dilemma: What should they do?
If they let the Afghans go, the Afghans would probably alert the Taliban to the their whereabouts. This would mean a battle in which the Americans were outnumbered by at least 35 to 1. If the Americans didn't let the goatherds go -- if they killed them, because there was no way to hold them -- the Americans would avoid detection and, most likely, leave the area safely. On a treeless mountainside far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.
It is agonizing to read their tense debate as recounted by Marcus Luttrell, the "lone survivor" of the disastrous mission. Each of the SEALs was aware of "the strictly correct military decision" -- namely, that it would be suicide to let the goatherds live. But they were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral.
The SEALs sent the goatherds on their way. One hour later, a sizeable Taliban force attacked, beginning a horrendous battle that resulted not only in the deaths of Mr. Luttrell's three SEAL teammates, but also the deaths of 16 would-be rescuers -- eight additional SEALs and eight Army special operations soldiers whose helicopter was shot down by a Taliban RPG.
"Look at me right now in my story," Mr. Luttrell writes. "Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it's worth: If you don't want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place."
I couldn't agree more, except for the fact that conservatives, up to and including the president, are at least as responsible for our outrageous rules of engagement as liberals. The question Americans need to ask themselves now, with "Lone Survivor" as Exhibit A, is whether adhering to these precious rules is worth the exorbitant price -- in this case, 19 valiant soldiers.
Another question to raise is why our military, knowing the precise location of a Taliban kingpin, sends in Navy SEALs, not Air Force bombers, in the first place? The answer is "collateral damage." I know this -- and so do our enemies, who, as Mr. Luttrell writes, laugh at our rules of engagement as they sleep safely at night. I find it hard to believe that this is something most Americans applaud, but it's impossible to know because this debate hasn't begun. But it should. It strikes at the core not only of our capacity to make war, but also our will to survive. A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the "unarmed civilians" they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war: It isn't showing much interest in its own survival.
This is what comes through, loud and ugly, from that mountaintop in Afghanistan, where four young Americans ultimately agreed it was better to be killed than to kill.
In short--do American citizens still have the sheer will that it must have in order to defeat a determined, resolute, and fanatical enemy? And can we somehow collectively "remember" that for our predecessors to have brought this country to the place it is today, enormous sacrifices had to be made--and that many brutal acts had to be undertaken along the way by Americans who cared more for country than for self? Names like Cold Harbor, Gettysburg, Flanders, Iwo Jima, Dresden, and Hiroshima all connote terrible events which, had they not occurred, would have possibly denied us the very freedoms and relative prosperity which we enjoy today. And, yet, faced with an uncompromising and numerous enemy whose only satisfaction will be our death or our assimilation into their 9th century tribal religious mindset, are we "soft" Americans willing to do whatever it takes to preserve what we have? This is the great question of our time. History will know the answer, but I must say I am not encouraged.
Harris puts it another way in his introduction, in distinguishing between his definition of a "rational actor" from a "fanatic":
Throughout this book, the term fanatic is not used as a term of moral reprobation or condemnation, nor is rational actor a term of praise or approval. Both are used simply to designate certain kinds of actors and their conduct. The fanatic is someone willing to make a sacrifice of his own self-interest for something outside himself. He is willing to die for his tribe or his cause. The rational actor is someone whose conduct is guided solely by his own enlightened self-interest, which, because it is enlightened, is willing to accept the rule of law. However he is unwilling to die for anything, since death can never be in his self-interest, enlighten it however you please. The fanatic may be a saint or a terrorist, a revolutionary or a lone madman, while a rational actor may be a kind-hearted accountant, a devious business tycoon, a great scientist, a penny-wise housewife, or an officious government bureaucrat.Indeed, Harris' book argues that, in order to prevail in this Long War to save our civilization, we will collectively need to become more like tribal actors--with the "tribe" being the idea of America or a society governed by reasonable laws--or else we will eventually cede power to the fanatics:
Now, of course, there are people who are mainly rational actors who are still willing to die for their country or for a cause. In this willingness, however, they are not acting as rational actors but as tribal actors. Indeed, an essential point of this book is that, in a crisis in which the law of the jungle returns to the fore, rational actors may suddenly begin to act like tribal actors. Often the danger is that they do not make this transition quite suddenly enough. Yet as the crisis deepens, those who refuse to stop playing the role of the rational actor find themselves increasingly friendless in a world full of enemies, until the day comes that they too must choose sides and embrace the tribal ethos of Us versus Them.
Both the tribal mind and fanaticism are rational adaptations to a world ruled by the law of the jungle--rational in that they increase the odds of surviving. On the other hand the rational actor doesn't have a chance of survival in the jungle. He who has neither a tribe nor pack to defend him will perish. That is why the rational actor must be horrified at the very thought of the return to the law of the jungle--in order to exist at all, the rational actor must live in an environment in which the rule of law has replaced the law of the jungle. Yet, in the modern liberal West, the rule of law has been so successful in pushing back the jungle that many in the West have forgotten that we are the exceptions, not the rule.
In short there are two great threats facing the survival of the modern liberal West. The first is its exaggerated confidence in the power of reason; the second is its profound underestimation of the forces of fanaticism.
Though enlightened tribalism and critical liberalism may disagree on the feasibility of expanding their own historically specific popular culture of reason across the globe, they will not clash over the necessity of protecting their own unique culture of reason from being subverted or undermined through an abstract ideal of tolerance that forces tolerant men and women to tolerate those who have no interest in tolerating others. They will, in this respect, be like a group of boys who are playing a game of baseball, where each of the boys has internalized the rules of the game and where all of them are prepared to resolve their disputes and conflicts in accordance with those impersonal and universally binding rules. Because they have all pledged to acknowledge these rules, they will act vigorously to expel from the game any new player who insists on exempting himself from the rules that all the other players have committed themselves to obeying. They will do this, not because they have a personal antipathy for the new player, but because they all know that if one player is allowed to make up the rules for himself, then the game of baseball will quickly be subverted through the will to power of this one player [....]Every single page of The Suicide of Reason is dripping with this kind of dazzling and brutally honest appraisal about Western Civilization, and also about the nature of the enemy we face in Radical Islam.
Similarly, if there is to be a popular culture of reason, then those who are fortunate enough to be members of this culture must be equally emphatic in their insistence that everyone else must obey the same rules that govern them, since if exemptions and exceptions are permitted, what started as a culture of reason will quickly degenerate into a naked struggle for power, where the most ruthless, and those most conteptuous of the rules, will inevitably end by winning, and in their victory they will destroy the very culture of reason that so foolishly permitted them to violate these ground rules. In short for reason to tolerate those who refuse to play by the rules of reason is nothing else but the suicide of reason--and with the suicide of reason, mankind will face the dismal prospect of a return to the brutal law of the jungle that has governed human communities for the vast bulk of both our history and prehistory, and from which certain lucky cultures have miraculously managed to escape--and even even then, only by the skin of their teeth.
Sun Tzu wrote these famous words over 2,300 years ago:
Knowing the other and knowing one's self:When it comes to knowing the other and knowing one's self, I cannot recommend Harris' book strongly enough.
In one hundred battles no danger.
Not knowing the other and knowing one's self:
One victory for one loss.
Not knowing the other and not knowing one's self:
In every battle, certain defeat.
Labels: Afghanistan, Media War, PC, Rules of Engagement, The Left
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Heirs of Edward R. Murrow... (aren't we proud)
Chris Wallace Blows Bill Moyers Out of the Water
Labels: Media Bias, Media War
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The NYT, Vietnam, Iraq, Selective Memory, and Blind Partisanship
They don't care if up to a million Iraqis could be slaughtered in the immediate weeks following an American retreat in Iraq. And I might add--a retreat even as we are turning the tide militarily. This is what is left of what was once the party of Thomas Jefferson. The party of the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence it is trying to engineer a humiliating and disastrous defeat of a new Democracy from the jaws of a Gen. Petraeus victory. In fact I heard Hillary Clinton today saying we needed to replace Malicki---"we"??? Funny, but I thought it was the Iraqis that voted him in. How interesting that--in the name of salvaging some iota of advantage out of their failed "all in on defeat" stance--the first thing the Democrats want to abandon is the Democracy. And then next I suppose losing a million or more Iraqi "democrats" is well worth it if they can pick up a couple of more Senate seats.
This is not only sick, it is treason. And the New York Times is behind it one hundred percent. What an abomination.
From Moran's AT piece:
When it comes to Viet Nam, the New York Times has a curious sense of the historical record.I disagree; if the New York Times has its way, Iraq will be a part of the Islamic Caliphate of Iran 30 years from now. And the millions who died in the postwar genocide will have turned into dust and bones. Personally, I'd rather see the Times be "deceased" in 30 years.
Commenting on President Bush's Viet Nam analogy used in his speech to veterans yesterday, the Times made this jaw dropping observation:In urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Mr. Bush is challenging the historical memory that the pullout from Vietnam had few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.And just to show that this is indeed, the company line at the Times about the aftermath of the Viet Nam war, Thomas Shanker uses the exact same phrase in a news analysis of the President's statements today:The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.Are they serious? Cambodia, an ally of the United States during the war, might have a little something to say about the Times' contention that there were few "negative repercussions" for them. Genocide on a scale that boggles the mind doesn't rate as a repercussion, I guess.
And what about Thailand? An ally of the US then and today, they surely didn't view our retreat from Viet Nam as anything except a setback for their security.
Then there is the now defunct Southeast Asian Treaty Organziation - SEATO - which went belly-up following our withdrawal from Viet Nam in 1977. Is the Times trying to argue that a collective security organization disbanding as a result of our pullback is not a "negative repercussion?"
I suppose emboldening the Soviets in Africa, Central America, and elsewhere - a direct consequence of us showing a lack of will in Viet Nam - wasn't too bad. After all, who cares about the Angolans anyway? Or the Salvadorans? Or the Nicaraguans? All three nations (and more) became recipients of Soviet attentions following our Viet Nam withdrawal. Would the Russians have been so bold otherwise? Certainly a debatable question but one where an affirmative answer can be well argued.
The Times is only reflecting the fact that the left in this country has been unable to face up to the consequences of their advocacy for withdrawal and abandonment of Viet Nam. Indeed, in the Shanker piece, one historian makes a liar out of the Times reporter:“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.It makes one wonder what the Times writers will be saying about Iraq 30 years from now. ...
And in case you forgot what the only man with integrity left at the New York Times--their senior correspondent in Iraq, John Burns--had to say about the probably aftermath of an American withdrawl from Iraq, here is a reminder:
Got that? So, in summary--a million dead Iraqis, a humiliating US defeat to AQ and Iran, and the most dangerous country of religious zealots on Earth sitting on 1/3 of its oil? No problem--just so they can blame Rapublicans. A victory in Iraq?? Out of the question. Welcome to the Democrat Party strategy.HH: Now you’ve reported some very tough places, Sarajevo, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and after the liberation from the Taliban, and you’ve won Pulitzers for that. When you say cataclysmic civil war, what do you mean in terms of what you’ve seen before? What kind of violence do you imagine would break out after precipitous withdrawal?
JB: Well, let’s look at what’s happened already as a benchmark. Nobody really knows how many people have died here, but I would guess that in terms of the civilian population, it’s probably not less than 100-150,000, and it could be higher than that. I don’t think it’s as high as the 700,000 that some estimates have suggested, but I think it’s, and I know for a fact, that the sort of figures that were being discussed amongst senior American officials here, as a potential, should there be an early withdrawal and a progress to an all-out civil war, they’re talking about the possibility of as many as a million Iraqis dying.
This IS the situation. Yes it sucks, but these are the facts. We have a party that wants America to lose. So what are we going to do about it (and about them...)?
Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Genocide, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Seattle Post-Intelligencer REFUSES to run FBI wanted picutes of suspected Terrorists
At 6am yesterday morning, I posted the FBI photo of two men who have been spotted by ferry employees and passengers acting strangely aboard Washington State ferries recently. I noted that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer refused to run the photos. In a follow-up story, the P-I explained its decision further:
There’s no taint if there’s no terrorism. Were their actions nefarious or misinterpreted? The men could clear that up in a split second by coming forward and saying so. Bill Hobbs weighs in at Newsbusters:The P-I elected not to publish the photos, citing civil liberties and privacy concerns, which editors felt outweighed the newsworthiness of the images. “We have no confirmation that these men’s behavior was anything but innocuous, and to forever taint them by associating them with terrorism under these circumstances is not consistent with our policy,” said David McCumber, P-I managing editor.
Of course it would be easier to find out which is the case if the FBI could find the guys. And it would be easier to find the guys if the Seattle P-I would publish the photos, so that Seattle-area residents would know what the men look like whom the FBI has asked the public to help them find. As it stands now, in the name of being politically correct, the Seattle P-I has decided to alarm the people of Seattle and leave them looking suspiciously at just about anyone who fits the general description of male and looking like they might be from the Middle East.
So, how else is the P-I covering the story (or rather, not covering the story)? By holding a haiku contest, of course! (Hat tip -
Bill Hobbs, who has more here).
Labels: Homegrown Jihad, Homeland Security, Media Bias, Media War, The Left
Monday, August 20, 2007
A Small Victory: Confederate Yankee prompts a change in AFP Photography Procedures
Labels: Blogging, Media Bias, Media War
Saturday, August 18, 2007
About that Hijacking Today
It's over with no casualties. Perpetrators wanted the plane landed in Iran — it was taken to Istanbul instead, and the hijackers surrendered.
The frightened passengers reported that the Arabic speaking hijackers announced, "We are Muslims," and claimed to have bombs. No word yet on whether they will be sued for civil rights violations given this blatant exhibition of Islamophobia.
You might expect to see this on p.25 of the Times tomorrow--that is if it makes the cut at all... Maybe just a one liner like: "No trouble here; just a few 'Asians' trying to jack an airliner... move along now."
Labels: Islamic Fascism, Media Bias, Media War
Thursday, August 16, 2007
MSNBC Newsroom Booed Bush during State of the Union Address
You might think that this current story almost borders on the "unbelievable," but judging by the content of MSNBC--home of the real worst person in the world... AND Chris Matthews--this unfortunately is all too believable. But it still sucks:
Joe Scarborough has pulled back the curtain on the liberal bias at MSNBC, describing an incident in which people in its newsroom ceaselessly booed President Bush during a State of the Union address.
The revelation came on "Morning Joe" today at 6:02 A.M. EDT. Joe was discussing a recent episode at the Seattle Times in which reporters and editors cheered the news that Karl Rove had resigned. Scarborough applauded Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman for issuing a memorandum reproving his colleagues. For more, read NB items by Brent Baker and Ken Shepherd.
Joe went on to describe a similar incident at MSNBC.
View video here. Note: that's newsreader Mika Brzezinksi heard murmuring in assent, though one has to wonder just how thrilled she was by Joe's candor in outing her fellow MSNBC liberals.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.
And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.
Watch the video. And then count to ten...
Labels: Bush Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias, Media War, The Left
AQ Message for Congress: This Bomb's For You UPDATED
The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.
That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.
As far as the Thieves of Baghdad (also known as Iraq's government) go, the terrorists were right. Iraqi minorities, including Christians, have been classified as fair game by Muslim butchers. Mainstream Iraqis simply look away.
But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.
Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It's lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they've lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they're spitting it out.
The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.
This war is ours to win. The only people who can lose it are your Congressmen and Senators. Please see that they don't.
UPDATE: Peters has another column up in the Post, in which he points out that the media missed the whole point on President Bush naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorism organization:
THE media missed a big one yesterday.They ran with the story that the Bush administration will soon designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps - a major troublemaker in Iraq - as a terrorist organization. But they didn't look past the public-consumption explanation that the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs.
The real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran.
Our policy is that we reserve the right to whack terrorists anywhere in the world. Now we have newly designated terrorists. And we know exactly where they are.
This doesn't mean we won't go after their money, too. The Revolutionary Guards have built up a financial empire - they're religious fanatics, but, in their version of Islam, "greed is good." Hurting Iran's assassins in the pocketbook reduces their ability to export terror.
Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, Surrender Caucus, The Left, War Successes
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
New Non-Profit in the Making: Lefties for Lies
Labels: Media Bias, Media War, Misreporting Events
Another Fake Photo (this one from AFP)
If you buy these, I've got a bridge to sell you...
Confederate Yankee describes yet another MSM anti-American hoax which Iraqi photographer Wissam al-Okaili has perpetrated on the public--with Agence France-Presse paying the bills. Only you might think that the Sadr City woman who was holding up bullets that she claimed to have "came into her room and hit her bed" might at the very least have bothered to find bullets that HAD BEEN FIRED FROM A GUN. Alas, these were not... :
Photographer Wissam al-Okaili has had quite an interesting summer in Iraq, and apparently made quite a few friends. In July, he published a picture carried in media around the world, as an elderly Sadr City woman held up a object that she claimed was a bullet that came into her room and hit her bed. What was quite interesting about the claim is that the "bullet" had no rifling, and did not match up to a caliber used by any known U.S. or Russian-designed weapons system. Many at the time felt that the object was most likely a fake, but results were never conclusive. Over at Blackfive last night, Uncle Jimbo caught al-Okaili attempting to use this narrative once too often as captured on Yahoo!'s photostream The woman in the photo—Uncle Jimbo notes that she looks like the same woman—makes a very similar claim, holding up bullets that she claims hit her house. And they very well may have hit her house, if the were tossed or kicked in that direction, but it is quite obvious that bullets still in their cartridge casings have never been fired by a gun [note: the cursor arrow in the photo above was added by me to point at the casing during the screen capture, and is not in the original photo]. Based upon these photos alone, we can only say that Wissam al-Okaili may simply be a dupe of a photographer. Obviously, his editors weren't sharp enough to notice that fired bullets don't remain in their cartridges, either. Perhaps al-Okaili was merely the patsy for a manipulative and press savvy Madhi Army propaganda operative, and this AFP photographer was used as so many photographers were used in last summer's conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Labels: Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, Misreporting Events
Sunday, August 12, 2007
CBS: Taking Money and Advertising for Hezbollah
This gives a whole new meaning to 'CBS Eye on America'
Debbie Schlussel has evidence that CBS is: 1) breaking Federal law, and; 2) materially supporting terrorist organizations. So where is the Justice Department? And just what will it take for enough to be enough for Alberto Gonzalez to grow a pair and go after a big fish who is openly flaunting its violation of Federal laws:
An unidentified party paid to post a pro-Hezbollah billboard, featuring photos of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as well as other Hezbollah officials. While that is disturbing, it really is not surprising if you've ever been to Windsor, especially lately. Hezbollah and HAMAS supporters who can't get in here, live freely over there. And others who can't get in here, regularly are smuggled through in car trunks from over there to here. And Hezbollah supporters here have training camps over there.The billboard may be against the law in Canada, where free speech laws are less absolute, but it's definitely illegal under U.S. law for other reasons.
What's disturbing is that CBS owns the billboard and allowed it to be posted. This is a violation of federal law here in America. It makes no difference that the billboard is in Canada. Federal law prohibits providing material support, including communications (such as a billboard), to terrorist groups. Hezbollah is not only on the State Department Terrorist List, it is also a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
Labels: CBS, Hezbollah, Islamic Fascism, Justice Department, Media Bias, Media War
Monday, August 06, 2007
Less Fit
UPDATED Has the FBI found the "warrantless wiretapping" Leaker?
This is a crime that definitely deserves jail time. But could there be other links (e.g. to Soros himself...)?? ; that thought is probably a bit too much to hope for--but stranger things have happened. In any case I would think the poster "ranger" quoted below might just be on to something:
Newsweek is reporting an interesting development in the FISA leak investigation:Aug. 13, 2007 issue - The controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program took another surprise turn last week when a team of FBI agents, armed with a classified search warrant, raided the suburban Washington home of a former Justice Department lawyer. The lawyer, Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)-the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets. The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files. Tamm and his lawyer, Paul Kemp, declined any comment. So did the FBI. But two legal sources who asked not to be identified talking about an ongoing case told NEWSWEEK the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media. The raid appears to be the first significant development in the probe since The New York Times reported in December 2005 that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents without court warrants.
Tom Maguire notes that Mr. Tamm made a contribution to the DNC in 2004.
[...]I do not know how long Mr. Tamm worked at DoJ but he received an award in 2000,which means he was a holdover from the prior Administration.Last week we noted that Secrecy News reported that DoJ has announced that is determined that journalists could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing classified information.
Update: Tamm works at the EqualJustice USA A.J. Strata reveals:Equal Justice USA
Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, 1972-1974. Thomas L. Crowe, Baltimore, MD ... Thomas M. Tamm, Rockville, MD. Assistant State's ...
http://www.ejusa.org/MD_law_enforcement_letter.htm - 15k - CachedEqual Justice USA is funded by the Quixote Center through a George Soros grant.From JOM poster "ranger"I have a feeling that some senior Dems are very concerned about what might come down next summer. One of the interesting aspects of this case it how a reporter obtained the contents of a letter so sensitive that it was hand written and only two copies existed (one in the office of the VP who was the addressee, and the other in the office of Sen. Rockafeller, who was the author). I seriously doubt that information came from the office of the VP.
Mr. Tamm may have been one of the original leakers, but there were confirming sources at the FISA Court and in the Senate who could become significant political liabilities if indictments were filed or unsealed in 2008.
UPDATE: AJ Strata has a lot more on this case. This is a great development. An example needs to be made here...
Labels: Media Bias, Media War, NSA Surveillance, Treachery, Treason
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Might the New York Post go National??
So--in case such a move is being contemplated--here is a note of encouragement to Mr. Murdoch: America is your oyster, sir! If you will bring the Post to Dallas, I will sign up... any more takers out there?
Labels: Media War, Rupert Murdoch, The "Fairness" Doctrine, The Left
Friday, August 03, 2007
The Making of a "New" American Tabloid
Day by Day by Chris Muir (click to enlarge)
Labels: Cartoons, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, Misreporting Events, The Left
