Update (5/23): Blogging may resume later today, definitely tomorrow, readers. I’m busy earning the palace right now. By the way, I did a radio interview Saturday afternoon on KSFO in San Francisco. Discussed was Vicente Fox’s misplaced apology to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
—————————————————————————————————————————
…as long as you spell my name right:
Conservative bloggers, in particular, were apoplectic over the Newsweek lapse. Glenn Reynolds, whose InstaPundit.com is perhaps the most influential right-leaning blog, linked to a rant by Dean Esmay charging that “the press is not on our side in the war…. You guys are enemy propagandists. It’s just who you are. It’s nice that you’ve at least stopped pretending.” Another, the increasingly prominent religious-right blogger La Shawn Barber (?), pushed this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, writing, “Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true. It’s common sense, people. Those journalists knew how Muslims would react! Why would you hurt your own country and risk more deaths just to report this ‘fact’? To what end???”To what end? Well, the truth — in this case, the truth about how Muslim detainees are being treated in the secret prison at Guantánamo Bay. It’s too bad that Barber has so little regard for that truth. Unfortunately, Newsweek’s regard for the truth was only slightly greater than hers. (Emphasis added)
And a link would have been nice. 
By the way, the whole world knows about the prison at Guantanamo Bay, so how is it a secret?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 107 comments }
“Unfortunately, Newsweek’s regard for the truth was only slightly greater than hers.”
He can’t be serious.
LOL! Congratulations
. You’ve made the “big time”… got mentioned by a “blog critic” 
. I can’t think of a better compliment for a blogger than to get under the skin of a left-wing whiner! 
And I fully agree with your statement… in fact, I’ve been saying it myself all week. There was no excuse for Newsweek to publish a year-old story that was not only not “news”, but also not documented and obviously inflammatory. This is not “truth”, it’s overtly siding with the enemy.
This has got to be the strangest comment I’ve ever seen. That you assume I didn’t grow up with a father living in the same house is odd. On what is this assumption based?
My father was there, making a good living for his family and caring for the children he sired. My parents didn’t split until I was a senior in college. The amateur and inaccurate psychoanalysis is excused, as is the off-topic comment. – Admin
I think the Left has done a splendid job over the last 40 years of twisting the English language to such an extent that putting underwear on somebody’s head or making a Muslim pet a dog can now be called torture. They still do not believe the war is legitimate nor the threat of radical Wahabbist Islam real.
I agree, La Shawn, the prison in Guantánamo is not secret. However, a reasonable interpretation is that the author intended to say, “the secretive prison at Guantánamo Bay.” Yes, I am speculating, and this is not courtroom evidence, but “secretive” does fit the author’s argument.
Enjoy your weekend,
What is a secret is Newsweak’s commitment to the truth. Newsweak never reported a credibie allegation that B.J. Clinton raped Juanitta Broaddrick, dispite having a named source. Yet Newsweak ran the Koran down the toilet story.
David
Newsweek even made a deal with John Kerry to not print any “dirt” on him before the 2004 election so they wouldn’t hurt his presidential bid. If only they had as much concern for other peoples’ lives.
I often wonder if the MSM has an understanding of what fate they will face if we lose this war. From what I read in newspapers and hear on network news I have to assume they do not.
To illustrate my point the follwing is a list of the Islamic fundamentalists that would tolerate the freedom of speach the press in this country allows.
1)
Seems strange that they would root for their own death.
The left only has one concern, the destruction of America. They will do anything they can do to make America look bad. What is bad for America, is good for the liberals.
In celebration of the Newsqueek love for truth, perhaps someone should publish the home addresses and phone numbers of the editors, and perhaps nude photos of them.
“increasingly prominent religious right blogger”
increasingly prominent, hmm….
yep, and commentators like him are helping to make it so…
delightful irony!
Keep up the good work, La Shawn!
(his argument assumes that patriots are always liars – to follow it to a ‘logical conclusion’)
What the “critic” and all the other people on the left get confused are the words truth and discretion. Actually, they don’t get them confused, they just use the two words whenever it fits their motives. Find a story they like, they call it the truth. Sit on a story they don’t like, then it’s discretion. This event, previous actions by Newsweek, and the ridiculous WH press corps meltdown on Friday showhow much disdain the media has for this administration. They could be more truthful and out themselves of their dislike, but I guess they’re using the better part of discretion.
Chris,
The “liberal” media had some fairly nice disdain for Clinton during the Whitewater and Lewinsky years, as well. See The Hunting of the President, a great documentary, for that proof.
Your comment was purposely “snipped,” so please don’t try to post it again. – Admin
FL Mom wrote, “Newsweek even made a deal with John Kerry to not print any ‘dirt’ on him before the 2004 election so they wouldn’t hurt his presidential bid.”
That is a very strong accusation! I have two questions.
1. A “deal” is an agreement to make some kind of exchange. What did Newsweek get from John Kerry in exchange for promising not to print any ‘dirt’? If your answer is, “Nothing. Newsweek simply wanted to get Kerry elected” my response is “That would be biased journalism, but it’s not a “deal.”
2. Would you please provide some evidence to support this claim, preferably not simply a link to a far-right website?
Doug Robertson wrote, “I often wonder if the MSM has an understanding of what fate they will face if we lose this war.”
I think Mr. Robertson and probably others are conflating our incursion into Iraq with a general war on terrorism and a general war on Islamic fundamentalism. This is a mistake. I know this will not be a popular point around here, but I believe that our incursion into Iraq is causing more terrorism and increasing the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism.
Like all of you, I hope that Iraq develops a democratic government and establishes a system where the rights of everyone are protected, including all types of Moslems and non-Moslems; that the killing ends and the infrastructure is rebuilt. I believe that almost all Americans agree with that. Please don’t accuse Americans whose politics you do not share of wanting America to lose the war. It might be true of a few lunatics, but it is not true of the great majority, including the ever-derided “mainstream media.”
DoubleU: “The left only has one concern, the destruction of America.”
Must we throw flames in such an incendiary fashion? Were I to point out that Tim McVeigh, who really did destroy an important piece of America, was from the right, not the left, people would say that it’s not fair to count Tim McVeigh as a poster child for the entire political right in America. That is true, it isn’t fair to do that. And it’s equally unfair to accuse the left of wanting to destroy America. Stop it.
Sorry, Anomalocaris, but it’s true. The far Left (whose mouthpiece is MSM) has entered into a weird Hitler-Stalin type of pact with radical Islam. Both groups hold representative democracy in contempt – Islam with its appetite for theocracy, the far Left with its “Living Constitution”. Both are famously intolerant of ideas and opinions that differ with their own. Both see themselves as the natural ruling elite. I don’t want to live under either of them.
Of course, like the Hitler-Stalin pact, both the far Left and radical Islam hate each other almost as much as they hate their enemies. I wonder how long this marriage of convenience will last.
So why should us conservatives apologize? NEWSWEEK is a liberal rag like most of the news magazines.
Doug Robertson made a very curious comment. Well it was curious to me. First of all, should the US “lose” in Iraq, I don’t see hordes of stampeding Muslims taking over this country and subjecting it to sharia. Won’t happen.
I have a few questions. Why didn’t our elected leaders and their appointees have a better plan for this conflict? I mean, where was/is the exit strategy? Why weren’t there enought troops on the ground to begin with? Why did we go to war on a supposition that WAS KNOWN TO BE FALSE TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED? What happened to “Shock and Awe”? Why wasn’t there a plan to win the peace after the major fighting was concluded? What? I can’t hear you!
Why not face the fact that this war was the wrong thing to do? The reasons put forth for it were shaky at best and have now been proven to be absolutely false. 1,623 American lives wasted, along with the potential those lives held. I don’t known how many truly innocents Iraqis have met their death. I don’t like what Newsweek did, but at least they have printed a retraction. When will the Bush administration do the same? When will it tell the American people the truth about this needless war?
Forgive me for generalizing, but republicans/conservatives always want to wrap themselves in the flag when anyone (even one of their own) has the temerity to challenge them on one of their “truths”. Any dissenting view is blasphemy to them. Balderdash! To that I simply say/quote, “The last refuge of a SCOUNDREL is patriotism.” Enjoy your dinner.
Rafael Daniel,
I am always amused by the Left’s insistence that we needed an “exit strategy” prior to engaging in hostilities with Iraq. War is not that cut and dried. It would be nice if it were, but unforseen things can happen, as we have seen since the fall of the Iraqi government.
We can plan how we might handle things if events go a certain way, but from the moment the first shot is fired, things do not usually go “as planned”. We undoubtedly had an occupation strategy, but it may not have taken in all the variables that have occurred.
Remember, we still aren’t out of Japan or Germany 60 years after the end of World War II. While the situation with both those countries is hardly in the form of an “occupation” now, it most certainly was for many more years than we have been in Iraq. That, without the problems of troublemakers from outside those defeated countries entering them to wage a guerilla war against our occupation forces.
La Shawn,
I kind of like that “increasingly prominent” descriptor. You most certainly are, and your loyal readers are very glad for it.
That article was by a guy named Kennedy in the “Boston Pheonix” which runs an “adult personals” section which links in to porno and hooker ads!
What a RELIABLE source of information and opinion, as well as media criticism!
I am laughing all the way to the local swingers club!
Mike-
The media was willing and ready to sit on the Lewinsky story until it was scooped by Drudge.
Even their sometimes contempt for WJC, Bush I, Reagan, or any President doesn’t make my point any less true. Editors and writers pick and choose what they deem the search for the truth and what they term discretion. My point doesn’t have anything to do with partisanship as it does with the fact that the media uses the word “truth” to fit their own needs.
Another case in point: Where’s the search for truth in Harry Reid violating FBI and Senate rules in his speech regarding Judge Henry Saad?
Montie, first of all, I am not a leftist.
War isn’t cut and dried, true. However, if you have ever been in the military, you know that you don’t do anything without a forward look into the consequences. A simple “What COULD happen if we do this?” may have saved lives. That isn’t rocket science.
I don’t want any excuses from our government. I want answers. Tell the parents of the dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that certain variables weren’t taken into account. Why weren’t they? Why didn’t GWBush and his gang count up the cost? I want to know why they invaded Iraq when they knew FULL WELL two months ahead of time that their premise for going to war was erroneous.
You are correct. We are still in Japan and Germany. I served in Japan and am grateful for it. I agree with you that we occupied them. Although I am sure their was opposition to our presence in those countries, there doesn’t seem to have been an insurgency comparable to what is being experienced in Iraq. Besides, Japan actually did attack us, so occupation was justified. I think we should have annexed them personally. I agree with most of what you wrote in your third paragraph, but you seem to forget ONE major thing: had there not been an illegitmate invasion, there would be no insurgency. Since we did invade, had there had been enough boots on the ground to secure the weapons caches that were known/thought to exist, the insurgency would have been robbed of a lot of its raw material for creating mayhem. That is a failure of planning. But (and I mean this to be imflammatory), that is what the evil do: they RUSH to shed blood.
This war can not be justified on the basis of the claims GWBush’s administration made. So, why did we go? Saddam was CONTAINED. He posed no threat to us. As for spreading democracy, why not try to uphold/support one in OUR OWN HEMISPHERE (Haiti)? When they have the honesty/forthrightness/courage to answer that question and answer it TRUTHFULLY (that means WITHOUT spin), I’ll stop asking it. I am NOT holding my breath.
Rafael Daniel uses selective memory to make his points. Go back and read what President Bush and his administration said about the reasons for going in to Iraq. You’re stuck on the MSM meme, which has been conclusively disproven.
Think about this. If the war was about WMD ONLY and no consideration was given to any other reason for going in to Iraq, then why on earth was the war named Operation IRAQI FREEDOM? Why wasn’t it named Operation American Security? Or Operation Depose Sadaam? Or something else?
You know the reason. You just refuse to admit it.
Stop spewing the leftist talking points and start thinking for yourself.
Mwalimu Daudi wrote, “The far Left (whose mouthpiece is MSM) has entered into a weird Hitler-Stalin type of pact with radical Islam.”
Oh. Thank you for clarifying. Now I understand everything. The far Left, — the Trotsky groups, the Leninist groups, the Maoists — now control the mainstream media, including Newsweek, Time, U.S. News, CBS, ABC, and NBC. And their leader has made a pact with Osama bin Laden to invade a country and divvy it up. Thank you for clarifying.
OK. I admit it. I’m mocking you. That’s because your claim is preposterous. The far Left are those people who hawk tabloids like Peoples Daily World. The far Left are people who debate the fine points of Marxist-Leninism. These people have no pull with any of the media you call mainstream.
If there is one thing that the far Left is not, it is not unified. There is no one spokesman for all these groups, nobody to enter into a Hitler-Stalin pact. And on the moderate Left, there is no one spokesman for them either.
The Democrats, who are identified with the moderate, mainstream Left, have three national leaders: Harry Reid in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Howard Dean as party chairman. No doubt, many of you disagree with many of the opinions of these three Democratic leaders. But none of these three people can reasonably be accused of making a “pact” with radical Islam. In fact, Radical Islam is also hopelessly divided. Existing groups include the Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and numerous others. There is no one “Stalin” of radical Islam to deal with even if one wanted to.
The analogy breaks down further. The Hitler-Stalin pact was a pact of non-aggression and to divide Poland. Even if America’s Left had a single dictatorial leader, and even if radical Islam also had a single dictatorial leader, what kind of pact could they possibly agree to?
And Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean don’t determine what stories will be covered in Time, Newsweek, or U.S. News. These magazines may cover to some extent what they say, but the magazines also cover what Bill Frist, Tom Delay, and the Bush administration say.
Honestly, Mwalimu Daudi, if you are hoping to convince non-conservatives that the conservative movement has something important to say, you’ll have to do better than that, because your analogy doesn’t work at any level.
Respectfully,
antimedia, the reason the Bush administration named this war “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is they didn’t want to call it Operation Iraqi Liberation, for obvious reasons.
I’m neither left or right, but am a Christian. And I agree Newsweek did a foolish, foolish thing by posting that Koran issue. However, I am a Christian, who believes that Islam is wrong. And I wish this country would have the balls to be Christian and stop handholding those who don’t believe in Christ. I do not care for this war and until we say that this is a religious war, then what are we fighting for anway?
Didn’t Newsweek admit to having reporters on Kerry’s campaign that were given access inside on the provision that the reporters keep things quiet until after the election? If I recall, they made the same offer to Bush, but the Bushies kept them at arms length as SOP.
Imagine the MSM of 1941 breaking the story of how the Allies had broken the German and Japanese codes, the Ultra Secret and Magic. We could have easily lost the war, but heck, it would have been true.
Rafael Daniel,
As a matter of fact, I spent 10 years in the Army, counting time in the reserves (1982-92), I got out as an O-3. While I did not accuse you of being a leftist, your comments might lead one to think so.
Personally, I thought we should have saddled up and drove for Bagdad the first time they fired on one of our aircraft or refused to let a WMD inspector have immediate access to a suspect site, both violations of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. Instead he got away with constantly ignoring the UN and acting as if there were no rules set up that lead us to “call off the dogs”.
Granted, Iran would have been a better target due to their WMD programs and our knowledge of their support for terrorists, but Iraq was an easier target. Between Afghanistan and Iraq I believe the government is hoping to jumpstart a little “domino theory” type action in the Middle East, and you know what? I think it might be working (as in Syria’s pullout from Lebanon, local elections in Saudi Arabia, and a host of other concessions being grudgingly given up by the autocratic regimes which populate the region).
Oh, and get off that MSM term “insurgency”. They’re TERRORISTS. They are infiltrating the border not just to kill Americans, but to kill any Iraqis who might dare hope for a better life than that afforded under some blood-thirsty goon like Saddam or some crazed jihadist cleric.
As far as Haiti goes, while it would be nice to be able to clean up our immediate neighborhood, the fact of the matter is that our strategic interests lie for now in the Middle East for many reasons, and yeah oil is one of them. But, I haven’t seen any Haitians taking down buildings or beheading people lately, so I think we are engaged in the right place to eradicate the guys we have to worry about for now.
Anomalocaris, conservatives aren’t trying to convince anyone of anything. We’re just preaching to the converted inside our echo chamber of radical, extremist right-wing fanatic religious zealots.
Hadn’t you heard?
There are no moderate Democrats.
The left is a blind/deaf monolith united around a ‘hate-Bush’ mantra.
The MSM only works on the mentally vulnerable who divorce themselves from true liberalism which would celebrate the liberation of women in Afghanistan, and those who risked death to vote in Iraq.
The MSM correlates talking points with the DNC – not an exaggeration, the most obvious, (and I mean OBVIOUS) are the ‘fortunate son ads’ chasing the fradulent raTHergate fiasco, and the Al Qaqaa non-story keyed into Kerry’s last stump speeches.
Only the blind/deaf could be so calloused as to call the calumnitous excuse for a human being known as Saddam Hussein “contained”. Ask any Iraqi (except his former executioners, of course).
Dee S.,
Wow. Totally blunt and spin-free endorsement of a theocratic United States. I disagree with everything you said, though you deserve points for being so bold.
So, you do believe this is a religious war?
Mike M.,
It’s a religious war if one of the parties believes it is, and our enemies leave no doubt that THEY believe they are engaged in a “holy war”.
I’m sure the commenters have read this, but perhaps ignored it, or haven’t. This is courtesy of Hugh Hewitt’s site (www.hughhewitt.com):
“ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Terry Moran said on my show Wednesday:
‘There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous.’”
Remember, this is from a “card carrying” member of the MSM.
When someone from inside the circle points this out, it should be obvious to everyone else. Couple this with the obvious tension directed at the Bush administration, it is recipe for news gathering disaster, as evidenced by the irresponsibility and aftermath of Rathergate, Jordangate and now Newsweekgate and Foleygate.
This is simply the latest evolution of journalism that developed in the 1950’s, where interjecting personal opinion and idealogues became accepted practice in news reporting.
Here is where I recently saw the reference to Newsweek’s special regard for John Kerry:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002478.htm
It links to another, older article:
http://patterico.com/2004/11/06/2264/mainstream-media-hid-full-extent-of-kerrys-indecisiveness/
which has other links to transcripts and whatnot.
Maybe “deal” isn’t the right word, maybe it is.
Kathy wrote: “The left is a blind/deaf monolith united around a ‘hate-Bush’ mantra.”
I am often in agreement with people on the left. I’m not blind. I’m not deaf. And I often disagree with with some people on the left. I don’t hate Bush.
Most members of the left would say the same thing. Party discipline is much stronger among Republicans than among Democrats. The left is notorious for its fractured, disorganized nature. It’s no monolith. And while we disagree with many of the policies of Mr. Bush, we know he is a human being, and we don’t hate him. There may be people on the left who do hate Bush, but then, they are nowhere near as numerous as people on the right who hate Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. Most of us are just trying to get along. We don’t have time to hate.
Kathy wrote: “The MSM only works on the mentally vulnerable who divorce themselves from true liberalism which would celebrate the liberation of women in Afghanistan, and those who risked death to vote in Iraq.”
All the people on the left I’ve talked to do celebrate the liberation of women in Afghanistan, and hope that this liberation will take hold. Remember, every Democrat in Congress except one voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Afghanistan.
The major criticism of the left regarding Afghanistan is that we didn’t follow up our victory with more support for building civil society. Consequently, much of our victory has dissipated, and in many areas, the warlords are in control again. After all we invested in money and lives, what a shame.
As for Iraq, there is no contradiction between celebrating Iraqis for their election, and criticizing U.S. conduct in this war, or the decision to embark on it.
By analogy, if someone buys a beautiful teakettle for $3,000, I might say it’s a lovely teakettle, but the price was too high. Well, the Iraqis had a lovely albeit imperfect election, but the price in Iraqi lives, American lives, and some $200 billion was too high, in my opinion.
But ultimately, my opinion isn’t that important here. What is important is the opinion of 25 million Iraqis. Has anyone conducted a poll to ask them if they feel that the benefit of being free of Saddam Hussein was worth the price paid in lives, injuries, and in other ways? As far as I know, no such opinion poll has been conducted. So we’re in no position to declare that the Iraqis are better off. That’s a declaration they have to make for themselves.
Respectfully,
Rancher wrote: “Imagine the MSM of 1941 breaking the story of how the Allies had broken the German and Japanese codes, the Ultra Secret and Magic. We could have easily lost the war, but heck, it would have been true.”
As far as I know, the media have not given away any military secrets about the war. The media have released information about our treatment of prisoners, but that is very different from releasing actual military secrets. Another analogy fails.
Antimedia, perhaps you have the selective memory bug. The Bush administration’s mantra was Iraq had WMD and that Saddam posed a threat to you and I here in the good old USA. Cheney claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN was about WMD. Our gov’t asked for and got UN inspectors to go to Iraq. (Too bad they didn’t let them do the job.)
Hans Blix, David Kay (the administration’s guy) and others that know more of the particulars than you and I came to the conclusion that Saddam had no WMD. So have a presidential commission and a congressional commission.
It makes no difference what an operation is called anti. Putting a pink dress and pearls on a pig doesn’t make it a suitable prom date.
The last thing I have to say to you is this: if the blind lead the blind, they both shall fall into the ditch. Here’s a towel and some peroxide so you can wash the blood (of the innocents) off of your face.
Montie, I agree with you 100% that the Iraq question should have been settled in 1992. We had the manpower and the momentum and the moral imperative. We had NONE of that in 2003. BTW, terrorist/insurgent mean the same thing to me. No matter what you call them, they are MURDERERS. You could call them “Winnie the Poohs”, but their actions is what defines them in my eyes. They aren’t honorable men. Does that clear it up for you?
If you think our neighbors in Haiti (to whom we owe an historical debt) aren’t worthy of our time, all I can say to that is “Wow”. I won’t even try to fathom why, I’ll just acccept that as how you feel.
Kathy, I suppose Dr. Rice is blind/deaf, because she herself said Saddam was contained before she joined the neo-con party line. From a military point of view, he was. Remember the no-fly zones? They actually worked. His WMD program? Dead. This nation doesn’t have the right to institute regime change wherever it wishes, ESPECIALLY when that wasn’t its original, STATED intention.
To say that there are no moderate democrats is just a lie. That is just as ignorant as saying there are no moderate republicans. Believe me, we exist. There will always be a place for those who are honestly willing to see both sides of an issue. If anything, I lean to the right (slightly). I just don’t like BS no matter the ideology.
Early in WWII, a columnist bragged that because the Japanese did not know the design depth our fleet boats could dive to, they set their depth charges too shallow and were not hitting our subs. Within 2 months, they were setting charges deeper and killing us.
The only thing worse than foolishly getting our troops killed is intentionally getting them killed the way the left does today. After the first nuke hits, Gitmo ain’t big enough.
Rafael Daniel, thank you for proving my point – there are no moderate democrats. You are a leftie. Nowhere near the center of American politics. Exactly what do you suppose is moderate about your anti-war stance? Cognitive dissonance is so sad. This is why you fall lock step behind the MSM, and fall for the party line.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of “contained” is. I forget when dealing with a relativist, semantics is always debatable. Standard definitions do not apply. Saddam had the same containment as Milosevic. And just what was our exit strategy from Bosnia? And where was the after war planning? And why do we still have soldiers there? Did you rise up and scream murderer when Clinton bombed Bosnia?
Lock-step. Media says Bosnia good, Iraq bad. All the sharpest pencils in the box fall for that one.
Silly democrat. Kix are for trids.
Rafael,
I don’t mean to imply that our neighbors in Haiti are any less deserving of our efforts than any of the countries we are currently dealing with. We have been in and out of Haiti several times in the past, and will probably be so again in the future. That doesn’t change where our STRATEGIC interests as a nation lie.
Regardless of whether you think we should be in Iraq or not (and I’m not going to chase tails with you about that, because neither of us is going to change our position), the fact remains that we ARE there, and thus we need to follow through and finish what we have started.
Inasmuch as this post started about “Newsweek” and whether or not they should have published the Koran article or not, I think we should turn back to that discussion. As Chris Roberts quoted ABC’s Terry Moran, “There is…a deep anti-military bias in the media”. I see it every day, as do most moderates and conservatives in this country. The only reason that liberals and leftists fail to see it is that it falls inline with and reinforces their own deep anti-military bias. The media’s bias is without a doubt a residual effect of the Vietnam era. They know that the majority of the country is pro-military, and so pay lip service to “supporting the troops” all the while digging for every possible scrap of dirt to make the military look bad so they can tell themselves “I knew it!” when they think we’re not looking.
It is also obvious that most in the media despise the Bush administration, once again, due to their own personal beliefs. Making the military look bad makes the administration look bad by assocation, so in their minds its a win, win deal everytime they can dig up something like this. Its a case of, wanting it to be true so bad they don’t check facts and sources like they should (think Rathergate).
The reason conservatives get up in arms about things like this is that it is counterproductive to our efforts in Middle East in particular, and the World in general. There is such a thing as using descretion in the type of news that is put out, like taking into account cause and effect. The MSM is only out for the effect of discrediting the military and the administration. This does nothing but get people killed and prolong the struggle with these Islamist maniacs.The average conservative and many moderates in this country are darned tired of picking up a newpaper or magazine, or turning on the TV and thinking “Whose side are these people on?”
The MSM carefully picks what stories they want to push in order to reinforce their own belief systems. I just wish that the media we rely on had a belief system more in line with the average American. Thank God for the internet and talk radio, or we would all still be mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed full of s—!)
You nailed it Montie.
While thumbing through my old, tattered copy of the Pentagon Papers, I came across this from Anomalocaris, above:
“As far as I know, the media have not given away any military secrets about the war.”
Dude, just give ‘em a chance, this thing ain’t half over yet!
BTW, why do bloggers refer to the fading old big media outlets as the “MSM”? How can such a culturally, politically and socially isolated elite be “mainstream”? Is it because they are so badly educated?
I prefer the term, brontosauri.
I keep forgetting that the whole world is against conservatives and the poor, poor Bush administration for no reason at all. They are PERFECT, you know. Shame on me.
Even bad publicity is still publicity…and I would not be surprised if subscription sales of Newsweek will spike as a result of the toilet flushing story (even though I hope that I am wrong).
While I love the energy and the debate here, I wonder if some of this should not be directed toward our elected officials. There are strong feelings on both sides of the aisle, and that is a good thing. Please consider writing (not just emailing) your congressional reprentatives and senators to let them know where you stand. MSM may believe that they run this country…and we let them if they are the strongest voices that our elected officials hear.
My candidates for president have not always won over the last 40 years as a voter, but every one of them were MY president. Thank God we are free to agree or disagree with those we elect…we as voters (even the small percentage of us who vote) must be the ones who hold our elected officials accountable, it is a responsibility that far too many of us abandon as soon as the votes are cast.
’sorry, that really sounded preachy
“To what end? Well, the truth — in this case, the truth about how Muslim detainees are being treated in the secret prison at Guantánamo Bay. It’s too bad that Barber has so little regard for that truth. Unfortunately, Newsweek’s regard for the truth was only slightly greater than hers. ”
The Truth??? Puh-lease…The truth…HAH….That would be that there is no proof that the Koran was flushed down the toilet. Ie, it didn’t happen. Yet they reported…if you can call it that…this truth.
They’re lying …….you know whats.
Tired of ‘em is what I am. Do as I say, not as I do, don’t mind the man behind the curtain types.
Dan
I swear you libs think of war like little girls! Why attack Saddam after 9/11? Well, he was the one still shooting at us! “Exit strategy?’……How quaint! You sissies and commies spew your anti-American bile only because ROUGH MEN stand ready to do VIOLENCE to protect your right to do so.
We are at war. If you’re not with us…You are against us. If you think putting panties on a Muslim’s head is the same as torture I’ve got some land for you in Nevada………
George W. Bush is our President. We are at war. We fight to WIN! Not to determine our “exit strategy!” Man UP!
Rafael Daniel projects, I keep forgetting that the whole world is against conservatives and the poor, poor Bush administration for no reason at all. They are PERFECT, you know. Shame on me.
The whole world? Way to get ridiculous Rafael. I like how you claimed that we didn’t have the “moral imperative” to go into Iraq. What a “moderate” you are!
#40, “as far as you know no poll has been conducted”. That’s the trouble, if you don’t know it then it must not exist, right? WRONG.
I recommend that you read more. Arthur Chrenkoff has a blog that recently documented one such poll substantively and resoundingly supporting American efforts in Iraq. If you rely on MSM, you fall prey to the ignorance of the left, thus the mass exodus to alternatives and explosion of popularity of blogs such as this one. The blogosphere has no tolerance for inaccuracies like Newsweak, thus La Shawn’s popularity is borne of her willingness to speak the truth, and take the heat. (THANK YOU LA SHAWN!) The irony of the Esmay criticism is it neglects the reasons for La Shawn’s prominence, for it contradicts the criticism.
Anomalocaris wrote (#16)
“A ‘deal’ is an agreement to make some kind of exchange. What did Newsweek get from John Kerry in exchange for promising not to print any ‘dirt’? If your answer is, ‘Nothing. Newsweek simply wanted to get Kerry elected’ my response is ‘That would be biased journalism, but it’s not a ‘deal.’”
This is a deliberately narrow definition of the word “deal” designed to obscure the fact that there was collusion between the Kerry campaign and Newsweek to suppress information that might have been damaging to Kerry’s candidacy (like the fact that he was incredibly indecisive).
Anomalocaris wrote (#17)
“I know this will not be a popular point around here, but I believe that our incursion into Iraq is causing more terrorism and increasing the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism.”
It is? Terrorist violence is certainly more prevalent in Iraq, but I dispute the argument that fundamentalism is becoming more popular. I think that DEMOCRACY is starting to become popular, as evinced by events in Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, and even Syria.
Rafael Daniel wrote (# 21)
“First of all, should the US ‘lose’ in Iraq, I don’t see hordes of stampeding Muslims taking over this country and subjecting it to sharia.”
1. Losing a war does not necessarily require the enemy army to occupy your home territory. We lost the Vietnam War, but weren’t occupied by hoardes of NVA;
2. Are you therefore arguing that we don’t need to win, or that there will not be serious consequences for the United States if we lose?
3. Ask the Europeans about being subjected to sharia.
“Why didn’t our elected leaders and their appointees have a better plan for this conflict? I mean, where was/is the exit strategy? Why weren’t there enought troops on the ground to begin with? Why did we go to war on a supposition that WAS KNOWN TO BE FALSE TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED? What happened to ‘Shock and Awe’ Why wasn’t there a plan to win the peace after the major fighting was concluded?”
Sigh… I’ve heard these “arguments” before, and they never cease to exasperate me.
1. Better plan – We defeated Saddam’s (large) army and occupied his entire country in a few weeks with very little losses to our own troops. Many of the same people now screeching that we didn’t have a better plan are the same ones who made dire predictions that Saddam would throw gas or bio on our troops; that the entire Middle East would be enflamed; that we’d lose thousands of men in street fighting in Baghdad; etc, etc, etc. Again, WE KICKED HIS ASS IN JIG TIME. Sounds like we had a good plan to me.
2. Exit strategy – I don’t know exactly when this pernicious and idiotic phrase wormed its way into our lexicon, but it is almost as stupid as the maxim “violence never solves anything.” The exit strategy for Iraq is exactly the same as it is for any war: We win. We come home. Questions?
When libs whine about not having an exit strategy, what they really mean is that nobody told them the exact cost in lives and money, or the exact day and hour of victory. Sorry, but war isn’t nicely predictable like that.
Did George Washington have an exit strategy? What was the yankee’s exit strategy in 1861? Or our exit strategy in 1917 or 1941?
One of these days, somebody ought to ask what the “exit strategy” for the war on poverty is.
3. “Enough” troops – See #1. Given how quickly we won, I’d say that we had enough troops.
Now, as to whether we had enough for post-war peacekeeping, who knows? You never know the end of the path not taken. But I submit that, if we’d flooded Iraq with troops, then the same people who whine that we don’t have enough would instead be whining that too many troops cost too much; makes it seem even more like a hostile invasion / occupation (remember, one of Osama’s complaints was that ‘infidels’ were occupying the holy land); takes away the impetus for the Iraqis to govern and police themselves (an argument made about the huge number of troops we had in South Vietnam); etc, etc, etc.
4. False reasons for going to war – Nobody knew that we wouldn’t find WMD in Iraq when the war started. ALL the major intelligence organizations in the world as well as the UN thought that Saddam had WMD. I don’t know who knew our case for war was faulty, or how they knew it. Rather, this seems like a lot of 20/20 hindsight.
5. No “shock and awe” – See #1. Are you saying that we should have used more gratuitous violence against Iraq? The object was to get rid of Saddam, not decimate the Iraqi people.
6. No plan to “win the peace” – Er, do you think that the interim Iraqi government that we assembled or the elections that were held in January were the result of an accident? Or that all those schools we’ve been building, powerplants we’ve been putting back together, electric wires we’ve been stringing, police we’ve been training, etc, just sort of happened?
Again, the same people who whine that we didn’t have some magical plan to turn Iraq into a model democracy within two months of the end of major combat are the same ones who predicted (and still seem to hope for) civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the Kurds breaking away and forming their own country, and complete destabilization of the Middle East.
Might we have done better planning? Who knows. Again, you never know the end of the path not taken. I would also like to point out that the Pentagon doesn’t have a crystal ball that lets them see the future. Given what COULD have happened in Iraq – but didn’t – I think they’ve done pretty well.
Rafael Daniel (# 26)
“Saddam was CONTAINED. He posed no threat to us.”
By the same logic, the Soviet Union was ‘contained’ and posed no threat to us (except for the roughly 2500 nuclear missiles they had aimed at us by the late 1980s, or the hundreds of thousands of troops they have poised along the inter-German border).
1. Saddam was a threat to our national interests – oil – in the region, and had twice embarked on wars of aggression against his neighbors. Want to wait around until he tried again?
2. Saddam was routinely firing on our aircraft enforcing the ‘no-fly’ zones. This is a clear casus belli.
3. Saddam was supporting international terrorism with money, training, and sanctuary.
4. He did not comply with a variety of UN resolutions, which he was required to do under the terms of the ‘91 cease-fire. This is a casus belli.
5. As far as US intelligence knew, he had not destroyed his stockpiles of WMD (which he had used in the past, against the Kurds and the Iranians) and was actively working to reconstitute his WMD programs. Whether or not he would have given such weapons to a terrorist group is unknown, but do you really want to take that chance?
Further, as we learned with the case of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, it was entirely possible that rogue elements in Saddam’s WMD program might sell their knowlege or even weapons to terrorists.
Finally, Saddam’s sons (and likely successors) were even more crazy than he was. Who knows what they might have done?
I, for one, wouldn’t care to find out the hard way.
6. Saddam had made it quite clear in the past that he wanted a Bomb to use against Israel. The Israelis have nukes of their own. Do you really want to risk a nuclear war?
I would like to point out that Hitler was no “threat” to us in 1935 when he remilitarized the Rhineland, or in ‘36 when he was sending weapons and ‘volunteers’ to Spain, or in ‘38 when he grabbed Czechoslovakia, or in ‘39 when he invaded Poland, or in ‘40 when he conquered France and the Low Countries, or in ‘41 when he invaded the USSR. At what point WAS he a threat? Or, more to the point, he would NEVER have been a threat if we and our allies had acted early to get rid of him. Not ‘contain’, but eliminate.
Our exit strategy in Iraq is the same one we had in World War 1 & 2. Victory.
As for a poll:
In the April 18 edition of Almidhar:
Do you support the pull out of foreign troops?
At once = 12.56%
According to a future time table = 81.8%
Do not know = 5.64%
Has security improved since the start of the new government?
Yes = 55%
No = 35%
No Change = 10%
There is also a poll from Friday, in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm
Here’s something that ought to answer Anom’s question:
23. Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US/British invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?
Worth it 61
Not worth it 28
Montie used nails, Docjim505 used screws.
Oh, and fearless leader La Shawn stunned (or should that be stung) with common sense.
SCSIwuzzy;
Great data!
dojim505,
And it only took me 30 seconds to find. Ain’t google grand?
SCSI:
If that poll has a good cross representation of the Iraqi people, it looks like everyone but the Sunnis thought it was worth it.
In football wagering there is a bet called the “over/under” in which oddsmakers pick a number and betters bet on whether the total points scored will be over or under that number. The oddsmakers try to pick a number that will split the vote 50/50.
If you were constructing a similar bet on whether we would be out of Iraq or Bosnia first, and wanted as close to 50/50 as possible would you set it up as simply which happens first or would you compenate Iraq for Bosnia’s head start?
By the way, can anyone tell me what our exit strategy is in Bosnia? It should be let the Europeans do it and that should have already happened.
Anomalocaris, I’m glad to hear the Hitler-Stalin pact was a non-aggression pact and only to divide Poland. The 50 million or so who died during WWII must be relived to hear that.
As for proof, Anomalocaris, how about these under-reported stories? The oil-for-food scandal at the UN, the official persecution of non-Muslims in many Muslim countries, the mass graves in Iraq from the Hussein regime, Iran’s race to get nuclear weapons? Don’t waste too much time looking in the MSM for these stories. They are too busy these days peddling the “inaccurate but true” angle about the Newsweek Koran-flushing story. And don’t be waiting for a Michael Moore “documentary†about Saddam’s crimes while he was the leader in Iraq. Anomalocaris, is the MSM and the far Left really that blind and incompetent, or is just possible that something else at work here?
What would you take as evidence that the far Left is providing political cover for radical Islam? A joint treaty signing live on CNN? What about Osama’s 11th hour semi-endorsement of John Kerry during the election last year (weak and lame as it was)? Do the under-reported stories I listed above raise any warning flags at all? I not sure how to convince you of evidence that is plainly visible for all to see.
Also, I’m not sure why all of a sudden you started talking about Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, etc., or what their relevance is to this issue. As demagogues they are definitely minor league at best. They stand only for themselves. Not even Osama is foolish enough to court them. Why bring them up at all and muddy the waters?
Anomalocaris, at some point the far Left and the MSM become unbelievable. I have already passed that point.
Anom, that’s a good one (as usual): “Even if America’s Left had a single dictatorial leader, and even if radical Islam also had a single dictatorial leader, what kind of pact could they possibly agree to?
Who says it has to be done by dictatorial types? Osama was looking quite the godfather for the Islamofascists. Speaking of which, the mob never really had A Fearless Leader.
But let’s look at Ferenghi Angle:
1) Umm, let’s ask Kofi and his friends. What kind of pact could be worth 21 billion USD in bribes?
2) Umm, what kind of value would there be in “returning” to pre-9/11 politics and values? In returning to the same-old, same-old?
3) Umm, what kind of value would there be in letting Saddam be?
I could go on, but you get my drift. The problem for the donks is that we’re in a war for our culture and life and all they want to do is talk about unions, abortion and handouts.
Grow up, please. Better yet, you, Rafael, Cobra and others would really do yourselves a favor and avoid looking ridiculous rehashing tired old and discreditedMSM/DNC memes — we’ve been there and done shredded them. You guys have yet to bring up one original MSM/DNC talking point that hasn’t been dispensed with in full.
Like I tell my kids: “Silly kids!! Tricks are for moonbats”!!!
As for the question about how the Arab Street really feels about our “imperialism”. It’s better than the MSM/DNC would ever deigned to give credit for.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006721
Come to think of it, the MSM/DNC strategy regarding Islam is identitcal to their black strategy, their poor strategy and name-your-victimology strategy. Which is to say, “We know you helpless pitiful creatures just can’t do it without us, so we’ll help you even the score by knocking the others down a notch”.
Mike O,
If you follow the link to USA Today, they do break it down. I only gave the overall, but the survey then breaks is down by Bagdad, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd.
The Kurds are in 90+% in favor of the coalition on just about every question. Bagdad ranges, the shiites trend positive, the sunnis trend negative.
Watch it Andy. That may be a far right source, by our friend’s definition.
pajamazon: “I swear you libs think of war like little girls! Why attack Saddam after 9/11? Well, he was the one still shooting at us!”
Saddam shooting at us? When? Where? Just to remind you, most of the suicide hijackers on 9/11/2001 were Saudi and the leader was Egyptian, and not a single one of them came from Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11/2001; When John Kerry pointed that out in one of the debates, President Bush replied “I know that!”
Anom,
The Iraqi military was taking pot shots at US planes that were enforcing the no fly zones that all parties signed off on as part of the cease fire at the end of the first gulf war.
They weren’t very good at it, however, but it still made what should have been a milk run hazardous duty.
Suggestion: Take a day or two off from the talking points, and crack open a history book or a decent encylopedia. Wikipedia doesn’t count.
“Take a day or two off from the talking points, and crack open a history book or a decent encylopedia. Wikipedia doesn’t count.”
Well said! – Admin
Mwalimu Daudi wrote: Also, I’m not sure why all of a sudden you started talking about Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, etc., or what their relevance is to this issue. As demagogues they are definitely minor league at best. They stand only for themselves. Not even Osama is foolish enough to court them. Why bring them up at all and muddy the waters? Anomalocaris, at some point the far Left and the MSM become unbelievable. I have already passed that point.”
I mentioned Reid, Pelosi and Dean because they are Democratic leaders of the House, Senate, and party as a whole. I agree with you, they are not major league demagogues, like, say, some of the prominent Republican leaders. I don’t agree with you that they stand only for themselves. They were elected by their party members, so to a significant extent, they stand for the Democratic party in the House, the Senate, and the party as a whole, respectively.
I agree with you, Osama bin Laden did not court them. Which is my point, and now you agree with me. The charge that there was some Hitler-Stalin pact is preposterous, because the world’s leading Islamic fundamentalist terrorist would not deal with America’s three leading liberal political leaders.
Now if you want to make a distinction between ordinary patriotic liberals such as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-DA), former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT), and most of the Democrats in the Senate and House — and the radical far left, that’s great. I make such a distinction too. But note: the radical far left excludes the prominent democratic leaders that it’s suggested control, or have disproportionate influence in, the mainstream media. Surely you’re not saying that Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News are unduly influenced by far left groups like the ones that hawk Peoples Daily World and similar tabloids with the big red banners.
After reading everyone’s comments, I’d love to step in and give some perspective.
If someone came into this blog who was brand new to politics they might think, “This is a debate between the far left and the far right”…. But I’m here to tell you my perspective… for what it’s worth
On the political scale (however someone wants to rate it) from -10 to + 10, there are Democrats and liberals who range from -3 to -7 (bigger and bigger government and more and more spending and regulation) and there are Republicans who are betwen +1 to -2 and there are conservatives who are about +1 to -1 and there are libertarians who are about +8 (they want an 80% cut in government). Anarchy would be +10 and Communism would be -10.
Yes I’m oversimplifiying.
Point is FROM where I stand (centrist/conservative) at 0, Bush and the Republican party have been to the left on this war on terror and yet the extremist lefties in this blog (yes you Anom and Raf and Actus), argue that Bush is extreme and have been committing atrocities and blah blah blah. Some of you guys have been even doing the TIRED old line that Bush lied about the WMD’s even though Clinton, Alright, Kerry, many Senators from both sides, German/French/Russian/British/American Intelligence ALL said that Saddam had them.
From where I stand as a common sense centrist conservative (and where many conservatives stand…. again Bush has been a little to the left.
He has:
1) Capitulated to the left who cried about the “RUSH” to war causing an some say 18 month delay in enforcement in the U.N. resolutions
2) Capitulated to the left in trying to obtain additional U.N. resolutions.
3) Capitulated to the left and “allowed” to some degree the NEW standard of having to have the U.N. approve military action when NO OTHER war had to be approved by the U.N.
4) Had breakfasts with organizations like CAIR who Daniel Pipes a leading researcher in this topic show evidence of being extreme and supporting terrorism
5) Shown GREAT deference to the terrorists by restraining our military repeatedly when it came to mosques in Fallujah or even the Fallujah city wide battle itself (even delaying the fight for months to allow for NEGOTIATIONS with the head terrorist guy
6) Worked very hard to work with the left leaning State Department (read Joel Mowbray’s work) instead of having it cleaned out and performing their jobs.
7) Has stood down and not fought against the repeatedly lying/accusing/non-reasonable fighters of his policy who have slung mud, repeated erroneous accusations, lied during war time, etc.
Bush has shown extreme patience where as most Conservatives/centrists want a common sense approach to the war on terror where no NEW precedents are set, the enemy is defeatedly much quicker and soundly, the enemy’s will is completely demoralized, where the enemy has no ability to spread additional propoganda, where the enemy isn’t allowed to teach 1,000’s of children hate every day anymore.
You lefties don’t realize how good you have it. You’ve had a 54 streak of governance and legislation now that has been extreme left (from 1930-1994). Through the power of the Internet and talk radio and alternative news sources we’ve been able to soundly knock down your propogandist arguments and accusations now and even though there is a majority of Republicans controlling state governorships and legislatures and Congress and the White House the continuance of government POLICY and laws is to the left of center. More spending, more regulations on every topic including education, environment, health and social issues, NEW federal spending on stem cell research (even though the private sector has shown to be much more efficient and effective on this issue), NEW entitlement programs (prescription drugs) and on and on .
….. And…. a capitualation to the left on the war on terror.
This is a debate between extreme leftists and centrist/conservatives with common sense.
Libertarians/anarchists/extreme right people need not apply in this day in age it seems because they aren’t even tolerated.
Some day reasonable people will make the extreme leftists feel entirely silly also. But it won’t be through the English language because we have dismantled their arguments repeatedly yet they wear them out.
The only people who’ve uttered the words “connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11/2001″ are lefties repeating “there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11/2001″.
Isn’t that funny. Bush, Cheney, nor anyone that I know of said that there was a connection yet the left were successfully able to dumb down the argument as if the war on terror had to be against ONLY Osama and Afghanistan and then we had to stop.
There are good arguments for not having gone to Iraq but I haven’t seen those arguments from the left generally. They create accusations (from lies) and then hoist them on us as something that we have to respond to. And we’ve responded to the lies repeatedly. At what point do the leftists stop and start to listen?
Will Anom REPEAT the argument that there was no connection? You betcha. Why? Because he doesn’t listen to the conservative perspective. He has NO clue where we are coming from.
Respectfully,
Bak
“Now if you want to make a distinction between ordinary patriotic liberals such as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-DA), former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT),….and the radical far left, that’s great”
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Oh, I needed that laugh.
Though I’ll give you Reid. He’s relaticely new to the moonbattery that is Howard Dean and Pelossi. And her sister in CA politics, Babs Boxer.
Buh Ha Ha Ha Ha ! ! !
That was a good breaktime bellow. People in the next cube are wondering what the heck I’m laughing at !!!
SCSI, yeah, it does make a difference if an Iraqi is speaking thru a RW or lefty source. Never mind the content — it’s the source, stupid!
Maybe I watch too much C-SPAN, but I don’t remember one legitimate (true) argument made by Harry, Nancy or Howie in the last few years. It’s one thing to have a perspective. It’s another to foment false allegation after false allegation.
Then it’s another for a citizen like Anom to believe them and continue the foment.
Sure there are false arguments and facts stated by members of both parties. But what I find is the false arguments and facts by Republicans are leftist leaning falsehoods (like Bush almost deliberately not getting it with respect to the minutement and calling them vigilantes). Why are (generally) all these falsehoods/unfactual arguments leftist?
Because it’s a lefty trait to FEEL and not UNDERSTAND the facts that’s presented. That is why the English language doesn’t seem to work and conservatives (at 0 on the scale) will be accused of as being mean-spirited and against the poor and on and on even as they talk about lifting the poor out of dependance and giving a sense of ownership.
Ring the bell, suckah, school’s in session and Baklava’s got the floor
Anom
No-Fly Zone. Iraq. From 97 or so until we removed Saddam.
I’m moppin’ it.
Who let the testosterone out?
Awe… You don’t like?
It’s just kind of funny “listening” to the men.
To many Buh HA HA HA’s?
How about… you tickle me?
Bak,
Excellent points (#70). SCSI, my sentiments exactly (#72), try as I may, I just don’t correlate Pelosi, Reid or Dean with anything but obstructionism.
Yo Bak,
Most excellent! You have expressed my very own thoughts in a most eloquent way. It IS maddening to hear the same tired old DISPROVEN arguments trotted out repeatedly over and over again. Apparently those on the left hold dear to the old adage that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth (or at least is perceived as such).
La Shawn,
Thanks for letting us cut loose a little. It’s kind of entertaining when someone like Anomalocaris manages to be civil long enough to get some liberal/leftist ideas posted up for us to take some shots at.;-)
I think I don’t agree with your position that, even if true, the story should not have been published. But, you have a point, and made it in a reasonable manner. Your comments were not outrageous, nor did they show any failure of commitment to the truth.
In any case, the story was inflammatory, false, and led to riots and deaths. The apologists for MSM are trying very hard to change the subject.
If you guys on the lib side need a more compelling reason to side against Newsweek, you should re-read the dissenting opinion of one Justice Blackman in the Pentagon Papers case.
He clearly lays out the reasons why news organizations MUST exercise restraint in times of conflict.
This from the man who gave us abortion on demand courtesy of Roe v. Wade.
You guys can google or whatever search-it yourselves. My interpretation of discretion says I can be lazy about linking this time.
Valerie,
I think that “Newsweek” should have taken into account the volitility of the region before undertaking to publish the story, even if it were without a doubt true. My biggest problem with them though is that like most of the MSM, they give the impression of MORAL EQUIVALENCY between things like flushing a copy of the Koran down a toilet, with beheading civilians or car bombs deliberately targeted at non-combatant men, women and children.
Returning from my laziness…aka dinner with my wonderful Latina wife(www.mstexaslatinaunitedstates.com).
Here’s the Blackmun dissent. This is an concurrent opinion in conjunction with Chief Justice Burger. Remember, Blackmun is a jurist who consistently ruled on the “left” side of the aisle. His words are telling:
“The First Amendment, after all, is only one part of an entire Constitution. Article II of the great document vests in the Executive Branch primary power over the conduct of foreign affairs and places in that branch the responsibility for the Nation’s safety. Each provision of the Constitution is important, and I cannot subscribe to a doctrine of unlimited absolutism for the First Amendment at the cost of downgrading other provisions.
I strongly urge, and sincerely hope, that these two newspapers will be fully aware of their ultimate responsibilities to the United States of America.
I hope that damage has not already been done. If, however, damage has been done, and if, with the Court’s action today, these newspapers proceed to publish the critical documents and there results therefrom “the death of soldiers, the destruction of alliances, the greatly increased difficulty of negotiation with our enemies, the inability of our diplomats to negotiate,” to which list I might add the factors of prolongation of the war and of further delay in the freeing of United States prisoners, then the Nation’s people will know where the responsibility for these sad consequences rests.”
Justice Harry Blackmun
New York Times vs. United States
courtesy of:
http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~drechsel/j559/readings/PentagonPapers.html
Montie,
I think they did take the volitility into account. Riots and protests (esp since the Islamists seem to love burning flags and effigies) make for good TV and great for photo journalism.
I think in a time of war where our lives are in jeopardy, journalists need to think long and hard about where there freedom comes from and in the LONG run will freedom to publish even survive if it we just gave up to the National Socialists or the Emporer of Japan or now the Islamofacists.
What could possibly be the good of reporting a Koran supposedly being flushed (with no supporting evidence) and yet being the same magazine that fails to REPORT our government’s policy with respect to handing out the Koran respectfully in the manner the detainees wish? We actually have OUR government telling people how they should disburse religious material. Many of us think that goes against the first amendment of our constitution.
BTW, This is in response to Valarie
Montie, SCSI and DocJim, you guys were no slouches either in redistributing truth and understanding. Should’ve mentioned that in my last comment.
Anomalocaris wrote (# 69)
“Now if you want to make a distinction between ordinary patriotic liberals such as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-DA), former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT), and most of the Democrats in the Senate and House — and the radical far left, that’s great.”
My first reaction to this was to guffaw. Calling San Fran Nan and Howlin’ Howie ‘patriotic.’ Tooooo funny.
But then I thought about the adjective ‘ordinary.’ And that’s the problem: they are ‘ordinary’ in the sense that they represent the run of the mill ‘mainstream’ of the democrat party these days.
Which is why they have to resort to filibusters and judicial activism to get their agenda pushed forward, because they haven’t won on the national level in a while. After Howlin’ Howie’s performance on Meet the Press this weekend, I think their chances of reversing that happy trend got even worse.
‘Ordinary, patriotic liberals…’
Hee heeeee…
Let’s have a look at what some ordinary, patriotic liberals have said:
Nancy Soderberg, former Clinton foreign policy advisor, on The Daily Show, March 1, 2005 (transcript at
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362)
Stewart: Do you think they’re the guys to–do they understand what they’ve unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, “Here’s my plan: I’m going to invade Iraq. We’ll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp”–if they hadn’t done the whole “nuclear cloud,” you know, if they hadn’t scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I’d almost–I’d have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.
Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process–they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole–
Stewart: This could be unbelievable!
Soderberg:—series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which–it may well work. I think that, um, it’s–
Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He’s got, you know, here’s–
Soderberg: It’s scary for Democrats, I have to say.
Stewart: He’s gonna be a great–pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, “Reagan was nothing compared to this guy.” Like, my kid’s gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.
Soderberg: Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s hope for the rest of us.
Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that’s true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it’s–it is–I absolutely agree with you, this is–this is the most difficult thing for me to–because, I think, I don’t care for the tactics, I don’t care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven’t seen results like this ever in that region.
Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn’t actually gotten very far. I mean, we’ve had–
Stewart: Oh, I’m shallow! I’m very shallow!
Soderberg: There’s always hope that this might not work.
Soderberg hoping that things don’t work out for the United States in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea just makes you want to stand up and sing The National Anthem, doesn’t it?
How about that lion of the Senate, Teddy Kennedy:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98117,00.html
“Last week, Kennedy said Republicans had created the threat from Iraq to win elections.
“‘There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that [the war] was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.’
“The Massachusetts Democrat went a step further in that same interview, accusing the Bush administration of bribing foreign leaders, and suggesting that of the nearly $4 billion being spent each month on military operations, about $1.5 billion is not accounted for and is being used covertly.
“‘My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops,’ he said.”
WOW! Way to show your love for America by providing grist for the enemy’s propaganda mill and making baseless charges against the president!
OH, SAY CAN YOU SEE…
San Fran Nan chimed in, showing her support for the war (May 20, 2004):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/20/MNGK36OR7L1.DTL
“‘He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops, because he would not heed the advice of his own State Department of what to expect after May 1 when he … declared that major combat is over,’ Pelosi charged. ‘The shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there.’”
BY THE DAWN’S EARLY LIGHT…
Howard Dean, Dec. 26, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/
“‘I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found,” Dean said in the interview. ‘I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.’”
Howard Dean, May 15, 2005
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/15/114741.shtml
“In comments that offended even members of his own party, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean blasted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Saturday as a criminal, saying that the top Republican belongs in jail.
“‘I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there,’ Dean told Massachusetts Democrats at their state convention.”
Gotta love those ordinary, patriotic liberals. Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, while Tom DeLay – a US Congressman – is guilty, period.
… OH SAY DOES THAT STAR-SPANGLED BANNER YET WAVE O’ER THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE?
I second that!
Thanks Andy
That’s one nice thing about the internet. No need to feel bad about engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent!
I listened to Michael Savage tonight on the way home from work. His aggressive style wears a little thin on me, and I can only take about 20 or 30 minutes of him per session. However, he often repeats a mantra that tickles me because I know it’s just driving the left into hysterical fits of apoplexy: “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”
I don’t actually subscribe to that rather abusive view, but I do admit that I cannot understand the reasons for holding a liberal philosophy. It just makes to logical sense to support big government, the nanny state, wealth redistribution, unilateral pacifism, racial pigeonholing, gun control, political correctness, moral relativity, outcome-based education, softness on crime, unlimited abortion on demand, and the surrendering of sovereignty to the U.N.
Conservatives are 0 on the scale?
) Okay.
I bet you guys believe in the Easter Bunny too.
Nah, just Santa Claus.
Ahem. Typing is not my strong suit. I meant to say that “It just makes NO logical sense” rather than “It just makes TO logical sense.”
Back to school, RedBeard.
Rafael, I don’t think he meant conservatives in general, just those like himself. There ARE nut jobs on both side of the scale, it’s just that the scale is so much heavier on the left side
Anomalocaris, you are off topic again touting the Democratic “brain” trust. What about the missing stories about the UN oil-for-food, repression of non-Muslims, etc. that the MSM is not covering? Again, what will it take to convince you that the far Left and the MSM is providing political cover for radical Islam in a modern-day Hitler-Stalin pact?
Mwalimu Daudi,
You might as well give it up. The MSM operates in the same belief system as Anomalocaris, so he will never see it, or believe it, until he has his own personal epiphany (if ever).
Montie, there ARE more nuts on the left side. On this we agree. But the nuts on the extreme right are a lot more dangerous in my view.
Mmmm, the left’s nut cases are known for:
Treason and espinage
Spiking trees to kill lumberjacks
setting fire to SUVs
marching against Israel
etc etc etc
Man, the right wing nuts must be really out there to out do the left then.
Andy and Baklava,
Thanks.
I have to say, though, that as much as I disagree with folks like Rafael Daniel and Anomalocaris, they’ve got their share of guts sticking their heads into the hornets nest of a conservative blog.
Raf wrote, “Conservatives are 0 on the scale?
Okay.”
Yes. Centrist conservatives like me are at about a zero on the political scale. While my position is that we should FREEZE the federal government spending amount for 10 years while we REPRIORITIZE what we spend on to what the constitution specifies the federal government spend on and do so with continued generosity (just not an increase) that position may be TO THE RIGHT of Republicans and Democrats but it is a ZERO on the political scale whether you like it or not.
This country has been moving left for over 75 years (since 1930) and the left keeps getting loonier with their position that Republicans are extreme.
Most of my disagreements with Republicans are because Republicans are voting and verbalizing to the left on issues of importance. We basically have 2 major parties that are to the left of center but one is even more left (the Democrats) and makes up even more non-facts.
Try to look for a moment Raf at Libertarians position of wanting to cut government by 80% and you’ll see very well that there is a political center. Who do you think occupies it? It is people like me and their are a lot of us out there.
We don’t understand why when the President offers for the first time federal spending on stem cell research that’s called a ban by you lefties AND… we don’t understand why the federal government had to spend on it anyway when the private sector has been and is doing the research far more effectively and efficiently. The objections have nothing to do with religious reasons for me though I find those objections compelling also because when it comes to our federal government doing things they should always strive to do things ethically. Let only private citizens do things with their own money in unethical ways and if they cross a LEGAL boundary then … ah I digressed.
But you get the point. And the main stream press barely ever understands or espouses a conservative’s viewpoint so the left argues against extremes because they NEVER take the time to understand the conservative’s position or what a conservative has said.
They’ll setup situations like Anom does and did where he’ll say that there was no connection between 9/11 terrorists and Iraq. Why does Anom say that? Because he NEVER took the time to understand the conservative position. He read main stream media or even more leftist sources and had his own mind convinced that conservatives went into Iraq because there was a connection.
Although there were Al Qaida folks who have been documented to have met with Saddam and been based in Iraq it was never a conservative position to say that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
It would behoove you and Anom (in order to debate well) to do the following:
1) Stop throwing out inaccurate attacks/accusations
2) Understand the conservative position
3) Try to come to an understanding of both sides of a debate (instead of feeling like you care and Republicans/conservatives are mean and evil and don’t care) so that you can understand how we have come to our position.
You might disagree with us, but it would help if you try to convince us that your POLICY position is better as opposed to just attacking and accusing (the pattern that exists by so many leftists including Anom and Darkstar and Actus).
While each of your positions is slightly different the pattern of attacking and accusing and misrepresenting is the same.
You are either for us or against us.
Comments on this entry are closed.