Bob Owens has a post up (with maps) questioning the seeming ubiquity of Jamil XX and his uncanny ability to pop up at incidents all over Baghdad.

You know - one of those pesky original discrepencies that the AP hasn't and still won't answer.

And here is Curt's Jamilgate coverage and initial Jamil Hussein post that started it all. Scrolling down through this archive, you can monitor the AP's subtle (and at times major) unannounced and silent revisions in the basic facts as the questions mounted and continue to linger.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 12:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Bob Owens looks ready to take the AP to the mat over this one. Its a potential bombshell, and if he's right, the AP has lots of 'splainin' to do - especially about violating their own policies:

And so a major Associated Press claim in "Jamilgate" takes an apparently fatal hit.

According to Bill Costlow of CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Team) in Baghdad, and as forwarded by Lt. Michael Dean of Multinational Corps-Iraq/Joint Operations Command Public Affairs, our now infamous police captain in Iraq appears to be definitively not Jamil Hussein.

Nor is his name Jamil Gholaiem Hussein as stated repeatedly by the Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and other Associated Press employees.

Nor is his name Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim, as he has been called previously in other accounts. According to his personnel records at MOI, confirmed with BG Abdul-Kareem and then reportedly verified by BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf with AP's Baghdad sources, his name is actually Jamil Gulaim "XX".

The "XX" protects his second middle name and real last names, of which "Hussein" is not a part.

This is kind of like the AP's very own Jeff Gannongate, no?

I mean, using leftist Gannongate logic, once Jamil's actual identity is confirmed and uncovered, not a word of what he reported to the AP (and the AP by proxy) is credible.

Ace thinks its a bigger deal than AllahP wants to concede, and that it vindicates some of the original assertions of bloggers on the story - namely, that the AP was being less-than-honest on its forthcomings regarding their source and even less so (still) on their reports, and perhaps most obvious of all, that there in fact was no individual named "Captain Jamil Hussein" in the way that the AP reported for months and months. Cautionary takes at both Hot Air and Patterico.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:33 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.

Gotta love this Democrat photo-worship.

Compare it to this:

MORE RIGHT-WING MEDIA IMAGE MANIPULATION BELOW FOLD --> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:42 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

At the HuffPo. Typical liberal whining and 20-20 hindsight. No real insight or strategic ideas. Shorter version - "Get Out Now!"

Definitely not cured yet.

On the other hand, Greg Gutfield turns a fun liberal game into a fun conservative game!

UPDATE: This just in - MSNBC Talk Show Hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are not in Iraq, not reporting from Iraq, and have their cowardly leftarded rear-ends locked safely in their air-conditioned offices. Developing...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:41 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Curt has an interesting development in the Jamil Hussein story. Daffydd has a great support piece sorting it all out.

So we have the unsupported word of AP (which did not publish a transcript of the alleged admission) vs. the unsupported word of a blogger quoting a member of CPATT. Were I a betting man (oh wait, I am), I'd have to give the odds to Flopping Aces in this one. Especially insofar as, to this date, I don't believe AP has even acknowledged that their original story (four mosques "burned," 24 Sunnis slain) was completely wrong. They simply changed it quietly, in the dead of night, without noting the changes... which does not inspire confidence in their confident assertions today.

If true (if!), it would be a pretty darned good explanation of why MOI and MNFI were unable to find Jamil Hussein: because AP lied about his name, giving him a pseudonym then daring anyone to find him.

Stay tuned. Here's Bob Owens on this development.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the final report (PDF) of the oversight committee looking into the burglary committed by the former Clinton National Security Advisor.

Rand Simberg is not impressed with the double-stadard and lack of media attention to this serious crime. Neither is Joel Mowbray. Neither am I; hence, the post.

Thought experiment - switch "Sandy Berger (D)" with "Condi Rice (R)." Would the media coverage of this overt security violation be the same?

Discuss.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 04:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hm. The racially sensitive left refer to Rice as "Aunt Jemima" and a "war criminal." Sandy Burglar, however, is a "patriot."


Who can say how they would react if Rice committed a real crime? The hard left Establishment Media would never act on their bias, would they? They're professionals.


Of course, prostitutes and porno stars are professionals too. So are the pet groomers who squeeze the shit out of dogs' asses.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 09, 2007 06:53 PM (abVz3)

2 Media yawns

No MSM bias here!

LOL.

Of course the MSM yawns.  Berger's a Democrat.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 09, 2007 07:01 PM (8e/V4)

3 "Of course, prostitutes and porno stars are professionals too"
 
LOL! Hah! That's a good one
 
 
Berger should be shot as a traitor, and his funeral pyre should be the NYT building.
 
 
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 10, 2007 01:23 AM (2OHpj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Jonah Goldberg shared an email exchange with former WaPo reporter / LA Times columnist Michael Schrage. Jamilgate was the topic. The text:

Subject: You are, indeed, missing something -

I wrote this piece for the washington post a year ago. It speaks for itself...but the jamail hussein saga is a classic example of unprofessional, plame-like hypocrisy by the AP...

They named their source - many, many times - and it was challenged...there
was a myriad of ways they could have handled the query: they could have
called in a favor and gotten one of the AP-member newspapers in iraq to
'interview' the guy to vouch; they could have done a podcast with the guy;
if the bloggers still insisted the guy was a fraud, then AP itself would be
literally accused of not just perpetrating a hoax but perpetuating one...

...the bottom line here is a vile hypocrisy: the msm will protect their own
people - jill carroll, for example - but they will freely publish the names
of vulnerable iraqis who are (were) sympathetic to the US...

...the principle here has nothing to do with truth, accuracy or public
safety - it has to do with partisanship...

to make a comparison from nro itself: it's nice that the new york times
has finally published a correction for its flawed Sunday magazine story
about abortion - isn't it a pity it wouldn't have done so without a column
from its ombudsman...likewise, it's wonderful that AP finally vouches for
their source - isn't it a pity that it does so in a manner that increases
the man's vulnerability...?

...partisan - and unprofessional...

Michael schrage
(ex-washington post)

ht: Newsbusters

Posted by: Good Lt. at 04:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

After Daffydd ab Hugh and Sachi got through skewering and eviscerating the rabid Media Matters/HuffPo contributor, he's lucky if there are any bones left to indicate a carcass was even there to begin with.

Read the systematic 3-part deconstruction of Boehlert's mouthbreathing with a good cuppa joe. Quality entertainment.

Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad, Part 1
Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad, Part 2
Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad, Part 3

Posted by: Good Lt. at 01:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like Paula Zahn is getting tired of CAIR's bullshit. LGF has the video.

UPDATE : It's clear from the comments that a lot of folks don't see what the big deal is. If you don't think this is significant, go find an interview of Hooper from a year ago or more to see the deferential treatment CAIR spokesmen used to get in TV interviews. It was clear to me in this segment that Zahn wasn't buying a word of Hooper's bullshit in the first part of the interview, and by the end of the interview, Hooper was showcasing his true, anti-Israel colors.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:39 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

That's the burning question that the AP and leftwingers across the web refuse to ask or even acknowledge was the initial question that triggered the manhunt for Jamil Hussein in the first place.

Bob Owens has a lengthy Monday-morning roundup, as well as a post asking what happened in the al-Hurriyah neighborhood.

Given that the AP quietly revised their stories over the past two months regarding the incident (specifically altering their reports that the 4 mosques they initially reported as destroyed are now magically only 1 mosque), Owens also wonders why they haven't released videos they claim to have of the destroyed mosque. It would, after all, bloster their case.

Curt at Flopping Aces also recieved a CPATT email indicating that Jamil Hussein denies being the source of the AP story in the first place (predictable, given the legal predicament the AP put him in by reporting his name over and over again.) Patterico reminds us that Hussein may or may not be arrested at all - the situation remains unclear given available info thus far.

Big Lizards has a massive takedown of (Leftist) Media Matters Eric Boehlert, and has more questions about the denials of the real AP source.

Here is the excellent summary of the whole controversy posted by Karl at Protein Wisdom. Here's another one from Patterico.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 02:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

A mother in jail for getting an abortion in El-Salvador? Ominous portentions of what the pro-life rightwing GOP has planned for America?

Not quite. Replace "getting an abortion" with "strangling her newborn son," and there you have the actual story.

MORE BELOW THE FOLD --> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

(UPDATED w/ Correction) - Bill Hobbs corrects me in the comments - The Blue Fund owns oodles of stock in the NYT Co. and CBS, not the other way around. I'll let him explain, since he's the expert. Apologies for the error - the "overall narrative" (Democrats and the media in bed) doesn't really change, though. Sound like truthiness? You betcha! In the interest of accuracy, here's Bill:

I wrote the blog post referencing the NYT and the Blue Fund which you have linked to. You have a key fact backwards. The NYT Co and CBS are not investors in the Blue Fund - the Blue Fund, a mutual fund, owns NYTCo and cBS stock. What is interesting is the Blue Fund only buys stock in companies that donate at least 51 percent of their political donations to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party. The Blue Fund confirms that the NYT and CBS corporations are politically biased in favor of the Left. The NYT should have disclosed in its story that the Blue Fund about which it was writing had designated the NYT's parent company as a Democratic-supporting corporation. As far as I know, the NYTCo does not own shares in the Blue Fund mutual fund.

READ MORE BELOW THE FOLD --> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, the Iraqi Ministry has a rule about police talking to the press, not bloggers in America (and he never spoke with any of us or any other news organization - just the AP.) And since it was the AP that revealed his name (three different versions of it, actually) in their reporting, Carroll's ire is hilariously misplaced here. His full name is provided in an AP article here, as is the evidence that the AP has repeatedly published this guy's name - in their own ink.

I've taken the liberty of overnighting her a mirror.

In the meantime, there is still the little matter of sorting through and nailing the AP for changing its stories by Hussein constantly, quietly and significantly until those new stories on the wires barely resemble the original stories. Still no comment from the Carroll regarding this. You can read 40 of those stories here, with some questions about each one.

Hence, Jamilgate, Round 2.

So what about them, Carroll? Got any indignation left to explain the wildly inconsistent and unverifiable reporting that led to the questions about Hussein's existence in the first place?

Didn't think so. I smell a possible print-version of Green Helmet Guy.
ht: LGF

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

Can a Brazilian court shut down a U.S. company, operating in the U.S.? The question arises out of the scandalous Daniela Cicarelli video, posted here. The details of the court battle over the video can be found here:

Daniela Cicarelli and boyfriend Tato Malzoni have sex in shallow water on a public beach. The scene is filmed. Did I mention that Cicarelli is a model and Ronaldo’s (the soccer player) ex-wife? So of course, in our day and age, the video makes its way on Youtube. It is the most viewed video in Brazil and the couple demand YouTube to take the video down. For every day it remains online, they want $116,000 in damages. It gets taken down but is reposted many times over and the suit drags on for many months. In December, a third suit is filed requesting that YouTube be shut down and the Brazilian court agrees to do so on January 3, 2007. Oh but Youtube is based in the United States. Houston, we have a problem.

Posted by: Ragnar at 12:16 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Despite cautions from climatologists about assigning too much importance to short term weather events, USA Today is shrieking that the current mild winter is a sign of the end times on planet Earth, and they're using a loaded chart as a prop.

Below is the alarming chart that heads USA Today's Drudge-linked story. "Warm Winter Wreaks Havoc."

Larger version, click here

The alarming caption reads, "The Earth's surface temperature has risen by more than 1°F since accurate measurements began in 1860."

What USA Today doesn't mention is that the phenomenon known as "The Little Ice Age" ended around 1850. Surface temperatures were about 1°C lower during this period, or a bit more than 1°F.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:03 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Further to my previous post, the lefty bloggers are all over Jamil Hussein.

I say, welcome to the party. Better late than never.

Now, grab yourself a beer & start paying attention, and you just might learn something.

Today, this Kossack lays into the Jawa Report for questioning the Jamil Hussein story:

If I wanted to, I am certain that I or others could document hundreds of more examples [of Bush lies]. That won't matter to the Kool-Aid drinkers at The Jawa Report and elsewhere in Right Wing World who will continue to believe whatever the Bush administration and the Pentagon tell them, and will continue to doubt any media report which disputes the officially approved narrative regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror.

Those of us on the "left" do not always blindly accept at face value major news reports because of a well documented bias in the mainstream US media favoring President Bush and Republicans, and attacking liberals, progressives, Democrats and anyone else who publicly dissents regarding the Bush administration’s well documented history of disinformation, lies and propaganda. However, I think in this instance we are more than justified in granting the Associated Press more credibility when it comes to their Iraq reporting than the official statements offered by our President and his government about what's happening "over there." The track record of the AP in Iraq may not be perfect, but it shines like a solid gold trophy in comparison to the Bush administration’s record for truth.

Nice strawman. This is a very common liberal "debate" tactic. It goes lilke this. Party A criticizes Party B (in this case, the AP). Liberal Defender shows up on the scene and dismisses criticism of Party B based on the argument that Party C (in this case, George Bush) is worse than Party B. Because Party C (Bush) is considered worse than Party B (AP), we should be talking about Party C and not Party B. If you fall for it, your're then talking about the badness of Party C rather than the badness of Party B, and the tactic is successful. The lefties consider this particularly effective if Party C can be somehow linked to Party A, thereby raising the spectre of hypocrisy. It works like this:

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:59 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1004 words, total size 6 kb.

If you're wondering about Eason Jordan's thoughts on Jamilgate, here they are.

Here are his 'Lingering Questions' :

Why did it take all parties so long to provide proof of Captain Hussein's existence?

Is Captain Hussein a reliable news source? While we now know he's genuine, he was not an authorized spokesman. His critics, including his Iraqi government bosses and the U.S. military, have challenged the veracity of many of AP reports attributed to him. Many violent incidents reported by Captain Hussein via the AP were not reported by other western news organizations, raising suspicions about whether all those incidents occurred. The controversy likely will linger in this area, with third party reporting being done to determine the accuracy of Captain Hussein's statements to the AP.

Will all involved learn from their mistakes?

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Kaboom! Apparently, the Iraqi Interior Ministry didn't know and denied, or did know and denied, or botched its record searches and denied, or whatever. Who knows.

ht: Ace
- - -
UPDATE III: Bob Owens, with many valid questions still unanswered, has recieved an email from The MNF offices regarding the above-linked story:

Mr Owens,

The validity of the AP story below has not been confirmed at this time.

LOCKHEART: In strategic terms, Charlie's cut the country in half... the civilian press are about to wet their pants and we've heard even Cronkite's going to say the war is now unwinnable.

In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite.

JOKER : Sir...does this mean that Ann-Margret's not coming?

MORE BELOW THE FOLD --> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 05:56 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 742 words, total size 5 kb.

Dr. Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter Institute has responded to my response to his comments (whew) here at Jawa Report, and here's what he left us with:

I'm not arguing that journalists are above the law, just that I worry about such a high-profiled precedent. But, more important, I'd like to encourage you, other bloggers, and your readers to try not to be so defensive about your emerging roles, or surprised when traditional journalists consult you or participate in the conversation you inspire. To me, blogs are new, but connected to a much older tradition of political pamphleteering. They are no substitute (how could they be) for more traditional forms of enterprise reporting, but why would anyone who cares about free expression want to diss such an interesting, and potentially powerful emerging form? Perhaps some of your readers would be interested in my own attempts at blogging on behalf of good writing: www.poynter.org/writingtools.

READ THE REST BELOW THE FOLD --> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 896 words, total size 6 kb.

Blogging gets results!

I wrote a post critical of an AP article the other day and cross-posted it here at Jawa Report. The gestalt of the article was how reporters were getting apprehensive about testifying in the criminal trial of Scooter Libby.

To my pleasant surprise, one of the sources that the AP interviewed as a 'pro-journalist' source responded in the comment section. A scholar at the Poynter Institute, Dr. Roy Peter Clark was apparently "honored" by my characterization of his quote in the story as "hysterics" and of him as a "journalism advocate."

I'm honored that he's honored, but I maintain that the knee-jerk reaction by reporters to this case is somewhat amusing considering that the facts of the case really give them little ground to do so. I nonetheless applaud the man for venturing into what most journalists and scholars in the field would consider to be hostile waters.

READ THE REST BELOW THE FOLD --> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:44 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 6 kb.

UPDATE II: The AP is just making just making it worse for itself. Executive Editor Kathy Carroll has essentially told the inquiring minds to go to hell. For good measure, here's an earlier Jawa Report response to her organization's cannonization of Green Helmet Guy. In typical AP style, they have quietly removed the article from which the Green Helmet Slideshow was attached. Courage. Courage. Courage. Ace offers some advice to Carroll and Company: Remember TNR's Stephen Glass.

UPDATE: Ace has deemed the story worth of the fabled flaming skull. More at Confederate Yankee (who has a monster post up examining 40 of the 61 stories in which Hussein was a source, and his conclusions) and Flopping Aces.

Recent Jawa Report Jamilgate coverage:
12-28-06 IDB: Pagin Jamil Hussein
12-26-06 Yet Another Hole in the Jamil Hussein Story
12-24-06 Merry Christmas, AP! Still No Jamil Hussein Under the Tree
12-21-06 AP Still Stonewalling on "Burning Six" Source
12-19-06 More "Burning Six" Shennanigans
12-18-06 I Say Jamil, You Say Jamail
12-18-06 Why Does the Left Wing Carry Water for the Corporate Media?
12-10-06 Jamil Hussein: Vanished Into Desert Air
- - - - - - -
Uh oh. This is perhaps comporable in principle to a former Republican President criticizing the current Republican President.

We'll see how long it lasts, but the stonewalling of the AP regarding the Jamil Hussein scandal has gotten so bad that Eason Jordan (yes, that Eason Jordan) is even demanding that the AP appoint an independent panel to investigate and uncover the truth here.

And yes, I and others have been very critical of the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief, with good reason. That should indicate how badly the AP botched this incident. One can't exactly say whether Jordan is doing this out of true journalistic interest or for some other unknown reason, but it frankly doesn't matter. What's right is right.

Happy New Year, AP! Its time to pay the piper, because this story isn't going away. Produce 'Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein' or retract his dozens and dozens of stories.

ht: AllahP

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:02 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

1

It was painful to have to link to that S.O.B. but I guess if FDR could make nice with Stalin ...

I excerpted and linked at Eason Jordan calls out al-AP on Jamilgate!

Posted by: Bill Faith at January 02, 2007 07:05 AM (n7SaI)

2 Every man deserves a second chance.  He is coming close to redemption in my eyes.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 02, 2007 08:11 AM (8e/V4)

3 Jordan is trying to rebuild his credibility. Hopefully yhe's doing it for the right reasons, but I wouldn't bet on it.


Keep the fire under the AP's ass. You're right, this story isn't going away, and I'm lovin' it.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Saddam execution comments by the hate-America left is a perfect example of why the lies and leftist slant of the old news media need to be exposed.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 02, 2007 10:40 AM (abVz3)

4 My opinion:

Eason Jordan has made us all plenty mad for good reasons. He has either been a willing bystander, instigator, or dupe for the MSM in a way that has injured America.

Eason Jordan may be finding his ethics. He may be standing up looking around for his lost pride. When deserved pride isn't a sin, and feeling good about yourself when you do the right thing, isn't wrong

Its's OK to be a Proud American, or Proud patriot, or a Proud Father, or a Proud member of your community. It is OK to have pride in a job WELL DONE, or for completing a difficult task with dignity and honor. It is OK to take pride in being honest, and telling it like it is. Pride in treating the trust of people as something sacred, especially when they look to you for guidance. Trust is not a commodity to be used for ratings.

Just before I met my wife, I was not proud of my life. I had made some bad decisions, and been led into bad associations. My genuine pride was scattered, and presumed lost.

Then I met the girl I was to marry. God touched my life through her. I found it again. People can change.

Eason Jordan may be on a similar path. I will wish him the best. Let's watch! Let's pray. Let Eason Jordan redeem himself!

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 02, 2007 02:04 PM (2OHpj)

5 AN OFF TOPIC REQUEST; Please forgive me Good Lt.

I know that a lot of you feel there is no hope of finding a real "moderate" Muslim.

I suppose it is selfish of me to ask, but I would like to find out what those of you who still hold out hope, would consider to be "moderate".

I would like this to be public, like on a hosting blog, here or anywhere. I would take e-mails if necessary. Just please, please don't flood my in-box with lines like 'the only good muslim is a dead one'.

I'm really, honestly hoping to set a standard that will survive public debate. Americans who have been spoonfed by the MSM will need to see real issues clearly stated, and it cannot look like hate speech.

If we cannot find a "moderate" Muslim, we have sent our people to provide democracy, build scools, provide water, and electricity to a Muslim population, for no reason at all. I know some of you feel that way. Many Americans don't. Many of the soldiers over there, don't.

If Muslims ARE iredeemable, then we need to prove it rationally. Despite 9-11 lots of people don't understand the relationship of Sharia, and the Jihad concept to anti-western behavior.

We need to find a way to set the bar. We need to be fair or we will loose the opinion wars. Like we are loosing some of the battles now. Regular Americans need to have a yardstick, and I want to give them one. Is anyone interested in such an attempt?

Good Lt. I'm not trying to hijack the thread, sorry if I caused trouble with this request, and if it becomes a troll magnet, please delete it. I'll try again later. Thanks.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 02, 2007 02:25 PM (2OHpj)

6 Good Lt:

No problem yet, but it happened to me before elsewhere (not jawa), when I asked for people to e-mail me with responses. I was trying to be pre-emptive, sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 02, 2007 03:37 PM (2OHpj)

7 Mike -

Hey, dawg. That isn't me flooding your inbox with anything. Might be a spambot, or a deranged leftard lunatic, but it sure as beans isn't me.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to flood a loyal reader's and fellow ideological traveler's mailbox with anything.




Let me know if the problem continues.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 02, 2007 04:09 PM (D0TMh)

8 Its somebody else doing it and perhaps using my handle (sockpuppeting). I think Howie might be able to help you out.

No harm, no foul. Again, let me know if you have any problems related to this site, my handle, spam related to this site or my handle, etc.

Thanks!

Posted by: Good Lt at January 02, 2007 05:30 PM (D0TMh)

9 There are no good or moderate muslims, only dead or soon to be if they continew to goagainst the wishes of Bush and America. Freedom and liburty cost money, so any money used to create freedom and liberty are worth it! Bush is the rite man for the rite time in histury. God must be very angry with the united stats for not supporting Bush, so get down on your knees and prey that he doesn't kill us all! Support more troops, support more money to secuor freedom, and support Cheney in 2008! It's our last chance to protect the world! Now!

Posted by: Carl Gordon at January 02, 2007 06:29 PM (mJcqG)

10 Check out JAMAIL instead of JAMIL. Heavens! This canard was debunked a long time ago. Don't you have anything else to whine about? Do you have any cheese to go with that whine of yours?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 02, 2007 07:01 PM (cDjCy)

11

Cleanup in aisle 9.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 02, 2007 07:40 PM (e0VVt)

12 Suggestion, Devil's Cabana Boy -

Its called read the links in the post, dunce.

Try to keep up.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 02, 2007 09:05 PM (D0TMh)

13 Right, the problem Iraq is some non-issue story about an Iraqi police chief. Yup, don't pay attention to the facts in Iraq (the death toll; the fact we are losing; the fact we've failed the Iraqi people) -- play up any discrepancy you can find in the reporting of this fiasco! No need to deal with reality when you can criticize the minutia!

Posted by: ZORAK at January 02, 2007 11:22 PM (rrCDx)

14 Or accept made-up stories and outright mainstream media fabrications as gospel fact and then try to assert them to make a case for something.

Whichever comes first. Its the "truthiness" that counts. Ask Dan Rather.

Poor, blind little rabbit. Keep flailing.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 03, 2007 12:34 AM (D0TMh)

15 Isn't the esteemable Michelle Malkin going to Iraq to investigate? When is she leaving? Or has she wriggled her cowardly ass out of the trip already?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 03, 2007 06:00 AM (cDjCy)

16 Michael: Muslims are not worth saving.

Posted by: Greyrooster at January 03, 2007 09:22 AM (cJw/p)

17 "Isn't the esteemable Michelle Malkin going to Iraq to investigate? When
is she leaving? Or has she wriggled her cowardly ass out of the trip
already?"

Read much, dunce? Do you even read her, or do you just blindly hate her?

Posted by: Good Lt at January 03, 2007 12:11 PM (D0TMh)

18 Dhimmie's Advocate and ZITRAT:


You both claim to care about the "Failure" in Iraq. Why do you care?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 03, 2007 11:49 PM (abVz3)

19

Greyrooster:

I like you so don't read this as singling you out for an attack. I am going to attempt to write something. I need to have some kind of reference for what we in America might be able to tolerate as "Moderate" for Muslims.
 
Since I will be writing for the benefit of people who are probably MSM-informed, and don't know the danger, and who are also suspicious of "islamophobia" I need to have a concrete line to seperate the "Bad Muslims" from the "Good Muslims".
 
 
All being a "Good Muslim" means is that those are Muslims who aren't trying to change our laws or kill us.  I'd like examples. My starting point is that a "Good Muslim" doesn't desire to replace our US Constitution with Sharia law.   Please add to this.
 
 
I'm asking for help in describing what makes a "Good Muslim" for what I believe are good reasons.
 
 
First, normal Americans will be squeamish about doing anything that is very extreme, if they can't see the distinct reason to do so. 
 
 
Suppose you wanted to put a wall around Dearbourne, would you be able to get the people behind it? Suppose you wanted to "Outlaw Islam". Do you suppose you could get the people behind such a blanket suppression of any minority, if they don't know in very clear terms why it should be done?
 
 
We also need to not humiliate our troops by making them look stupid for building schools in Iraq. I have spoken to men who served over there, and I'm sure that they see good in what they have done. If there are no moderates, and can be no reform, we wasted those men and women, and they wasted their time. We owe it to them to uphold what so many have died for. We owe their promise to help, our loyal support.
 
 
 If we are going to win this thing at home, we must have a standard that people can see as fair, and that they can understand in simple terms. They have to believe we are going to give the "Good Muslims" a fair and decent chance. We have to be able to commit to giving such a chance, with clearly established rules. We will keep losing if we don't. I really believe it. Because the people won't join those of us who DO know, until it's to late. And we need the fence sitters to get off. Lets give them some rules.
 
 
Some (rare) Muslims are OK. YES, I know they are rare. We still need them as spokespersons for reform, not because we love Islam so much, but because those genuine moderates can be amplified and used to lay more doubt upon Jihad, and Sharia.  They can uphold the virtue of western civilization for Muslim fence sitters who may join our enemies otherwise. This will reduce violence from at least part of the community. If you still doubt the value of so few, I say that our Founding Fathers were few also. Even one genuine moderate, if loud enough, and articulate enough, would be worth a Division in combat. Maybe more. We need them.
 
 
So all you guys who aren't shy about hating Muslims, hey, thats fine, but part of any war is propaganda.  Part of propaganda is making it clear what seperates you from the bad guys. We can't just say we are good, and fair, we have to set a good, and fair standard, and follow it.
 
 
So Greyrooster, and the rest of you guys, please don't answer with the usual, even if it is what you think is best. I know you hate 'islamopithescines'! That won't help me convince anyone. Please answer with a minimum show of generosity for Muslims which we might choose to call "Good".  I know you are tired of me asking, and rightly so. I have been a huge pest, and I can't even stand myself as I read this back for errors. However, if you guys will do this for me I will try not to ask again. 
 
 
You represent America, the UK, Australia, Canada, and the free, and modern "west".  Ultimately, we all want to see our side win. We are the good guys. I call on you from my little room in Montana, to help me draw the line, so people can choose their sides. Then I'll let it go. Thanks to all, especially for your tolerance.
 
 
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 04, 2007 04:02 AM (2OHpj)

20 Sorry for the way that reads.
 
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 04, 2007 04:06 AM (2OHpj)

21 OKAY ....
 
 guess I know how unpopular that idea was ...
 
 
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 05, 2007 01:18 AM (2OHpj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The real world being their compelled testimony in the Libby trial, that is. Drudge highlighted the AP article.

The article, not surprisingly, expressed a sense of fear and dismay at the notion that journalists may be forced to become (shock, horror) American citizens who are subject to the same laws and procedures that are requisite with that title. Check out the hysterics from the journalist advocates:

"It will be unprecedented and, as far as I'm concerned, horrifying," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said of the case, for which jury selection begins in two weeks.

Read more below the fold - - -> more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:41 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

The fifth column has declared another 'grim milestone.' I suppose because the number 3,000 has three zeros?

Media logic? Its "psychologically" significant. Just like Jamil Hussein's stories.

UPDATE: Two 'grim milestones' in a week? Christmas came right on time for the MSM, it would appear. The press is going have to wait a while before they can get this orgasmic over troop deaths again.

ht: Insty

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:00 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Wonder how many Americans died last night on our dangerous highways, freeways and inter-states?

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at January 01, 2007 11:11 AM (3nKvy)

2 It's only relevant to the AP, who want to weaken the resolve of the American people, who in turn will pressure the adminstration to change course.

It's purely agenda driven--so the 'fifth column' appellation is fully congruent.

Posted by: Richard Romano at January 01, 2007 11:38 AM (/2Xsz)

3 I don't recall ever reading about any "grim milestones" in WW2.  I don't recall them finding irony when the death toll surpassed the number killed in Pearl Harbor.  With these "grim milestones" the liberal MSM is engaging in nothing less than mass mind control of the American public for their own political agenda.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2007 01:02 PM (8e/V4)

4 Zawaheri nails it in his New Years Greetings:
 
And I also congratulate my brothers working in Jihadi media, and I ask Allah to reward them well for their fine, blessed efforts. And I encourage them to expend even more effort in Allah's path, for they have spoiled the enemies' publicity campaigns, by the grace of Allah. And I call on them to combine their efforts in compliance with the orders of Allah and His Messenger. May Allah bless their efforts, grant them His victory, and may they - Allah permitting - be the seed of the media of the Caliphate state which is coming with Allah's permission.

Posted by: jane at January 01, 2007 01:13 PM (L5LRS)

5 "jane",

don't thank Jihadi media, thank the MSM.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2007 01:36 PM (8e/V4)

6 The MILITARY Times, a paper well read by the troops today reveals that in a poll taken 42% of troops DISAPPROVE of Bush's handling of the war.  Only 41% of the military according to the poll say we should have gone to war in the first place, down from 63% in 2003.
 
I guess "stay the course" even within the military is being questioned.
 
Let the spin begin.......

Posted by: civilbehavior at January 01, 2007 03:20 PM (SGHzB)

7 Zzzzz.

Lets see - 42% is not a majority (unless you were a Clinton supporter), and neither is 41%. So your point is irrelevant, not matter how clever you think you're being. What about the other 58%? Are they not relevant? There are more of them, after all, and they don't share your viewpoint.

Additionally, disapproving of someone's handling or something does not then logically leap to "I don't approve of war against Islamic and fascist dictators or of Bush." Just because I don't like the fact that the Flyers are having a bad year doesn't then leap logically to I hate hockey, I want the team completely dismantled, the league shut down and the coaching staff thrown into prison. Dork.

I'm sure the troops would MUCH appreciate Kerry/Rangel's (D) plan - starve them on the field of battle while calling them morons.

So again, nice try, but you're a little over your head with this whole 'logic' thing.

Whatever country you're in, you're doing us a service by staying there. We have enough mouthbreathing knuckledragging leftards here in America.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 01, 2007 03:35 PM (D0TMh)

8 Good,
 
Just in case you were wondering the opposite of the 42% DISAPPROVAL was 35% approve.  The rest simply won't commit.  Aand as for the 41% who now say that the US should never have gone to war in Iraq DOWN FROM 63% seeing as how they are immersed in the thick of it you might give that poll some weight.  What it is saying is that our military obviously think that Bush rushed in where he shouldn't have.  Which btw, corresponds closely to the 45% of American public that alos believes Bush should not have gone to war in the first place. 
 
Of course, none of the 70% of us who are clamoring for a phased withdrawl expect that the 30% of dead ender hangers on will change their opinion of a war that was poorly chosen and even more poorly executed, (in fact the DoD chief Rumsfield threatned to fire anyone who mentioned the need for a plan AFTER the invasion) but then what can we expect of sheep.
 
They come when called and will gladly follow the herder off the cliff.  If there was a similar time in history that the population of a country followed a demonic leader off the cliff I can't think of any can you?  (chuckle, chuckle)

Posted by: civilbehavior at January 01, 2007 04:05 PM (SGHzB)

9 civilbehavior:
Does it happen to say how many were polled? also if the troops were serving in Iraq at the time of the poll?

Posted by: davec at January 01, 2007 04:44 PM (yaQM4)

10 And about that pesky Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? The intel that led to that resolution? Comments?

Again, logic is not your strong point. You believe what polls tell you to believe, don't you? By your own admission, the eroded support in the polls you cited (from whatever source) showed that 63% supported the Iraq invasion in 2003 (at least, thats what you 'cited'). Hence, by your logic, it was right at the time and hasn't ceased to be. So I can assume you supported the effort based on that number in 2003, since you're claiming that I'm not allowed to support the effort based on your own personal imaginary polling data coming from your ass.

History lesson time, leftard.

Wars are never popular. They are, however, necessary to end pesky little humanitarian inconveniences like slavery, Nazisim, fascism, Baathism, totalitarianism, communism, etc. Screaming about it won't end it. Read some damned history, fer chrissakes.  Strong leaders don't bow to opinion polls like chickensh*t liberal morons do, for they are more concerned about "popularity" than starting something and finishing it properly. Lincoln didn't, FDR didn't, Truman didn't, Kennedy and LBJ didn't, Nixon DID, Bush didn't, and you did. Popular or not, the war has changed the face of the ME, and you and your ilk did nothing to affect or advance that change. In fact, you actively opposed it.

So, great humanitarian leftist, tell us all again why Saddam should have been left to fill mass graves and support Palestinian terrorists and give refuge to AQ members like Zarqawi. Go on - we're waiting with baited breath.

Get over it. Saddam is dead. Bush gets the credit in the history books. Clinton wanted to do the same thing when he passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, but didn't have the balls to do it. Tards like you stayed home and said nothing.

For all your "poll citing" (with no links or citations and percentages of random samples of G-d knows who pulled out of your arse), troops levels will increase despite your complaining and despite a Democrat Congress (in jeopardy in the Senate, it would appear). Admit it. Saddam is dead, we were right, you were wrong, and you don't care what the facts on the ground are.

No go cry with the other "99.9999999% of the world based on some polls I like" who you believe agrees with your leftist chickendove viewpoint while the men continue to handle the heavy lifting and the hard work of making progess.

Deal with it, little man.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 01, 2007 04:54 PM (D0TMh)

11 I've got another logic test for civiltard.

A recent study (which, when trashing conservatives in some way, you can't refute) was released showing that celebrities and particularly movie stars, pop culture icons and actors, are far more narcissistic, manipulative, self-aggrandizing and quite frankly, stupider than the general public.

Given that the vast majority of entertainers, actors, pop stars and musicians are of a liberal political persuasion (if you can even call their bloviations about issues "political" views), then you are among the supporters and ideological soulmates of these narcisstic, unrealistic, uneducated and self-absorbed fools. Since they "hate Bush," you, by extension, agree with the morons, narcissists, self-worshippers and pop stars. Going further, you are an uneducated, skilless, narcisstic, self-aggrandizing, unrealistic, ungrounded moron like they are.

Hence, nothing you say is really educated, genuine, balanced or factually grounded, because your ideoligical fellow travellers are apparently as mentally retarded as you are.

That stings, I'm sure.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 01, 2007 05:10 PM (D0TMh)

12 GL,

sniveling behaviour did not comment on your post, nor will he respond to your comments.  He's just here to cut and paste and read us his latest memos.  Don't bother feeding the little jerk.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2007 05:33 PM (8e/V4)

13 Jeremy Givens:

I'm going to throw you a bone.

When you examine the hate indoctrination going on in the Muslim world, and can see its effect on three year old girls, you start to wonder if it is possible to ever have peace in the world while that ideology remains. Let me put some meat on that bone for you. Assume I'm asking if it is possible to turn that indoctrination around without going through a period of total war first?

I'm asking you how do you intend to turn around an entire culture, spread across the globe, which preaches that if you are not Muslim, you are at best, the decendent of apes and pigs? That teaches if you are not Muslim, at best, fit to live only as submissive, and inoffensive taxpayers who are made to know their humiliation daily?

How do you turn it around Jeremy? How do you save western civilization? How do you unbrainwash someone raised from chldhood to desire a martyrs death, before a peaceful life? How do you unbrainwash over a billion of them?

I anxiously await your answer, knowing how concerned you are about the threat of apolcalyptic mass destruction.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 05:47 PM (2OHpj)

14
if only it were 3000 muslim deaths, or better yet 3,000,000,000 muslim deaths. when the last of these filthy heathen killers is gone then there will be rejoicing the whole world round.

Posted by: Jeremy Givens at January 01, 2007 06:03 PM (Nhfns)

15 EXCERPTS form civilbehaviors "2005" poll which I am guiolty of cutting and pasting,. I'll try to get back to doing less of that, and I hope you forgive me


Troops sound off
Military Times Poll finds high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort

2005 Poll
Published:
January 3, 2006
Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.

Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers of the Military Times newspapers.

The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole;

Opinions on the president and Iraq weren’t the only shifts in the 2005 poll:

• Positive feelings about Congress, civilian and uniformed Pentagon leaders and the media all fell.

• Respondents also were less likely than in the past to believe other segments of the country viewed the military favorably. In 2004, 37 percent said civilians viewed the military very favorably; that fell to 24 percent this year. Last year, 77 percent said politicians saw the military very or somewhat favorably; 63 percent said so this year.

• There was somewhat more support for opening military service to openly homosexual Americans: 59 percent said open homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, down six points from last year.

• Opposition to the draft fell slightly, from 75 percent last year to 68 percent this year.

• Nearly two-thirds said the military is stretched too thin to be effective, though that figure is down substantially from two years ago.

• Job satisfaction and approval of pay, health benefits, training and equipment remain high — though in many cases, the support is less enthusiastic than in past years, based on responses.

• For the first time in the three-year history of the poll, more than half of respondents said they had deployed in support of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But few of those shifts appear as significant as those on the president.

to be sure, support for the president and his policies remains stronger in the Military Times Poll than in surveys of the general public: The president’s approval rating is as much as 20 percentage points higher than in the civilian population. Part of that difference is partisan: While roughly a third of Americans describe themselves as Democrats, just 13 percent of Military Times Poll respondents do so.
In follow-up interviews, most poll respondents said they remain solidly behind their commander in chief and his policy in Iraq.

“I think we’re fortunate as a country to have someone who has the focus and the persistence that he does because it’s so easy to get sidetracked,” said Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bohler. “The ability of the president to persevere in the face of overwhelming criticism is really impressive. It takes someone with a spine and courage.”

Many attributed the fall in support, both among the public and the military, withto a misguided lack of patience.

“We live in a society where … people want answers right away,” said Air Force Capt. Randall Carlson, a physics instructor at the Air Force Academy, who said he approves of the president’s policies. “Unfortunately with Iraq, there are no easy answers.”

‘They don’t report good news’ While 73 percent of respondents believe it’s likely the United States will succeed in Iraq, that’s down 10 points from a year ago.

“We’re losing a lot of troops. The suicide bombers are not stopping,” said Air Force Staff Sgt. Melida G. Castano. “It doesn’t look promising at this point.”

But others blamed the loss in confidence on the media, which many said has failed to report positive news in Iraq. Four of every five respondents said they believe media reports are often inaccurate.

“They don’t report the good news, and if they do, it’s on the back page,” said Marine Chief Warrant Officer-3 Michael Edmonson.

Though the number of respondents who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan was up 17 percentage points from a year ago, to 61 percent, that does not seem to have significantly affected opinions on Iraq. There was no significant difference in opinions between those who have deployed and those who haven’t, and responses from the Army and Marine Corps — the services under the most strain in Iraq — were not much different from other services.

As in the previous two years, Military Times Poll respondents were reluctant to express opinions, even anonymously, about the commander in chief or his policies. About one in five refused to say whether they approved of the president’s performance on Iraq or overall.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 06:06 PM (2OHpj)

16 Guys, I'm sorry about the cut and pasts lately. I may try to counteract this by just providng a link for the interested. Back later.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 01, 2007 06:12 PM (2OHpj)

17 Jeremy,

go back to Kos where you belong.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2007 06:19 PM (8e/V4)

18 cleanup on Isle #13.

Posted by: davec at January 01, 2007 06:20 PM (yaQM4)

19 "when the last of these filthy heathen killers is gone then there will be rejoicing the whole world round."

And you can get back to supporting Saddamites and terrorists who kill children in schools and pizza parlors while waxing moronic about "human rights."

Imagine...

Come on, people now. Smile on your brother. Everybody get together, try to love one another right now...

Posted by: Good Lt at January 01, 2007 06:23 PM (D0TMh)

20 I see you guys are taking refuge from the execution video thread.

It's a laugh riot.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 01, 2007 07:11 PM (/qy9A)

21 It's always so nice to see that the media, and those who are in opposition to us fighting back in this global conflict think that everyone who serves in the armed forces is "just another number", especially when they make the ultimate sacrifice and die serving their country.

Posted by: CanForce 101 at January 01, 2007 07:35 PM (BMrv8)

22 Michael Weaver, there is no "turning around" the muslim world. There is no redemption for these heathen savages. The only sure thing is slitting their throats and ridding the world of their murdering and hateful "religion of peace".

The only victory in the war on terror is to eiliminate the terrorists. And facts prove that all muslims and arabs are terrorists who hate us.

New Years Resolution? Slaughter a muslim and their family in your community this year. America will be better off for it.

Posted by: Jeremy Givens at January 01, 2007 07:41 PM (Nhfns)

23 Vinnie:
That thread went 0 to batshit crazy in about 0.0003 seconds.

Posted by: davec at January 01, 2007 07:45 PM (yaQM4)

24
That thread went 0 to batshit crazy in about 0.0003 seconds.


As did the entireity of the American and worldwide left and terrorist-sympathy movement. It was glorious.  :-)

Posted by: Good Lt at January 01, 2007 08:05 PM (D0TMh)

25 NOT ONE MORE BODY BAG FOR A MISTAKE.

Posted by: civilbehavior at January 01, 2007 09:01 PM (SGHzB)

26 NOT ONE MORE DEAD INNOCENT IN THE NAME OF ALLAH.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 01, 2007 09:03 PM (D0TMh)

27 Yes, you are all going to need us again. Islam has been resurrected by the dollars and Euros of the West, via the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. Over 1000 Muslims in Minneapolis, Mn. recently protested the overthrow of the Islamists in Somalia. That should give you all pause for thought. How did these Islamists get into this country? War is coming to the US, right here in the US, with the Islamists and their allies and encouragers on the Left. Prepare. Make ready. Time is short.

Posted by: templar knight at January 01, 2007 09:22 PM (634o6)

28 templar: you are absolutely right. it is a crime any arab or muslim is allowed in the USA. if we do not kill them now they will surely kill us in the coming islamic jihad.

Long Live USA, Death to Islam

Posted by: Jeremy Givens at January 01, 2007 10:11 PM (Nhfns)

29 Jeremy,
I'm pretty much sure you're a troll, and a bad one at that, however in case you really do have a brain defect here is your speech transferred to the same crap coming from Al-Qaeda :


templar: you are absolutely right. it is a crime any kafir is allowed in the holy land. if we do not kill them now they will surely kill us in the coming crusade.


You, sound no different than them

Posted by: davec at January 01, 2007 10:16 PM (yaQM4)

30 Missed the obligatory
Long Live USA, Death to Islam
to:
Long live the Prophet, Death to Israel!, Death to America!

Hopefully you will hit yourself with a cluebat.

Posted by: davec at January 01, 2007 10:19 PM (yaQM4)

31 Leftard Givens,

yaaaaaaaaawn.  I'm sure that little act gives your buddies at Kos raging  hard-ons, but here it's pretty tired.  You aren't original, nor funny. 

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2007 11:06 PM (8e/V4)

32 I believe in everything I post. I am an American Patriot and i do not cowtow to the commies and other shit for brains who want to bring this country down.

leftist? please. the day i vote for those whiney douchebags is the day you can hang me like saddam. unfortunately our so called right party has lost alot of its balls and is not doing enough for America.

the bottom line is that muslims are out to destroy us and the only way we will be victorious is by destroying them first. its simple, and it is the truth.

Posted by: Jeremy Givens at January 01, 2007 11:15 PM (Nhfns)

33 Civilbehavior: If 42% (I don't believe it) disaprove of President Bush's handling of the war so what? That doesn't mean they wish to quit and run. They wish some chanes made. Namely, they are soldiers, not policemen. It is the crybaby lefturds who caused it to be that way as much as Bush. 99% still wish to stay and finish the job. You commies can never get it right.

Posted by: Greyrooster at January 01, 2007 11:17 PM (Po6mQ)

34 Jeremy,

then you're at the wrong website.  Stormfront is thataway ------>

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2007 11:42 PM (8e/V4)

35 Im sorry I have no idea what a stormfront is other than bad weather heading somewhere. Are you trying to make another joke insinuating that I am a democrat??

I love America, i truly do and it pains me to see the filth they are letting in to destroy us.

Posted by: Jeremy Givens at January 02, 2007 12:03 AM (Nhfns)

36 As always, Snivel Behaviour is full of shit. He just pasted some moonbat blogger or journalist's selective representation of the Military Times poll. In true leftist fashion, what was omitted from the hatchet piece is what's the most important.


The paper is not well read by military personnel. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Exact figures are hard to come by, but few soldiers or Marines read it on a regular basis. Any soldier here can confirm that.


Furthermore, the only people polled were subscribers, the vast majority of whom are not serving in combat. Only half of those polled have ever been deployed to Iraq, and only 2% are living in barracks now.


The overwhelming majority believe that President Bush and their commanding officers have their best interests at heart, and that Congress and the civilians in the defense department do not. The Establishment Media and mindless civilian detractors like Snivel score even lower.


The editorial staff are graduates of journalism colleges, and have the standard bias against the exercize of American military might, though not to the unhinged degree of civilian journalists. Tellingly, NONE of them serve in combat.


This poll is not representative of the military as a whole, and it sure as hell isn't representative of combat troops. Polls cosistently reflect the opinions of whichever group sponsors it, and the editorial staff of the MT are very critical of the mission in Iraq. Big fucking surprise that the poll reflected their views.


Basically, the soldiers polled would like to see the mission in Iraq conducted differently, but they believe it will be successful. This is hardly proof that they oppose the campaign in Iraq. The left is spinning, as usual.



The point idiots like Snivel miss completely is that the majority of Americans are often dead wrong, and that includes soldiers. The majority opposed America entering WWII until Pearl Harbor was bombed. The majority of Americans do not uderstand the threat posed by islam, and only a tiny fraction of them have actually read the koran. The islamic pillar of jihad is misconstrued by the vast majority. The islamic commandment to conquer and enslave the world through genocide and forced conversion, or go straight to Hell, is all but unknown outside the islamopithecine world.


Left-wing assholes like Snivel only quote majority opinions when they reflect their own warped opinions. When they don't, lefties heap scorn on the majority,--which is most of the time, of course.


This is typical left-wing behaviour. All who disagree with the left's Marxist agenda are to be hated, and any who agree with certain issues are to be exploited to promote that agenda. Honesty doesn't enter the equation at all.


What do you have to say, snivel? You can try to spin your way out of this, but you haven't been able to do it so far, so there ain't much chance you can now.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 02, 2007 05:59 AM (abVz3)

37 Im sorry I have no idea what a stormfront is

Ok, now I know you're lying.  LOL.  This thread has been properly innoculated, so I'm basically done with you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 02, 2007 10:30 AM (8e/V4)

38 Frankly, dave, I do not remember calling for the slaughter of Muslims, or prevent their entry, per se, into the US. My intent was not to call for genocide, nor did I. My point, and it is valid, is that the US MUST be careful about letting ISLAMISTS AND THEIR ALLIES into the US.

Many thousands of radical Islamists have already been allowed into this country, and you, dave, should be aware that many of these people intend to do us harm.

What I am saying, and what I truly believe, is that if this trend continues and escalates, which I also believe it will, these people will attack us. You should not put me into the category of the commenter named Jeremy, as I have not nor will I ever call for such evil actions as he suggests. That I believe we must be ready to defend ourselves against these people who wish to destroy us is not a bad thing.
 
You owe me an apology.

Posted by: templar knight at January 02, 2007 11:09 AM (634o6)

39 dave, if I misinterpreted your statement, please forgive me. My intent is to raise the alarm. I agree with your comments 99% of the time. Best regards!

Posted by: templar knight at January 02, 2007 11:13 AM (634o6)

40 Templar,
my statement was changing his comment to you, to be the same sort of rhetoric that comes out of Al-Qaeda's mouthpieces, in a futile effort to show that he is no different than them, when he calls for the same things they want to do to the non-Muslim world.
Your name was left in, as I pasted it verbatim from his comment and then altered it, it was not an reference to you, personally.

Posted by: davec at January 02, 2007 01:25 PM (yaQM4)

41 Went down to Ennis, TX this morning for Kyle Nolen's funeral. We were suppose to be joined by Fred Phelps and his band of idiots but it seems they wised up and didn't want to face a group of Texans that would have sent them to hell on the express train.
 
http://www.patriotguard.org/Forums/tabid/61/forumid/11/postid/360586/view/topic/Default.aspx
 
http://posty.net/pervertalerts/
 
 

Posted by: Fargo Levy at January 02, 2007 01:57 PM (R4293)

42 Troops think Bush is going about this all wrong?

that falls under the category of no ____ sherlock.

But you go ahead, and ask the troops WHAT is being done wrong. and they'll tell you.

They'll tell you that they're sick of being cooped up behind the wire when they could be doing good in the field.

They're sick of letting guys like Muqtada al-Sadr run their little militias.

And I've got some bones to pick with Bush myself. I think that the day we declared war, we should have eliminated the Army Recruiting/retention caps.

I think that we should have waited until the 4th ID had arrived and been equipped and could be deployed to better capture Iraqi munition dumps and secure important locations/logistics routes.

I think that we should have had 31-Echo Corrections Specialists (Formerly MOS 95C) instead of 31-Bravo Military Police(Formerly MOS 95B) in Abu Ghraib.

(Because anyone in the criminal justice field can tell you that Street Cops and Guards have two completely different mindsets and while many can easily make the transition, there are MANY cops I would never want anywhere near the prisoners.)

So yes, anyone who has an understanding of Military tactics, strategy, or the like can "disapprove" of how Bush Handled the War in some aspect or another.

Hell, I'm pissed Bush won't have agents of the AP charged with Treason for aiding the Psy-ops of our enemies in ways that harm our troops and national interests. (AND THE DEFENSE OF "REPORTING THE TRUTH" DOESN'T WORK WHEN YOU DON'T REPORT THE TRUTH.)

I would have those reporters and editors in prison right now if I were president. So I disapprove of how he's handling the press.

So you tell me.

What's it mean to disapprove? I see it as saying Our troops can see where we made errors, and they have learned from those errors.

I see it as saying we have an intelligent military can can see where we screwed up and isn't afraid to admit that their commander could have done better if he wasn't pandering so much to the left.

And what did Bush get for "Going Easy" and trying to lean towards the left, and be Politically Correct? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY FRICKING NOTHING. so I've learned that Lincoln was right.

"You can please all of the people some of the time or you can please some of the people all of the time. But you can not please all of the people all of the time."

Every time he tried to be PC or use a half-measure in order to please the "crazy left" (As opposed to the misguided left) they saw it as weakness.

So he should have simply done what needed to be done, and the heck with the detractors.

GAAAAAARGH.

Hmmm... I seem to have been caught up in a rant.

That felt good, but I digress.

I have a feeling that the US Military is not going to be rooting for "Angry Anti-War Liberal" in large numbers in '08.

Posted by: Jones Zemkophill at January 02, 2007 03:10 PM (1RIcI)

43 Jeff Bargholz must believe the military is a bunch of saps for allowing a "left" "liberal" organ poll the troops and  help demoralize them by predictably giving the civilian "left" fodder to further demoralize the US populace at large and thus the military itself.
 
Good Lt's victimized pizza parlors are in the same panorama containing the Israeli refusal to leave the West Bank, as ordered by the UN. Reckon the US will ever enforce that edict the way
they enforced (against UN wishes) the resolutions against Iraq?
 
 

Posted by: Ken Hoop at January 02, 2007 06:21 PM (DZbll)

44 ken - the un is a joke - much like yourself.
 
What's it like to cherish Saddam's ego over the lives of so many of his murdered countrymen?

Posted by: Max Power at January 02, 2007 10:32 PM (PM8kH)

45 Stuff it Hoop: Friggin commie.

Posted by: Greyrooster at January 03, 2007 09:46 AM (cJw/p)

46 "Fifth columninsts" aren't those who report the casualty figures.
More like the Doug Feith , Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz
dual loyalist cabal who lied the US into the war.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at January 03, 2007 04:39 PM (7GYBH)

47 Ken Poop:


Dont put words into my mouth unless you have something intelligent to say---which means never.


Your regurgitated canards about why Bush deposed saddam were refuted the day they were concocted by the left, and America is not going to start a war with dem Jooos to enforce a corrupt UN resolution framed by the Ayrab League.


Did you enjoy the Saddam video?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 04, 2007 12:32 AM (abVz3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Listening to the leftwingnuts, you'd think that Saddam's death was about to cause Iraq to spiral uncontrollably towards an inescapable and devastating final offensive between the "millions of insurgents" waiting for that precise moment and US forces. Or something. Whatever fits the unfolding narrative.

Well, we're still waiting for the inescapable, inevitable, unquenchable, unfathomable surge in violence caused directly by Saddam Hussein's death.

After all, Saddam's martyrdom and his inspiration to the "millions of terrorists Bush created" was a principal argument of the pro-Saddam left in favor of leniency this weekend.

Lets see. Two carbombs across the entire country. Nope. Typical day. Iraq is still there.

Tick, tock. Time is running out for this wildly reactionary grievance against the US effort there to be a valid one.

Then again, we've seen a lot of invalid and non-sensical 'arguments' written by morons to be read by imbiciles taking 'moral stands' against the the Coalition's effort in Iraq ever since 2003.

Leftwingnuts. Idiots full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 05:57 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Some mainstream media attention shines on the Jamil Hussein controversy and brings into question the AP's credibility:

What is clear about all this is that nothing is clear. Maybe there's a Jamil Hussein with the Iraqi police, but he's a sergeant, not a captain. Maybe there's a police captain whose first name is spelled Jamail, not Jamil. Both possibilities have been floated in the blogosphere, but neither has withstood scrutiny.

Editor & Publisher summed it up best when it reported that Jamil Hussein had been lost, then "found," then lost again. Amazing.

Last summer, Reuters, the media outlet that refuses to label terrorists as terrorists, was jolted by the "fauxtography" scandal. Adnan Hajj, a freelance Lebanese photographer, allegedly doctored images of the Israel-Hezbollah war and photographed what appeared to many to be staged scenes of victim rescue and recovery efforts in Qana, a Lebanese village where Israel attacked Hezbollah terrorists. Both were clearly an effort to further inflame a world that had already cast Israel as the villain.

Just as we asked in August if Reuters was "a patsy or collaborator," we wonder the same about the AP. We also wonder if we can trust any AP report from the Middle East. If it can't show us Capt. Jamil Hussein, we're not sure it has anything else we want to see.

That we do know.

ht: Insty

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.