Confederate Yankee
December 30, 2006
What Passes For Intellectual
From--where else?--the Huffington Post (h/t Hot Air):
WELL HUNG! Saddam Hung To Prove Bush is BETTER Hung... (Than His Dad)
Brilliant headline, don't you suppose? I bet Martin Lewis used all 36 years of his experince as a "journalist, columnist, writer, humorist, monologist, comedic performer, radio host, TV host, TV correspondent," etc, etc to come up with that one. Such deep, cutting-edge humor.
1) To George W. Bush. It only cost $354 billion (and counting) and the lives of 3,000 very expendable US military to enable the President to demonstrate to his dad that he has a bigger Dick. Or is one...
Isn't it ironic - don'tcha think? Saddam hung so that Dubya can prove that he's BETTER hung...
Such nuance. Such depth. Such
class. Arianna trotted out her best for this one.
2) To George H.W. & Barbara Bush for raising a child with such wonderful values.
Why not attack the parents? After all, if
attacking children is right in line with liberal values, parents are obviously fair game as well.
3) To Dick Cheney. If it wasn't for his remorse about his part in the "failure" in 1991 to kill off Saddam (one of the most cherished allies of the Reagan-Bush administrations) - he might not have had his "fever" to expend thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American tax-payers' dollars getting Saddam this time around.
Quite right. After all, Saddam had only killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of his own people, triggered a war that left approximately a million dead, attempted at least partial genocides against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, invaded Kuwait and launched attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia, but they were all
brown people. Or Jews.
4) To Gerald Ford. For pardoning Richard Nixon without securing any confession or even acknowledgement of wrong-doing - and thus laying the path for Presidential unaccountability; for promoting the careers of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld; and for having the courage to speak out against the Iraq war in June 2004 - and insisting that his criticism be held till AFTER his death. (Why risk hurting a GOP President's re-election prospects when the cost is just a few thousand American lives...) THAT'S why he deserves all the plaudits for his decency and courage.
How utterly gracious of Mr. Lewis to channel the
latest missive from that greatest voice of Absolute Moral Authority. Were there
any other comments you'd care to emulate of hers? We'll wait.
5) To Ronald Reagan. For unilaterally deciding in 1983 to end the 16-year international isolation of Iraq for its barbarity - and sending Donald Rumsfeld as his personal goodwill ambassador to befriend Saddam Hussein - during the exact same time when Hussein was committing the very crimes for which he was hung. Crimes that were publicized worldwide at the time by Amnesty International and others - and thus fully known about by Reagan, George W. Bush and their entire administration.
But just skip
right on past any thought that this same barbarity might have been a decent reason to--you know--get rid of him. 'cause it's all about the dicks.
6) Spare a thought for Donald Rumsfeld. Tough week for him. He's just lost someone very close to him. And Gerald Ford as well in the same week...
See?
I'm a humorist!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:06 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Exhibit #765,234,098 in Why A Second Civil War In The US Is Necessary.
There's no debating with these people. Any civility on my part (or yours, CY) is mistaken for weakness. And their beliefs and values are 100% opposed to the values that make America work. So let's just cut to the chase.
Posted by: SDN at December 30, 2006 08:14 AM (hpLSE)
2
The odd thing is that they find it A) outrageous and contemptible when America takes out the dictator and B) outrageous and contemptible when America tries to work with him against a common enemy (Iran).
It seems that the only logically consistent aspect of their opinions are that they always find America outrageous and contemptible.
Of course, there is much otherwise to criticise as well. Saddam was, in no possible way, one of the Reagan adminstration's "most valuable" allies. He was dirt that we had to deal with because of the rapid ascension of the Iranian extremists. Of course, the rest of the post (about who is better "hung") just reflects the juvenalia and sheer inability to think beyond trite slogans of the Huffington / Daily Kos crowd.
Posted by: Wildmonk at December 30, 2006 09:31 AM (VJLOK)
Posted by: George Dixon at December 30, 2006 11:00 AM (COB3g)
4
Actually Wildmonk, It seems that the only logically consistent aspect of their opinions are that they always find Republican administrations outrageous and contemptible, it all has to do with power, not morality.
Posted by: Dave T at December 30, 2006 01:23 PM (MhTMU)
5
The only way you can sell that kinda crazy is to chocolate coat it. I'll get Yosarian on this right away and we'll all get rich.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 12:50 AM (GlKkD)
6
Maybe it was Milo? Yea, it was Milo.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 12:50 AM (GlKkD)
7
You know what? It's as crude and klassy with a kay as any rightwing nuthouse site I've ever seen. I do dislike the broad brush strokes going on here in the comments. So.
But just skip right on past any thought that this same barbarity might have been a decent reason to--you know--get rid of him.
Look, the guy was a monster. There are plenty of monsters in this world. I don't want to pull off these pat little "regime changes" wherever monsters lurk because we can't afford to. Some will never be stupid or rash enough to attack our shores, and Saddam Hussein, in my estimation, was one of those. Why couldn't we finish the job in Afghanistan before we started screwing around elsewhere? This pisses me off.
In any case, when you go before the American public and make the case for war, that'd be the time to drive home this point you're making. It couldn't just be humanitarian reasons, though, so Mr. Bush lobbed in the understood imminent threat of WMD and shaky al-Qaeda connections and so on. It helped that he had a whole grab-bag of wrongdoings to pick from. Except now we're down to "democratizing," when all else falls through, and it just reeks of one lame excuse after another. In short, it looks bad, and it's embarrassing as hell.
The fact is this White House seems to have thought and perhaps persists in thinking it can win a war on PR alone, when they lost an international PR war to Saddam friggin' Hussein in the runup to the actual war. Pathetic. And their bungling ever since has absolutely hamstrung the military, made the US out to be some pitiful paper tiger, and squandered an incredible outpouring of goodwill after 9/11 that could've been used to our benefit. Am I a crazy leftist? Whatever. Cockups like these are what I can't forgive. Maybe history will be kinder, but I doubt it.
As for your final rejoinder: I hope nobody denies that the US government cuts some pretty unsavory deals. Extremism in Iran I can’t imagine being any worse than gassing people to death in Iraq (school me, here; do they gas people in Iran?), yet there we were cutting deals with the bastard. It doesn't look good, it doesn't look moral, because it isn't. Was it necessary? Necessary will never equal moral, at least not for me.
Posted by: dana at December 31, 2006 12:51 AM (51RnK)
8
yet there we were cutting deals with the bastard.
Can you provide some details? Dollar amounts, particular years involved, etc?
Let me clue you in gentle moonbat -- TOTAL US SUPPORT for Saddam, since the time he seized control, over ALL YEARS he was in power, totaled LESS than the cost of SIX(6) F/A-18 Super Hornets.
Brazil sold Saddam more weaponry than the USA ever did. Yea, Brazil.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 01:44 PM (GlKkD)
9
I don't give a care about Brazil. Why should I? I hold the United States to a higher stander because I love it and I live here. Why is this so hard to accept? If I'm a moonbat, sorry! I'm certainly what you'd call one, aren't I? I've voted for Democrats in several elections now, because I feel a certain party I shall not name (nor tag it or its members with a cutesy little epithet) has gone off the deepend.
And, no, I don't have dollar amounts and whatnot, so I suppose you can get smug about it. I'm not hunting for citations to corroborate that. It's notional, an extension of the fact that I'm not 100% naive about the way the world works. How much money do you suppose a meeting with a well-connected fellow like Rumsfeld is worth? I'd guess all the reassurance in the world.
Posted by: dana at December 31, 2006 02:08 PM (51RnK)
10
And, no, I don't have dollar amounts and whatnot, so I suppose you can get smug about it.
Smug? No. I just want you to educate yourself and make informed comments.
How much money do you suppose a meeting with a well-connected fellow like Rumsfeld is worth? I'd guess all the reassurance in the world.
I guess that's why our "support" dropped to exactly $0.00 immediately after the end of the Iran/Iraq war and stayed there until Saddam's regime fell right? France OTOH, continued to supply military aid to Saddam right up until the 2003 invasion.
See what I mean? If you were actually informed, you might not make such fatuous obviously ignorant remarks.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 05:12 PM (GlKkD)
11
PA
Ahhh, but you apparently miss the point of it all.
Facts, evidence, ...truth, ....are superfluous little dainties, to be tossed out with yesterday's trash.
You simply don't comprehend (and can't apparently...since you are NOT a member of the club...simply not gifted with that particular strain of DNA that allows leftists to "know" without knowing, to absorb truth out of lies, facts out of distortion, right out of wrong)
My dear man, you simply are by your very nature, unworthy of further discourse, because you choose to debate rather than debase. You choose to look in vain for details in the research books, rather
for refrains from the hymnal and directions from the playbook.
The less militant lemmings look upon you with an eye of pity, you poor unwashed outsider. The more militant of the mincing membership will screw up their faces in rage and disgust, unable to speak without hurtling flecks of spittle on all within a furlong's range and with eyes bulging out of their sockets, describe you as one or all of the playbook's favorite epithets: homophobic, warmongering, stupid, vile, greedy, corporate lackey, Southern, white, male, gun-toting, meat eating, etc.etc.etc.
And the Bulge and Spittle Corps will forever lump you in as beyond redemption, lashing out at you because you are "jingoistic" and have a "blind faith" in your country.
Your futile attempts to engage on facts, evidence and research fall on deaf ears, because...after all...you simply don't have what it takes to "understand the message".
Here's the message. "We don't give DAMN about America, although we SAY we do".
"We don't give a DAMN about facts, evidence, research"
"We are invested in trashing America...because to do so envelopes us in protective coating of immediate faux erudition. We APPEAR to be smart, and ALL the Ministry of Media backs us up. The newspapers say we are smarter and are quite arrogant about it, so it must be true. All the Hollywood movies, all the college professors...dontcha know ALL the academic elite...we are the new aristocracy. We don't have to EARN respect, we simply have to dress to act the part."
Now, Purple Avenger...please get your nose out of the research books, quit fiddling around with all those facts and evidence...and get yourself a playbook. All the best lemmings, parrots and dullards have them...and even they can rote recite from it. It damn well beats learning...
And it's so much easier to have cubit zirconium intellect than to have to suffer through actually knowing something.
Buy the hymnal, memorize the playbook, earn your aristocratic stripes through the back of a matchbook cover. Heaven knows, we don't need more men and women who actually love this country and have enough fortitude to want to think for themselves.
Posted by: cfbleachers at January 01, 2007 12:23 PM (5RM9g)
12
To PA: Oh, you bring up France, like I've got some liberal kinship with it. Are you kidding me? How many times need I say I don't care about these other countries, and I don't look to them---as often they're the lowest common denominator---to be the arbiter or somehow the inverse of what's moral in the US? I simply don't!
It does appear you really think I'm a wild-eyed leftist or maybe just a dummy liberal. Funny to me because I and my husband used to vote Republican quite reliably throughout the eighties and early nineties. Think what you will; accuse me of being a mushy-middle independent; there's always a good chance I don't acquit myself all that well. I confessed to you I hadn't done any looking into that particular subject, and you're right that it doesn't cut the mustard to make sweeping statements and assumptions. You quote a supposed fact and, seemingly, by lack of citation, expect me to take your word for it. In practice, that's no better than what I've done. I'm quite sure you have a source. But this is all dancing around the thrust of what I said.
I'm a pissed voter, and by now I think it's safe to say I'm not the only one. You can whittle away at what I've said but you've yet to get at the underpinnings. Iraq and the unfinished job in Afghanistan---two rapidly deteriorating situations and such a colossal cockup on almost all levels. What on earth are we going to do about it, what lessons will we take from it, and can we do something besides talk about having a second civil war in our own country in response to it? I'm worried, truly and genuinely, and angry, too, that my government---our government---has and keeps screwing up in so dire a time!
To cfbleachers: I won't be lumped in with your idea of what a liberal is; it's the same reason I'm not liking the fact that quoting some moronic site is to be conflated with a huge and diverse group. I do mean any group. I wouldn't sit here and quote Free Republic, for instance, and ask people like you to defend some of the ridiculous hot air that gets spewed there. I'm no "aristocrat," either. Enjoy extrapolating all kinds of interesting things about me from what I said, though! Just as my little venting session was oh-so telling about me, I assure you the same could be said about yours.
Posted by: dana at January 03, 2007 05:16 PM (51RnK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 29, 2006
Stuk On Jon Carry In Irak
Several days ago a soldier in Iraq email a picture back home to the United States, showing John Kerry eating in a mess hall in Iraq. Absolutely riveting content, right?
Nonetheless, all sorts of people who should know better have gotten completely discombobulated about it, many to the point of calling it a fraud, or purporting that the photo showed some other sort of context.
If you want to get a good cross-section of what occurred (and apparently, is still occurring in some corners), start with the blog post that apparently
got things going, accusations from
those offended, a
quite practical explanation from the guy who accidentally started the whole thing, and
continued angst from
lost souls that simply refuse to allow this excruciatingly minor story to die a natural death.
Jon Carry--uh,
John Kerry-- was not shot nor stabbed nor completely shunned by our soldiers in Iraq, but thanks to his on-going contempt for our military he was not mobbed as most celebrities in a combat zone are. Instead, he got a "
subdued reception."
He isn't popular with the troops for obvious reasons, but to our soldier's credit, they didn't act unprofessionally around him. Can we
please just end this non-story there?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:24 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yeah, sometimes it is better just to let things go. At this point I just do not understand why any member of the left would be vested in Kerry. So now we have a one day story that is going to last for a few weeks.
Posted by: David at December 29, 2006 06:35 PM (1F0xC)
2
John "Who Cares" Kerry has just seen photographic prima facie evidence of the Ghost of Christmas Future, as far as I'm concerned. Lukewarm, tepid response to a has-been, never was, lightweight politician who had his 15 minutes of fame twice...by trashing our men and women in uniform.
If all this grandstanding in the Mideast was a trial balloon for any future political office, then there has been not a bang or pop, but simply the long, slow release of every bit of air...for the punchline to the ongoing joke of the career for this unholy spawn of Herman Munster and Thurston Howell III...will forever be.... "this guy couldn't fill a table...at a mess hall dinner at Christmas".
So much for his $1000 a plate fundraisers for national office. I see a ton of lonely dinners in his future. Goodbye, John. Welcome to the ash heap of history, you're a footnote that high school kids 30 years from now, will struggle to remember. Sucks to be you. You want ketchup with that?
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 29, 2006 07:19 PM (5RM9g)
3
The fact that they COULD get a pic of him not totally surounded by "volinteers" shows he's not that popular-- the assistant Sec Def for the PI came to our ship and had more folks around him, not to mention the 25 folks that were picked to visit with the Sec Nav.
Posted by: Foxfier at December 30, 2006 06:05 PM (sS61d)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Back to the Future
In a photo taken several hours from now, Cindy Sheehan reacts to the death of Saddam Hussein... or news that her month-long supply of Jamba Juice supply may have been tainted.
Your call.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:04 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Swiped your picture for my Famous last words: "Allahu Ak-k-k" post, linked it to this on.
Evil men swing like a pendulum do Soldiers in Humvees, two by two Weapons of mass death, way back when The hollow white cheeks of the dead children ...
http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2006/12/satans_b1tch_bu.html
Posted by: Bill Faith at December 29, 2006 11:13 PM (n7SaI)
2
Is she upset the comet aliens didn't take her?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 12:51 AM (GlKkD)
3
The sad part? Her heart is even uglier.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at January 01, 2007 11:23 AM (3nKvy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Worlds Apart
It isn't likely that you needed a litmus test to gauge the widely divergent viewpoints on the Iraq War, but on the off chance that you did, Senator Joe Lieberman provided it in spades in an op-ed published in today's Washington Post calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq.
Reaction on both sides is as you might expect it, both from conservative bloggers, and from liberals.
Blogging from the right with a soldier-son in Iraq, Gaius at
Blue Crab Boulevard:
My son and I were talking the other day about troop levels. Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course. It is vital right now not to simply abandon the Middle East to Iran's ambitions. Yet that is what some want to do.
From Dan Collins at the libertarian-rightish
Protein Wisdom:
In his opinion piece in the WaPo today, Independent Senator from Connecticut Joe Lieberman says the *gasp!* V-Word! He’s so over the line he's, he's . . . why, he's trans-neoconic! If you've no better source of entertainment today, you can watch the sinistrosphere go ballistic over the temerity of the man...
...If he runs for president, I think he's got my vote.
From Paul Silver at the moderate—what else?—
Moderate Voice:
I agree with Senator Lieberman's commentary today in the Washington Post...
...Yes this war has been mismanaged, it is inconvenient, and it is expensive. And yes we may lose it still. But I can't support abandoning so many millions of people that WE put in harms way by surrendering them to ethnic cleansing. I feel shame when the most powerful society in history abandoned so many freedom loving southeast Asians after the Vietnam War, when we ignore those in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and other killing fields.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.
From Steve Clemons at the reliably left-wing
Huffington Post:
Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He's penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.
It's a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America's engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us...
...Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?
And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.
Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants -- al-Maliki. Lieberman's entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan...
...Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?
Glenn Greenwald sees this as a
declaration of war on Iran:
In his Washington Post Op-Ed today, the Great Warrior Joe Lieberman predictably endorsed sending more troops to Iraq, in the process dutifully spouting (as always) every Bush/neoconservative talking point. But Lieberman had a much larger fish to fry with this Op-Ed, as he all but declared war on Iran, identifying them as the equivalent of Al Qaeda, as the Real Enemy we are fighting...
...One might question why someone who is one of the most vocal advocates of the Iraq Disaster would seek to expand the war to include Iran, a country much larger and more formidable on every level than Iraq. After all, things aren't going that well in Iraq, and it might seem to a simplistic and Chamberlain-like appeasing coward that the absolutely most insane idea ever is to try to expand "our war" to include Iran. So what would motivate Lieberman to do this?
He then goes on to make the snide, roundabout case—and no, I'm not be facetious—that Liebermann is doing this because
the Israelis told him too:
Initially, it must be emphasized that whatever his reason is, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sentiments expressed by Israel's newest cabinet minister, Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) when he visited the U.S. earlier this month and gave an interview to The New York Times:
"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War." [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."
Joe Lieberman's desire for the U.S. to view itself as being at war with Iran also has nothing whatsoever to do with this:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president...
Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.
"We hear echoes of those very voices that started to spread across the world in the 1930s," Olmert said in his speech at the Yad Vashem memorial.
And yes, he's serious as
Glenn Ryan Wilson Ellers Ellison Ellensburg Greenwald can be.
And for a final left-wing viewpoint,
Matthew Yglesias:
And what about al-Qaeda? Lieberman appears to be arguing later in the article that Iran and al-Qaeda are collaborating in Iraq since otherwise it's hard to make sense of the claim that "If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism." Needless to say, he's backing the Bush/McCain escalation plan.
One problem here is that to the extent you see the dark hand of Iran behind all events in Iraq, the situation should logically be viewed as more rather than less hopeless. The reason, of course, is that Iran can escalate every bit as much as we can. Whoever's equipping, say, the Mahdi Army clearly isn't equipping them very well -- Hezbollah is much better-armed. Suppose we escalate and the Iranians counter-escalate by giving our foes wire-guided anti-tank missiles, katyusha rockets, Iglas and so forth -- then you're talking about a really bad scene. Obviously, though, that's logic and hawks aren't into logic.
And though I am a hawk—and therefore by definition "not into logic" according to Yglesias—I'll do my best to muddle through these divergent viewpoints and attempt to get to whatever apparent meat remains upon this proverbial bone.
From the center-right, the perspective seems to be that we did not go into Iraq with enough forces initially. We went in with enough military force to destroy Saddam Hussein’s military dictatorship, but not enough military and non-military forces to occupy the country and create stability in which a fledgling democracy could be established. I think few will argue with this perspective, as current events indicate that is precisely what appears to have occurred, as we currently have an Iraqi dictatorship that was quickly toppled in just weeks in 2003, only to fall into a worsening chaos afterward.
From this perspective, many conservatives—but certainly not all, by any means—hope that a influx of American troops can be used in some way to stop the near-constant escalation of sectarian violence in several key Iraqi provinces, and also dismantle various elements of the Sunni insurgency, terrorist groups, the Shia militias, and various criminal gangs. I, for one, agree with something Senator Liebermann said in his op-ed, that, "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite." If it is possible to win in Iraq—and no honest person can claim to have God's knowledge and unequivocally say this war can’t be won, or is already lost—then providing stability is indeed a prerequisite, and sending in more soldiers is the only option to help achieve that goal.
The "reality-based community" maintains that it has a crystal ball and that the war is already lost. This, of course is a ludicrous position, speaking of the future as if it is known, but a popular and perhaps prevailing one on the left nonetheless. The fact is, though they are loathe to admit it, that the American left
wants to lose the War in Iraq. If the situation is turned around in Iraq, stability is restored and Iraq becomes some sort of non-belligerent representative and economically viable Middle Eastern democracy, then the far Left's rhetoric of the past six years will have been proven false. To maintain the viability of their ideology, the Bush Doctrine, and therefore the U.S. military forces and Iraqi government, must fail. It is a sad position that the Left has backed themselves into, but they are campaigning against victory in Iraq, putting their own psychological and philosophical needs above the lives of 26 million Iraqis.
This most certainly is the case, as that is the only way that Greenwald go to such extremes as to “blame the Jews” in almost
Sheehanesque shrillness, while purposefully ignoring the fact that Iran has escalated the disagreements between our two nations to the level of conflict, and on multiple occasions.
In Bob Woodward’s
State of Denial, he states (via
NRO):
Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."
Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."
Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."
From the same column, former FBI director Louis Freeh:
It's not the first time we have had information about Iran's murder of Americans. Louis Freeh tells us that the same thing happened following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. On page 18 of Freeh's My FBI he reports that Saudi Ambassador Bandar told Freeh "we have the goods," pointing "ineluctably towad Iran." The culprits were the same as in Iraq: Hezbollah, under direction from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And then there was a confession from outgoing Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani to Crown Prince Abdullah (at the time, effectively the Saudi king): page 19: "the Khobar attack had been planned and carried out with the knowledge of the Iranian supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei."
As Freeh puts it, "this had been an act of war against the United States of America."
According to ABC News, Iranian-made explosives of recent manufacture have been captured at the
Iran-Iraq border. Iranian fighters have recently been captured
northeast of Baghdad after a skirmish with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers.
Greenwald is welcome to his own opinion, but he seems intent on creating his own reality as well, where Iran is not acting against us. Clemons takes the exact same approach, stating, Liebermann "inappropriately ties" Iran to some of the violence in Iraq. This takes a strong adherence to ideology over facts, and yet, this seems to be precisely their shared position. It is just one example of many they ignore or bend to bring "reality" to their "reality-based" community.
I offer only this.
I do not claim to have a crystal ball. I do not pretend to know where the war will lead. I do not pretend to know the outcome. What I do know, however, is that we further broke an already failing nation-state, and did much to create the situation in which the citizens of Iraq find themselves in. When someone creates a problem as we have done with the botched occupation we have witnessed so far, we have an obligation, a responsibility, to do everything within reason to help rectify that mistake.
If sending additional forces to Iraq in a so-called "surge" to attempt to break the militias, insurgents, terrorists and thugs is what the situation calls for, then we owe it—yes we
owe it—to the overwhelming majority of the 26 million Iraqi people that simply want to live peaceful lives.
To do otherwise is to dishonor our nation, and the lives of those who fought and who are fighting in Iraq.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:51 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Greenwald has been sniffing too much glue. His mind is gone.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 12:53 AM (GlKkD)
2
I thought the unspoken deal with Iraq was: we get rid of Sadddam and give the country a shot at democracy and prosperity/BUT the country becomes a war zone where fanatics from all over can come to attack Americans (who might otherwise come West),we improve our intelligence by inserting people into Iran(the longer we're in the neighborhood, the better our intellegence must get},we've bracketed Iran with troops in countries on either side in case they do anything funny. Maybe the president has slowed down the war because he realizes the media/CIA/Democrats aren't going to let him fight--so he's handing it off to them. The CIA/state dept. guy who was just interviewed by Jim Angel had the same talking points offered by Belmont Club today.
Posted by: Bob at January 01, 2007 08:14 PM (YvDX1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jamil Hussein Rescued?
Saving lives--even fictional lives--it's just what we do:
BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 28,2006 (AP) - Just hours after Conservative blogger, Bob Owens expressed concern over the disappearance and fate of Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein, the AP reported that a team of Iraqi police officers found Mr. Hussein inside a closet in a US military barracks, bound and blindfolded with severe lacerations over most of his body. Hussein was apparently beaten by American soldiers and will spend the next several weeks recuperating at his home in Baghdad.
[snip]
Hussein told the Associated Press that he was abducted by a group of US soldiers over a month ago after he personally witnessed them blowing up an Iraqi school bus packed with scores of Iraqi school children. The soldiers, Hussein said, tied him up, blindfolded him and then beat him with lead pipes until he could no longer walk. He was eventually found by Iraqi police officers who quickly rushed him to the AP's main office in Baghdad where he was treated for shock and eventually sent home to recuperate.
According to the AP, Hussein will take a year off from his job as Iraqi police captain to recover from his latest ordeal, but, he'll continue to work part time as a stringer for the AP.
Meanwhile, Hussein said he owes his life to Owens who alerted the AP to look for him.
I'm just glad I could help.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:37 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Imaginary policemen and fabricated sources everywhere sleep soundly in their beds because CY is on the job.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 29, 2006 09:43 AM (oC8nQ)
2
LOL. Needed that this morning.
Posted by: Specter at December 29, 2006 10:37 AM (ybfXM)
3
Lest all our bloggers be forgot
And truth be lost in time
They ante'd up in a high stakes game
Flopping Aces and dropping dimes
Now one Hussein has disappeared
The other's neck will stretch the twine
Our brave players called every bluff
Flopping Aces and dropping dimes
Jamil we found was a composite sketch
Of sixty painted mimes
Up next we're sure was Marcel Marceau
Til Flopping Aces started dropping dimes
CY, Michele and See-Dubya
At great risk of being slimed
Joined the game and ante'd up
Flopping Aces and dropping dimes
So raise a toast this New Year's Eve
to LGF and Powerline
And all those heroes who saved the truth
Flopping Aces and dropping dimes
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 29, 2006 12:31 PM (V56h2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 28, 2006
Woodward Scoops Again: Saddam's Embargoed Interview Leaked
In a pre-execution embargoed Bob Woodward interview leaked to Confederate Yankee, Former President of Iraq Saddam Hussein made several shocking confessions, including once having his secret police, the Mukhabarat plot the murder of Maury Povich in hopes of one day possessing Connie Chung.
Saddam also confessed to a strong craving for bran...
lots and lots of bran.
More as this develops...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:46 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Louisiana Loserpalooza
John Edwards (the pretty one, not the psychic) declared from New Orleans today that he would be running in the Democratic primaries for President in 2008.
Funny how Edwards, a former North Carolina Senator, life-long North Carolinian with
a job at UNC-Chapel Hill, chose to announce his candidacy in New Orleans, Louisiana, instead of on his "home turf," surrounded by friendly North Carolina Democratic politicians.
The fact of the matter is, Edwards doesn't have much home state support, and had he chosen to announce in NC, it would have likely been overshadowed by who chose not to attend, both stealing his thunder and saying something about his "down home" reputation he'd rather not the rest of the country find out.
Edwards spent part of his New Orleans photo-op with a shovel in hand. For those of us who know him the best, that seems quite appropriate.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:48 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Maybe the psychic one should run instead. Or does he already know the outcome?????
Posted by: Retired Navy at December 28, 2006 11:14 AM (0EcTE)
2
I thought the choice of NO to be brilliant. I a few pictures, he was able to summate the failure of the Republicans and identify himself with a contingent of voters that respond to the concept of "what are you going to do for me??" In a few phrases he outlined a hint of a give away program that he would institute if elected.
I think he is slime but the NO scheme worked, and lets face it I would prefer him to Hillary. Something about the presentation that Edwards made caused me to think about the fact that the Republicans have had 6 years of a majority and a president, yet what have they done? Did they decrease the size of the governnment, role back taxes perminently, eliminate the death tax, or get government out of our lives. NO!! Instead, we have more government, a sliding (wrong, falling) dollar, a tenious economy, the fact that taxes will go up regardless if the Demes do nothing (which they won't), a stalled war, the fact you can't get on a plane without harassment, you can't buy Sudafed, the police can break into your house at their desire and shoot you without a problem. In short our freedom is gone. In the world of medicine, I am getting paid less and have to ask permission to go to the toilet.
Maybe I will vote for Edwards.
Posted by: David Caskey at December 28, 2006 12:06 PM (xxoPt)
3
Dave, you forgot to mention the plight of the chocolate people. We all know Bush hates chocolate.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 28, 2006 12:30 PM (oC8nQ)
4
And free spell-check for all, too!
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at December 28, 2006 03:43 PM (FZP+j)
5
John Edward in '08!
Because Everyone* Deserves a Pony
*Except "The wealthy." Or, oil companies.
Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at December 28, 2006 04:12 PM (Pt3Le)
6
Well...honestly - if the vote was between Edwards, HRC, or Obama, I would vote for Edwards. The only reason I would support him is that he tends to run "clean" campaigns. I may not agree with him (and I don't), but Edwards tries to stay away from "ambush" politics. For that he is to be commended.
I think what is more interesting here is the fact that the Dems are struggling to find a viable candidate for '08. You'd think with their "wins" (yea right) in the midterms, that they would be able to find a candidate that represents the "New Direction". Guess not.
The real question comes down to, who do we put up against their eventual candidate?
Posted by: Specter at December 28, 2006 06:12 PM (ybfXM)
7
The candidacy of a mystic trial lawyer, worth nearly 50 million dollars, shouldnt even be considered. Then again, as any ambulance chaser will volunteer, they are the poor mans key to the courthouse (and the public is the key to the bank)
Lets hope he gets the nod. The Hillary is a volatile choice and Obama fits the bi-racial pop culture figures common today.
Posted by: icanplainlysee at December 28, 2006 08:05 PM (0Co69)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 27, 2006
Jamil Hussein Joins Cast of "Lost"
Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein, used regularly as a named source by the Associated Press including a flurry of eight reports about four burning mosques and 24 burning Sunnis (including six immolated) between November 24-26, has been noticeably missing from AP reporting for 31 days, and hasn't provided fresh information to the AP in 33 days.
To give you an idea of how odd this is, Jamil Hussein was used as a named source for the Associated Press (and
only the Associated Press) on average every 5.2 days between April 24 and November 26 of this year. His longest previous period of silence was a 34-day gap between mid-September and Mid-October.
All of us are deeply concerned about the fate of Captain Hussein, and I think it would be a nice gesture if the AP, which has visited him so many times at his office at the police station, would give him a call, just to see if he's okay.
As it stands right now, he seems to have disappeared as if he never existed.
CPT,
phone home...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:10 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just bumping my comment from the last Captain and Jamil post.
I think the next step is to start inquiring about the other 61 stories where AP cited Capt. Hussein as a source. It seems to be conclusive that the Burning Six story was fabricated. I'm sure AP and their allies are using their faith based reporting skills to HOPE that the rest of the stories are true and that this one story was an anomoly. It should be the job of the blogosphere to go out and PROVE those stories are either true or false.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 27, 2006 10:33 AM (oC8nQ)
2
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Jamil, Jamazel, hiddenproffer incorporated.
We’re gonna do it!
Give us burning mosques, we’ll fake it.
Ethics or journalistic rule, we’ll break it.
We’re gonna make our source come true.
Fakin' it our way.
Nothin’s gonna turn us back now,
Eyes are closed and off the track now.
We’re gonna make our source come true,
Doin’ it our way.
There is nothing we won’t try,
Never heard the word responsible.
This time there’s no stopping us.
We’re gonna do it.
Get the word, offset, and go now,
Phony story and we just know now,
We’re gonna make our source come true.
And we’ll do it our way, yes our way.
Make all our leftist screeds come true,
And do it our way, yes our way,
Make all our screeds come true
For the AP and you.
Theme Song from "They're Burnin' Surely" sitcom.... about mosques in the You Can't Hurriya Love section of Baghdad.
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 27, 2006 07:16 PM (V56h2)
3
last stanza, second line should read
Phony story and we just know HOW
damn typos
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 27, 2006 07:24 PM (V56h2)
4
Excerpted and linked at CENTCOM says AP’s "Iraqi police source" isn’t Iraqi police -- Part 25
Posted by: Bill Faith at December 28, 2006 03:53 AM (n7SaI)
5
I'm happy you were able to save Jamil's life
Posted by: Jay at December 29, 2006 12:31 AM (Rfqkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
RIP Gerald Ford
The former President has died at 93:
Former President Gerald Ford, who became president in 1974 after the resignation of Richard Nixon, died Tuesday at age 93.
Ford, the oldest surviving former U.S. president, died Tuesday, his wife, Betty Ford said. The former first lady's statement did not say where he died or give a cause of death.
"My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age," she said in a statement from Ford's office in Rancho Mirage. "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."
The nation's 38th president spent several days in the fall of 2006 at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage for medical tests. At the time of his release, on October 16, his chief of staff, Penny Circle, said he would "resume normal activities."
In August, he was discharged from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, after undergoing an angioplasty procedure to reduce or eliminate blockages in his coronary arteries. Doctors also implanted a pacemaker to improve his heart performance.
He is survived by his wife; three sons, Michael, Jack and Steven; and a daughter, Susan.
President Ford was the only President to ever hold the office never having been elected President or Vice President, being elevated in the wake of resignations in the Nixon administration following the Watergate scandal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:50 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One reason for me and the Nation to hold President Gerald Ford is such high regard is his unfailing humanity and goodness as a human being.
Gerald Ford NEVER made disparaging comments about any presidents who had preceded him, nor did he condemn any who followed his presidency.
As far as respect and human kindness, two former presidents come to mind who do not have the right to even carry Gerald Ford's briefcase - even though he would probably be the sort of person who would carry his own briefcase anyway.
I need not mention them by name. We all know who they are .....
Rest in peace, Mr. President. Rest in peace.
Posted by: Retired Spy at December 27, 2006 11:12 AM (Xw2ki)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 26, 2006
Music Bleg
My wife got a Sandisk M240
MP3 player for Christmas. Though a blogger I be, a technophile I am decidedly not. We're trying to decide between different music subscription services, and CNET offered reviews of MTV's Urge, Rhapsody To Go, Yahoo! Music Unlimited and Napster To Go.
Do you guys have any recommendations?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:11 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I like Apple's iTunes, but then I haven't tried the others. Yes, you can use iTunes on a Windows machine. $0.99 per song.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Smith at December 26, 2006 08:53 PM (/EEJG)
2
Bob,
I use iTunes but have never bought music from them. I suspect you own a great number of CDs. Load them first, back up the files in the event of chrashes, and enjoy. If you want to but additional individuals cuts later then worry about a "one off" or subscription service.
Posted by: RiverRat at December 26, 2006 09:26 PM (1ZNLc)
3
Trade it in on a Sig Sauer. Those, I understand. The rest, nada.
Posted by: Old_dawg at December 26, 2006 10:10 PM (v9Wmf)
4
I think River Rat has the right approach. As for iTunes, I'm not sure you can play songs from that service on anything not running Apple software - i.e iTunes for Mac or Windows or an iPod. (unless you burn them to an audio CD first and then re-rip the songs back into iTunes)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at December 26, 2006 10:47 PM (Z3kjO)
5
I'd second (third?) River Rat's idea. And I've had a lot of success downloading music from, of all places, WalMart. They've got a very extensive library (better than anyone else I can find that's legit) and being MP3, the files are transferable across platforms - something iPod isn't. The price is right - $.88 per song for singles, full album prices vary. (If you do try WalMart, use their "Classic Store" - it's a lot easier to navigate, and doesn't put any software on your computer.)
Posted by: Bill (not IB) at December 27, 2006 12:22 AM (caBLf)
6
iTunes music files will play on both PCs and Macs, contrary to a previous poster's thoughts.
Plus Apple offers a LOSSLESS quality codec for converting your current CDs for the computer. It greatly compresses the file size, but loses NONE of the quality. Use that instead of MP3 format.
Hands down return that mp3 player and buy an iPod. iTunes lets you manage your own music, iTunes Music Store music, plus you can get TV shows and Movies.
Oh, and buy a Mac. Windows Sux.
Posted by: John at December 27, 2006 03:37 PM (7J70r)
7
CY-- I buy from both iTunes and Wal-Mart. Unlike what Bill said, Wal-Mart gives you the file in a rights-managed WMA file that doesn't play on iPods. But if you can figure out how to convert them to mp3 you're good to go.
Posted by: See-Dubya at December 27, 2006 06:46 PM (9hI24)
8
I just hum tunes, that's free.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 28, 2006 05:01 PM (GlKkD)
9
Oh, and CY, if you have any quantity of old cassettes / LP's, DAK makes a neat device that plugs into your soundcard and rips tracks to either wav or mp3 format, plus software to de-hiss and de-pop what you pull.
Posted by: SDN at December 30, 2006 08:23 AM (hpLSE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 22, 2006
The Durham DA's Partial Withdrawal
I could really care less about the whole Duke Lacrosse rape trial, but today, Durham DA Mike Nifong finally dropped the rape changes. It's about damn time. They found plenty of DNA evidence, from five different men—we haven't seen that much sperm in North Carolina in one place since they stopped whaling—but none of it belonged to the lacrosse players.
And yet, he insists on prosecuting the kidnapping and sexual offense charges, which to my mind, hinged on the rape changes.
Why?
Answer provided by Durham native,
Mary Katherine Ham:
It’s Durham. It’s full of a bunch of liberal white people who love to get yelled at by black people, and a bunch of liberal black people who are happy to oblige them. This story scratched that white guilt itch soooo good, they just couldn’t let it go, even though it was pretty clear from the beginning that the story was a little off.
The national media liked the white, privileged, lax boys rape hard-working, exotic dancer, single mom story, and they ran with it, too. As a result, many lives, seasons, careers, and a successful sports program have been seriously messed with by a D.A. who couldn’t back off on the narrative, either, lest he feel the wrath at the ballot box from those whom he denied their white guilt orgy.
I lived in Durham for two years.
That's about right.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:33 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Another Straw
Another Straw
In the detailed follow-up account to the initial "burning six" story AP
insisted:
Two workers at Kazamiyah Hospital also confirmed that bodies from the clashes and immolation had been taken to the morgue at their facility.
They refused to be identified by name, saying they feared retribution.
This is a damn fine trick. According to Iraqi Brigadier General Abdul-Kareem, (via an email exchange with MNC-I PAO) their is no morgue at Kazamiyah Hospital. Any dead at Kazamiyah Hospital are transported by the police to the Medical Jurisprudence Center at Bab Almadham.
To sum up the "Burning Six" story so far:
Sources- The primary source for the story doesn't apparently exist.
- The secondary source retracted his claim
- The tertiary source (Assn of Muslim Scholars) is suspected of being in league with the insurgency
- All other sources are anonymous, and in at least this instance, cite a factual impossibility.
Claims/Evidence- 6 men were pulled out of a rocketed mosque, doused in kerosene, and burned alive. No bodies have been recovered, and the mosque has curiously never been named.
- Those killed were seen by workers of Kazamiyah Hospital in the morgue. Kazamiyah Hospital does not have a morgue.
- 18 people were burned to death in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque. Not a single casualty of any type has been found, and their is no evidence tha the mosque was set on fire.
- A total of four mosques-Ahbab al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa were attacked "with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and automatic rifles," before being burned. There is zero evidence that any of the mosques were assaulted in such a manner, and only the Nidaa Allah suffered minor fire damage from a molotov cocktail. The fire was put out by local firefighters.
In short, four weeks after breaking this story, the Associated Press has no credible witnesses, nor any physical or photographic evidence, of a series of four terrorist attacks that they claimed killed as many as 24 people, six of them burned alive. To date, they refuse to issue a retraction.
Faith-based reporting is apparently the new Associated Press standard.
12/26 Update: I was offline over the past few days and so didn't check my email, but
Michelle Malkin lets me know via email that according to her sources, Kazamiyah Hospital does not have a morgue, but it does have a large freezer that can be used to store bodies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:50 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Excerpted and linked at We'll live in shame or go down in flames...
The Phantom Press Corps Song
Off we go, into the wild blue yonder,Climbing high, into the sun,Down we dive, spouting our lies from under At 'em boys, give 'er the gun, We'll live in shame, or go down in flames, Hey! Nothing can stop the phan-tom press corps. ...
Sorry. Fuzzy flashback.
Posted by: Bill Fait at December 22, 2006 07:01 PM (n7SaI)
2
Good one. And it made me think of something else I'll post later.
Posted by: See-Dubya at December 22, 2006 07:03 PM (9hI24)
3
"Faith-based reporting"
That pretty good.
Posted by: Dusty at December 23, 2006 12:29 AM (GJLeQ)
4
Strange, isn't it how the MSM seems to be completely ignoring this embarrassment?
Maybe it's one of those, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
There's also the Sandy Berger guilty plea. Another non-story.
I'm also still waiting for Big Media to report on Clinton's last day in the WH pardons. Been waiting for six years.
No, no bias here.
Posted by: kjo at December 25, 2006 01:04 PM (/7ZSd)
5
Kazamiyah Hospital does not have a morgue? All hospitals of any size have a morgue, usually in the basement. They don't leave dead people lying around long near living ones. The Kazamiyah hospital probably doesn't do autopsies or post-mortem prep, but any holding room is a morgue.
Posted by: Ed at December 26, 2006 09:07 PM (VjjHz)
6
I think the next step is to start inquiring about the other 61 stories where AP cited Capt. Hussein as a source. It seems to be conclusive that the Burning Six story was fabricated. I'm sure AP and their allies are using their faith based reporting skills to HOPE that the rest of the stories are true and that this one story was an anomoly. It should be the job of the blogosphere to go out and PROVE those stories are either true or false.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 27, 2006 10:28 AM (oC8nQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What is the Return Policy on Jamil Hussein?
Since near the beginning of Jamilgate, the Associated Press has maintained that:
...Hussein is well known to AP. We first met him, in uniform, in a police station, some two years ago. We have talked with him a number of times since then and he has been a reliable source of accurate information on a variety of events in Baghdad.
No one – not a single person – raised questions about Hussein’s accuracy or his very existence in all that time. Those questions were raised only after he was quoted by name describing a terrible attack in a neighborhood that U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to make safe.
The problem with the AP response, issued by none other than AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll herself, is that is it essentially states
"You must trust us, because... you must trust us."
Now, exactly four weeks later, the AP has not provided a singe shred of evidence to show why we should trust them about the claimed existence of Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein.
As Michelle Malkin
noted last night, teams of investigators working with her, CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Teams), the Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI),
Marc Danzinger, and
Eason Jordan, have all been unable to find any evidence of a Captain Jamil Hussein having
ever worked at the Yarmouk or Al Khadra police stations as AP claims.
There is however, another Iraqi Police Captain in Yarmouk, and he has now been through a second round of questioning at Ministry of Interior Headquarters. This same police captain worked at both Yarmouk and Al Khadra, and his first name is Jamil. His last name, however, is not Hussein, and he denies ever having spoken with the Associated Press.
And so we are left with the official statement of the Iraqi government that Police Captain Jamil Hussein has never existed, and no one, AP or otherwsie, has shown evidence to the contrary. He is a ghost, an apparition, a Never Was.
As the AP stands silent (probably on the command of their legal department), we are forced to consider at ths point the following most-logical possibilities:
- Someone posing as "Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein" duped the Associated Press, from stringer to executive editor, for two years using a made-up identity, or;
- The Associated Press made the decision prior to April of 2006 to create the pseudonym "Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein," as a cover identity for one or more sources, and had that cover compromised.
If the Associated Press has been duped by an false identity for two years, it should hardly come as a surprise that they would chose not to publicly admit to this embarrassing failure of basic journalistic fact-checking, a compromise that affects the integrity of all 61 stories in which Hussein was a source that are not corroborated by non-AP accounts.
If the Associated Press decided to use a pseudonym prior to the first "Jamil Hussein sourcing", attempting to defraud the public by using a made-up identity to mask the people behind one or more other sources, they are also guilty of compromising all 61 stories in which Hussein was a source that are not corroborated by non-AP accounts, and in addition, have compromised the reputations of all 17 reporters that have bylines to stories citing Hussein as a source,
two of which have been promoted to new positions, curiously enough, since Hussein's identity came into question.
Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein was a named source for the Associated Press on 61 stories published between April 24 and November 26 of this year. AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll claims he was a well know AP source for two years. She and AP international editor John Daniszewski, newly-minted Baghdad News Editor Kim Gamel, and brand new Assistant Chief of Middle East News Patrick Quinn have had 29 days to prove Police Captain Jamil Hussein exists, and they have failed, utterly.
I propose that the AP and others in the news business—and make no mistake, it is a business—incorporate a version of the
30-day return policy so common to other businesses.
If a news organization cannot provide physical proof of a disputed story of stories, or the basic existence of sources within 30 days, they should then produce a full retraction of their story of stories using that source, and finance a third-party independent investigation into why their reporting methodology failed to come up with the evidence that should have been needed to take a story to press in the first place. Doing this would ensure that methodological failures can be addressed and lessons learned to keep these kind of failures from repeating in the future.
You've had 29 days to prove your case, AP, and you've failed, utterly.
You've got 24 hours, then I think we're entitled to at least one retraction, and perhaps as many as 61.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:16 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Those questions were raised only after he was quoted by name describing a terrible attack in a neighborhood that U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to make safe.
The AP completely misses the point. When you are caught in a lie, everything you have stated previously comes into question. The questions weren't raised 'only' after he was quoted by name. They were raised when it was discovered that the last story he relayed did not hold a grain of truth. Only *then* did the other stories become suspect. Upon further investigation, by intrepid bloggers, it was discovered that 61 stories were accredited to him. It was time to put up or shut up. They could have easily have stated that Jamil was his name, they had possibly been duped and then investigated on their own. Instead they offered evasive responses. Being a 'global' organization I guess they feel there is no one with enough clout to fact-check them. They couldn't be more wrong.
Posted by: Dan Irving at December 22, 2006 02:35 PM (zw8QA)
2
CY
Please allow me to prosecute the case against the AP (and the Ministry of Media as a whole), because I think that of the two theories, one one can hold water. There is absolutely NO chance, that the AP was "duped" into believing that Jamil Hussein actually existed for two years, while using him as often a sole source on events outside his district.
I believe that the "option" of allowing readers to believe that the AP was anything other than complicit in foisting a phony source on the public, is untenable based on the facts as we now know them.
1)The AP has not used their now infamous "source" 61 times for backup in reporting various alleged events, some of which give precise details in numbers, amounts and degrees....such that, not only is the underlying story in each possibly exaggerated...but entirely false in its premise.
2) The AP has made an open declaration that they have met this "source" numerous times...including in his office. Is there even the most remote chance that they would not be able to describe him in great detail...height, weight, facial hair, noticeable markings...such that they could have cued one of their comrades in the Ministry of Media to go "back them up" on his existence? Not one did.
3)Rather than attempting to develop additional sources for areas outside this particular "captain's" district, they used him to verify and AMPLIFY stories in OTHER districts. This means, that they had reason to believe that his access to detailed information was multi-district and he held such a position of authority that he not only could discuss events in other districts, but could provide otherwise unavailable details of those events. Before printing reports under those circumstances, one would need either multiple verification by additional reliable sources...or to know this source so well as to be beyond casual acquaintence level. This had to be a personal friend. He was speaking out of turn, without authority, out of district and only if you KNEW him...could you know that such information was reliable. This shows a level of intimacy, that would defy them not knowing precisely who he was.
4)17 reporters used the same fake name, utilized the same source, ...and NOT ONE questioned how he obtained his information, how he knew about details in events outside his district, how he was allowed to speak about them without clearance and ....what his real name was?
And these are "investigative" reporters? And not ONE...questioned how this one lonely police captain was privy to such intimate details?
5)After THIS event, in which four, no...I mean less than four...well, maybe one...mosque was obliterated...well, severely damaged...um...vandalized, ....NOT ONE of these reporters was in the least bit interested to know how their "golden goose" had laid such a rotten egg? Not ONE???? And they proceed on unquestioning about the six immolated bodies? The 18 murders? There is NO inquiry. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Forget whether they "stand by their source"... they stand by the STORY. You can't be DUPED...after the fact. The STORY is utterly, wholly, completely... discredited.
6)Kathleen Carroll, in what is now a predictable stance of arrogance, dismissiveness, clandestine and ethically bankrupt that has become the response right out of the playbook for the Ministry of Media....suggests that ASKING THE QUESTIONS...is an offense to the AP's long traditions and integrity...blah, blah, blah.
Stonewalling by bloviation. Then silence. And EVERY one of their comrades in arms in the leftist press...is sitting on their hands. The silence is deafening.
The AP, Reuters, CNN, CBS, NYTimes....all of them...REPEATEDLY have gotten their hands caught in the ethics cookie jar...and the response has been universally the same. They all avoid covering the story, because they are too busy covering each other.
Advancing leftist "projections" of how things "ought to be"...even if they aren't...is now de rigueur. Some folks call it "fake but accurate", others call it "truthiness", I have been calling it "caricatures of truth"...but we should be calling it...a rape of our information stream.
The Ministry of Media has stormed the gates and made a successful grab at our Knowledge Management. They then proceeded to engage in a systematic Metrics Cleansing, eliminating any trace of divergent thought. And proceeded to rewrite all the rules.
When cops go bad...it is not just twice the horror...it's infinitely worse....because they control the apprehension. And when they engage in a Code of Silence, whenever one of their number is caught, it makes taking them down nearly impossible.
The press are our eyes and ears and VOICE to the world. When the media goes bad...we are a nation in mortal danger. Our Ministry of Media is off the charts despicable. They advance nothing but leftist causes, push World Populism, romaticize Socialism, hypercriticize America (and Israel), provide cover for leftist thugs and brutalizers and often do the bidding of our enemies. They have adopted an arrogance and lack of integrity and self-policing that approaches organized crime. They have adopted a Code of Silence that magnifies and multiplies the evil.
There is no more time and no more room for allowing the "option" of believing that they are merely "dupes"...who innocently adhere to a Peter, Paul and Mary lovefest view of the world.
They are raping our information stream, they are doing so willingly and believe they are above reproach. There is no other option. They are out to change our system of self-governance...by any means necessary. They are and have been lying to us with impunity.
It is imperative that we say "no more". It is appropriate that we say "no more". And by all that is right and just...it is TIME we say "no more". There are no other options.
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 22, 2006 03:59 PM (V56h2)
3
Excerpted and linked at We'll live in shame or go down in flames...
The Phantom Press Corps Song
Off we go, into the wild blue yonder,Climbing high, into the sun,Down we dive, spouting our lies from under At 'em boys, give 'er the gun, We'll live in shame, or go down in flames, Hey! Nothing can stop the phan-tom press corps. ...
Sorry. Fuzzy flashback.
Posted by: Bill Faith at December 22, 2006 07:01 PM (n7SaI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dumb Congressman, Dumber Blogger
If it is true that a negative and a negative make a positive, does that mean that a stupid comment made by a politician, and responded to ignorantly by a blogger, equate to good blog fodder?
Let's see.
BlueNC, a liberal blog apparently from the Concord, NC area outside of Charlotte, attacked Republican Congressman Robin Hayes yesterday for something the local newspaper reported he said in a speech to a
local Rotary Club:
"Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior."
If that is an accurate reflection of what Hayes said (Blue NC provides no link, as the local paper, the
Concord Standard and Mount Pleasant Times, has a
web site, but does not have an online edition), then Hayes made an unwise comment.
I know the Concord area, and Hayes was certainly playing to his constituency in the heavily Christian audience, with no thought that his comments would get wider distribution around the world thanks to modern technology.
Were his comments careless? Certainly. Accurate? Only in that Christians don't have much of a track record of suicide bombings, nor do they typically use their electric drills for much other than home repair.
Typically.
Hayes, like many of our leaders in the House and Senate, seems far from savvy of how this
series of tubes called the Internets, works. He doesn't get it.
Like too many public figures, he does not yet understand that anything you say, anywhere you say it no matter how small, can and will be used against you now in the court of public opinion. Does this make him evil or a "crusader?" No, just stupid.
Equally stupid, however, is this comment by the formatting and theologically-challenged blogger, LiberalNC (my bold):
So if we just turn our soldiers into missionaries everything will be okay, Mr. Hayes?
First we sent our men over there to take out the WMD’s, then it was to “spread democracy”, now you want them there to “spread the message of Jesus Christ”?
It so happens that people in Iraq already have a savior but unfortunately for Mr. Hayes it’s Muhammed, not Jesus.
If we can’t keep Muslims from killing each other over there, I don’t think that trying to make them all Christian is going to be any easier.
This will undoubtedly come as a shock to "LiberalNC" and perhaps many liberals in general, but "Mo" isn't anyone's savior. Never has been, never will be.
The very concept of a Savior, someone both God and man who sacrificed his earthly life to take up the burdens of our sins, is uniquely Christian.
There is nothing even similar to the concept of a savior in Islam. Mohammed did a lot of interesting things, like zipping around Heaven and Hell on guided tours, but he was
never a savior, nor did he ever claim to be.
Maybe that is why I find it so amusing when liberals try to comment on the War on Terror.
They don't understand even the basic underlying cultural and philosophical differences between western societies based upon Judeo-Christian thought and those societies based upon Islamic philosophies, and ignorantly assume that Islam is some sort of flip-side to Christianity, that Mohammed is a direct analog to Jesus.
Hayes made a mistake pandering to a local audience, but certainly understands he comments were just hot air, with no hope of being implemented or even seriously discussed. LiberalNC, however, was quite serious, making a comparison based upon a vast ignorance of the gulf between two of the world's major religions.
The later is assuredly more ignorant than the former.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:08 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't understand the sign.
Posted by: David Caskey at December 22, 2006 11:50 AM (xxoPt)
2
David,
Baptists (which the church is) and Methodists frequently disagree on doctrinal points.
The church sign itself is a computer generated one that is located somewhere on the internet. You can use it to create all sorts of stupid signs.
Posted by: Jeff at December 22, 2006 01:44 PM (yiMNP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Men In Glassy Houses...
...Shouldn't throw stones:
[Ahmadinejad] toured cities in western Iran, telling the crowds that Iran will not be intimidated by Western demands to dismantle its nuclear program, and scolding Bush.
"Oh, the respectful gentleman, get out of the glassy palace and know that you are the most hated person in the eyes of the world's nations and you can't harm the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, according to the official Iranian Republic News Agency.
Glassy. Iranian nation. Ahmadinejad.
Barring a major change in Iranian politics and rhetoric, I think we'll see all three of those in a sentence again in the near future.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:15 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Hi, I'm A Blogger
And he's soooo AP.
h/t
Insty.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:06 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I loved it, Bob.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Posted by: Retired Spy at December 22, 2006 08:12 AM (Xw2ki)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 21, 2006
Uranium-Laden Big Rigs Flips
I think this is generally why they prefer to ship nuclear fuels by rail:
A fully loaded tractor-trailer carrying about 6,600 pounds of powdered uranium has overturned on part of Interstate 40 in Johnston County, authorities say.
All eastbound lanes of I-40 are closed at exit 325 (N.C. Highway 242 to Benson). Traffic is being rerouted through Benson.
The accident occurred shortly before 9 p.m. when the vehicle overturned on the Interstate 95 northbound ramp to I-40 east.
Johnston County's emergency communications director says the threat level is low because the uranium is packed securely. The only threat is if the radioactive material breaks through the reinforced container it is in.
Let's hope that doesn't happen.
BTW... what color is "Carolina Green?"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:57 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'd be astonished if the cask was damaged in any way that would risk compromise.
They're simply built too strong. Think about it, a "fully loaded tractor-trailer" is 80,000lbs. The truck itself may be up to 40k of that. The uranium is 6,600lbs. That leaves 33,400lbs (if my math is right) for the cask...
Posted by: Jeff at December 22, 2006 01:41 PM (yiMNP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Soylent Bean
Did you hear about "American concentration camps for brown people?"
It come from this
extended wet fart in an post from Firedoglake's Pachacutec (my bold):
Latina Lista has been doing fantastic work on the story of the truly evil ICE roundup of immigrant children and families, which has in many cases left American citizen children effectively orphaned. Now, we learn of American concentration camps for brown people, holding hundreds of children, just in time for Christmas, here on mainland American soil. As allied forces liberated Europe after defeating Germany, the undesirables of the Nazi regime were set free. Who will liberate these people?
It has to be you.
Nazis? Illegal Aliens? You know what that means...
FIRE UP THE OVENS!!!

And be sure to leave some for Santa...
con leche.
Does that illustrate just how stupid you sound, Pachy? Good.
The Nazis efficiently murdered between 9-11 million people because of no other reason than they were "undesirables"of the wrong religious, cultural, or social minority, or they were gay, crippled, or mentally handicapped, or prisoners of war.
To compare such a barbaric event to the incarceration of people into undoubtably stressful and uncomfortable but safe and heated facilities for ignoring this nations laws, is beyond the pale. Get a sense of perspective, and perhaps, an education.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:56 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hitler and the Nazis were bad dudes, but they didn't even come close to matching the horrors perpetrated by Stalin and Mao.
Posted by: Mescalero at December 21, 2006 10:35 PM (lBdwX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Werewolves of London
Via the Blotter:
British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.
British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England."
Officials said they could not cite any specific date or target but said al Qaeda had planned previous operations during the Christmas holidays that had been disrupted.
"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.
Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.
Well, isn't that just
peachy.
Terrorism isn't rocket science, folks, and al Qaeda has a track record of loving the classics. If al Qaeda is plotting to hit London over the holidays with suicide bombers, figure on trains, planes, and TATP.
TATP, shorthand from
triacetone triperoxide, is a powerful and unstable "homebrew" explosive used in the successful subway and bus bombings in London on July 7, 2005, and four failed bombings exactly two weeks later where the TATP used, thought to come from the same batch of explosives, failed to detonate.
I question the timing, and I mean that quite seriously. If these rumored terrorists are indeed plotting a Christmastime attack, it would seem that at least part of the goal would be to drive a deeper wedge between British Muslim "other" and the overwhelming majority of a too-politically correct and predominately Anglo-Christian nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:50 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 20, 2006
Jamil Who?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim:
According to two CPATT officials--one in the U.S, one in Iraq--there is no one named "Jamil Hussein" working now or ever at either at the Yarmouk or al Khadra police stations. That is what they have said along and nothing has changed.
The Baghdad-based CPATT officer says there is no "Sgt. Jamil Hussein" at Yarmouk, which contradicts what Marc Danziger's contacts found. I have another military source on the ground who works with the Iraqi Army (separate and apart from the CPATT sources) and is checking into whether anyone named "Jamil Hussein" has ever worked at Yarmouk.
There is only one police officer whose first name is "Jamil" currently working at the Khadra station, according to my CPATT sources.
His name is Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim (alternate spelling per CPATT is "Ghulaim.") Previously, Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim worked at a precinct in Yarmouk, according to the CPATT sources. Curt at Flopping Aces has received the same info.
Now, go back and look at the full name and location information the Associated Press cited in its statement on the matter:
[T]hat captain has long been know to the AP reporters and has had a record of reliability and truthfulness. He has been based at the police station at Yarmouk, and more recently at al-Khadra, another Baghdad district, and has been interviewed by the AP several times at his office and by telephone. His full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein.
Let's review: AP's source, supposedly named "Jamil Gholaiem Hussein," used to work at Yarmouk but now works at al Khadra. CPATT says the one person named "Jamil" now at al Khadra -- Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim -- also used to work at Yarmouk. His rank is the same as that of AP's alleged source. His last name is almost identical to the middle name of AP's alleged source. (FYI: In Arabic, the middle name is one's father's name; the last name is one's grandfather's.)
Pseudonyms? Why should I care about pseudonyms?
Curiouser and curiouser...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:03 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation’s will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.
National Review editor Rich Lowry
When the Media’s Right
December 19, 2006
Posted by: Frederick at December 20, 2006 05:35 PM (jSBbA)
2
Have you been hitting the cooking sherry again Fred?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 20, 2006 06:34 PM (xXVSL)
3
I have been reading the comments of guys like Fredo (please protect the don at the fruit stand, Fredo) for so long it doesn't phase me...but Ed at Captain's Quarters is usually a great guy. And the NRO is not such a bad place. Have we all gone soft in the head?
THIS is my place to hang out...with CY, as a general rule. (I am a card carrying member of the VDH fan club, and I suffer from unrequited [and unrecognized] infatuation with Atlas Shrugs drop dead gorgeous blogger, but I hang here more than anywhere else)
But, I believe there are some outstanding places to visit daily. LGF, Instapundit, Michelle, ...a few others.
And Captain's Quarters is certainly one of them. But in discussing Lowry above...I am not on all fours with Ed...or Lowry.
The gist of what I'm getting is that the Ministry of Media "ain't so bad" and there's "lots of good" that comes out of them.
To my ear, this sounds akin to saying, "Well, you know...John Wayne Gacy DID play a nice clown at kids birthday parties...so don't look at all those decaying bodies in the crawlspace"
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. Let me get this straight.
We get 40 years of leftist spin, and I mean hard, fast, dramamine requiring spin...and we should lay down and take a "well, boys will be boys" attitude about it? And if we don't adopt that attitude, we're being "unreasonable" about it all??????
The Ministry of Media in all their branches,....print, network news, international news, wire services...have been distorting, manipulating, staging and obscuring the facts since (at least) Walter Cronkite and the Tet offensive. They regularly slander America and Israel.
What IS said by them needs to be decoded... as much as what is NOT said needs to be excavated like an archealogical dig.
And we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water". That "baby" is 40 years old and her name is Typhoid Mary. She's diseased and what is worse...she thinks she's the Queen of Sheba. And we are all her subjects.
I, for one...am damn tired of their smug and pedantic attitude, their institutional arrogance, their haughty refusal at self-policing...hell, at objective self-reflection. And at their Code of Silence and coverup schemes.
Let me make this point crystal clear, there should be no NEED for bloggers to "uncover" photoshopped pictures, staged scenes, phony sources, dummied up documents and withheld evidence.
The information stream is a de facto public trust...and whether Mr. Lowry or Mr. Rago wish to denigrate the blogosphere for any of their own self-serving interests or not....LGF, Ed, Michelle, Bob Owens, Glenn, Patterico, etc...have moved mountains (of BS) that we would otherwise be forced to swallow,.... with little or no ability to gain more than "caricatures of truth" from the information stream that has allowed itself to become a political arm of the left.
We should get down on our knees every day and thank the heavens for the men and women of the blogosphere...because the Ministry of Media not only has shown it can't be trusted with our facts, evidence and information...it has shown itself to be quite willing to do the bidding of those who stand against us.
If Mr. Lowry and Mr. Rago can't come to grips with THAT...then I'm not sure if they first need an optometrist for myopia or perhaps a proctologist first to gain access to their failing eyesight.
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 20, 2006 06:37 PM (V56h2)
4
So the character "Jamil Hussein" may or may not be based on a real person, just as the "news" AP reports may or may not be based on real events.
Posted by: Van Helsing at December 20, 2006 07:01 PM (tYH7u)
5
I am sick and tired of seeing the same straw man defense over and over again. If I hear one more apologist tell me about how this is not about Jamil Hussein, that this is about the reality of conditions on the ground in Iraq, and then proceed to go through a laundry list of examples of how bad Iraq is, I am seriously going to lose it! YES, THIS IS ALL ABOUT JAMIL HUSSSEIN! This IS all about six immolated Sunnis.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 21, 2006 08:54 AM (oC8nQ)
6
Integrity is like virginity. Easy to lose hard to regain. AP should keep this in mind...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 21, 2006 03:27 PM (xXVSL)
7
Does anyone remember the scene in Ghostbusters, where it was finally discovered that the oozing river of slime fed off negative energy?
Meet Eric Boehlert...the oozing river of slime personified.
That thought crossed my mind as I watched Anchoress, Allahpundit, and SeeDubya have to ward off being slimed by the oozings of yet another of Eric Boehlert's gasbag bloviations.
It's clear that this walking mindfart has never taken a class in debate, argumentation, persuasion, logic or clearly... journalism. Even more clearly, the classes he perhaps may have taken in ethics, were taught by his mentors in the Ministry of Media, for whom he is now interning as a junior grade apologist. They are not recognizable as "ethics" in the real world, but to leftist media apologists, the rules in a world of slime are...fluid.
Since he is wholly incapable of making an argument, he bubbles up some slime through misquotes, misstatement of facts, misuse of evidence, and missed opportunities at not soiling his little tantrum-throwing diapers any further than he already has.
While certainly a few Iowa farms might make use of his ability to create phantom strawmen out of thin air, there are virtually zero other uses for his fatuous and empty scribbles as he tries....in vain...to put a new coat of paint to cover over the gaping hole in the Ministry of Media's vermin infested sitting room. It's the wrong technique for the misidentified problems.
And his paint can, of course, is simply more green, bubbling slime. He blames "warbloggers",(there is no definition of who this is...or isn't...but, it follows neatly into the thumb-sucking tantrum of the puerile left, if you don't agree with the leftists, you are a warmongerer...among their other favorite tantrum throwing names hurled at non-leftists, ie, See, homophobic, racist, money-grubbing etc.)...and this "blame" in today's tantrum... is that some Iraqi journalists have been killed and the assignment is dangerous...and we don't care.
Hmmm....and we don't care. Interesting. And, since we don't care, therefore...we don't believe any of the leftists are telling the truth. And because some died, ALL journalists there are telling the truth. And ALL the reports are therefore accurate. Interesting. Stupid...but fascinating to watch unfold.
Let's put this in leftist syllogism form:
"A" is a journalist who uses fake sources, dummies up documents, photoshops photos, distorts facts, stages phony scenes;
"B" is a journalist who died in a war zone
Ergo, journalist "B" PROVES that journalist "A" is not something to discuss, and anyone who does deserves to be slimed.
Um....ok.
What this asshelmet chooses to ignore, while lying about ...well, virtually everything...is that LYING about facts, evidence, sources, research,photographs, ....IS the point.
It's not ok to create phony stories to advance the media's political agenda. Period.
Since this oozing river of slime feeds off negative energy, I'm going to wish him Happy Holidays anyway. And hope that his New Year's resolution is to find somewhere within him between now and then...a conscience. Some honor. Some dignity. A sense of right and wrong. I don't do this just for him...but for all of us...so that we don't risk being slimed in 2007 nearly as badly as we have been for the last 40 years.
Posted by: cfbleachers at December 21, 2006 04:00 PM (V56h2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 173 >>
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.3156 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3056 seconds, 94 records returned.
Page size 115 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.