November 29, 2006
AP based their atrocity story on the word of Iraqi police Captain Jamil Hussein. Problem: the Iraqis say Hussein is not a police captain and does not work for them in any capacity. In response, AP has played the fake-but-accurate card that worked so well for Dan Rather.
Finally, other elements of the mainstream media are taking notice, after several days of exposes by bloggers. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
06:19 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 29, 2006 08:08 PM (0TutP)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 29, 2006 08:50 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 12:14 AM (bLPT+)
What have there been - 4 or 5 threads dedicated to this non-story?
The real story is not about a few people who have NOT been killed.
It is about the people that ARE being killed.
Isn't it time to move on to a real story?
How about reporting on some of those happy Iraq stories.
May be difficult to find, though, since even Fox News is having a hard time finding them.
Or maybe it's that they're too busy trying to bash Democrats to go looking for real news.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 30, 2006 05:46 AM (rQXAA)
What have there been - 4 or 5 threads dedicated to this non-story?
The real story is not about a few people who have NOT been killed.
It is about the people that ARE being killed.
Isn't it time to move on to a real story?
How about reporting on some of those happy Iraq stories.
May be difficult to find, though, since even Fox News is having a hard time finding them.
Or maybe it's that they're too busy trying to bash Democrats to go looking for real news.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 30, 2006 05:57 AM (l+Hl7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 30, 2006 07:54 AM (0TutP)
Here it is in its entirety -
"AP's television crew videotaped the entrance to the mosque that showed evidence of an explosion and fire. Our reporter spoke with an officer who had provided AP with reliable information in the past and he confirmed three times that the incident happened. As stated in AP's November 28 news story, this captain 'has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions.'
"When the U.S. military raised questions about the incident and the officer, we reported their comments, even though they were not at the scene.
"Navy Lieutenant Dean's statement seems to suggest that the news media should work solely from a government list of 'authorized sources.' But a free press cultivates a wide range of sources. That's what AP did in this case, as it always does."
Posted by: Mergatroid at November 30, 2006 10:08 AM (7mqsm)
They added "we have conducted a thorough review of the sourcing and reporting involved and plan to move a more detailed report about the entire incident soon, with greater detail provided by multiple eye witnesses."
So if they've gotten that much done, what's keeping them? We're still waiting. It's been days now.
Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2006 12:56 PM (SCVhh)
November 27, 2006
The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war.It's too bad that NBC and the rest of the mainstream media apparently haven't put much thought into validating sources and confirming their stories.
It's not just NBC. Since the Adnan Hajj/Reutersgate/fauxtography scandal during the Israeli/Hezbollah war led to grave questions about the current state of Western journalism, it has become increasingly obvious that there is something basically wrong with the way the major media companies are covering events in the Middle East.
Via Curt at Flopping Aces who has been continuously updating the story.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:33 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
I don't see how anyone can trust anything that comes from the A (associated with terrorists) P, Roto Reuters (spend all of their time in the sewer) and certainly nothing that comes from or through the BBC. I now check the source on everything before I waste my time reading it. I cancelled my subscription to the Media General rag put out in this area. They print lies, get caught, but never print a correction.
Time to get rid of all of the phony news outlets and get some contacts in country or read a few dependable blogs if you want the truth.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 27, 2006 11:43 PM (XXEg4)
Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at November 27, 2006 11:52 PM (HSkSw)
We're apparently going to have to make a decision soon about if freedom of the press should include allowing our MSM to sprew misleading and false information from made up or enemy sources?
Should we allow the so called news media to say absolutely anything they want and then refuse to name the source of that information?
Should spies against our own nation be able to use the NYTimes as a public dead drop for any secret that might cost American lives ans assist our enemies?
Posted by: Buzzy at November 28, 2006 12:58 AM (+sYX1)
But isn't Rusty Shackleford the new Joseph Goebbles?
Posted by: salaam-alaikum at November 28, 2006 01:58 AM (NzayJ)
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 28, 2006 06:47 AM (nohEa)
Just watch the real "fair and balanced" news on Fox to get the real story.
Keep watching for the happy Iraq stories.
The situation is getting better every day, isn't it?
Why doesn't the MSM report it that way.
Must be because they have a liberal bias and want President Moron to fail, in Iraq, huh?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 28, 2006 06:51 AM (nohEa)
supports fake stories as long as they support his terrorist heroes.
Your not even a good troll anymore Pud. Your too predictable.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 08:37 AM (Sal3J)
I recall, America had a civil war at least once, fought over righteous causes. Would puddlelick then say America failed, and was(is) doomed?
He(she) would, I would not. Sometimes wars within a sovereign nation are unavoidable and, in the end, bring peace. I say let all the vermin in Iraq kill each other. Then we can get somewhere.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 28, 2006 09:31 AM (mRXax)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 28, 2006 09:37 AM (EZW8A)
Oh give it up with the Leftwing propaganda.. The election is over already. Sectarian violence does not equal civil war as long as there is one government.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 28, 2006 10:54 AM (yJKSD)
WEB Definition:
A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
============
It seem to me they can handle this one their own. Time to go home.
Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 01:16 PM (ZQepB)
WEB Definition:
A
war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for
international recognition of this status: the contestants must control
territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign
recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in
major military operations.
_____________________________________________
Seems to me (and I may be mistaken), that Iraq only fits two, at most, of these criteria.
Can someone else confirm this for me?
Posted by: Kelly at November 28, 2006 02:02 PM (2wtXk)
don't do this as they only control an area for a while until the Army
shows up.
They don't have a functioning government
Even Iran and Syria officially recognize the current Iraqi government
They only possess irregular forces that dress as civilians.
They rarely engage in major operations but have done so before.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 04:46 PM (Sal3J)
The closest thing to a war there is the Establishment Media's war against the mission in Iraq--which is also a war against the truth. All good leftists aid the war effort by disseminating the Big Lies as often as possible. Eventually, a lot of people come to believe them.
This is how the so called MsM put the Dhimmiecrats in office.
As uncle Vladimir used to say, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 08:32 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Double Dees at November 28, 2006 09:54 PM (HSkSw)
"Stoned, beaten and insulted, their vehicles torched by crowds of
hostile youths, French police say they face an urban guerrilla war when
they enter the run-down neighborhoods that ring the major cities."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061127/lf_nm/france_police_dc
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 28, 2006 11:06 PM (yJKSD)
What do my "SERIOUS psychological issues" have to do with NBC citing a bogus source to validate its war on the truth?
Why do you use the width of your smelly feet as a screen name?
How much Kool-Aid did you drink today?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 11:44 PM (bLPT+)
I recall, America had a civil war at least once, fought over righteous causes. Would puddlelick then say America failed, and was(is) doomed?
He(she) would, I would not. Sometimes wars within a sovereign nation are unavoidable and, in the end, bring peace. I say let all the vermin in Iraq kill each other. Then we can get somewhere.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 28, 2006 09:31 AM"
And what, do tell, were the American civil war(s) and what were the noble causes for the American civil war(s)?
You just might want to go back and recheck your history (just don't use your history book from high school, assuming that you went to high school).
This should be interesting.
"Wow...how surprising. Puddledick
supports fake stories as long as they support his terrorist heroes.
Your not even a good troll anymore Pud. Your too predictable.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 08:37 AM "
Where are fake stories? You mean the ones that say that things are getting worse in Iraq?
Keep your TV tuned to Fox News and keep drinking the Kool-aide.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:39 PM (eLvC2)
And he's never lied to us before, has he??
So what do you call the situation, in Iraq, that President Moron owns?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:45 PM (eLvC2)
"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area.
Political scientists use two criteria:
1. the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy.
2. at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
Do you agree with this assessment, or would you like to argue with most political scientests that do?
So now we are all in agreement, huh?
Good. Next topic.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 07:18 PM (2uSUl)
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 07:22 PM (2uSUl)
On the local front, PiddleDork continues his barrage of lies against America and President Bush, but is soundly thrashed by Jawanese forces. According to sources close to Piddle, he earned his name when he accidentally emasculated himself while planting a faulty IED at Republican National Headquarters. He currently sings in an all girl choir, and spends weekends listening to Clay Aiken albums.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 08:09 PM (bLPT+)
We are so close to a civil war in the US. By the standards accepted in the media, it wouldn't take much. There are lots of people who were ready to start something six years ago.
I actually have no idea how to prevent it at this point. I'm very depressed at this exact moment. Bringing home the troops in any dishonorable manner will only add to the tension.
It just seems to me that even the smart people are wasting their energy on distractions.
We really don't want civil war here. Who would such a conflict serve? Not America.
I overhear enough to believe this isn't just a paranoia thing.
Look at US history for more indications. Examine the period in politics, just prior to 'the war between the states'.
I'm done on this thread.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 30, 2006 04:48 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: sandpiper at December 03, 2006 11:53 PM (as4nC)
Here's my Jawa Report / Mein Blogovault July coverage (w/ screenshots) of Mroue's anti-Israel blog (from which he scrubbed damning evidence of his biases as a result of being exposed here, according to the NRO Media blog).
Hey, Bassem! Remember this?
Cockroaches hate sunlight, dontchaknow.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
07:13 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: forest at November 27, 2006 09:03 PM (1YuGt)
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 27, 2006 09:50 PM (HSkSw)
Awesome, I knew I liked them for a reason.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 28, 2006 10:48 AM (VvXII)
That looks more like a bowie knife rather than a Katana you moron.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 12:38 PM (Sal3J)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 28, 2006 04:07 PM (VvXII)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 28, 2006 04:10 PM (VvXII)
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 04:49 PM (Sal3J)
oh so important skill that is lacking in about 90% of humanity) in my
asian history class, to my sister -who
is a medieval history minor-, a friend -who practices kendo,
collects medieval asian weapons, and had his second major in history
with a focus on Japan-, a few discussions that touched on the topic
with Dr. Fujiya Kawashima -late head of the asian studies department of BGSU-, and reading a few history books about Japan.
Why would I be in a madrassas? And why would a fundamentalist
religious school of Islam teach such a thing? Are there ninjas in the
Koran? Last time I checked none of the muslim invasions
actually made it to the Japanese archipelago, so your insult makes very
little sense.
Is that the new thing, to assume that
someone who raises your ire is a muslim? That's certainly some generic non-ethnic rioting french youthâ„¢ thinking you got going there.
You might as well just come out and say it in plain english. "I
got owned by someone who knows more about the weapons in question than
I do. It makes me look the fool since I assumed I knew more earlier,
but I'm a little
bitch so I'm just going to try to malign him."
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 28, 2006 08:03 PM (VvXII)
little sense.
Obviously you never developed a sense of humor. But as you have termed
it an insult I would question why you project your hatred of Muslims by
intentionally misconstruing a casual mention of Islamic education as an
insult? Have you always been so biased.
Is that the new thing, to assume that
someone who raises your ire is a Muslim?
Wow....your a sensitive little girl...aren't you. Once again it says
more about you than me that you take a simple joke to have made me mad.
I'm not so delicate Ninja boy.
I
got owned
Yes you did. You said...
Katana was a samurai weapon, not usually ninja
By your very words you just admitted that they did use the weapon
sometimes...just not usually. But I am sure you are awesome in ancient
weapons knowledge and can wow us with your extensive experience with
AD&D.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 09:16 PM (Sal3J)
My original post was a joke at the expense of the jihadi blog. A joke which is obviously referencing the central part of the picture that can't possibly be missed unless you intend to. And I am without a sense of humor?
But as you have termed
it an insult I would question why you project your hatred of Muslims by
intentionally misconstruing a casual mention of Islamic education as an
insult? Have you always been so biased.
"Puddlesalaam....shouldn't you be out goat raping today. Or do you prefer 9 year old
girls in your attempt to emulate Mohammads (Piss Be Upon Him) raping of
Aisha.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 04:53 PM"
I wonder where I got the idea that you would use Islam as an insult from...
Once again it says
more about you than me that you take a simple joke to have made me mad.
Ah, I see, it was a John Kerry joke. You know, you Democrats should really push for a joke label to be displayed whenever you tell one. Us poor proletariat are usually too dumb to pick up on it ourselves, which as you know -in your infinite Ranglite wisdom- is why we end up in the military or supporting those that are.
It is also awe-inspiring to see such gramatical perfection. Who needs two ideas to be split into two sentences? New grammar all the way!
As for the usage of katana, you have me there. I appologize for presuming you buy into the sterotypes that the Katana was the only blade used by the Japanese and presuming you tried to use that stereotype to lord your obviously great and all-knowing Liberal knowledge over me. I mean, how could I possibly have thought that, given your obvious respect to myself in your first post. I mean MORON. What a great title, so full of respect, you have gifted upon me. I was so out of line arguing with such a great and kind man that I am now super-depressed.
Oh, I am so glad to learn from you, o great Randman, that history is nothing but a fantasy game. So tell me, exactly how many experience points did Andrew Jackson gain from the British at the Battle of New Orleans?
/trollbaiting
It has ceased to be amusing for the night.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 28, 2006 11:19 PM (VvXII)
addressing the sentence in question. Talk about being desperate and no
context.
Oh, I am so glad to learn from you, o great Randman, that history is nothing but a fantasy game.
You have the reading comprehension skills of a 8 year old.
It is also awe-inspiring to see such gramatical perfection.
U do rElIs DIS iz a blog ninja boi.. dont U?
I am now super-depressed.
Is that because your on an blog being a typical Liberal who thinks we
are in English class while attempting to demonstrate how smart you are
by lecturing somebody on grammar when you can't even spell the word.
ROFLMAO! Too fucking rich. Moron does indeed fit you.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 11:56 PM (Sal3J)
I guess it may be on topic if you consider that misinformation was a standard Ninja ploy during wartime. What with the MSM, and jihad news ntworks, and the 'religion of peace' types we are seeing on campuses, Ninja's start to fit the subject at hand.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 30, 2006 12:29 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: fast size at December 04, 2006 08:53 PM (sm89p)
November 16, 2006
"We have two factions of media in Boston. On the one hand, we have the Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists. And on the other, we have the liberals."It's not just Boston, Governor.
Posted by: Bluto at
08:25 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2006 09:40 AM (8PoNP)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 16, 2006 09:50 AM (3nKvy)
MCPO Airedale: that's the way it is. I'm tired of Republicans being diplomatic with what passes for journalists these days. They should take every opportunity to attack them publicly for their slanted coverage.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 16, 2006 10:52 AM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greg at November 16, 2006 11:19 AM (v7DMp)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2006 12:27 PM (8PoNP)
Most Americans choose not to use "World Net Daily" or "Fox New"s or other conservative news outlets as their source of information.
Posted by: John Ryan at November 16, 2006 01:23 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 16, 2006 01:42 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: salfter at November 16, 2006 02:24 PM (+Epz5)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2006 02:56 PM (8PoNP)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 17, 2006 02:02 AM (R6qo5)
------------------------------------
I really take exception to that statement. Most of the people I know are liberals, I have more in common with them. Almost none of us hoold this opinion. I'm sorry to personalize this, ( I do this on the liberal forum where I post the most and it's not always appreciated.) But we all bring to the table who we are.
Disagreeing with a liberal is not hate speech. Threats are. Such as "I've got a bullet with your name on it." "DIE DIE DIE," also comes to mind. If we all agree all the time, how do we progress?
Just thought I'd comment on that.
Carry on.
Posted by: No Fear at November 17, 2006 10:18 AM (ZQepB)
NF: that comment was, of course, hyperbole. I think everyone except you recognized that. But all hyperbole contains a grain of truth; in this case, a really, really big grain.
If I were to, oh, I don't know, say that fiddling with the fundamental institution of marriage by legalizing gay marriage is wrong - the first reaction of most liberals would be to call me a homophobe. If I object to allowing our borders to be a sieve, well sir, I must be a racist. If I say that the peculiar institution of Affirmative Action has had its time and is now a detriment to everyone involved, why I'm part of the oligarchy that wants to hold the black man down. If I demand that my government protect me against the greatest danger of our time, radical Islam, the Left paints me as a religious bigot who doesn't understand the nuances of the Muslim experience.
You see how this works? You objected to the hyperbole because it strikes so close the truth that it's almost not hyperbole at all.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 17, 2006 11:05 AM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 18, 2006 06:21 AM (R6qo5)
Posted by: tixdpj wgzul at December 31, 2006 05:37 AM (zZrWm)
Posted by: dealer at February 26, 2007 10:22 AM (VKCtP)
November 15, 2006
Posted by: Bluto at
12:38 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.
Or Bluto maybe we should be seeing if the New York Post would be willing to provide free subscriptions. They do have comis.
Posted by: john ryan at November 15, 2006 01:11 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 15, 2006 02:28 PM (oC8nQ)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 15, 2006 02:29 PM (vBK4C)
changed? Or that anything is different? Quite frankly, I
like the idea that they're exposed to different viewpoints. It's
a lot more than what our kids in public schools get. One way you
get to make decisions. If you're destined to public school system
you're destined for liberalism.
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2006 09:28 PM (YudAC)
Does anyone posting here pay attention or bother to read anything not published by Reverend Moon?
Posted by: BriMan at November 16, 2006 02:23 PM (9Vi89)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 16, 2006 03:35 PM (vBK4C)
NEW YORK In a surprising memo to staffers today, Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor, announced several general and specific shakeups "to maximize readership of the printed newspaper, build audience on the Web site and further reduce costs in the newsroom."Here's a suggestion: forget the cosmetics and get rid of the Democratic partisans who have been posing as journalists. Hire actual unbiased reporters and editors, though God alone knows where you'll find them.This includes a plan to "shrink" the newsroom. "tightening up the paper's news hole," cracking down on story length and moving reporters and editors "within and among staffs." The Post is now suffering from regular circulation declines.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:36 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 11:40 AM (8PoNP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times
Posted by: John Ryan at November 15, 2006 12:31 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 12:45 PM (8PoNP)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 15, 2006 01:33 PM (R6qo5)
The New York Times has had a decline from 1,113,000 to 1,087,000 in 5 years a decline of about 5000 per year for a total loss of 25000, out of a million. However ad rates have gone up.
The Washington Post has had a somewhat larger decline but again ad rates have gone up.
We in the United States are fortunate to have as many media sources as we do. And in this free market the people will continue to choose to be customers of MSM
Posted by: John Ryan at November 15, 2006 01:44 PM (TcoRJ)
My source: The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/media/31papercnd.html?ex=1319864400&en=e085b0aa9ab0ddb3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
We in the United States are unfortunate enough to still have grossly partisan liars posing as journalists at the NYT, WaPo, LATimes, Boston Globe, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN. All have experienced declines in readership/viewership as more people get wise to them and seek alternative sources of information.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 15, 2006 02:00 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 15, 2006 02:02 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 15, 2006 02:11 PM (R6qo5)
But, heh, I don't mind. The faster the influence of these newspapers declines, the better, as far as I am concerned. And John, you are right, most people still get their news from the MSM, but the quicker we change this, the better.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 02:23 PM (8PoNP)
Posted by: ohpzfsi jpivyrh at December 29, 2006 04:23 AM (xHzmC)
Posted by: dqoniaye hlbamd at April 06, 2007 05:34 AM (J0Xhy)
November 02, 2006
In her story, Kate Zernike writes:
Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.†In his delivery, he dropped the word “us.â€Apparently, Ms. Zernike and her editors are among the half dozen people in America who don't know exactly what Kerry said. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
03:06 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 02, 2006 03:27 PM (3nKvy)
She knows what he said.
Apparently, you missed the key phrase in the story - "Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students".
What he had written and what he said were similar but different things.
This joke was included with several others, before and after this one, that all were bashing Bush and his failed policies.
If you watch the whole video, and not just the clip that shows him bungling this joke, you can put it all into context, but then you wouldn't be able to continue to disparage Kerry, now would you?
Kerry needs to keep his day job supporting the troops and stop trying to crack jokes that bash Bush.
Why would a guy that has supported our troops more than Flight Suit Bush ever did, suddenly turn on them?
Doesn't make sense to me.
Who do you trust more? Bush and the GOP? Yeah, right.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 04:16 PM (F+9W9)
If he was a smart, educated man, he would own up to the mistake he made and make a true apology, not that bunch of crap he supposedly had written out for him yesterday. He'd look like a much better person and it would go away much faster. Instead, they keep drawing it out, making him look more and more ridiculous.
Hell, I shouldn't complain...it helps my party out the more the Dems open their mouths.
Posted by: Kelly at November 02, 2006 04:20 PM (CMVWW)
I'm new here, and I didn't know, but I see now that he is smarter than all of us.
I'll try to behave, joe.
Thanks for the warning to us all.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 04:22 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Buzzy at November 02, 2006 04:39 PM (CXz7T)
Osama Bin Laden. Never want to be out from under a shadow of fear? Then alls y'alls got to do is vote to keep it that way.
Posted by: tbone at November 02, 2006 04:51 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 04:54 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 04:56 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 04:56 PM (vBK4C)
"Do...where you end up if you don't...if you aren't...if you're intellectually lazy...end up...getting us...a war in...Just ask President Bush."
You know, for what's supposed to be an anti-Bush joke, forgetting to actually mention Bush has got to be the biggest mistake you can make.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 02, 2006 04:59 PM (oC8nQ)
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/paul_ron_nra_endorses_gun_control_democrat.htm
What the hell is going on here? Rep. Ron Paul - Texas 14th (R) is my favorite congressman.
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 05:06 PM (v7DMp)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 02, 2006 05:15 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Darth Odie at November 02, 2006 05:17 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 02, 2006 05:22 PM (oC8nQ)
Posted by: Butch at November 02, 2006 05:24 PM (bXX/R)
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 05:33 PM (v7DMp)
it's not the truth, it's a lie. Kerry is a liar, as are most Leftwingers. The military have more education than the population at large. Fact. Virtually all recruits have a high school diploma. Fact. (compared to about 70% in the population at large), and all the officers have bachelors, masters, and Phds. Fact.
(another Leftwing lie debunked)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 08:42 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 08:44 PM (8e/V4)
They are definitely trying to stuff this one down the "memory hole".
Posted by: Paul Moore at November 02, 2006 09:48 PM (+5ORu)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 02, 2006 10:45 PM (Dd86v)
Tbones’ comment is like so many I have read over the last few days after that A**hat JFK’s latest foot into mouth performance show how little the average person knows about military service. As a retired USAF Senior Non- Commissioned Officer who spent the majority of his career in aircraft maintenance I can tell you first hand how sharp these young men and women are. In my last assignment as a Specialist Flight Chief in the 4th Fighter Wing, my flight consisted of 68 Airman who came from a wide and diverse cultural background. They were Avionics, Electro- Environmental, and Engine technicians. One hundred percent of my Airman and NCO’s were high school graduates. All except 2 or 3 were taking college classes, well over half had already completed their A.S. degrees and a few were done with their B.S. Two of these young men are now Air Force Captains, one flying KC-135 Tankers and the other F-16’s. People who are not sharp and educated simply could not make it on the flight line troubleshooting and repairing these highly complex aircraft, in our case the F-15E Strike Eagle. In my own case I finished my A.S. and B.S on active duty (Thank you Air Force) and I now work as a manufacturing manager for a Fortune 10 company. I personally found Kerry’s remarks condescending and insulting. Of course these words spoken by a man who has loathed the military his entire adult life are pretty much par for the course. Someday I expect we will finally see his military record. One thing is for sure the only reason he has Webb’s autopen signature on his decorations is because they were reissued. Officers and enlisted personnel when given a less than honorable release forfeit all previous citations. The only thing that could explain these new dates on his citation is if he applied for what would be an upgrade to discharge under Carters general amnesty order.
Posted by: Billmil at November 02, 2006 11:34 PM (jDWYv)
Posted by: tbone at November 03, 2006 12:50 AM (XDUhP)
Billmil and all others who are or have honorably served, you
have my thanks and respect for your service and hope that everyday our lives as
Americans are a testament to the country and way of life that you serve.
Posted by: tbone at November 03, 2006 01:09 AM (XDUhP)
Posted by: REMF at November 03, 2006 07:17 AM (7RMSi)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 07:19 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 07:33 AM (cNF2m)
Look up "Freudian slip" some time.
Oh, and Greg? The core of the US left is made up of secular Jews. Like George Soros and Barbara Streisand.
Posted by: Phillep at November 03, 2006 07:34 AM (exBz1)
tbone, I do totally refute your claim that opportunites are limited. I hate to tell you, but the reason the Dems are attacking Bush on Iraq is because the economy is strong and getting stronger. If you want an example, then fine, try this on for size. My contract IT job for a major insurance company just went full time. Why? Because we just pulled all of our software development jobs back from off-shore companies to stateside. Yes that's right, Manoj, Jatin and Sandpeep from Mumbai just got canned! Why, because customer service is poor because of the time difference and you don't really save any money in the long run anyway.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 03, 2006 10:59 AM (oC8nQ)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 03, 2006 11:05 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 11:22 AM (cNF2m)
Thanks for setting me straight.
Jesus joe is smarter than the rest of you.
I'll try to remember that.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 03, 2006 01:22 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: tbone at November 03, 2006 01:33 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2006 07:54 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 05, 2006 12:38 AM (cNF2m)
From ChicagoTribune.com:
Air America Radio is talking to several parties about a possible sale and is hopeful of reaching a deal before Thanksgiving, a lawyer for the liberal talk radio network told a bankruptcy hearing Tuesday.Wait a minute! Does this make a lick of sense? If I were trying to sell a dying horse, I seriously doubt that there would be a "significant amount of interest" from seven different potential buyers. After all, how many glue factories are there?Tracy Klestadt told the court that the privately held company was in discussions with seven different parties about a sale and was "very hopeful" of reaching a deal by Nov. 22, saying there was a "significant amount of interest."
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
02:04 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
Why can trying to find a buyer for a "dying" radio show be any worse?
Maybe they need the tax writeoff.
Trying to understand this is like trying to get inside of Bush's head to know how he thinks.
I just made a funny - "know how he thinks", as if to suggest that Bush actually thinks.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 02:37 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 04:09 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 04:59 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Old Grouch at November 02, 2006 05:24 PM (OWhCc)
Yeah, right, puddlebrain, just like John Kerry told a joke. Yours was about as funny as his. You must be a kindred spirit.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 02, 2006 05:31 PM (rUyw4)
I am also not running a country as an incompetent, bumbling idiot, either, like your fearless leader.
Will Bush be regarded as the worst president in US history or merely in the top 10 of the worst, right up there next to Cut-and-Run Ronnie?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 03, 2006 06:58 AM (fMHQi)
You guys take yourselves way too seriously.
Maybe if you would stop hanging out at all those RW websites, stop watching H&C and BOR, and unsubscribe to the GOP daily talking points emails, your minds could begn to unmuddle and you could begin to recapture your lost status as human beings.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 03, 2006 07:06 AM (fMHQi)
BTW - when did you get to be "normal".
Survey says....
There are a lot of people in institutions that claim that they are the normal ones and the crazy ones are outside.
Your thinking represents the views of less than 30% of the population.
The other 70% disagree with you.
So how is it that you are the "normal" one?
Keep laughing, asshole, they do that a lot in those institutions, also.
Oh, and I've noticed, also, that when one of you makes a disparaging remark about me or anyone else that disagrees with you, that others pile on with a "me, too" comment.
Have any of you ever had an original thought?
Guess not.
The longer you hang out here, the more your brains turn to mush, as all you know how to do is reinforce each other's delusional beliefs.
What a pathetic bunch you are.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 03, 2006 07:16 AM (fMHQi)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 07:44 AM (cNF2m)
Assuming, of course, that the sniffer believes it, which is unlikely.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at November 03, 2006 02:51 PM (+rSRq)
Posted by: Buzzy at November 03, 2006 03:56 PM (CXz7T)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2006 08:20 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 05, 2006 12:35 AM (cNF2m)
October 28, 2006
While the Democratic candidate for Senator from Virginia may know a lot about the oral stimulation of toddlers' penises, he offers nothing but Sound and Fury concerning the Iraqi theater of the Global War on Terror. The "remedy" promised in the AP headline is not forthcoming anywhere in the story.
Webb gets points for honesty, however, by admitting that the Democrats have no plan for further progress in Iraq:
"A Democratic Congress will demand from day one that the president find a real way forward in Iraq. We'll work with the administration and other Republicans to develop a concrete plan, but none of us are ready to settle for empty rhetoric, or the same old unacceptable results," Webb said.With the mention of "empty rhetoric" Webb qualifies for his own award, "Most Blatant Unconscious Irony in a Public Statement."
Posted by: Bluto at
12:11 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: KG at October 28, 2006 02:22 PM (AC0TE)
Yes, the Dhimmiecrats are just waiting until they're in control of Congress before they start working with the President.
How fucking stupid does someone have to be to vote Dhimmiecrat?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at October 30, 2006 03:52 PM (bLPT+)
October 26, 2006
Posted by: Bluto at
10:19 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 26, 2006 12:36 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 26, 2006 01:23 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Vancouver at October 26, 2006 09:03 PM (oMAN4)
October 25, 2006
The admission is buried on the second page of an article called, "Can ‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?" As noted by Michelle Malkin, the mea culpa is loaded with weasel words, but eventually it emerges that Calame thinks the New York Times should not have published details of the secret, and highly successful, program:
I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.Expect massive coverage of the New York Times' hideous gaffe by their colleagues in the mainstream press, not.
Via Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: Bluto at
03:23 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Jackson Hewitt at October 25, 2006 04:59 PM (DCZ7U)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 25, 2006 05:46 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Greg at October 25, 2006 06:24 PM (19GwZ)
"Benedict Arnold - Blazing a trail for Ted Kennedy and The New York Times."
That pretty much says it all for me. If I were GW I'd have them all swinging from a high yard arm by actually enforcing the sedition, treason, and secrets acts.
Posted by: Vulgorilla at October 25, 2006 06:28 PM (5AfaV)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 25, 2006 06:51 PM (Dd86v)
If you believe the Jewish Lobby is limited to using the NYT as their journalistic tool, yours is a simple world.
Posted by: Greg at October 25, 2006 07:24 PM (19GwZ)
Posted by: Greg at October 25, 2006 08:06 PM (19GwZ)
NYT admits they were wrong to leak classified info
New marching orders. One minute the leaks are good, the next minute the leaks are bad! What's a good Leftbot to do! LOL.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 25, 2006 09:31 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 26, 2006 09:06 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 27, 2006 01:18 AM (eqF9P)
October 21, 2006
SAN DIEGO — CNN has become "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film" by broadcasting a video showing an insurgent sniper in Iraq apparently killing an American soldier, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said here Friday.Since CNN chief news exec Eason Jordan (who later resigned in disgrace for slandering US troops) has admitted that CNN's Baghdad bureau deliberately concealed news of Saddam's atrocities prior to the invasion of Iraq, perhaps no CNN "journalist's" credentials should be considered valid by any US government entity.Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) called for the Pentagon to oust any CNN reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq.
"I think Americans like to think we're all in this together," Hunter said. "The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side."
Posted by: Bluto at
09:55 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
I'd like to ask you something; in your opinion should guys like Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs also be painted with the same brush?
Put another way, would I be naive to assume that Anderson C. and Lou D. have not been dhimmified yet?
Best
/GM
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 21, 2006 11:42 AM (1juA+)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 21, 2006 01:05 PM (vBK4C)
I wasn't aware of Eason Jordan's despicable actions until I read your post today. Yes, that's downright treason
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 21, 2006 02:34 PM (1juA+)
Agreed, but let's not stop at CNN ... let's extend the shame to all television news programming. It's all ratings-driven flash and damned little substance. We would all do well to read our news rather than watching it.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 05:29 PM (a7sMc)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 22, 2006 08:16 AM (KMjdm)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 22, 2006 08:21 AM (KMjdm)
Posted by: sosos at October 22, 2006 01:43 PM (Brrxl)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 22, 2006 01:50 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 22, 2006 07:45 PM (/r/kS)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 23, 2006 05:05 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 23, 2006 11:50 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 26, 2006 11:29 PM (eqF9P)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 24, 2006 01:49 AM (623RQ)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 28, 2006 09:27 AM (oTEV/)
http://villasincrete.net/love
87c40
http://arachno.name/t/161676
Posted by: llldf at January 20, 2007 08:44 PM (YuVtd)
http://villasincrete.net/best_pharma
http://villasincrete.net/best_pharma
gu884
http://arachno.name/t/161676
Posted by: best at January 24, 2007 04:16 PM (YuVtd)
Posted by: tren at January 27, 2007 03:16 AM (YuVtd)
http://villasincrete.net/search_travel
http://villasincrete.net/search_travel/
81hno
http://arachno.name/t/161676
Posted by: vikrot at January 27, 2007 02:05 PM (YuVtd)
Posted by: tom at January 28, 2007 07:31 AM (YuVtd)
October 20, 2006
Reuters explains the latest mainstream meme, the public is "numb" to Iraq war deaths: more...
Posted by: Bluto at
11:20 AM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: QC at October 20, 2006 12:17 PM (PX+vn)
Posted by: Dan at October 20, 2006 12:50 PM (ILHet)
Actually more like pseudo-intellectualize, so as to quibblingly talk they way around the true and the obvious.
This pseudo-intellectualism of the vociferous left is almost as repugnant as their inability for moral discernment.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 20, 2006 01:41 PM (vixLB)
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 01:46 PM (/+dAV)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday
Posted by: white at October 20, 2006 02:05 PM (ypvvR)
Posted by: tbone at October 20, 2006 02:18 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 03:09 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 03:38 PM (/+dAV)
Democrat Leadership have very similar goals and motivations to the
Terrorists.
If the Democrats didn't try to obfuscate the fact that they AND THE TERRORISTS have the exact same hopes for Iraq, then they wouldn't get any votes.
Not from any true Americans that is....
Isn't it strange that:
1. When terrorists take over a town in Iraq:
Democrats gloat and seem gleefulTerrorists gloat and seem gleeful
2. When anyone mentions BOOOSH's name in public
Democrats get enragedTerrorists get enraged
3. When anyone mentions US victories scored in Iraq
Democrats are silent and grumpy and fight all the more to show what a bad thing our fighting for freedom is there.Terrorists are silent and grumpy and fight all the more to show what a bad thing our fighting for freedom is there.
4. Who desires that BOOOSH is disgraced...
DemocratsTerrorists
the list goes on and on.
If you don't like the similarities between the democrat leaders (and
their bootlicking followers) and the terrorists....then I suggest you
take a good look at distancing yourselfs from the terrorists BY
SHOOTING FOR A DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE....
A Pro-Freedom objective
Posted by: mrclark at October 20, 2006 03:41 PM (IgP4H)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at October 20, 2006 03:45 PM (oC8nQ)
Oh, never mind. Habeas Corpus is so Old Europe.
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 03:46 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: tbone at October 20, 2006 04:02 PM (HGqHt)
February, give it till December, if Iraq is still unstable then, bring us
and all troops HOME!
Posted by: Ken Hoop at October 20, 2006 04:05 PM (P95FD)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 04:28 PM (rUyw4)
Where I live (outside one of the major military installations), we take casualties very seriously. I wish the rest of the country would, but the first and biggest mistake that President Bush made was to NOT call the country to sacrifice and support the military. Like his daddy before him, he bought the Cheney-Rumsfeld line of a cheap war easily won. It has not been either.
Do not get me wrong. I do not support the cowardly Dhimmicrats and their "quitter" mentality. I do want the Republicans to retain control of the Congress in November because otherwise, all our sacrifices will have been in vain. I also want the Republicans to grow a pair of balls and act like they were elected to lead the country.
Posted by: Old_dawg at October 20, 2006 04:35 PM (Si1mC)
quit trying to play the victim, the right-wing have dominated and oppressed the majority of the population for too long. Its creepy when you act helpless. Like a grown man having a hissyfit.
"I have to admit they don't trust you." Anakin Skywalker.
"Or the Senate, or the Republic, or Democracy for that matter..." Emperor Palpatine
Posted by: yermom at October 20, 2006 05:01 PM (6cnA/)
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 06:02 PM (PnoGS)
Seriously, man, only idiots try to make the unbiased media argument anymore.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 20, 2006 06:20 PM (vBK4C)
The disembodied casualty count makes it sound like our soldiers are like fish being shot in a barrell -- and I think that's really far from the truth.
Posted by: FrauBudgie at October 20, 2006 06:32 PM (pbvwt)
And, as for dread pundit, no one tries to make the 'conspiracy theory' arguement anymore. Just look at who owns the media and who funds them. Its simple economics, not rocket science. And, if you want to see people 'making the media is biased' arguement, scroll up. Many of your fellow morons are doing it right here.......
Posted by: yermom at October 20, 2006 08:47 PM (6cnA/)
Public Numb to US deaths in Iraq???????
You see, I'm still numb from 3000 murdered Americans in Manhattan. Oh, yeah I forgot, you people don't like to talk about that ,or when you do you blame it on US. Well screw you .
Posted by: Billy at October 20, 2006 10:05 PM (nlgQw)
yermom: what conspiracy theory? Is it a conspiracy that IBM hires serious, button down, power suit people? No, it's their corporate culture. The corporate culture of the MSM is to hire young, progressive, agenda journalists.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 20, 2006 10:27 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 10:29 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 20, 2006 11:02 PM (AP2ro)
Posted by: REMF at October 21, 2006 04:08 AM (7RMSi)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2006 07:59 AM (bH9q3)
The reason the U.S. military doesn't count Iraqi dead is because it's not its friggin job to count Iraqi dead and do your PR work for you-- that's your job (or the Iraqi's job if they want us out so bad). Doesn't give you the right to make up numbers as you go along. One set of moonbats says less than 50K, and another set of moonbats says 650K. One of them is a friggin liar.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 09:07 AM (8e/V4)
Conservatives love this one especially. And well they should; it serves several purposes:
* it raises public skepticism
about the news
* hides conservative bias when it appears
* goads the media to the right.
GOP water-carrier William Kristol put it very well "I admit it: the liberal media
were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as
an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Even that famous New Dealer Pat
Buchanan comes clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more
comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would
receive." He further concedes: "I've gotten balanced
coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For
heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican
on earth does that."
So what gives? This gives: conservatives have
powerful friends in the media, the corporations that own them,
and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These
firms have gotten better at bending the media's
message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative
and pro-corporate agenda.
Nice try anyway, Bluto.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 09:49 AM (a7sMc)
Or put differently, it goads the MSM from the Left.
So what gives? This gives: that the other cable channels are playing catch up now and starting to copy Fox (i.e., they are being goaded from the Left).
But the primary issue isn't how many conservative commentators the MSM decides to carry (although that does count)-- it's in the way they report their so-called straight news.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 10:28 AM (8e/V4)
That is entirely perception-based; if you've got a conservative mind set and you hear something from the media you don't like, it will prove to you they are liberal--much as when Chuck Hagle, McCain and other Rockefeller-conservatives became "RINOs" when they began to question the administration's policy in Iraq.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 11:35 AM (a7sMc)
It's partly perception-based. You'll perceive conservative bias wherever you find it because you're Liberal, but miss the Liberal bias. And vice versa. That's why we see the Liberal bias in the MSM, while you completely miss it. It's like being too long in the kitchen. You no longer perceive the aromas, while someone just walking in does.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 01:01 PM (8e/V4)
Oh, I won't deny that's always a possibility and I try to keep my eyes open to it. Slanted journalism is not impossible to find.
My claim is that one of the pillars of the Republican power strategy over the past 25 years has been to establish the idea that the media has an institutional bias, and that bias leans liberal.
By establishing this concept, the modern conservative movement has been able to establish themselves as victims of this bias. This in turn has justified the need for media alternatives, both underground such as blogs still basically are, mid-stream, such as
Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin, and mainstream, such as Fox News.
And this, in turn, has laid the groundwork for not only controlling news flow, but literally
shaping it, setting the rules for what is discussed, how it is
discussed, and what the conclusions mean.
These alternatives are neccessary, say supporters of the movement, to offset the liberal bias rampant in a system run by media elites.
But beofre anything else happens, you have to buy into the central theology of all this: that the so-called MSM is liberal.
I don't because it usually follows no particular logic other than vauge feelings that this is the case. Yes, you will probably find examples to challenge my assumptions; and I will find examples to challenge yours.
However, the proof of instutionalized bias has never been proven to my satisfaction.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 03:38 PM (a7sMc)
truth, the repent of it immediately. A good lefturd is a dead one.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 22, 2006 05:22 AM (v3I+x)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 22, 2006 08:48 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 22, 2006 10:12 AM (KMjdm)
Article:4 Not Found." What's the gist of it?
Posted by: Gleep! at October 22, 2006 11:55 AM (a7sMc)
admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is
dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against
Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC
chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC
and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the
war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a
dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would
broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity.
Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim
women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by
veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation
is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities,
deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American,
anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than
Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread
acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of
political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'
In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how
they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen )
known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the
programme Room 101.
On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a
dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.
Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual
producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could
all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending
Muslims.
In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden
if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be
given a platform to explain his views.
And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women
newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV,
including veils.
Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the
summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a
necklace with a cross.
The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or
neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally
large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has
a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better
expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so
biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had
secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added
that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no
moral weight'.
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a
'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance
but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism:
it believes in it and it promotes it.'
Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work
but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National
Front!'
Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full
of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to
attention during God Save The King'.
There was another heated debate when the summit discussed
whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for
failing to take responsibility for their children.
Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme
which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for
bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.
But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use
white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to
'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.
Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must
always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial,
middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or
the people who work for it.'
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 22, 2006 12:22 PM (8e/V4)
As your article states, the BBC starts at the executive level; however, UK news programming is not beholden to corporate interests and profit motive to the degree of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and major newspaper execs. In fact, I believe the BBC remains a public/private partnership, with significant ownership and oversight held by the British government. Could that explain many of what we see as PC requirements on who broadcasts what and where? Well, with heavy government involvement, it does here, so I think that's a safe assumption.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 22, 2006 01:08 PM (a7sMc)
The BBC is telling you it's Liberal, and you're telling them no, they're not Liberal. LOL. Sounds very much like how you Libs ignore what the jihadis are telling us so you can instead blame Bush. It must be the mental disorder you suffer from (Liberalism). Next you'll tell me Fox is conservative (even though the MSM isn't Liberal).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 23, 2006 08:28 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: yermom at October 23, 2006 10:43 AM (6cnA/)
February. Simply google "Zogby Poll" "Iraq" US soldiers.
Only 37% agreed we should follow Bush's "stay the course"
policy, and the myriad troops who attend Murtha rallies,for example, bear out the poll's accuracy.
Posted by: Ken Hoop at October 23, 2006 04:23 PM (DZbll)
JC--Uh..no, I'm saying what's the BBC got to do with American media? It's publicly held, unlike American media; it's not beholden to corporate interests, unlike American media; therefore it could be have a liberal slant, unlike America media. Go ask Kristol and Buchanan why you're wrong. Again.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 23, 2006 05:53 PM (a7sMc)
Tillman, Iraq Vet, expresses many common vet views about the
war and its "dear leaders" Bush, Cheney and Co.
Posted by: Ken Hoop at October 23, 2006 06:03 PM (DZbll)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 06:05 PM (zqSqi)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 23, 2006 05:26 PM (Tx1GC)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 26, 2006 11:07 PM (pAEmi)
Girls Welcome
http://villasincrete.net/girl
20if3
http://arachno.name/t/161874
Posted by: crazy_girl at January 18, 2007 01:50 PM (YuVtd)
October 19, 2006
From the Washington Post:
GREENSBORO, N.C., Oct. 18 -- President Bush said Wednesday that the current surge of violence in Iraq "could be" comparable to the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, a succession of battles that became a milestone because it helped turn the American public against the conflict and its political leadership.What the WaPo won't come right out and say is that it wasn't the Tet Offensive itself that had such a devastating effect upon civilian morale, it was the abjectly incompetent reporting of the event by American journalists. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
10:47 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 02:12 PM (8e/V4)
Now, give me my martyr belt and tell me where they are keeping the Joooo babies.
Posted by: Greg at October 19, 2006 02:39 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 03:01 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: davec at October 19, 2006 03:20 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 19, 2006 03:27 PM (vBK4C)
Much like Iraq until recently, the majority of Americans still supported US involvement in Vietnam at the time of Tet. So, one could assume that either the media of the day generally spun positive news from the war front and people seemed satisfied with the progress enough to support war efforts, or they spun the news in a negative light and Americans chose to ignore it, continuing instead to support the war in spite of the news. This situation continued for about four years, correct, 1964-68?
Then comes Tet and what you have is that after four years of claims of progress from the White House, Ho's People's Army and the VC could still mount a credible -- if ultimately fruitless-- military campaign against US and ARVN forces. Doesn't matter if they lost; the fact they could still do it after continuing claims of progress from Johnson's White House. And that tried America's patience more than any news media could have done and turned the majority of Americans against continuing involvement.
Americans aren't idiots; they are a pretty discerning crowd and will eventually judge the facts as they see them for themselves, despite the fabrications of politicians or media. In the case of Tet, it didn't matter to the American people how it was reported as much as the fact it could even happen after four years of rosy progress reports. Trust was broken; confidence lost.
If you look back on our history, it seems the typical American will give you about 4-5 years of blood and treasure to win a shooting war--and only then if objectively measurable progress is shown. That time frame is cut in about half if the objectives keep changing, are unclear or in doubt, or progress cannot be reasonably proven. Screw them or lie to them, and they'll turn against you.
I think we are now at the point, as we were in '68.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 19, 2006 07:55 PM (a7sMc)
give you about 4-5 years of blood and treasure to win a shooting war-
Gleep,
I don't know how the soldiers felt about Vietnam (besides the Leftwing drivel we get from Hollywood), but my understanding about Iraq is that our GIs want to complete the mission and not cut and run.
Of course that differs from what the American public may feel about it, but that's because they are spoonfed defeatism 24/7 by the Liberal-controlled media, while our GIs aren't.
This Iraq=Vietnam is a pretty good example. Bush agreed with Tom Friedman that this latest wave of violence could be compared to the Tet offensive. And what do the surrender monkey-controlled media do? Bush says Iraq=Vietnam!!! This is the kind of dishonesty we've come to expect from the Liberal-controlled media, and it's no wonder we no longer have the will to win a war anymore.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 09:45 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 09:48 PM (8e/V4)
I know exactly two Vietnam vets, both Army infantry, both combat. One thought we should have finished the job, one thought we should have never been there. Incidently, one was a draftee, one a volunteer ... the volunteer thought we should never have been there.
... but my understanding about Iraq is that our GIs want to complete the mission and not cut and run.
Likely some do, others would like to leave now. In polls I've seen, the military splits along similar lines as civilian opinion.
Of course that differs from what the American public may feel about it,
but that's because they are spoonfed defeatism 24/7 by the
Liberal-controlled media, while our GIs aren't.
Kinda simplistic, JC, and not even true when you consider the GIs have access to pretty much the same media via Inernet, satellite-link TV, etc. It's not like they've only got Stars & Stripes and Fox News ... they can access what they want. I have more faith in the intelligence of the American public than you do, evidently ... spoonfeeding is for idiots, which the public is not, especially when they have access to NewsBusters, NewsMax and conservative talk radio just like they have access to The New York Times, CNN and Air America.
Bush says Iraq=Vietnam!!! This is the kind of dishonesty we've come to
expect from the Liberal-controlled media, and it's no wonder we no
longer have the will to win a war anymore.
But Bush did say Iraq could be compared to Vietnam, at least the Tet part of it. The report I read from Reuters was titled "Bush sees possible Iraq-Vietnam parallel". The headline on Bluto's entry reads, "Yes, Iraq IS Like Vietnam."Both then go on to explain Bush was speaking specifically of Tet. Why is one more dishonest than the other?
I feel it's not a matter of will, JC, I think enough people feel they have been given something less than the facts by the administration and no longer trust the government. And when that happens, it doesn't take a media agenda to lose the support of the American people.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 19, 2006 10:48 PM (a7sMc)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 19, 2006 11:05 PM (8e/V4)
Gleep, you've completely missed it. The VC were virtually annihilated. It was a complete and utter military defeat for them. It wasn't "credible"; it wasn't even close. Please understand that historical fact.
That means that everybody in the mainstream media who reported it as a defeat for the Americans, Uncle Walter springs to mind, was either blindly incompetent, or lying.
You need to think about the implications of a press corps that either cannot or will not get a story as major as the Tet Offensive right, because they haven't changed a bit since 1968.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 19, 2006 11:22 PM (vBK4C)
So with all this access to other viewpoints, those that support the war (and there are still some), why has public opinion shifted negatively? Millions of Americans have access to NewsBusters and the Jawa Report and Rush and Sean and Ann and Hugh and Fox News and National Review. We're not locked in our houses with Al Franken and Cindy Sheehan and CNN. So why are fewer and fewer people buying-in anymore?
You say its because Americans are spoonfed sheep who sit mesmerized in front of the tube and wait for their opinions to be handed to them. And you say that because you are a cynic and have little confidence in the average Joe.
I say people have looked around -- and of course including a fair number of GIs; not every GI can be pro-war--and realized what they're being told and what they're reading and seeing and hearing don't match up.
Hell, even Dick Cheney came out as finally admitting he underestimated the level of violence and the tenacity of those the GIs are fighting.
Nice try, JC, but guys like you think that bad news can be reported around, that by talking more about the good things happening in Iraq, public opinion could shift. Well, "good things" are by definition not news, especially when the bad news is as bad as it is.
News is what people DON'T want you to know; the good news stuff is PR and news releases. When's the last time you picked up your local newspaper and it said "Millions of People NOT Killed in Car Accidents Today." Why not ... it's true. The fact is that some guy getting killed in the car accident is the news; that millions didn't die is a news release from GM or the US Airbag Industry or something.
So yes, the fact that some GIs built a school and it managed to stay standing for a week before getting blown up takes a back seat to GIs charged with rape and murder bacuase one is news and the other isn't.
As for the Dems being for cutting and running, fellows like yourself seem to think that anything other than following the same pointless course is cutting and running. Keep going or you're a cutter and runner. And that is simply bullshit.
If doing soemthing different is cutting and running and beign a Dem, than John Warner (R) and James Baker (Bush family friend and R) have recently joined the Democratic party ... now that'd be news to a lot of people.
Your rants are absolutely cartoonish in their over-simplicity.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 19, 2006 11:50 PM (a7sMc)
It was a complete and utter military defeat for them. It wasn't
"credible"; it wasn't even close. Please understand that historical
fact.
Bluto--Yes it was an annihilation and utter defeat; but you feel that massing 35 battalions to coordinate attacks on all almost provincial capitals, five of the six autonomous cities, and 58 major towns wasn't credible? Sorry, I'll have to differ with you there.
My contention is that it was seen as a defeat by the American public no matter how it was reported. Why? Because that the Communists were able to mount a country-wide assault at
all flew in the face of everything Johnson and Clark Clifford had been saying about victory being near, and
called into question General Westmoreland's rosy public reports
of the progress in the War.
All of these optimistic
assessments from the administration and the Pentagon were being reported on by the media as the administration wanted and helped these fools do themselves in.
Americans are patient, but not endlessly so, especially when they feel they have been bullshitted. I think Mssrs. Bush and Cheney are discovering this.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 20, 2006 12:20 AM (a7sMc)
During WWII, there were 10,000 casualties on D-Day alone - 3,000 of them fatalities, yet the Allies continued on and won the war. The difference? The MSM hadn't yet turned traitor, and there was still such a thing as a loyal opposition in this country.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 20, 2006 01:28 AM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 07:51 AM (PnoGS)
them fatalities, yet the Allies continued on and won the war. The
difference? The MSM hadn't yet turned traitor, and there was still such
a thing as a loyal opposition in this country.
How can you reasonably compare ANY event of WWII to Iraq and claim that the former was won due to friendly media support? What a whopper!
Posted by: Gleep! at October 20, 2006 10:48 AM (a7sMc)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 20, 2006 07:31 PM (AP2ro)
the former was won due to friendly media support? What a whopper!
A "whopper" is a lie. Here he merely stated an opinion-- which you failed to refute or even address.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 22, 2006 08:17 AM (8e/V4)
October 17, 2006
A videotape that the prosecution presented to the judge shows Boghnat encouraging and directing rioters in Bil'in to throw large chunks of rock at Israeli vehicles in such a way as to cause maximum damage. The accused is heard shouting, "Throw, throw!" and later, "Throw towards the little window!"
Now that's journalism. Real reporting. No bias. The truth. Unfiltered & unadulterated reality, man.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
01:52 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 17, 2006 04:21 PM (Igoub)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at October 17, 2006 07:47 PM (CtVG6)
October 14, 2006
First openly gay person elected to Congress diesDown below the fold, MSNBC acknowledges the sex scandal that caused Congress to censure Studds:
BOSTON - Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay person elected to Congress, died early Saturday at Boston Medical Center, several days after he collapsed while walking his dog, his husband said.
In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after the page revealed he’d had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier, when the page was 17. Studds was censured for sexual misconduct by the House, then went home to his constituents to answer questions in a series of public meetings and interviews with the press.But it's okay that Studds used his position to sexually exploit an underage page because:
Hara [Studds' "spouse" - under Mass. gay marriage law] said Studds was never ashamed of the relationship with the page.Contrast this gentle treatment of sexual exploitation with ABC's Brian Ross' obfuscation of the true age of the 18 year old former page who engaged in a salacious Instant Messenger exchange with Republican Congressman Mark Foley - an exchange that it was later revealed may have been a prank.“This young man knew what he was doing,†Hara said. “He was at (Studds’) side.â€
Update: More blog reaction
The News Buckit notes the standing ovation Studds received from his constituents following the censure vote.
James Joyner at Outside the Beltway wryly reminds us that Studds became openly gay only after being outed in the page scandal.
Wizbang! puts a point on it: "Unlike Mark Foley, Studds actually had sex with male pages."
Posted by: Bluto at
12:42 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 14, 2006 01:52 PM (a7sMc)
Posted by: Some Guy at October 14, 2006 02:12 PM (wkRws)
I noticed the blogs complaining about the GOP losing, were the same
ones who thought Kerry would win. The sixth year of a President's term,
and the party will lose seats. Bush has bucked this trend once, but
twice may be too much. Still the bitching and whining is grating from
some blogs who seem to relish any bad news for the GOP because their
pet issues weren't addressed.
Posted by: Stormy70 at October 14, 2006 04:07 PM (SXQle)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 14, 2006 04:43 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: davec at October 14, 2006 04:44 PM (QkWqQ)
How about that democrat, that Studds guy, remember when he........Hold your tongue! He's dead, or,... as DeNiro would say, "He's dead....dead.... he's freakin dead.....he ain't movin, he's dead.....dead............he's dead"...............developing
Posted by: billy at October 14, 2006 07:38 PM (nlgQw)
Is there a more conflicted and contradictory creature than a leftard?
Mmmmm... no.
Posted by: Hucbald at October 14, 2006 11:23 PM (LzXdg)
Posted by: Gina Cobb at October 15, 2006 01:20 AM (QrpJF)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 15, 2006 08:24 AM (syuk5)
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 15, 2006 08:32 AM (fr6Kg)
Is there a more conflicted and contradictory creature than a leftard?
Because Leftards stand for nothing (it's all relative, remember?) other than being in power. That's how they can be pro-pedophilia and against it, both at the same time.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 15, 2006 09:01 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Darth Odie at October 15, 2006 09:27 AM (D3+20)
Oh yeah, that never happened.
Posted by: Mrs Abe Froman at October 15, 2006 09:46 AM (/XBqI)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 15, 2006 07:52 PM (syuk5)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 15, 2006 07:55 PM (syuk5)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 15, 2006 07:57 PM (syuk5)
He will be lionized by the left. May piss be upon him.
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 15, 2006 08:27 PM (rS40a)
The hullabaloo over Foley is surprising. Creepy emails led him to resign. End of story.
But digging up scandals that are decades old to prove the other party is more scandalous is sophomoric. The adults in the room know that "he did it first" arguments are not relevant to protecting the congressional pages in the future.
As far as Hastert is concerned, creepy emails and his inaction (if any) are not reasons for dismissal.
Posted by: kindlingman at October 15, 2006 09:15 PM (8cdh4)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 15, 2006 10:04 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 04:02 AM (syuk5)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 07:16 AM (syuk5)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 16, 2006 01:38 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 04:30 PM (TLJ7a)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 24, 2006 02:09 PM (oTEV/)
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 25, 2006 05:46 PM (oTEV/)
http://villasincrete.net/love
eospp
http://arachno.name/t/161694
Posted by: llldf at January 23, 2007 06:18 AM (YuVtd)
October 05, 2006
From Stop the ACLU:
Here is the ABC tip page for any pages out there: Submit your own Foley Scandal. Name address and phone # Not required! Surely, by tommorow we can get up to ten former pages. There is no limit to the number of former anonymous pages that could tell their stories between now and election day.But of course, you say, we can trust ABC's crack investigative reporters and their eleventy-seven layers of editors to confirm the information! Really, even though they blew a prank into a breathless sex scandal?
Posted by: Bluto at
11:42 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 06, 2006 09:12 AM (Zcruy)
I bet you don't remember it because Drudge only mentions it towards the end of his story, but deliberately writes his headline to imply that all the messages were pranks.
I bet the reason it's not getting play with the MSM is because it's just a ridiculous excuse on the part of one of the pages trying to claim he's not gay.
Posted by: Rhyleh at October 06, 2006 12:25 PM (Q+ifs)
thoroughly discredited by every responsible outlet, left, right and
center.
Posted by: BobH at October 06, 2006 02:44 PM (Mv+qG)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 07, 2006 10:42 AM (vBK4C)
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/the_congressional_page_scandal_1.php
Posted by: actus at October 07, 2006 02:23 PM (NV0dI)
On Friday, ABC News published instant messages between a former page and Congressman Foley with the IM screen name of the teenage victim redacted. Immediately, we discovered that in one instance, the screen name of the teen on one IM exchange had not been properly redacted. ABC News immediately took down the posting [version 1], redacted the screen name and re-published the posting [version 2]. We certainly believed that we had taken care of the issue quickly. Last evening, after an inquiry from Matt Drudge, it came to our attention that a blogger was able to access our deleted file [version 1] by typing in a slightly modified web address. To be clear, no one visiting our website would have simply stumbled on the old version. We thank the blogger and Drudge for bringing this to our attention.By "immediately" ABC apparently means, "five days after the fact," according to the Drudge Report headline for this story.
Previous:
ABC tries to slip one by.
ABC tacitly admits fudging age of IM recipient.
Thanks to a tip from L.S. Mope, Imperial Pork Purveyor, Imperial Liaison Officer, Master Infidel and Lowly Knave.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:56 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.
Louis Freeh was named head of the FBI by Clinton and sworn in on the day of Vince Foster's "suicide", in which the FBI was caught red-handed fabricating evidence in a cover-up of an obvious murder.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001725.php
Let's all say it together...
"COVER UP"
Posted by: Greg at October 05, 2006 01:56 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Rhyleh at October 05, 2006 02:08 PM (Q+ifs)
Posted by: Greg at October 05, 2006 02:44 PM (/+dAV)
I mean, I totally agree that Clinton was evil, but I'm not sure about Bush being evil. Clinton lied and adulterated and MURDERED VINCE FOSTER, while Bush is a benighted saint who has never done anything wrong in his life.
Posted by: Rhyleh at October 05, 2006 03:09 PM (Q+ifs)
Posted by: Greg at October 05, 2006 03:25 PM (/+dAV)
If a blogger was able to view the "deleted" document using a publicly accessible URL, then it was never truly deleted in the first place.
So the publishing of this story and the IM transcript was completely mismanaged... Does anyone else see the irony in this?
Posted by: newyank at October 05, 2006 03:54 PM (XT7OJ)
You see, even if it turns out the investigation shows their frame up, we'd still be criminally liable for "interfering." That's why they deliberately leaked the kids the name in a way that makes it look unintentional! Don't take the bait!
Posted by: Rhyleh at October 05, 2006 04:06 PM (Q+ifs)
October 03, 2006
*Passionate **America** to Release Identity of a Person Rep. Foley Instant
Messaged*
**Oklahoma City, OK – October 3, 2006
William Kerr a writer for Passionate America has discovered the identity of the one of the persons that Representative Mark Foley communicated with in instant messages. The information was found on a public website while Mr. Kerr was researching the Representative Foley scandal. Mr. Kerr is finalizing the story and will present his findings on October 4th, 2006 at 4pm Central Time. The story will be published at Passionate America and will be discussed on The Passionate America Show on www.wideawakesradio.com at 4pm central time. Mr. Kerr will explain how he discovered this information and how anyone could have found it. There is the possibility that this story will not be well received by the some major news media. Mr. Kerr's evidence has been checked by many people to be accurate.
Posted by: Bluto at
03:34 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: greg at October 03, 2006 05:02 PM (PnoGS)
DEATH TO FAGGOTS.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2006 05:02 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: greg's sock puppet at October 03, 2006 05:59 PM (PnoGS)
Apparently the person who released the IMs isn't underage anymore.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 03, 2006 05:59 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greg at October 03, 2006 06:12 PM (PnoGS)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 03, 2006 06:25 PM (vBK4C)
Ever since they said you were no longer a planet, you've been acting kind of strange.
Posted by: Greg at October 03, 2006 06:27 PM (PnoGS)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 03, 2006 08:34 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at October 03, 2006 08:48 PM (fIUHw)
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at October 03, 2006 08:53 PM (fIUHw)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2006 09:09 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: Greg at October 03, 2006 09:26 PM (PnoGS)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2006 09:40 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2006 09:43 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2006 09:52 PM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 03, 2006 10:26 PM (Dd86v)
Now, falsely accuse me of deleting your posts again, then cry and go home. God I hate pussies.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 03, 2006 10:29 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 03, 2006 10:31 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 03, 2006 10:59 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 03, 2006 11:04 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 04, 2006 07:40 AM (xJ3Xm)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 04, 2006 07:42 AM (xJ3Xm)
Foley sent his “Gone to Detox Mansion†fax from Clearwater, Florida. Are there any rehab joints there that aren’t run by Scientology? Remember, that’s the same cult that says they can ‘cure’ homosexuality ….
Clearwater is known as the town Scientology built … or at least the town Scientology almost completely redeveloped. Clearwater is also home to Narconon, L. Ron Hubbard’s homemade rehab program.
And it turns out Foley was no stranger in Clearwater.
At a 2003 Scientology meeting, Foley gave a speech and was photographed happily accepting “leatherbound copies of Dianetics and The Way to Happiness.â€
In 1999, Foley joined three other Scientology-friendly politicians in condemning Germany for outlawing Scientology — German law is very strict about cults, because of previous problems.
The Clearwater Scientologists also held a fund-raiser for Foley’s aborted Senate run; he dropped out after the gay thing was mentioned.
And on Friday, the Creative Loafing blog in Tampa reported that Foley attended a Scientology gala in Los Angeles five years ago.
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 09:39 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 04, 2006 10:44 AM (xJ3Xm)
Do I get a pay raise with this promotion?
Posted by: Greg at October 04, 2006 02:22 PM (/+dAV)
There are 36 authors listed on this blog. Any of whom can delete comments.
Chances are, it was either Rusty, me, Howie, Good Lt., or Ragnar.
If it didn't disappear right away, then Bluto would have had a chance to read it, and respond, you dope.
Posted by: Vinnie at October 04, 2006 05:11 PM (/qy9A)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 04, 2006 10:41 PM (xJ3Xm)
October 02, 2006
Ha-ha.
Posted by: Bluto at
01:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
October 01, 2006
Posted by: Bluto at
11:51 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1298 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at October 02, 2006 09:28 AM (q73o1)
Posted by: Larry at October 03, 2006 01:54 PM (qn26S)
September 30, 2006
While any reasonable reader would expect to find a story about the Bush administration's response to the charges in WaPo reporter Woodward's recent election season political attack book against the Republicans, WaPo staff writer Peter Baker has actually written a thinly veiled sales pitch for Woodward's book.
Baker's "news report" never details any Bush administration response to Woodward's book until the eleventh paragraph where it quotes press secretary Tony Snow; then follows that immediately with quotes from Democrat Nancy Pelosi. I'm still trying to figure out what position Pelosi holds in the White House.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:15 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 30, 2006 11:40 AM (n4VvM)
1) a fear of being perceived as a lackey of the Bush administration, after his previous Bush books were heckled by his old buddy Carl Bernstein and a chorus of leftist trolls
2) his ego was wounded when Bush did not give him any interview time in preparing this book
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 30, 2006 11:42 AM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Nubian007 at September 30, 2006 04:40 PM (P6Mub)
You imply that Bluto is delusional because you disagree with him about the choice of title.
Your logic is weak.
By the way, is this your moronic myspace website: http://www.myspace.com/nubian007 ?
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 30, 2006 05:56 PM (HSkSw)
New Book Fuels Election Year Debate Over Bush, Rumsfeld
Nubian, it's hard to determine dishonesty when you believe
the dishonest part. This line in the opening paragraphs is
dishonest, though not the first or the last dishonest statement in the
article:
"Coming days after the partial release of a National Intelligence
Estimate concluding that the Iraq conflict has spread the "global
jihadist movement," the latest disclosures ..."
Don't see the dishonesty in that? Allow me to help. It totally disregards other parts that were released after the dishonest leaking of the one statement in the report that dishonestly
painted the entire report as a condemnation of the war effort.
Their wish to carry on with the original leak, ignoring subsequent
information, is - wait for it - dishonest.
Odd that Woodward never felt compelled to write books about dishonesty in a previous administration. Okay, not so odd.
Posted by: Oyster at October 01, 2006 05:25 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: greyrooster at October 02, 2006 07:58 PM (xJ3Xm)
September 27, 2006
Hmmm.....
Scroll, scroll, scroll:
Bush administration officials say that Karzai and Musharraf, along with the influential and relatively moderate Iraqi Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, are the "indispensable men" of post-Sept. 11 foreign policy for their ability to hold Islamic extremism at bay.
Note the emphasis. Rare indeed are the times that the media places qualifiers in front of "moderate" when referring to Sistani. Maybe the reporter took the time to actually look at his website, and noticed his devotion to sharia?
I can't let this post go with noting, in the quoted paragraph, that if Bush administration officials believe this is the Holy Trinity to keeping Islamic extremism at bay, we are in deep, deep shiite.
Karzai? Yeah, there's hope there, but Musharraf and Sistani? Yeesh.
Posted by: Vinnie at
11:31 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 27, 2006 11:45 PM (ILns2)
Posted by: Vinnie at September 28, 2006 12:05 AM (/qy9A)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 28, 2006 12:09 AM (Dd86v)
Posted by: grinnel at September 28, 2006 12:42 AM (Xhg7X)
That statue makes my nipples perky.
Ever since I learned that Auguste Rodin may have been Juif, I have decided to stop posting my anti-Semitic gibberish. In fact, I am now pro-Israel.
Sometime I will tell you about the distress I experienced while watching our two biggest phallic symbols fall in New York, and how I irrationally attribute responsibility to our own government based on early suppressed memories of my own parents burning down our shibboleth.
Posted by: Greg at September 28, 2006 05:57 AM (HSkSw)
Musharraf playing both sides of the fence. Let us suppose this is an honest, decent person wishing for peace in the world and happiness for all.
WHAT THE HELL ELSE CAN HE DO?
Posted by: greyrooster at September 28, 2006 07:11 AM (y4HuY)
Posted by: jonny at September 28, 2006 08:50 AM (QbGjZ)
Posted by: jonny at September 28, 2006 08:50 AM (ZUG5B)
Posted by: jonny at September 28, 2006 06:42 PM (11BMB)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 03, 2006 11:47 PM (Dd86v)
September 26, 2006
The NIE states:
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.This letter, found in the rubble of Zarqawi's safehouse, confirms that al Qaeda was trying to coach Zarqawi to "broaden his popular appeal", as the NIE put it. more...
• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.
• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:49 PM
| Comments (75)
| Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: newyank at September 27, 2006 05:07 AM (30FRH)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 27, 2006 07:53 AM (paKD6)
Bring it on. They want to surrender, cut-and-run (Rangel on record now as admitting it) and cry over it, which the NIE indicates will fuel further aggression (what won't is that actual question)...let them bring it.
They've got nothing - no plans, no alternatives save surrender and no credibility on the issues.
Posted by: Good Lt at September 27, 2006 08:10 AM (yT+NK)
Posted by: n.a. palm at September 27, 2006 08:19 AM (Mk2+c)
This is starting to look like a pattern. Hey Mark, big suprise when the real thing came out huhh?
You could almost see the President smiling at the news conference yesterday. He must have been thinking about this lying little turd pissing his pants over the disgrace that is coming to him and his newspaper.
Posted by: Brad at September 27, 2006 09:02 AM (Gp5c0)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at September 27, 2006 09:04 AM (3nKvy)
It would appear that while this might make the acolytes of the administration feel good, it hardly constitutes evidence that they have a handle on the mess that this adminisgtation has created in Iraq or the wave of terrorism. As the NIE notes, th new wave of terrorism that is now spreading from Iraq as an unintended consequences of our country's remarkably poorly thought out and incompetently executed anti-terror strategy.
When you continue to do the same thing overe and over and expect a different outcome, its called stupidity.
How much longer will the administration persist in the dilusion that what we are doing in Iraq and Afganistan is working?
Posted by: Upset at Governtmental Incompetance at September 27, 2006 09:41 AM (uoBsU)
It would appear that while this might make the acolytes of the administration feel good, it hardly constitutes evidence that they have a handle on the mess that this adminisgtation has created in Iraq or the wave of terrorism. As the NIE notes, th new wave of terrorism that is now spreading from Iraq as an unintended consequences of our country's remarkably poorly thought out and incompetently executed anti-terror strategy.
When you continue to do the same thing overe and over and expect a different outcome, its called stupidity.
How much longer will the administration persist in the dilusion that what we are doing in Iraq and Afganistan is working?
Posted by: Upset at Governtmental Incompetance at September 27, 2006 09:42 AM (uoBsU)
Here's a clue: When this president says something, you need to doublecheck it. He doesn't always tell the truth.
Just thought you should know.
Posted by: Lex at September 27, 2006 09:48 AM (FcWi1)
And you want us out of Afghanistan too? Is your real name Ahmed, or Mahmoud?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 27, 2006 09:53 AM (vBK4C)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 27, 2006 09:58 AM (vBK4C)
"When you continue to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome, its called stupidity."
How many terror attacks in the US since 9-11? To the libs, winning is stupid, or winning must have no cost. Or, it’s just that they want America to loose.
Ahhhhh, I long for the good old days when Presidents just sat back and got head while terrorists in Afghanistan plotted to kill 3500 or so Americans, blow up our embassies all over the world, killed American sailors, while the left blamed America’s polices. Dude, we are on the offensive at war with these fanatics.
The left's solution?
Pull out, quit, talk nice and they will leave us alone? Or, just root for America to loose anytime anywhere because of their own self-loathing and hatred for America. No thanks.
Stop surveillance on murdering terrorists at the expense of national security? No thanks.
The libs can only propose we bend over and hope they don't go too deep. I'd rather go down fighting them than hoping for their good will. They have none for us.
Lying reporters like this are being shown for what they are. At best, liars who would sell out their country to be the toast of NY liberalism. At worst, they are traitors who actively support our enemies.
Posted by: Brad at September 27, 2006 10:07 AM (Gp5c0)
Posted by: Howie at September 27, 2006 10:21 AM (YdcZ0)
"Should al-Zarqawi continue ... he could ... present a global threat."
"Could" does not mean "Does". And so what? The NIE says zarquawi could be dangerous. wow. call out the press for not lauding Bush's victory over terror. oh, wait.
Let's not forget Zarquawi he chastized by quaeda for bombing muslims in jordan, and was likely to be replaced, not promoted.
Of course, the argument is stupid to begin with... the MSM covered Zarquawi's death as significant at the time. y'know, at the time when we actually killed him and it wasn't yet OLD NEWS.
Posted by: me at September 27, 2006 10:31 AM (UT2pu)
I wonder what she looks like in the am without all that goo on her face. Her poor husband. I bet the bastard lives in fear and dread of the words "HONEY I'M HOME!!!"
When Nancy, Harry, Hilary and the libs take over and their Islamic brothers and sisters are once again free to blow up Americans with impunity, I hope San Franscisco gets it first. It's the only satisfaction I will get in the final days.
Posted by: Brad at September 27, 2006 10:44 AM (Ignlt)
But, since you've gone to the trouble of revealing yourself as a fool, let me point it out to you in excrutiating and humiliating detail: the MSM DID NOT cover the portions of the NIE cited above. Now, go and continue cheering for jihadis, and yes, I am directly questioning your patriotism.
Somewhat OT: the frenzied reaction of the libs here is reminiscent of the Fitzmas Fizzle. The desperation as their newest plot crumbles before their eyes is very...tasty.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 27, 2006 10:49 AM (vBK4C)
"No US terrorist attacks since 9/11"
Unless you count the Anthrax attacks (still unsolved), the DC sniper (fortunately solved), and the possible release of Tularemia in DC 2 years ago.
"No AQ follow up to 911"
Unless you count Madrid or London (allies of ours in Iraq), Moscow theater, several blown up airplanes in Europe, or the hundreds (thousands?) of suicide bombings from Morrocco to Indonesia and everywhere in between.
Oh, yes, And somebody killed 2700 of America's finest in Iraq.
I thought maybe you had forgotten...or read the wrong NIE report
Posted by: jeff who doesn't belong here at September 27, 2006 11:49 AM (z/Bt9)
Did you read the report? Almost every FACT in it was negative. The few positives were suppositions based on what might happen in the future.
And why was this classified in the first place? Either it's classified info that shouldn't be released, but Bush is releasing solely to try and improve his political standing - i.e. a desperate political maneuver...or it's not classified info that Bush kept classified so people wouldn't know how badly the war was going.
It's over guys. You can call us all the names you want. But you're not making America safer, and the majority of America knows it. Have fun in November.
Posted by: MattM at September 27, 2006 12:02 PM (Xc7iG)
Note Bin-Laden was furious at Bill Clintons attempt to kill him with cruise missiles. So that must be why 9/11 occured. It's slick willies fault.
No Bill did the right thing and should have done more.
Posted by: Howie at September 27, 2006 12:27 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: MattM at September 27, 2006 12:55 PM (Xc7iG)
I realize your frustration at Fitzmas II here, but any dull-normal high schooler can throw out acussations. We try to encourage a higher level of discourse here, just to differentiate ourselves from the DU and Kos.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 27, 2006 12:56 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: tbone at September 27, 2006 01:06 PM (HGqHt)
But he supports the troops as far as you know.
Posted by: Robert at September 27, 2006 01:18 PM (VTtVl)
You are a very confused man. Did you see one from Iraq in the 9-11 attack.
"Since the Islamist maight get upset if you fight them we should just roll like the big nation of pussies he want us to be and submited to them"
That is a mouth full there howie, specially if one considers that the terrorist that attacked us had nothing to do with Iraq. But maibe you are Geographically challenged as well as historiclly challenged. Or maibe you are just inventing b.s as you go.
Posted by: gil at September 27, 2006 01:20 PM (SFoY3)
Better for America to show how stupid they are than to make our enemies think we are weak.
Trying to impress our enemies is what America stands for.
Thanks Howie!!
Posted by: Robert at September 27, 2006 01:23 PM (VTtVl)
I refer you to the NIE report Bluto.
You do comprehend what you read...I hope.
What part of the terrorist treat has been made worst by our performance in Iraq can't you understand?
Posted by: gil at September 27, 2006 01:26 PM (SFoY3)
I have read some ridicolous threads here in Jawaland, but this one may take the cake. Have you guys ZERO reading comprehension skills? Were the five paragraphs too lengthy for you to stay focused?? Always one willing to help, let me quote the portion of the NIE which none of you, including the original author, seem to understand -
"Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks
against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and
present a global threat."
Do you get it yet?
Sheesh!
Gizout!
Posted by: Gizzard at September 27, 2006 01:29 PM (FyFm5)
"The global jihadist movement...is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts." - NIE
"activists identifying themselves as jihadists...are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion." - NIE
"New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge." - NIE
"The Iraq conflict has become the ?cause celebre? for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." - NIE
"Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role." - NIE
"Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies." - NIE
"My feeling is that the war in Iraq has intensified Islam fundamentalism and radicalism." - U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
You're welcome, from the reality-based world.
Posted by: MattM at September 27, 2006 01:37 PM (Xc7iG)
Oh, and all of you, how many years were there between 9/11 and the previous terrorist attack on US soil (since that's what you're talking about)? Let's see, 1993, subtracted from 2001 ... eight years!
Posted by: zen_less at September 27, 2006 01:37 PM (zQcql)
So is good to show our enemies how stupid Right Wingers are because in doing so we show them that we are not weak?
That's one hell of a convoluted logic there Rob!!!!
I believe I have a better idea. How about showing our enemy that we are not only not weak, but also smart enough to reduce their numbers enough so that they stop being a treat to us or any one?
Reaso I ask, is because if you care to read and understand the NIE report we are in fact (As you point out) fighting this war in a very STUPID way. We are making more terrorist that we are killing.
Bush (And Right Wingers) remind me of the Pyromaniac Fireman story. We have in Bush the Fireman that starts a fire (Iraq), then runs to pull the fire out and he can't, but he wants to get credit for trying never the less.
Posted by: gil at September 27, 2006 01:39 PM (SFoY3)
Oh my God! fighting terrorists makes more terrorists? Or does it just motivate them to get thier ass killed.
I find these liberals lack of faith in our ability to fight disturbing.
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 01:40 PM (YdcZ0)
Funny, because I find these conservatives' faith in our ability to win despite "staying the course" with a failed strategy disturbing.
Posted by: MattM at September 27, 2006 02:00 PM (Xc7iG)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 02:05 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 02:07 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 02:39 PM (YdcZ0)
Further, this report was classified...but Bush can declassify it without danger. So why was it classified in the first place?
Don't feel bad. Look, Bush was pushed with some of the most well-funded and sophisticated PR techniques the world has ever seen. A lot of people were fooled. It's no reflection on you; you just weren't cynical enough. We liberals were. So we saw it before you. That's fine. It could very well be that if a liberal president appealed to us, we could have tried to deny the evidence that he wasn't doing a good job in office.
But aren't you tired of this? Aren't you getting tired of making excuses for the Bush administration; for someone who's supposed to be a grown-up man?
Can't Bush actually be at fault for something?
If all the available facts and experts indicate that he's at fault, isn't it time to face that fact?
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 02:54 PM (QAh+h)
Otherwise no plan can work, with Rumsfeld in charge of it. Whether that plan comes from Democrat, Republican, or God Himself. Rumsfeld refuses to listen to experts, gets irate and testy with people who bring him facts he doesn't like, and has shown a disturbing detachment from giving honest and direct answers. It's like he actually doesn't care about the condition of the US army, or how many soldiers die.
Retired generals keep emerging to urge Rumsfeld's firing. And now Rumsfeld's own appointed 4-star general is now fighting with him.
He's a joke, and every day that he stays in his post is further proof that his boss, Bush, has no idea what he's doing.
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 03:02 PM (QAh+h)
You Murtha, You Hilary, You Pelsoi all voted for this. You libs are going to have to do something your public school teachers told you was not important....
Your going to have to win. They are not going away. That Jim, is a fact.
Posted by: Brad at September 27, 2006 03:06 PM (Ignlt)
1. al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.
2. the global jihadist movement — which includes al-Qa’ida, is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
3. jihadists are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
4. threats to US interests will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
5. New jihadist networks are increasingly likely to emerge. Shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
6. threats from self-radicalized cells will grow in the Homeland.
7. Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives;
8. The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists
9. factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities
10. 4 factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, (2) the Iraq .jihad;. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained reforms (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment.
11. Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
12. Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq
13. al-Zarqawi could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
14. increased role of Iraqis in al-Qa.ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
15. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists
16. Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise
----
Here are the parts of the NIE that suggest President Bush did something right:
1. We "have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations" (Great, but they are not the only threat)
2. the loss of key AQ leaders makes it a less serious threat to US interests (Just point 1, restated)
----
Here are the parts of the NIE that suggest President Bush's premption strategy in Iraq may some day improve things, if they don't get worse:
1. IF jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
2. IF democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and (other) groups.
---
So according to the findings of the US INtelligence Agencies, President Bush's policies in Iraq have made things worse in 16 ways, but there are 2 ways things might get better, if they change.
Read it and weep.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 03:15 PM (13w6x)
"Read it... Read it again... have someone help you read it... If by some miracle you then understand what you read, you may weep"
Gizout!
Posted by: Gizzard at September 27, 2006 03:19 PM (FyFm5)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 03:20 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 03:27 PM (YdcZ0)
> the lib Senators and Reps who voted for this war
Hold it right there, buddy. Nobody "voted for this war". President Bush asked for, and was given authorization for diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions."
To give his position strength, Bush was also authorized to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Well, what do you know? The President had long since made the decision to attack Iraq - a country that had no WMDs, no connection to 9/11, and posed us no threat. We gave Mr Bush the keys to the car, and the dry drunk drove it into a ditch.
Because of Bush's reckless actions we are now subject to more terrorism at home and abroad. And he still doesn't have a plan for extracting us fromn Iraq, let alone improving the middle east.
Roll on November 7.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 03:34 PM (13w6x)
Posted by: Brad at September 27, 2006 03:43 PM (Ignlt)
Posted by: BC at September 27, 2006 03:50 PM (47zIx)
The reason the left wants Rummy out, is ACCOUNTABILITY for what is clearly a fiasco of historic proportions.
Your conclusion that the Left is some how holding on Rummy's dismissal to "rejoin American and fight to win" is like all the other "logic" by the Right..... lacking on facts, lacking on intellect, and lacking on honesty.
Posted by: gil at September 27, 2006 03:56 PM (SFoY3)
for example replace him with whom or what strategy would be more effective?
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 04:04 PM (YdcZ0)
Darth Odie...the NIE is saying that we are CREATING MORE insurgents by being in Iraq.
We aren't causing them to come in from elsewhere. We by our invasion of Iraq are creating them, and at a faster pace than we are killing them.
WWII didn't look so good either until the very end. At the beginning fighing the Germany increased Nazi support. It's natural and expected.
That's different than creating 2 new Germans for every one we kill. We were able to win WWII by, with the aid of allies, containing and then eliminating the Nazi threat.
Not taking actions to expand and proliferate Nazis. Like our actions in Iraq, as shown in the NIE report, clearly are doing.
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 04:15 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 04:17 PM (YdcZ0)
Are you a retard?
Odie-
Count "historian" as a job you wouldn't be suited for. WWII began for the US on December 7, 1941. After the Battle of Midway concluded exactly six months later, there was little doubt who was going to prevail in the Pacific theatre, although what doubt that did exist was extinguished when the Japanese couldn't get us off Guadalcanal shortly thereafter.
The turning point in the European theatre was the Battle of Stalingrad, which concluded February 1943.
As I hope you know, the war continued until 1945, but the issue was no longer in doubt after these seminal moments, which of course renders your "bleak until the very end" comment rather ridiculous.
I'd suggest you refrain from using any aspect of the second world war as an analogy to the debacle in Iraq. It won't be too much longer before the Iraq war is longer in terms of US involvement than WWII. Makes one yearn for "Six days, six weeks, I doubt six months", doesn't it?
Gizout!
Posted by: Gizzard at September 27, 2006 04:17 PM (FyFm5)
You want an effective strategy?
Start by actually protecting our ports. So...you know...Bush doesn't preside over ANOTHER attack on U.S. soil.
Then maybe move on to the joke that is our airline security.
Next, how about doing something other than sit on our asses about Israel/Lebanon. Helping peace talks there would go a long way to calming down the middle east in general.
Fourth - get our noses out of the Saudi's asses. Our presence there pisses people off, serves no purpose, and actually hurts our efforts to fight terrorism there.
Fifth - actually rebuild Iraq, and not pump billions of dollars into Haliburton's pockets. Reliable electricity, water and public services would better the Iraqi people's way of life and make them less likely to hate us for destroying their country.
How's that for a start. 10 minutes of thinking and I've already come up with a better plan than Bush has in 4 years.
Posted by: MattM at September 27, 2006 04:22 PM (Xc7iG)
The NIE estimate clearly shows what experts have been saying for years - that the Bush administrations' policies are not reducing, but are in fact increasing the number of terrorists.
I'm open to your thoughts, on how we can achieve that.
Here's my thoughts, below.
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 04:26 PM (QAh+h)
Increase our kill rate?
As the NIE shows, increasing our kill rate will increase the rate at which we create terrorists.
Come on, man.
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 04:32 PM (QAh+h)
I see three options.
1 continue to fight as we are making our forces only the neccesary size to hold Iraq and keep fighting long term. The enemy has a 100 year plan so it's not as silly as you think.
2. The McCain/Carter strategy which is flood Iraq with Americans for a quicker victory but more men in harms way more money and recources required. I feel this would generate even more Jihadis and be even harder to maintain support here. Rummy may not be a crazy as you imagine.
3. Give up and become Dhimmis.
See the Islamist are hard nosed. You can't send them flowers and expect them to be OK with it forgive and forget. They don't play those games. you either stand up or are mowed over. They don't leave you any other choice. But you can make the cost very high to them and eventually wear them down and win.
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 04:32 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 04:35 PM (YdcZ0)
a) Fire rumsfeld
b) Replace him with Colin Powell, or Norman Schwarzkopf, or someone else with proven military competence. Preferably someone with experience in managing an occupied territory, or at least with experience with the Middle East.
c) Reverse the military's senseless policy of firing patriotic soldiers with the rare gift of ability to translate Arabic, Farsi and other Middle Eastern languages, because they're gay.
D) audit Halliburton, recover the $9 BILLION that they've "lost". Spend it on real armor and equipment for the troops.
F) Remove all US contractor companies from Iraq, and hire Iraqis to do the rebuilding of their country.
The US companies are mostly just subtracting to Iraqis anyway, and passing the cost on to the US taxpayer.
This would both save the US tons of taxpayer dollars, and eliminate terrorist claims that we're only in Iraq to get what we want. It will improve the Iraqi unemployment rent, help get their power turned on and their cities workign again, and eliminate a lot of the dissatisfaction that is helping both terrorists and civil war proponents.
f) Give the Sunnis one area, for now, and the Shiites another. Let the Kurds be left alone in their own zone, but don't give the Kurds autonomy just yet - unfortunately, that would really upset Turkey, who is otherwise a valuable ally.
g) Declare that the US has absolutely no interest in Iraq's oil. This is important - this directly refutes Al Qaeda and other terrorists' main rationale for hating America.
If we can prove that we're not there for the oil, then they have nothing to say.
Then take direct, verifiable action to prove this. This means either give the oil over to the UN to manage - thus making it their problem to protect the oil also, freeing up our US soldiers - or pledge some oul to the Sunnis, some to the Shiites and maybe some to the Kurds.
Right? After all, we're not there because of the oil at all, right?
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 04:37 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 04:39 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: Darth Odie at September 27, 2006 04:40 PM (YdcZ0)
> Don't really have any substantive point to make, here, Rusty;
> just admiring the foaming-at-the-mouth insanity
> of your comment section trolls like Bill, there.
You know, BC, there are actual adults here, trying to have a conversations, and exchange facts and analysis. Wouldn't you be happier playing with the other children outside?
Darth Odie -- I appreciate the fact that you are listening to some views that conflict with your beliefs. I applaud your readiness to consider change.
The bottom line is that we all want the same thing: America to be safe, respected in the world, and prosperous. We all recognize that some of President Bush's policies are having the opposite result.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 05:02 PM (13w6x)
But reading the comments of a lot of people here, you'd think we invaded Iraq before the attacks on 9/11? Maybe self-deprecation just comes more naturally to liberals than the rest of us. They seem to think that the world was groovy until big bad America started shaking things up. Some of them probably blame Bush for the crusades.
I simply fail to see why we have to blame the Iraq war for the fact that Islamic extremism has been growing exponentially since the Carter Administration -- oh, yeah, because partisanship and Bush hatred is more important than porportionality and context.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at September 27, 2006 05:17 PM (q73o1)
Again.... ACCOUTABILITY.
The reason Rummy needs to be replaced is because he has made a mess of Iraq. Again a HISTORIC proportion mess that will have repercussions for generations to come.
You are confusing the issue. You seem to imply that the only reason we can have to fire Rummy is for one to have a better idea as to how to run Iraq. There is another ovbious reason and it is the real life situation of incompetents that loose their jobs after making big mistakes. Is that too new a concept for you?
Just about every retired General that had to do with pre-war planning, and post-war execution has asked for Rummy's removal. There is a breaking point for everithing Odie, you are there with Iraq. If you want to maintain credibility on the issue you are going to have to do better that feed us the same BS over and over.
It is not patience that we need it is RESULTS the patience period is over, it lasted for FOUR YEARS Odie, is high time to show us what you have in the "stay the course policy" If Iraq continues the way is going there is not going to be anithing to "stay the course" on.
As for ideas there are many floating around. But let's first remember who started this mess before you go asking Democrats to fix it.
Republicans start the war in Iraq, make a mess of it, can't find a way out other than repeat like zombies "stay the course", make terrorism around the world worst.... But won't trust Democrats because they can't offer a better solution !!! Really people it would be hard even for Democrats to make more of a mess than Bush and Co. has already done.
Posted by: gil at September 27, 2006 05:20 PM (SFoY3)
At all.
According to the NIE, being in Iraq is causing us to ***create*** terrorists faster than we kill them. Not scare them out hiding from under the bed, not bring them in from other nations - create ***new*** ones.
To use your metaphor, it would be as if we were trying to combat an ant problem, by ***spraying the ant bed with ant eggs***. The more we do it, the more ants we create.
That's not how I want to spin things - that's the FACTS of the situation, as reported in the classified NIE.
And the NIE is a nonpartisan creation of 16 US intelligence agencies. So, the "partisanship" and "Bush-hatred" argument doesn't work here either.
Instead we are looking at facts.
And it is because of those facts that we see the Iraq war is to blame for the ***increase*** in Islamic extremism. It is a specific measurable result that is being perceived here.
Posted by: jim at September 27, 2006 05:25 PM (QAh+h)
> When you spray an ant bed with poison, all the ants emerge
> and it looks for a while like you've just inflamed the situation.
> But after a while, they're all dead.
Are you seriously proposing a Nazi holocaust style "final solution" by America in Iraq? Because that is the logical analogy you have described.
> everyone's jumping to conclusions
> a little too soon to the events in Iraq.
Really? On day 1288 of the Bush Iraq disaster, you think we might not have enough information? In the week when the consensus of America's 16 intelligence agencies issued a report saying "Bush policies make terror problem worse", you think we need more time?
> There are little things happening every day
> whose effects won't be apparent for a generation,
> and there is plenty of room for optimism.
Unfortunately there are also some pretty big things happening, that totally outweigh and negate the occasional schoolroom getting painted. There is in fact no room for optimism - Rumsfeld has lost us Iraq.
> But reading the comments of a lot of people here,
> you'd think we invaded Iraq before the attacks on 9/11?
Oooh, good guess! In fact the plan to invade Iraq *was* decided on before 9/11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC for the details.
> I simply fail to see why we have to blame the Iraq war
> for the fact that Islamic extremism has been growing
> exponentially since the Carter Administration
Cites, please? In any case, don't you think it prudent to avoid doing things that make the problem worse? You generally don't put out a fire by pumping gas onto it.
> oh, yeah, because partisanship and Bush hatred
> is more important than porportionality and >
> context.
That is richly ironic, considering how President Bush was appointed to office (by the Supreme Court by one vote) saying he would be "a uniter not a divider". Can you suggest 5 things that the Bush administration has done, that support your claim that the Bush haters are the partisan ones?
I really doubt you can.
For the record, I don't hate President Bush. I just think that he is in way over his head, and taking the rest of us down with him.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 05:31 PM (13w6x)
> When you spray an ant bed with poison, all the ants emerge
> and it looks for a while like you've just inflamed the situation.
> But after a while, they're all dead.
Are you seriously proposing a Nazi holocaust style "final solution" by America in Iraq? Because that is the logical analogy you have described.
> everyone's jumping to conclusions
> a little too soon to the events in Iraq.
Really? On day 1288 of the Bush Iraq disaster, you think we might not have enough information? In the week when the consensus of America's 16 intelligence agencies issued a report saying "Bush policies make terror problem worse", you think we need more time?
> There are little things happening every day
> whose effects won't be apparent for a generation,
> and there is plenty of room for optimism.
Unfortunately there are also some pretty big things happening, that totally outweigh and negate the occasional schoolroom getting painted. There is in fact no room for optimism - Rumsfeld has lost us Iraq.
> But reading the comments of a lot of people here,
> you'd think we invaded Iraq before the attacks on 9/11?
Oooh, good guess! In fact the plan to invade Iraq *was* decided on before 9/11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC for the details.
> I simply fail to see why we have to blame the Iraq war
> for the fact that Islamic extremism has been growing
> exponentially since the Carter Administration
Cites, please? In any case, don't you think it prudent to avoid doing things that make the problem worse? You generally don't put out a fire by pumping gas onto it.
> oh, yeah, because partisanship and Bush hatred
> is more important than porportionality and >
> context.
That is richly ironic, considering how President Bush was appointed to office (by the Supreme Court by one vote) saying he would be "a uniter not a divider". Can you suggest 5 things that the Bush administration has done, that support your claim that the Bush haters are the partisan ones?
I really doubt you can.
For the record, I don't hate President Bush. I just think that he is in way over his head, and taking the rest of us down with him.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 05:31 PM (13w6x)
> When you spray an ant bed with poison, all the ants emerge
> and it looks for a while like you've just inflamed the situation.
> But after a while, they're all dead.
Are you seriously proposing a Nazi holocaust style "final solution" by America in Iraq? Because that is the logical analogy you have described.
> everyone's jumping to conclusions
> a little too soon to the events in Iraq.
Really? On day 1288 of the Bush Iraq disaster, you think we might not have enough information? In the week when the consensus of America's 16 intelligence agencies issued a report saying "Bush policies make terror problem worse", you think we need more time?
> There are little things happening every day
> whose effects won't be apparent for a generation,
> and there is plenty of room for optimism.
Unfortunately there are also some pretty big things happening, that totally outweigh and negate the occasional schoolroom getting painted. There is, in fact, no room for optimism - Rumsfeld has lost us Iraq.
> But reading the comments of a lot of people here,
> you'd think we invaded Iraq before the attacks on 9/11?
Oooh, good guess! In fact the plan to invade Iraq *was* decided on before 9/11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC for the details.
> I simply fail to see why we have to blame the Iraq war
> for the fact that Islamic extremism has been growing
> exponentially since the Carter Administration
Cites, please? In any case, don't you think it prudent to avoid doing things that make the problem worse? You generally don't put out a fire by pumping gas onto it.
> oh, yeah, because partisanship and Bush hatred
> is more important than porportionality and >
> context.
That is richly ironic, considering how President Bush was appointed to office (by the Supreme Court by one vote) saying he would be "a uniter not a divider". Can you suggest 5 things that the Bush administration has done, that support your claim that the Bush haters are the partisan ones?
I really doubt you can.
For the record, I don't hate President Bush. I just think that he is in way over his head, and taking the rest of us down with him.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 05:32 PM (13w6x)
> When you spray an ant bed with poison, all the ants emerge
> and it looks for a while like you've just inflamed the situation.
> But after a while, they're all dead.
Are you seriously proposing a Nazi holocaust style "final solution" by America in Iraq? Because that is the logical analogy you have described.
> everyone's jumping to conclusions
> a little too soon to the events in Iraq.
Really? On day 1288 of the Bush Iraq disaster, you think we might not have enough information? In the week when the consensus of America's 16 intelligence agencies issued a report saying "Bush policies make terror problem worse", you think we need more time?
> There are little things happening every day
> whose effects won't be apparent for a generation,
> and there is plenty of room for optimism.
Unfortunately there are also some pretty big things happening, that totally outweigh and negate the occasional schoolroom getting painted. There is, in fact, no room for optimism - Rumsfeld has lost us Iraq.
> But reading the comments of a lot of people here,
> you'd think we invaded Iraq before the attacks on 9/11?
Oooh, good guess! In fact the plan to invade Iraq *was* decided on before 9/11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC for the details.
> I simply fail to see why we have to blame the Iraq war
> for the fact that Islamic extremism has been growing
> exponentially since the Carter Administration
Cites, please? In any case, don't you think it prudent to avoid doing things that make the problem worse? You generally don't put out a fire by pumping gas onto it.
> oh, yeah, because partisanship and Bush hatred
> is more important than porportionality and
> context.
That is richly ironic, considering how President Bush was appointed to office (by the Supreme Court by one vote) saying he would be "a uniter not a divider". Can you suggest 5 things that the Bush administration has done, that support your claim that the Bush haters are the partisan ones?
I really doubt you can.
For the record, I don't hate President Bush. I just think that he is in *way* over his little head, and taking the rest of us down with him.
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 05:33 PM (13w6x)
Barry Bonds thanks you for the defense.
He hit home runs before he took steroids.
Voila, the steroids didn't help him hit more home runs.
Posted by: Robert at September 27, 2006 05:35 PM (VTtVl)
The reason for the Bush bashing is because it shouldn't be us coming up with these ideas. The man is President of the U.S. and he's got too much hubris to ever think about changing course.
Same for Republicans in congress—they have the power to consider alternative ideas, to demand accountability, to try something new that might actually work. Instead, they're yes-men lapdogs for Bush.
The criticism is well deserved.
Posted by: MattM at September 27, 2006 05:41 PM (Xc7iG)
Posted by: Bill Biddle at September 27, 2006 05:49 PM (13w6x)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 27, 2006 06:13 PM (Dd86v)
Well. What a brilliant analysis. I suppose then that the 2700+ Americans killed over there just spontaneously combusted.
Just don't. go. there. Resist the temptation. No need to thank me.
Posted by: DaveI at September 28, 2006 08:15 AM (yt6uE)
In the interest of "fair and balanced" analysis your blog is going to have to start paying some Right Wingers, and Neo-Cons to defend Bush now. It looks like there is not much enthusiasm by your side any more.
Your mental gymnastics are at a braking point now with the new NIE revelations. It is now impossible even for the hard core Right Wing followers to continue with the charade of make pretend.
Bush can do it because he has no shame, not to mention he is desperate. I hope you have better options.
Give it up you don't have to do this to yourself.
Read your own blog man.... You most feel rather lonesome just about now.
Posted by: gil at September 28, 2006 03:25 PM (SFoY3)
Neo-con, thats fresh.
Where did you come up with that Gil? Boy o boy, you are one cleaver kid. Next post, can you make something rhyme?
Great to have a new guy like Gil bring something really original to the table.
How about "No blood for Oil" or "Land for Peace" in your next post. Ya know, something you came up with.
Posted by: Brad at September 28, 2006 09:22 PM (Ignlt)
Posted by: Ozon at September 29, 2006 10:29 AM (RWjHO)
Unless the third part of the Bush Doctrine is "Fail miserably", Bush needs to change his strategies. Because the NIE proves what he's doing is just not working.
So what is needed is another way to win. Which will require Bush actually changing his mind in response to facts. Oh, and Bush also needs to fire Rumsfeld.
Posted by: jim at September 29, 2006 06:34 PM (QAh+h)
September 25, 2006
The "mainstream media presents itself as unbiased, when in fact there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left."Via NewsBusters.The man who made that comment is not some rabid right-wing critic but Thomas Edsall, a Washington Post political reporter for a quarter-century who recently accepted an early retirement offer.
In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Edsall said he is pro-choice on abortion and does not think he has ever voted for a Republican presidential candidate. He said he believes that reporters vote Democratic by somewhere between 15 to 1 and 25 to 1.
Posted by: Bluto at
02:08 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.
to be content with lefturds making his address public and leaving
garbage on his lawn.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 25, 2006 02:43 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Gayle Miller at September 25, 2006 02:52 PM (s8HW+)
56 queries taking 0.0926 seconds, 604 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
