mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

June 11, 2006

Neo-Nazi Idiots

In a guest editorial in the Bild am Sonntag newspaper, Knobloch wrote that neo-Nazis have stated their intentions of "showing their solidarity with the tyrants of Tehran" at the upcoming match between Iran and Angola in the eastern German town of Leipzig. The city is located in the state of Saxony, where the far-right, neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) won 10 percent of the vote in the last state parliamentary elections. Pockets of the state are a hotbed of xenophobia and it has also recently been the site of racist and anti-Semitic incidents at football matches. If a neo-Nazi presence is felt, Knobloch said, Germany could not just stand aside passively.

So, neo-Nazis hate Jews. The Iranian government hates Jews. Check.
Neo-Nazis mostly deny the Holocaust. The Iranian government denies the Holocaust. Check.
Neo-Nazis would like to install a Fascist government. Iran has a Fascist government. Check.
Neo-Nazis praise Hitler who tried to make nukes. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is oftened called a new Hitler and is trying to make nukes. Check.
Neo-Nazis are xenophobic, hate Middle Easterners and have been known to kill immigrants. Iran would love to take over the world (or at least destroy it) in the name of Islam. Oops.

Ok, I've got it now. Hating Jews is more important than your country being threatened by Islamism and nukes. I was just trying to work out that whole neo-Nazi hierarchy of values thing.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 02:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Fox News' O'Reilly Visits Gitmo, Prisoners Commit Suicide

Well, somebody had to say it. Certainly odd but, I believe, merely coincidental.

From CNN.com:

Three prisoners at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have hanged themselves in what is being called a "planned event," the U.S. military has said.
They are the first confirmed deaths at the compound. Prisoners have attempted suicide in the past.
"Two Saudis and one Yemeni, each located in Camp 1, were found unresponsive and not breathing in their cells by guards," said a statement issued by Joint Task Force-Guantanamo on Saturday.

According to Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, there is a mythical belief that Guantanamo would be shut down if three detainees died. As a result, the suicides were planned, not spontaneous.

Human rights advocates are eagerly jumping on the incident to bolster their claims that America is bad and President Bush is evil. Expect their assertions to be repeatedly emphasized by the generally complicit mainstream media.

My take on the situation is that fanatics killing themselves is not, at all, an unusual event. And, in all candor, I'd much rather fanatics commit suicide in a cell as opposed to a bus or restaurant crowded with innocents.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 01:25 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

1 For the Liberals amongst us, don't forget these men would have willingly committed suicide amongst you, and your whole family in a shopping mall, with his explosive vest too -- their incarceration is one of the barriers that stops that happening. Don't let that stop you wasting a pack of Kleenex on the scum non-the-less...

Posted by: davec at June 11, 2006 01:44 AM (CcXvt)

2 Wouldn't it just be simpler if no one committed suicide? So what is the acid test for a fanatic? Is it simply having a room at the Gitmo Hotel? Put yourself in the same situation, held indefinitely, and tell us how long it would take for you to go "fanatic." Do you honestly believe that every one of the detainees there at Gitmo are guilty? Shall we ignore the evidence that people were sold as terrorists and incarcerated as enemy combatants with no hope of a fair trial? The only true innocents are the children. The rest of us are guilty by degrees. The only way to cleanse the stain of guilt is to stand up for justice and put down fearmongering.

Posted by: DCO at June 11, 2006 01:55 AM (ht8Md)

3 What I can't quite figure out is why the U.S. military is calling the suicides an "act of war." Huh?

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 11, 2006 02:18 AM (FVbj6)

4 Oh look, it's the "they're just "oppressed brown people™", forced into terrorism by the evil U.S" defence. We all know before the U.S captured them, these two Saudi's and the Yemeni were growing Alfalfa, drinking tea and playing chess while flying kites in Afghanistan right? Two of the most radical, Jihadi nations, nationals were detained on the battlefield, and you want to sing Kum Ba Yah and give em a hug -- how totally predictable.

Posted by: davec at June 11, 2006 02:20 AM (CcXvt)

5 One of lesser know dangers of drug use is making statements of unbelievable foolishness to the media. For example: William Goodman from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights told AFP news agency the men were "heroes for those of us who believe in basic American values of justice, fairness and democracy". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm

Posted by: Capp at June 11, 2006 02:29 AM (XgLFc)

6 Heroes? Oh they're just pissed because we don't believe anybody in Guantanamo should get a day in court. You can ignore them.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 11, 2006 02:49 AM (FVbj6)

7 Can't we issue them six feet of rope that no US military personnel are permitted to touch without gloves and an honor guard -- sort of like their Korans? And can't we call any attempt to interfere with the use of the rope to make a noose -- or to cut them down -- a crime against humanity? After a week or two we could close Gitmo because there would be no more prisonerst there -- wouldn't that make the libs and the "world community" orgasmicly happy?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at June 11, 2006 06:09 AM (Jqugw)

8 Three today, who knows, maybe the rest tomorrow. Can we hope that the entire arab world will commit suicide by year's end?

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at June 11, 2006 06:50 AM (WvUov)

9 How dare they even try to keep these men from committing suicide? They have rights you know.[/sarcasm] DCO, you really ought to get out more often. Around 200 Gitmo detainees have been released. Some returned to the battle field and some of those were swept up again and returned to detainment. Sounds to me like we've got a lot of pretty guilty people still there. "Put yourself in the same situation, held indefinitely, and tell us how long it would take for you to go "fanatic."" Oh, please. You're using the base assumption that they're innocent. Something I don't know and neither do you. So all your righteous indignation is just empty rhetoric. How much "justice" do you think you'd get from these people you're so ready to stand up for?

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 07:05 AM (YudAC)

10 Well there willingness to commit suicide by strangulation certainly seems to diminish the fear the capital punishment is thought to have as a determent.

Posted by: john ryan at June 11, 2006 07:14 AM (TcoRJ)

11 Poor jihadis. They didn't get to kill any infidels in the process. No virgins for you!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 07:58 AM (8e/V4)

12 DAVEC has spoken for me.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2006 08:03 AM (2/7WJ)

13 Yes John, capital punishment is not a deterrent........to terrorists - people who have been convinced that dying is the best thing that they can do. Quite different to a typical, garden variety so to speak murderer who usually doesn't hold such beliefs. So execution may not be a deterrent to terrorism, but it is an efficient means of disposal of such scum.

Posted by: Graeme at June 11, 2006 08:05 AM (QO12b)

14 Graeme your ideas are so much aligned with those of the terrorists, scum=infiels so it is OK to kill execute them. And as to the deterent effec of ca[ital punishmentt on preventing murder many people do not think that has ever been proved.

Posted by: john ryan at June 11, 2006 11:30 AM (TcoRJ)

15 Wow, john. That was a stretch, even for you.

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 11:46 AM (YudAC)

16 John: You act surprised that death would not be a determent for people who are willing to die for their cause, either by explosive vest or on the battlefield. However I am disappointed in the Guantanamo situation too, but most likely for different reasons than yourself. You see, I believe if anyone captured is not a member of the Taliban, that were captured not wearing a uniform that distinguished them from Civilians they should already have been tried and executed under a military tribuneral. Hiding amongst Civilians while conducting battle against our forces is not only cowardly, but leads to collateral damage to Civilians who are inevitably injured or killed while being used as shields by unidentifiable jihadi's, it also means our own soldiers are killed while taking measures to avoid wounding or killing Civilians, consider Sgt. Ben Morton who was killed in Mosul, who's team avoided using percussion grenades when entering Civilian homes because they can kill children there is no doubt using a percussion grenade would have saved his life. These are the people the Left wants to put on Trial and put in prison, so they can spend time in Jail while members of our own armed forces, and Civilians lay in their graves because of their cowardly method of warfare?

Posted by: davec at June 11, 2006 12:07 PM (CcXvt)

17 Its called " bleeding " not Geneva convention from our enemies viscous spiritual and psychological standpoint. They capture one of our men, and every time commit unbelievable and unspeakable surgery upon them. They keep them alive through the process to jeer and yell and deficate upon them. Not sometimes. Everytime. Then as is their ritualistic custom they mercifully behead them. " Bleeding " was very present in Viet Nam and many other tortures not only to our boys but to their own people. But the far left liberal press chooses not to cover it.Instead they magnify in the minds of the American people and the world; as Aljezera, the enemies rights to full Geneva convention privledges and justice as if they are United States citizens. Perhaps citizenship is what they will ask for these ruthless warlords next; anything is possible in their liberal agenda.

Posted by: william copenhaver at June 11, 2006 02:55 PM (ENoLU)

18 Maybe we can get O'Reilly to swing by there once a week. That way we can all get what we want.

Posted by: slug at June 11, 2006 03:56 PM (soGSc)

19 Oyster, I do get out now and then but thanks for the invite. I'm aware that some detainees have been released. I'm not surprised that some of them would be caught and returned to prison. What happened to justice for all? You don't think that some of them were just pissed off enought to go back to battle? What a way for us to recruit for the terrorists. As for innocence I'm glad I don't have to be the judge. We still have to uphold the standard of law and not let our emotions run away from us. Innocent until proven guilty. We become as bad as the terrorists if we let this standard slip. Psalms 23:4 will tell you to whom I look for justice.

Posted by: DCO at June 11, 2006 11:15 PM (ht8Md)

20 DCO, all your posturing and humanitarianism does not change the fact that this is not just an Elliot Ness contingent looking for hooch smugglers and handing them over to the government to try and incarcerate. It's a war. And I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's, let's just say, different.

Posted by: Oyster at June 12, 2006 06:15 AM (YudAC)

21 To bad it was only three. Put me in charge and there will be more.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 12, 2006 10:41 AM (fDZgg)

22 Greyrooster, I doubt anyone will ever put you in charge of anything.

Posted by: Callemasiseeum at June 12, 2006 02:33 PM (UHKaK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 10, 2006

Introducing Me

I'm Chris, nice to meet you. I usually blog at Chris At Home, but will be posting primarily here. I am all about Filipinas, laughing at Jihadis and random interesting stuff out of Asia.

I am on an extended vacation from work, living in Mindano in the Philippines. (Job offers? Sure!) No, its not particularly dangerous here. No, I have never been kidnapped. Yes, there are a lot of scary Muslims here. Luckily, they don't read blogs or I would have to upgrade the training for my elite Filipina Security Squad.

Vanessa says hi!

Posted by: cbjohnson at 11:39 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Geography of Islamism

Over at my home blog "Geographic Travels with Catholicgauze" I like to take looks at geographic trends. One of the things I have taken a look at is at Islamism. After obtaining new information I am beginning to see a trend with radicalization. The source of the problem lies with our Â“allyÂ” Saudi Arabia. more...

Posted by: Catholic at 07:40 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The same koran, hadith and sira are applied to islam in all it's variations. Wahabbism is a red herring.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 10, 2006 08:30 PM (MAPKL)

2 While all Muslims share the same texts the results are different. Muslims in Togo and Bulgaria do not behave in the same manner as their Saudi brethren. Egypt's Muslims have swung hard from nationalists to Islamists while still having the same texts. The difference came from outside forces that radicalized them.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 10, 2006 08:39 PM (A7S/s)

3 Contrary to what you have stated, Christians and Muslims have not been getting along in the Balkans. Even before the world wars, there was an unrelenting war on the christians. Many left that region to come to the US. The wars on Christians in the middle east is also apparent especially since the late 19th and all of the 20th centuries. The Arabs which settled in the US in that time frame were overwhelmingly Christian. And it still is this way. Muslim immigration only began in the late 60s. The muslim population in this country is maybe only 3 percent, but the Christian majorities of Arabs is well documented and well incorporated into American society. Since the PA took over Bethlehem, a town of nearly 85 percent Christian to Muslim, where tourists could go safely until the Oslo accords....the population of Christians has become a minority. They are persecuted by the Muslims everywhere. It isn't just a wahabbist thing. This has always been the case with Islam.

Posted by: Jauhara at June 10, 2006 09:04 PM (Z8kfp)

4 The Balkan Wars before World War I were based on nationalism and not religion. It was not a Christian versus Muslim thing but a Serb versus Croat versus Turk versus whomever. You are right on immigration. I even have a very good friend who is a Catholic Arab. However, while the Ottomans controlled they gave the Lebanese Christians many freedoms (not too many but still better than what Christians face today in the area) and France had oversight authority to on religious matters. The Lebanese and others came over when the Arabs replaced the Turks and Europeans. Arab extremism replaced Turkish moderation. (Note: The Saudi kingdom is the personification of Arab extremism on the matter of religion). The PA also had backing from the Saudis. Wahhabi and Wahhabi-aligned groups continue to feed anti-Jew and anti-Christian propaganda. I am not saying Christians and Muslims got along well everywhere (far from it) but the situation has become extremely worse with the exportation of Islamism.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 10, 2006 09:14 PM (A7S/s)

5 Some may wish to pick individual lice to spare the coiffure. Another method would be to use products such as RID to selectively eliminate most of the vermin (as w/wahabbism) with a broader selective process. A repeat application is almost always necessary. . .but the species can re-attack in the future. Lice has no known value - and as such, qualifies for permanent extinction. In 1400 years, Islam has been as parasitic as lice, providing no value to civilization. Eliminating wahabbism can only be a temporary solution to the permanent problem that is Islam. The next generation of fundamentalist muslim will simply identify the jihad under another pseudonym. The jihad will continue using the same IMMUTABLE texts - identical qur'an, hadith and sira - separating believer from non-believer into Dar ul Harb (house of war) vs. Dar ul Islam (house of Islam). The very same immutable texts used by all the sufis, salafi (salafiyya), wahhabists, kharijites, sunnis, shi'ites, ismailis, zaidis, fatimids, nizaris or nusayris/alawis etc. Taming Islam is a pipe dream.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 11, 2006 06:55 AM (MAPKL)

6 Not even touching part of that argument... What I am merely saying is that Wahhabism has picked a fight with the West. Alawites haven't crashed planes into buildings and Sufis are not chopping off people's heads.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 11, 2006 10:23 AM (A7S/s)

7 "Sufism started out as a Shia movement, but over the past several hundred years, has almost disappeared from Shia Islam, and is now, mainly a Sunni movement. Hanbalis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanafis can all belong to different Sufi "tariqas" or "brotherhoods", as they are called. In fact, the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt, and Al Qaeda, are both Sufi based movements." www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-sufi.htm About sufi's not chopping off heads - perhaps not western heads . . . however, Sufi's indeed have a history just as bloody as any wahabbist . . . Andrew Bostom, editor of the outstanding new collection "The Legacy of Jihad", explores the jihad wars of the great 'Sufi' Tamerlane at The American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4868 "It is true that he slaughtered all his enemies as thoroughly and conscientiously as the great Mongol, and the pyramids of human heads left behind him as a warning example tell their own tale." True too, Alawites have not flown planes into western buildings. Does that make them non-violent? Ask the Sunnis. Keep in mind that Assad rules Syria as a minority Alawite . Sunni Muslims account for about 80% and there was a 5% Christian minority. Assad ruled through terror as most Arab dictators do. His army and numerous secret police sections were staffed at the officer level by Alawites. The population was terrorized on the outside by his large army and on the inside by his terrorist secret police. An honest reflection on the historical effects on civiliaztion shows Islam gains submission through dawa, demographics & dhimmitude all reinforced through terrorism. Islamic doctrine must be completely rejected as it cannot be reformed. Patrick HenryÂ’s Â“ItÂ’s in the KoranÂ” lyrics posted below or with hyperlinks to contextualize some of the real events that inspired them. . .here: http://markhumphrys.com/in.the.koran.html#lyrics In our days of glory Now centuries past The kingdom of Islam Stood mighty and vast Then we failed our faith And watched your power grow But soon our greatness will return And this is how we know .. Because itÂ’s in the Koran ItÂ’s written in the Koran A world united under Allah is The future of man How could it not be so When most opposing us panic And surrender once a few of them have bled. WeÂ’re happy to torture WeÂ’re eager to rape We savor your last screams On videotape We massacre children We ransack a shrine And all our acts are sanctified By Suras 2 through 9 Because itÂ’s in the Koran ItÂ’s written in the Koran That we should fight and slay the infidels However we can WeÂ’ll blow ourselves to bits If that gives us an advantage Or weÂ’ll slit your throats while youÂ’re asleep in bed. Those heathens who scold us Are wasting their breath Over the millions weÂ’ve butchered And starved WeÂ’re men who would let girls Be trampled to death Rather than see them in public Unscarved So donÂ’t look for mercy When youÂ’re at our feet The justice weÂ’ll give you Is harsh and complete We danced in delight When your Twin Towers fell And youÂ’ll weep with your slaughtered As you burn with them in Hell Because itÂ’s in the Koran, ItÂ’s written in the Koran Your fate was settled long before This latest battle began WeÂ’ve found our holy purpose And weÂ’ll never abandon it As long as thereÂ’s a sinner to behead .. In other words we wonÂ’t rest Till everyone in the West Is a slave, a Muslim or dead. *** Full audio version of Â“ItÂ’s in the KoranÂ” at this link: http://www.patrickhenrysongs.com/

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 11, 2006 12:17 PM (MAPKL)

8 Sufis did have a violent past but so did Calvinist who got their start from the blood-thirsty Jean Calvin. Where are Sufi or Calvinist terrorist? Could it be because they are "tamed"? As for Syria is the violence there driven by religion or nationalism/clanism? The government couldn't care less if one is Christian or Muslim in the country (many Eastern Rite Catholics belong to the Baath party). Syria is an example of a corrupt clan supressing anyone who oppose them religious or not. You claim Islam cannot be reformed. Look at the Ottoman Turks, Sufis, and general progressive Muslims.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 11, 2006 02:19 PM (A7S/s)

9 It all depends on your interpretation of 'moderate'. Your 'moderates' do not challenge Islam's immutable texts. Dawa, dhimmitude & demographics are tools of the global jihad as well (Eurabia is a fine example). "As one Muslim leader told the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Izmir, Turkey, Giuseppe Bernardini: 'Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.' " As long as there is Islam, the threat to civilization (as we know it) exists.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 12, 2006 06:53 AM (MAPKL)

10 I think we should consider ignoring the bigot, herryoyalwhyness. She is comparing people and their spirituality to lice and suggesting extermination. She is seeing things in completely binary terms. In short, she is boring and cruel. Catholicgauze, save your talents for someone who is understanding, complex, tolerant of ambiguity, and most of all, kind. Simplistic world views are the hallmark of what we are talking about: the disgusting self justification for hatred and disgust for other human beings. I suggest you reserve your time for conversing with people who truly converse and share ideas and who are trying to learn something new.

Posted by: hisroyalwhyness at June 12, 2006 11:54 AM (E1H09)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rusty Has Left the Building

I'm leaving for the summer. Welcome to our new Jawa contributors! more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:57 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 1 kb.

Ansar al Sunna Beheads 3 On Video [Images/Video]

The Army of Ansar al Sunnah has released a video showing the gruesome beheading murders of three Iraqi Ministry of the Interior soldiers. The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video. Links to graphic images from the video are posted below.

Contrary to popular media reports, this video has been available since June 7th, a day before news was released that the al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed.

For instance, the AP claims the video was posted today and uses the video as evidence that the insurgency will not be stopped because of Zarqawi's death. However, I have personally known about the video for several days now, but due to time constraints, have not been able to post it.

Here is a portion of the AP report which is clearly misleading and based on a false set of facts. AP:

Insurgents signaled the fight is still on after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, posting an Internet video Saturday showing the beheading of three alleged Shiite death squad members in revenge for killing Sunnis.
The video as grisly as any the al-Qaida in Iraq leader issued was clearly designed to quash hopes that the Sunni-dominated insurgency might change tactics by ending attacks on Shiite civilians and institutions, especially the police.

The AP report does, though, get the details of the video right: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:14 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The MSM is carrying water for our enemies. It can no longer be denied. They WANT us to become demoralized because they want us to withdraw from Iraq. They share common cause with terrorists.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 05:45 PM (8e/V4)

2 You have to hand it to the media, when the Zarkman was alive, they claimed the U.S was "hyping" how dangerous a terrorist he was, and he wasn't the mastermind the administration claimed, and now he's dead he's the global boogeyman with reach beyond the grave. according to msnbc.

Posted by: davec at June 10, 2006 07:51 PM (CcXvt)

3 Carlos if you look at the polls you will see at this point most Americans are no longer backing the war in Iraq. The MSM says what those who pay the freight, its advertisers want them to say. Americans have many choices on where to get their news, advertisers have many choices where to place their ads, MSM is the choice for most. Most Americans no longer believe in the mission that the government sent our soldiers on.

Posted by: john ryan at June 10, 2006 08:05 PM (TcoRJ)

4 yeah polls, like 'exit polls' john? lol guess we should ask President Kerry, right?

Posted by: davec at June 10, 2006 08:25 PM (CcXvt)

5 >>>Carlos if you look at the polls you will see at this point most Americans are no longer backing the war in Iraq my dear john ryan, and why do you suppose that is? Have you ever heard the expression "circular thinking?" You've just provided an excellent example. If American support for the war is down in the polls, you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that the MSM has been grinding the American people down with stunts like this for the last three years, do you? You've proven my case for me.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 10:41 PM (8e/V4)

6 Never seen a beheading before. These guys are animals. Not humans at all. There are MILLIONS more like them in the Arab world. How does one fight this kind of animalistic enemy? Time for the nukes to come out? Lake Iraq? We could join it by canal to Lake Afghanistan. Animals.

Posted by: JJ at June 11, 2006 11:10 AM (M4Fn3)

7 I don't swallow that crap about the polls. Pollaganda is just something that the MSM uses to see how well their propaganda has sunk in to the unsuspecting masses, and then they use the results to reinforce their propaganda. When polls results are published, they feign surprise. It's a stupid game, really.

Posted by: Cao at June 11, 2006 03:18 PM (RyucI)

8 That beheading was horific! So much for the religion of peace. I say bring back the Crusades and go medieval on these lunatics.

Posted by: Theway2k at June 11, 2006 04:05 PM (B3rTo)

9 Another reason to OUTLAW ISLAM. Its members are barbaric trash. Miles behind the civilized people of the world. The thing to remember is that their mothers and sisters begat more of these monsters. Their kids grow up to be just like them. Time for the big one??? Maybe.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 12, 2006 11:03 AM (fDZgg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 09, 2006

Bias Most Foul (UPDATED)

Conservatives have long known that the so-called mainstream media have a liberal bias that has only recently been offset somewhat by the rise of talk radio and rightwing blogs.

Apparently, talking points were distributed in the past year or so instructing liberals to argue that, in fact, the MSM is completely objective, or that, if bias is present, it doesn't tilt to either left or right in the aggregate. It's all reminiscent of the Left's love affair with the monster Stalin, denying his true nature even as his score of murdered peasants surpassed even Hitler's grisly record of innocent victims. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 05:19 PM | Comments (70) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

1 John Stossel.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 09, 2006 05:29 PM (FVbj6)

2 Umm... dude, Stossel's a libertarian, not a conservative.

Posted by: Evil Otto at June 09, 2006 05:37 PM (fcCt3)

3 This is a fantastic website that exposes the MSM slant on a daily basis. It's quite hilarious. But also unnerving. If really exposes just how far the MSM will go to carry the Democrats water for them. The Dems have at least a built-in 10-15 point handicap in any election because of it. http://newsbusters.org/

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 05:47 PM (8e/V4)

4 OK, I'll bite (btw, I'm only accepting argu endo that all the names you listed are liberal biased. A single incident cannot indicate a worldview, unless it is so egregious as to color an entire career.) Bill O'Reilly (surely no argument there) Stossel counts--although I agree he is libertarian conservative. John Gibson Lou Dobbs (on immigration, at least--extraordinarily biased towards conservatism) As for incidents: Initially, the media twisted Bush v. Gore as a 7-2 decision, when the actual decision was 5-4. It was very important to Republican hopes for legitimacy that it be spun as two Dem/liberal justices voted for bush, as opposed to the narrow 5-4 ruling it actually was. The misquote of Gore on Love Canal. He NEVER said I was the one who started it all. NEVER. One reporter heard it wrong. But it took the media three weeks to tell the truth. By then, it had damaged his campaign terribly. Ceci Connally has much to answer for. Also on Gore: he never said he invented the internet. NEVER said it. He said, accurately, that he played a critical role in funding its later development. The Repubs issued a press release, and the media swallowed it hook line and sinker. The truth never really made it out.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:10 PM (DQYHA)

5 Also--in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky points out that the media treated the death of a Polish priest by the Jaruselski government as a MUCH MUCH bigger news story than the kidnapping, rape, maiming, and murder of FOUR AMERICAN NUNS by death squads linked to the Salvadoran government. They happened about the same time, but one could read the NYTimes and get 10 times the coverage of the priest. Why? Chomsky says the media has a conservative bias. He makes the same argument about the Indonesian killings in East Timor, the hundreds of thousands of peasants and Indians killed by the Guatemalan government, compared to the Pol Pot killings in Cambodia. While Pot killed a slightly higher percentage of the population of his country, the media coverage was ten times as great as the other two killings by US allies. Why? Conservative bias. Finally, there is documented evidence that many tv networks had consultants in 2002-3 who advised them not to cover the anti-war movement intensively, at the risk of losing viewers. This isn't quite a conservative bias, since they were only doing it for market share, not conservative bias directly, but it had a lot of the same effects.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:17 PM (DQYHA)

6 JD: when applied to you, the adjective "dull" is a triple entendre...

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 09, 2006 08:28 PM (+nlyI)

7 Yeah, them poor old conservatives ... all they got is the White House, Congress, 2/3 of the state houses and legislatures, all of Fox News, National Review, the neo-cons, several dozen think tanks, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Hitchins, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarburough, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, How the hell can they ever hope to get their word out?

Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:39 PM (oxMjD)

8 Darth, I know that complex arguments are like kryptonite to you. My apologies. I will keep it simple and snappy for you in the future. Maybe I'll post twice--once for you, and once for everyone else.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:45 PM (DQYHA)

9 Tell it like it is Bluto. Glenn: We need out spoken heros to counteract the lies of the liberals.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 08:47 PM (4Ospb)

10 Yeah Bluto, tell it like you wish it were. Rooster: You're funny. That's exactly what liberals say about Al Franken and Keith Olbermann.

Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (oxMjD)

11 That's not the point, Glenn. All the examples you cited are avowedly biased and conservative except for Fox News. The MSM is so insidious because they claim to be objective but are not. They would receive more respect if they reported the exact same stories but admitted their bias. JD, it's ironic that you put O'Reilly at the top of your "right-wing" list and then began an impassioned defense of Al Gore. Are you familiar with the incident in which Gore claimed that he had received a letter from a little girl who claimed that she didn't even have a desk in school because of over crowding? Many in the press did laugh at him, but guess who researched it and verified that Gore was telling the truth? If you guessed O'Reilly, you're right! Another point on O'Reilly: he supports gay adoption and favors more gun control. Hardly conservative positions.

Posted by: Thrill at June 09, 2006 09:06 PM (DYb4r)

12 O'Reilly isn't a journalist. He's -- if anything -- a commentator. He's SUPPOSED to offer opinions.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 09, 2006 09:08 PM (Gn9tM)

13 Where is that asshole Improbulus

Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:12 PM (Tf4se)

14 Thrill; True, and offered up to make the point that, far from being victims of media, conservative viewpoints have more than ample voices in their support. But here's the larger issue. What is referred to as the "bias of the MSM" irefers largely on the fact that it brings stories to the surface that are not generally flattering to George Bush in particular and Republicans in general, correct? Well, that's not a lack of objectivity; that is the job of the media. The powerful who have control over vast swaths of information-letting are held in check by a media that is SUPPOSED to be saying, "Uh, excuse me Mr. President, we think that statement is bullshit." You want a media that parrots the company line? Go pick up a 1960 copy of Pravda. George can't get a break? Big deal. He's the President, for Christ sake. Without a media that calls government officials on the rug, there's no point in having one. Sorry they're bashing you're guy, but that makes their efforts no less sincere. The White House has a press office and spokespeople. That's not the media's job. And if anybody comes out with this crap about the kid-glove treatment the Clinton's got from the media, I may scream. Because of 9/11, GW got a walk from the media the first three years of his Presidency like no other President has before or may ever get again. A WALK. Now the questions are finally being asked and it's such a shock to conservatives it apparently looks like bias.

Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 09:32 PM (oxMjD)

15 Free market, Bluto, people want to listen to what they like. If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel. And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them.

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:49 PM (TcoRJ)

16 >>>"NewsMax" LOL! Newsmax. That's true. And that's exactly how we know the MSM is the voice of the Democrat party. Because of the folks at Newsmax. That's all we're saying. Why do you keep denying it? Just stop it already! Tell the truth! The MSM carries water for the Democrat party 24/7.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 09:51 PM (8e/V4)

17 Glenn, nothing you just said is correct. The job of the media is to get the facts right. If they can't do that, they're not worth anything to anyone. And, as it happens, they can't. No only are they blatantly biased, not only do they present their bias as fact, but they are actively incompetent.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 09, 2006 10:41 PM (O0soJ)

18 Off topic , but:liberals want to level the playing field. EVERYONE will be equal. Heck, no more losers=no more winners. Make sure everyone gets their fair share by taking from those who earned more. Power to the people!!! Workers of the world, unite!!! /sarc off

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 03:16 AM (7RMSi)

19 Liberals are always yammering about tolerence all except when it comes to conservatives and patriotic god fearing americans

Posted by: sandpiper at June 10, 2006 07:36 AM (08Fdo)

20 Bluto associating the "Left" (whomever that actually means) with Stalin makes about as much sense as doing the same with the "Right" and their love affair with Hitler. Also somewhat bad timing considering the recent release of seclassified documents showing how the "Right" protected Nazi war criminals after WWII including ADOLF EICHMANN http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132509 Here is a link to the AZ Star

Posted by: john ryan at June 10, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)

21 Oh yeah! The AZ Star as an authority on what the Right did wrong during WWII.

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:05 AM (+nlyI)

22 Pixy Misa: The job of the media -- any media -- is to do a helluva lot more than report facts. They gotta FOLLOW UP with interpretations of what those facts mean so the public has a context to place events in. Just walking around repeating things that happened today isn't journalism or media. That's stenography. Use Zarquawis' death as an example. We can all pretty much agree he was killed by two five hundred pound bombs and will have to be replaced in Al Quaida by a new thug. That is the fact and it was reported as such in every media outlet from Air America to Matt Drudge. Now, what does that death mean? This is where the supposed "bias" comes in. Well, I've read where it's going to be the turning point in the war, that it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, that it exonerates Bush's execution of the war, that conservatives are using it as a diversion from their failures ... all from the same set of facts. People who feel the MSM is biased just don't like the interpretations. And they want them to admit these "biases" as bloggers Â— including Bluto Â—gladly admit theirs. The fact is industry-wide bias is a fallacy, reinforced by guys like Limbaugh who make a boatload of cash capitalizing on partisan frustration. Well, he too interprets and you happen to like his interpretations. Just don't walk around thinking you've found the "truth."

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 08:10 AM (oxMjD)

23 Gore: Well, I certainly misspoke when I chose my words about the Internet. What I said to [CNN's] Wolf Blitzer, "I took the lead in the Congress in creating the Internet," was an awkward way of saying that. And I regret it, because yes it did appear to exaggerate my role. But fundamentally it was an effort to try to describe the leadership role that I did in fact take in getting the funding and also in evangelizing the idea and using the metaphor of an information superhighway to help congeal thought about what was possible. It is not after all an unknown phenomenon for politicians to tell the voters what they've done and, in the process, try to put the best face on it. Crap... I lost the url to this interview... I just recall it was in Time magazine.

Posted by: h0mi at June 10, 2006 08:20 AM (Ncvk6)

24 Glenn, What motivates simple-minded partisan hacks like yourself to come to the comments section of MY PET JAWA on a Saturday morning and post long-winded and dry rants? Why are you and the Markosites so obsessed with gang-raping America?

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:32 AM (+nlyI)

25 glenn, 90% of MSM journalists surveyed reported being Liberals. You're telling us to ignore what we can plainly see with our very own eyes in favor of your nonsensical diatribes about "Rush Limbaugh" and "Fox" news. Yes, Rush is partisan, but he admits it. And "Fox" is no more slanted right than all of the MSM is slanted left. But we just have "Fox" (and Newsmax!), while you have the rest of the MSM.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)

26 I believe we have a breakthrough with Glenn here! Glenn, where does the MSM get off on presenting ANY INTERPRETATION??? They're supposed to be fair and impartial. They are supposed to JUST REPORT THE FACTS! Limbaugh is a commentator and Fox News hires commentators like O'Reilly, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes. We expect interpretations from them because COMMENTATORS make COMMENTS. REPORTERS are supposed to REPORT. Yet nowadays, REPORTERS INTERPRET. I just think that the MSM should quit claiming to be impartial, that's all. It is insulting when they pretend to just be "reporting" when in fact they are deliberately trying to affect policy and voter attitudes with the perspective of their stories.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:16 AM (DYb4r)

27 (because of the size constraints I'll have to break this up) It's not fair to equate some of the names submitted here as counterparts. The difference is reporters vs. commentators. You can't equate Rush Limbaugh with Dan Rather. The jobs are clearly defined as reporting or commentating. One is expected to show bias, actually claiming it, the other not. Let one person here tell me that the majority of "reporters" aren't politically left leaning and that their reporting isn't affected by that and I'll say you're fooling yourself, but not the rest of us. Is there bias on the right? Why yes! But most of the bias on the right comes from "commentators" as clearly shown by many of the names submitted here. Then Glenn throws Sean Hannity's name in there without mentioning that Alan Colmes is on the same TV show with him.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:19 AM (YudAC)

28 (Well, Thrill already said it for me.) But to continue... "If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel." Well, duh. But does this mean if one doesn't "like what the other citizens like to watch" they should change the channel and remain silent? "And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them." Didn't you just imply that simply changing the channel was the appropriate measure? No one, I repeat, no one has suggested censoring or banning anyone. On the flip side would it be fair for me to say, "Of course if you don't like those who claim there is bias then just censore them or ban them." ? Certainly not. That would be just as ridiculous. This is a debate; not an attempt to censor anyone.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:21 AM (YudAC)

29 Actually, it has always been, since the dawn of journalism, the job of journalists to not only report the facts, but to place them into a larger context. Imagine a news account of Sept 1st, 1939. Germany invades Poland. What does this mean for the US? For France, for Britain? What might it mean for Poland's Jews? How does it reflect the impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty? What will Stalin do next? Speculative, yes. But clearly within the ambit of journalism. When Lippmann wrote his seminal text about journalism, he called for this as a core function of journalists. If all they do is report "Germany invaded Poland..." they are failing to do their duty.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:22 AM (DQYHA)

30 JC: What poll is this? What journalists were polled? Who sponsored the poll? What was the methodology? As far as "what you've got" in the way of media, see my first post. You're no victim. Thrill: I don't know where you get your understanding of reporting, but hard news is and always has been BASED upon analysis of facts, and stories based upon that analysis. You think news is supposed to be bland presentations of the obvious by coiffed talking heads, and only then turned over to "commentators" who get to say whatever they want about it, ala Fox News (though Fox "reporters" like Rita Cosby were egregious in handing out their opinions in the course of the build up to Iraq). C'mon. Classical reporters have always dug for the story and presented the facts they've assembled in the form of stories--interpretations if you will-- approved by editors. If public opinions are changed by the results, as they were in Korea, Vietnam and Watergate, maybe its because they got the broader understanding they needed to change them. Thank God for reporters who have the brains to analyze. You think right media--itself made up largely of commentators who according to you aren't bound by the same obligations as reporters -- present the facts? You may by fooling yourself.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 10:40 AM (oxMjD)

31 The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there "to place them into a larger context." This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply.

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 10:47 AM (+nlyI)

32 jd, yes a certain amount of speculation and broader context is expected. There's a fine line between speculation and opinion. About your earlier comment: That advise "not to cover the anti-war movement intensively" was ignored by news outlets and they went apes**t over the anti-war people. That's a loose interpretation of this advice as "conservatism". While they were given "conservative" advice to help with the market share and ratings, their ratings consequently tanked by ignoring it. Even though, in Sheehan's instance, they tried very hard to selectively quote her pretending she didn't make some pretty wild statements. The way I see it is why is it considered conservatism to advise anyone that the majority of Americans, even those against the war, may not take kindly to being equated with the fringe whack-jobs like Code Pink, Sheehan, etc? Do you really think the advice came as simply as you state it without the "broader context"? Regardless of what one may think, too many people against this war don't like the coverage they get for their cause being represented by these kooks. If they wanted to cover it intensively they should have just stuck with the people with better credentials and credibility. It would certainly have made for a better argument to have only sane people on both sides of it. IMHO there is not a bit of conservatism in that advice. It was advise not to sensationalize.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:51 AM (YudAC)

33 Advice/advise. Who cares? ;-) Even Microsoft Word didn't care.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:56 AM (YudAC)

34 Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war. The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING. It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft. Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:59 AM (DQYHA)

35 You know how to argue Glenn, but you don't know how to make a point. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I'll try to educate you. You are reduced to arguing semantics. ANYTIME reporters start offering their own OPINIONS or expectations or hopes to a news story, they have moved away from "reporting" and are now "editorializing". Yes, "reporting" a story would be just stating the facts as they occurred and nothing else. What's worse are the editors. They decide what stories get run and how to characterize them. Isn't it interesting that the attitude of the press is that Iraq is a quagmire and troops are dying and dying but it's going on? All the coverage is through that perspective because that's the story the editors want. They think it sells. Imagine if the press was the opposite and actually wanted the US to win the war. Instead of reporting on each soldier who died, maybe you'd hear something like this: "Yesterday, an Army NCO received a silver star for gallant actions against an enemy ambush...". If they were impartial, they would do both. The MSM is against the Iraq War, has been since the start, and the evidence is the coverage. They are trying to portray it as unwinnable so that we will pull out and a Republican administration will be harmed. Anyone who says otherwise is in the worst kind of denial.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 11:01 AM (DYb4r)

36 "The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there 'to place them into a larger context.' "This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply." DARTH, THIS IS HILARIOUS AND TRUE!

Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (+nlyI)

37 For someone hoping to educate, your lesson is a meandering one. Yes, I've heard the "guilt by omission" arguments a hundred times as proof of bias. And no, I cannot answer for the decisions of editors at every newspaper. However, I googled "Silver Star Iraq" and came up with 6,670,000 results, including articles on winners from the Boston Herald, the Arizona Republic, the Washington Post and several TV news stations. MSM enough for you? (Sigh) my original point was simple: people who don't want professional reporters to contextualize events either don't understand the purpose of the media or plain don't like the facts they see. I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science. Though my career path took me to the corporate communications side, I had great respect for a professor who had also worked for the Chicago Trib and several other papers large and small. He said, "News is what people don't want you to know. The rest is PR." (I'm trying to imagine an Ernie Pyle or an Edward R. Murrow "reporting" in the fashion you think appropriate. They'd be as forgotten as the anchor who left our local news station.) Whether you agree or not, every example you pointed out can

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 11:52 AM (oxMjD)

38 glenn, the fact that MSM journos are OVERWHELMINGLY Liberals is common knowledge to conservatives. Begin your education here, and then do your own research. It's all over the web: "A survey of his colleagues by a White House correspondent has confirmed that the Freedom Forum poll, showing 89 percent of Washington reporters voted for Clinton and 50 percent identify themselves as Democrats, but just four percent as Republicans, matches how they've voted since 1976." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html "In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#HOW%20THE%20MEDIA%20VOTE

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM (8e/V4)

39 Glenn exemplifies the arrogance and cluelessness of journalists who self-identify as "objective"...

Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:59 AM (+nlyI)

40 So..........you're a liberal guy and a journalist? Oh, THAT Liberal Media! That's precious that we have a card carrying leftwing would-be reporter instructing us that the biased MSM is a myth. Since we're discussing resumes here, I'm a private investigator, Glenn. My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so. I would rightly lose my job if I only reported those events and statements that aided a favorable outcome to my cases while willfully ignoring or downplaying things that did not. This is what the MSM does, Glenn. They are portraying the Iraq War as Vietnam because they favor American defeat. Yes, when a soldier dies, it's a fact. Broadcasting that death is reporting it. It's when they try to use that soldier's death and keeping a running tally to somehow show that the war is wrong that they cross a line. Facts can be manipulated, and the MSM absolutely does for the benefit of the Democrats and (probably unwittingly) for our enemies. They have lost credibility and so the New Media has risen. Deal with it.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:05 PM (DYb4r)

41 Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (+nlyI)

42 >>>>I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science. lol! case close.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (8e/V4)

43 >>>Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest. Nah, jd is honest, but you gotta work hard for it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:12 PM (8e/V4)

44 JC: I'll take a look. Thrill: >>>>My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so. And that would make sense for a private investigator as you're job is that of a vendor, no insult intended. Journalism requires a different standard. Thrill, all I can tell you is keep looking to find the reporting that tell you what you need to hear. You'll learn little new. Your pre-conceived notions will be validated. Your fears of the MSM bogeyman will be confirmed. But what the hell do I care, that's your problem.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:15 PM (oxMjD)

45 Yes, journalists have a "different standard". And it is a lower standard that they adopted for themselves. Journalists swapped integrity and objectivity for political partisanship. The problem with your perspective that journalists should contextualize and interpret events is that you make the (surprisingly) foolish assumption that all journalists are fair minded, impartial, and disinterested all the time when we have seen that they are not. Your hero, Dan Rather comes to mind. This is my problem? I don't think so Boo-Boo. MSM newspaper subscriptions are falling and viewership of MSM news shows is worse every year. This is THEIR problem, not mine and they brought it on their own heads by abandoning objectivity.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:26 PM (DYb4r)

46 Actually, cletus, while I may be a dumbass (does it make you feel better to include an epithet in your argument? It makes your case look weaker), I certainly don't think the American people are dumb. By contrast, you seem to think that if the media includes contextual reporting, that they will bedazzle and fool the people. Which of us thinks the people are stupid, again? Not I. I think that when journalists put facts in the wrong context (say, for example, the media that blithely accepted the case for war in 2002-3), many people are smart enough to reject that contextual reporting.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:51 PM (DQYHA)

47 Sure as human beings, journalists are just as likely to have personal biases and political leanings as those in any other profession. You and JC say they're all lefties. JC's even got research. OK, they're all lefties. You, however, are the type that equates a leftward/liberal leaning with an industry-wide loss of objectivity and the inability to report because of that. You don't point to any particular facts, but you make the claims. OK. At the same time, you're more than willing to give the right-wing press a pass because as so many on this blog like to state, right-wing commentators put their political leanings and their own personal biasesÃ‚Â on display. There's is an honest kind of bias, which is supposed to be some sort of defense I guess! So how is it again we get the objective story from the right?

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (oxMjD)

48 No Glenn, I do not think that liberal journalists shouldn't be allowed to report, it's just that I think that if they wish to "report" in a manner that allows them to "contextualize" and "interpret" according to their own worldview, they shouldn't pretend to be objective. Yes, The Jawa Report, the Rush Limbaugh Show, the O'Reilly Factor, and Sean Hannity are all subjective. They wish to influence events, opinions, and political outcomes and they apply available facts to support their conclusions. The only difference between them and the NY Times, WaPo, or CBS News is that they don't pretend to be anything else.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:00 PM (DYb4r)

49 So then a complete lack of objectivity is OK, as long as you strike your colors?

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:09 PM (oxMjD)

50 No, you can't have a TOTAL lack of objectivity or else you would lose your audience even faster than the MSM is now. Bill O'Reilly is actually my ideal of what a journalist should be. He identifies his viewpoint (traditionalist), acknowledges that his intention is to usher in a populist and reformist movement, debates issues, is willing to change his mind when he is shown to be wrong, asks good questions, researches events in person, and acts in the best interests of the community. He does consider himself to be fair and objective although many on the Left (you and yours) do not. I'm just sick of arrogant and egotistical journalists trying to tell me what to think while condescendingly telling me that they're not.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:20 PM (DYb4r)

51 Sure, when O'Reilly's not telling people to shut up and pimping his books and radio programs, he makes some interesting cases. Well evidently a lack of objectivity doesnt' lose you an audience faster than the MSM as Rush can attest. But I always find it telling that people like yourself who harp on the MSM for their lack of objectivity (see Bluto's original challenge) are in reality harping on them for masking their subjectivity. So from all you've said, you don't want objectivity at all; you want revealed subjectivity. And that's not journalism. Journalism involves finding out things you want to know as well as those you don't. You're not supposed to be a customer getting what you've asked for, you're supposed to be a participant getting what you may need.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:42 PM (oxMjD)

52 Glenn, what I'm trying to say is that it all comes down to one word: credibility. Dan Rather lost his credibility and resigned shortly afterward because it appeared that CBS News attempted to sway a presidential election based on manufactured evidence. The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity. They only pretend that it doesn't exist and that's a mistake. The New Media DOES have credibility with a sizeable portion of the American public. As a liberal, you will no doubt claim that it's because "they're dumb" but you'd be wrong as usual. The credibility comes from shared values and an agreement that the objective is worth attaining. We trust the New Media because they speak for us, not down to us. I would like to say that it's been an honor to argue with you on this issue, Glenn, as you have such a distinguished background in the subject.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:57 PM (DYb4r)

53 As to your point about being a "customer", I'm afraid it's unavoidable. Journalism is a business. Newspapers and news programs are in business to make a profit. Part of the reason they give their analysis is because just reporting dry facts is boring.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:25 PM (DYb4r)

54 >>>>> The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity. Then you have nothing to worry about Thrill... they will either come around and declare their existing bias, at which point they will be welcomed as the subjective shill that New Media already is or they will finally be "outed" as liars, become irrelevant and fold. Either way, no more objective journalism will be found. Now there's a great thought.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 02:42 PM (oxMjD)

55 As if there ever was any. It is and always has been about profit and politics. You could lament that, Glenn, or you could be happy that Americans are now aware of it and thinking for themselves about the information they receive. The fact is that people do go to a variety of news outlets when they want to stay informed and they believe what they will based on their own knowledge and experience. I don't have a problem with that. An elitist bunch of journalists telling us how we should feel about the issues of the day that are judged for importance and chosen by these despotic editors with no discussion or disagreement has never sat right with me or any of the conservatives here.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:51 PM (DYb4r)

56 I like Bluto's update. He admits he asked a question that he had no intention of being persuaded about. He has already decided the media is biased, always. Conclusions first, discussion second. Open minded hero to us all.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:53 PM (DQYHA)

57 And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change? Incidentally, this could be construed to mean that one who is open to be persuaded on anything or everything is one who is perpetually on the fence. If Bluto hasn't changed his mind it's because no one has given him a compelling enough argument. No one here has persuaded me to change my mind about our contemporary media. An argument about some conservative bias 20 years ago set against a background of what we see today is hardly inspiring. He invited others to try and persuade him. You didn't win the argument so that means Bluto had no intention of being persuaded?

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:21 PM (YudAC)

58 "Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war." Why should that make a difference? The media is pretty predictable in it's coverage. I think it's more telling that this advice was necessary. "The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING." What numbers? You're unclear. "It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft." I'll answer this further in the next paragraph, but your choice of words is curious. "Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is." It's a matter of perception. Could it be that in the late sixties and early seventies we were relegated to speaking to each other in person, or that in the late sixties and early seventies our "letters to the editor" were more easily monitored? Also...no Internet. But it's not just that ...

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:37 PM (YudAC)

59 And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change? Not jd. lol! God love him.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 06:23 PM (8e/V4)

60 I think everyone holds views of varying strengths. Some things I am on the fence on. Some things it would take a lot of evidence to convince me I was wrong on. What is wrong with what Bluto said is that he said: name three people as conservative as these three. Give incidents comparable to these. And then says--trick question--there were NONE possible. It's not that big a deal. I've found from earlier discussions with Bluto that he believes a lot of very illogical things, and is absolutely unable to admit the smallest error.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 09:04 PM (DQYHA)

61 "Statistically speaking, three examples indicate a trend;" Two points make a line though.

Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 12:01 AM (nnhSu)

62 My 2 cents - how about something we can all agree on ... The MSM is incompetent, inept, shallow, self-grandizing, poorly researched ... I could go one without even touching "biased".

Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:54 AM (MVgHp)

63 Nice to see you back actus.

Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:55 AM (MVgHp)

64 Anyone who thinks Bluto is right about "three examples" having any statistical substance at all needs to take a basic stats course. Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis. For example: I can find you three fundamentalist Christians who voted for Kerry. That would indicate what, statistically? Nada. In previous dialogues with the dread pundit, he has shown himself to be utterly at sea about statistics and polling. It's a record he has kept unblemished. More than three examples,let's say.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:22 AM (DQYHA)

65 "Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis." No dude. He said 'statistically speaking' That means its more than if he wasn't statistically speaking. You're wrong, because he was 'statistically speaking.'

Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 02:56 PM (CqheE)

66 Huh? I don't understand you at all. If I say, "legally speaking, OJ faces no further criminal penalty." I'm clearly making a legal comment, about the nature of the law. "Sexually speaking, Roseanne Barr is repulsive." how do you read the clause "adverb speak-gerund"? It is traditional to think that someone is making a comment about that field of knowledge. Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:32 PM (DQYHA)

67 "Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking." I know. He's full of shit.

Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 07:55 PM (nnhSu)

68 Don't you guys get it ... the Blutos of the world are the New Media: they don't have to be objective because they freely admit they're biased. The MSM however has to be objective, but that objectivity will always be measured by these guys' highly subjective standards. Heads I win, tails you lose. And of course if all else fails, use insulting epithets.

Posted by: glenn at June 12, 2006 12:21 PM (UHKaK)

69 Yup, 100% Glenn. It's like what a former RNC head finally admitted--that crying media bias was like criticizing the refs in NCAA basketball. Even if you believe the foul on your guy was legit, you still howl, in the hope that they'll second guess their treatment the next minute. And then, if the media does print something negative about a liberal, you say EVEN the liberal MSM thinks this is bad...if they print something good about a liberal, you can say, typical liberal media crap. It's perfect.

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 05:00 PM (aqTJB)

70 This isn't lost on them ...

Posted by: Glenn at June 12, 2006 06:29 PM (oxMjD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Translate The Mumble

Traderrob's post has me, like you, asking "what did Zarqawi mumble?"

Feel free to submit your translation of Z-man's last words in the comments.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:19 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Pete Stark's Conspiracy Theory

From the Washington Times (emphasis added):

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

It's depressing to think that a sitting member of Congress could make such an imbecilic statement. Stark has managed to slander both the President and the military in one breath. Previously, Stark likened the use of smart bombs in Baghdad at the beginning of the war to "...an act of extreme terrorism."

Stark implies a breathtaking conspiracy that would necessarily involve hundreds of public servants and thousands of military personnel. How else would the President be able to control the the timing of Zarqawi's death? And, like Jack Murtha, Stark has chosen to ignore the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" regarding allegations of Marines killing Iraqi civilians. Yes, Congressman Stark, that principle applies even to the men and women serving in our country's armed forces.

These chicken-with-its-head-cut-off reactions by Stark and other politicians from the Left indicate that, despite attempts to minimize the news, they realize that the killing of Zarqawi is an extremely significant event.

Stark's behavior cries out for official censure, at a minimum. Certainly the mainstream media would agree, if Stark were a Republican.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:15 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And there, ladies and gents, is the spin from the left about how to make Zarqawi's death a bad thing. I can't wait to hear what Mouth Murtha has to say about this...

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 09, 2006 04:34 PM (CtVG6)

2 Murtha could swaller a lightweight like yerself whole, even with a reg'lar mouth

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 09, 2006 05:06 PM (oxMjD)

3 Rep. (or should it be traitor) Stark and company wonder why they are no longer the party of the people. God help this nation should they regain power. "Islam must be destroyed." RayRio

Posted by: RayRio at June 09, 2006 05:15 PM (1CTkD)

4 PETE STARK is a pariniod he is competly out of his mind just like AL GORE is

Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:38 PM (XnXsx)

5 Dumbass comment, that's for sure. Altho he doesn't say there was a conspiracy theory. He seems to be referring to the Bush administration's publicizing of this event. I still think it was a dumb comment, but it's really not a conspiracy claim. Able Danger, now that's a conspiracy charge.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (DQYHA)

6 Not Liking Bush= Anti American Not Suporting the war= Anti American Being open minded= Anti American Die anyone with a rational thought. We should trounce this fuckin world and anyone with a turbine

Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:21 PM (Tf4se)

7 You know Bluto when I read that article I never did see the word "stunt" in quotes anywhere. Are you sure that he said that it was a stunt ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:52 PM (TcoRJ)

8 Nothing is sweeter than the bleeting moonbats posting here. Poor babies. Schandenfreude is such a rush!! As for Stark, can we start questioning his patriotism yet??

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at June 10, 2006 02:21 AM (blNMI)

9 Embers from a burn barrel ignited a fire that spread to 15,000 acres Friday, burning at least one home and forcing people to evacuate residences along a 13-mile stretch of highway near the city of Nenana, Alaska, officials said............Halliburton? Evil little spandex garbed, right-winged, conspirators?????GLOBAL WARMING????????sarc off

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 04:57 AM (7RMSi)

10 What is depressing isn't so much that there are idiots like Pete Stark, but that there is a constituency out there that sent him to Washington. Universal suffrage is a bad idea.

Posted by: ptg at June 10, 2006 06:45 AM (rVWj9)

11 During the Solomon Islands campaign in 1943, Admiral Isoroku YamamotoÂ’s Betty bomber was ambushed by a squadron of P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft over Bougainville. These aircraft were sent after intercepting a Japanese coded transmission, which revealed that Yamamoto would be on an inspection tour of forward air bases. All aboard the two Betty bombers were killed. Admiral YamamotoÂ’s death was a tragic blow to Japanese morale. A congressman from California spoke on the floor of the house the following day. McDermott Stark (D) CA said, Â“This was a well timed publicity stunt to raise the sagging poll numbers of the President.Â” Stark who plans to challenge the President in the 1944 New Hampshire primary said, Â“IÂ’m not going to have my patriotism questioned by anyoneÂ”. Â“Pearl Harbor was a staged event. The Explosions on the Arizona can be seen before any Japanese planes arrived. Stark also shouted Â“ Wingnut, Halaburton and Monkey BoyÂ” for reasons only he knows.

Posted by: B rad at June 10, 2006 07:11 AM (BJYNn)

12 "Universal suffrage is a bad idea" What? You mean you don't like how in America the candidate with better hair and other telegenic qualities usually wins?

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:37 AM (DYb4r)

13 Pete Stark is stark raving mad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:12 PM (8e/V4)

14 Notice how now that Zarqawi is dead all the news agencies are calling him a "terrorist"?

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 06:11 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Al-Zarqawi said to survive airstrike (Updated)

Pardon my unrestrained callousness but the thought of Zarqawi suffering before he died gives me more than a little satisfaction.

WASHINGTON - A mortally wounded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive and mumbling on a gurney when Iraqi police arrived at the site bombed by U.S. forces there, a top American military spokesman said Friday.

Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, briefing military reporters at the Pentagon from his post in Baghdad, said he learned that al-Zarqawi was alive after getting briefings on the military operation that netted al-Zarqawi and several others.

"He mumbled something but it was indistinguishable and it was very short," Caldwell said.

Update: Thanks to reader Jack we have this:

Journalists accompanying the US military to the site in the village of Hibhib, near the town of Baquba, on Saturday reported seeing a womanÂ’s leopard skin nightgown and other skimpy womenÂ’s clothes around the bombed house.

The original story assumed that the clothing was used buy some unamed women companion. Debby at Right Truth as well as myself are not so quick to make that assumption.

Companion OpiniPundit

Posted by: Traderrob at 02:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

1 So his last sight on this earth was a paratrooper from the 101st looking down on him saying "Gee Zman. You don't look so good."

Posted by: CUS at June 09, 2006 03:03 PM (bbXZq)

2 I hope his last words were ="where are my balls?"

Posted by: massachusetts republican at June 09, 2006 04:04 PM (PDTB2)

3 I bet it was,"Please help me".

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 09, 2006 04:34 PM (D2g/j)

4 Good-I'm glad he wasn't killed instantly. Whatever his last words were, I bet they weren't a triumphant and defiant "Allahu Akbar!". He was probably whimpering and moaning like the tosser that he is behind all his murderous bravado. I hope he suffered until his last breath.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 09, 2006 04:38 PM (CtVG6)

5 I'm delirious with bliss to know he wasn't killed instantly. That means he was aware.....I hope the last thing he saw was one of our boys pissing on him.

Posted by: Laura at June 09, 2006 07:54 PM (WeRWZ)

6 this is best news of this year so far i'm so glad U.S.M.C got time kick his a$$ couple of times lol

Posted by: me at June 09, 2006 08:42 PM (VcbMt)

7 The money's buried under the...Uggggghhhhhh....

Posted by: Stanley at June 09, 2006 10:12 PM (ezNLm)

8 I hope he felt the pain of his wounds

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 03:33 AM (7RMSi)

9 Was this in the New York Times or some other libeal rag?

Posted by: sandpiper at June 10, 2006 07:39 AM (08Fdo)

10 "My hair, I spent al night fixin it, and you hit it, you hit my hair!" (Use your best Travolta voice)

Posted by: Cmunk at June 10, 2006 09:47 AM (6bcFi)

11 oops i crapped my pants old SNL skit comes to mind http://hillison.com/snl/oopsicrappedmypants.html

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at June 10, 2006 12:19 PM (gT8Se)

12 Please get rid of the leopard skin nightgowns and skimpy women's clothing before the news people get here. That would be bad for the mujaweany image.

Posted by: jack at June 10, 2006 02:07 PM (0VVJW)

13 Yep, Zarqawi just looooves the feel of those silky unmentionables next to his rough terrorist skin... Oh, baby!

Posted by: Debbie at June 10, 2006 07:13 PM (rWxDT)

14 Yep, Zarqawi just looooves the feel of those silky unmentionables next to his rough terrorist skin. Oh, baby!

Posted by: Debbie at June 10, 2006 07:15 PM (rWxDT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Slain Hostage's Family Relieved at Zarqawi Death

The family of Jack Hensley, an American civilian hostage murdered by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, says justice has been served.

[Right: Abu Musab al Zarqawi can be seen reading a message shortly before he murders Jack Hensly. Below: Jack Hensley appears on Zarqawi propaganda video in which the al Qaeda leader announced that he would murder the hostage unless all his demands were met]

Unlike the father of Zarqawi murder victim Nick Berg--who continued to blame President Bush for his sons death despite the fact that the al Qaeda leader personally cut his son's head off--the Hensly family seems to be having a more rational response to Zarqawi's death.

AP:

The brother of a Georgia man who was taken hostage and killed in Iraq said justice was served in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the presumed mastermind of Jack Hensley's killing.
"I'm thankful this guy can't hurt anybody else," Ty Hensley told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday.
But Ty Hensley, who lives in Charlotte, N.C., also said he feels renewed sadness and anger toward Al-Zarqawi.
"It is a personal thing," he said. "He desecrated my family."

Hensley was kidnapped with fellow American Eugene Armstrong and Briton Kenneth Bigley. The three were in Iraq helping build medical facilities for the Coalition Provisional Government.

Pati Hensley [Jack's wife] was relieved by the news of al-Zarqawi's death, said Jake Haley, a family friend who spoke to reporters at her home at her request. She left town to avoid the media spotlight.
Jake Haley said he e-mailed the news to Pati Hensley before dawn Thursday. Shortly afterward, he visited the home and the two sat out in the back deck talking.
"We cried," Haley said. "We were both happy about it. It's not just Jack. This guy murdered a bunch of people. There were a lot of really nice Iraqi people that this man killed the same way."

And some people are saying its wrong to celebrate Zarqawi's death? Fools, all.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:15 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I hope those people can finally find peace knowing that murdering piece of shit is wearing his ass for a hat instead of that stupid beanie down in hell. I only wish he had suffered more...By the way, is Mr. Berg from San Fran maybe? Hensley's family is from Georgia and N.C., and their reaction to Zarqawi's death seems typical of people here in the south-good riddance. I can only imagine Mr. Berg must be from some hotbed of liberal dimentia like San Francisco...interesting the connection between geography and political partisanship.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 09, 2006 11:41 AM (CtVG6)

2 Actually Zarqawi wasn't the one reading the statement. It was some other guy. Zarqawi did read the statement in Oliin Armstrong's beheading video and personally beheaded him.

Posted by: Jack Miller at June 09, 2006 12:01 PM (CnDtU)

3 Alsoi Zarqawi didn't personally kill Jack Hensley. The bastard that did it is still out there.

Posted by: Jack Miller at June 09, 2006 12:02 PM (CnDtU)

4 I mean also. This board needs an edit option.

Posted by: Jack Miller at June 09, 2006 12:04 PM (CnDtU)

5 Personally, I was so happy I celebrated too much and as a result am a bit hungover this morning. Good riddence to really bad rubbish.

Posted by: Jenn at June 09, 2006 12:09 PM (QD9ey)

6 Amen!

Posted by: George ramos at June 09, 2006 12:17 PM (CnDtU)

7 Im from SF. I take no part in the Radical Communist nonesense. anyways I came across this on some blog... Since America is typically represented by an eagle, Saddam should have read up on his muslim passages. The following verse is from the Koran: Koran (9:11) for it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome eagle. The wrath of the eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah, and lo, while some of the people trembled in dispair, still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace. notice the verse number....hmmmmm? Interestingly we are on the road to peace.

Posted by: Billy Faeth at June 09, 2006 01:01 PM (frD3Z)

8 HAHAHAHAHA JK i was lying about the Koran verse..yeah no really. Islam is a religion of Pieces, in which bombs go off and people get blown to pieces.

Posted by: Billy Faeth at June 09, 2006 01:03 PM (frD3Z)

9 I was just getting ready to tell you that was an urban legend.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 01:56 PM (ULAbo)

10 LIVE BY THE SWORD DIE BY THE SWORD

Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:41 PM (XnXsx)

11 Is it just me, or does Jack look as though he was ready to break down? I watched the beheading video a while ago, and when he was stating his name, the poor thing looked as though he was ready to cry. May he, and all the other poor souls rest in peace, and may Zarqawi burn in hell...he'll have plenty of company and I hope he saves some room for OBL.

Posted by: Laura at June 09, 2006 07:57 PM (WeRWZ)

12 That Laura gal ain't too sharp is she.

Posted by: davec at June 09, 2006 08:54 PM (CcXvt)

13 I think we should all express our deepest condolences to Michael Berg in this moment of great sorrow.

Posted by: Gormless Norman at June 10, 2006 12:44 AM (3MMCf)

14 Another man dead. Oh well, no one lives forever.He lived by the sword; by the sword he died. I personally do not care who he did or did not behead. He is dead now, and he got what he was asking for.

Posted by: Martin at June 10, 2006 02:32 AM (2JBmV)

15 I agree with you Martin, but he was not just, "another man". He was the personification of the insurgency in Iraq. Hopefully, his death will diminish the number of casualties that will occur in the future. Whatever the left may say, we didn't start this. I hope to God (not that allah sumbitch)that we can find the strength to continue the fight, and see this to it's conclusion.

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 04:01 AM (7RMSi)

16 BTW, I'm staring at my 3rd tour, so I ain't no chickenhawk.

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 04:20 AM (7RMSi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Korean Hostages Freed

As predicted, the Koreans taken hostage by Nigerian rebels have been freed.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Taliban Leader Mourns Murderer Zarqawi

The leader of the Taliban has expressed his sorrow and grief over the death of al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Boo-freaking-hoo.

Monsters and Critics, with many thanks to George:

'The people of Afghanistan and I express our condolences over the martyrdom of al-Zarqawi but firmly believe that this will not weaken the ongoing resistance movement in Iraq,' the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted him as saying in a statement on Friday.
'The struggle launched by al-Zarqawi is the peoples' resistance movement and every youth has the potential to become Zarqawi,' Omar said in his reaction, adding that thousands of young people would continue al-Zarqawi's movement.
Every Muslim youth would continue the struggle to safeguard their faith, honour and dignity, Omar said, against what he called the continued aggression by the crusaders.
'I want to give the good news to Muslims all over the world that such incidents will not crush the ongoing struggles against the crusaders in Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world,' the spiritual guru of the Taliban said.

Yes, Abu Musab al Zarqawi inspired so many people! He was a true Muslim martyr!

Above right: Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his Tawhid i Jihad fighters (now called al Qaeda in Iraq) read a statement condemning civilian hostage Eugene Armstrong under Islamic law. Zarqawi later personally murdered armstrong and then released the beheading video on the internet.

WARNING: Below is a very graphic image of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Eugene Armstrong, a civilian he personally beheaded. Do not proceed unless you wish to see the disgusting works of a man praised by Islamists as a martyr. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

State Department Doublespeak in Egypt

The new U.S. Ambassador to Egypt was recently confronted with questions about bloggers who are in jail because of their opposition to Hosni Mubarak's version of Ba'athism. His response? See if you can decipher this:

We donÂ’t know all the facts. We know that there are at least two sides to every story. WeÂ’ve heard one side. I think itÂ’s incumbent on the Government Â— not to explain to the United States of America, weÂ’re not owed an explanation Â— but to Egyptians, what are the true facts? And, if the facts are not as portrayed by the opposition, then they should be brought out. And if the facts are even remotely as portrayed by the opposition, then they should also be brought out. And, what measures the Government will take to respond to those facts should also be explained.

Clear as mud, don't you think? The State Department continues its long history of avoiding conflict at all costs, even that of the truth.

Egyptian Sandmonkey has the full story.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:48 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>The State Department continues its long history of avoiding conflict at all costs, even that of the truth. That way they don't ever have to be accountable for anything they said. Personally, I prefer the Crawford style, plain-spoken type of politician. The heavier the drawl, the better.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:57 AM (8e/V4)

2 Any State Department official who stepped up criticism of Mubarak at this time would be fired. They serve at the pleasure of the president. When Condi visited, she didn't speak out aggressively. It's ignorant, Rusty, to pretend that this is the State Department's fault. On such a high profile aspect of foreign policy, the president is setting the tone. At one time, we might have thought Bush was serious about pressuring Mubarak. Look what just happened in the House. If you don't like the policy, don't blame State. It's set at 1600 Penn. Either criticize Bush or sit back and enjoy the policy. Don't pretend that this is something State could do by itself. They can't.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 09:17 AM (DQYHA)

3 Makes me very happy to live in the States

Posted by: Joel at June 09, 2006 09:31 AM (qLO3B)

4 JD, As a long-time follower of State, this is par for the course. Like all bureaucracies, it has its own culture and is rarely affected by who is in charge. Also, remember, Condi is IN the State Department.

Posted by: Rusty at June 09, 2006 10:08 AM (JQjhA)

5 OK, then answer me this: do you think that the State Department sets our foreign policy towards Egypt? Because if you do, you may have been following the State Department, but you have not been understanding it. Any intro text on US Foreign Policy (I'd recommend McCormack, but ANY will do) will tell you that the last 50 years have seen a centralization of foreign policy control in the WH. You could NEVER, as ambassador to Egypt, give a talk that was out of line with the WH on a question of major importance. Well, I suppose you could--but you would face rapid and serious career ramifications. Are you really contesting that? If you are NOT, what is the point of blaming the state department for this guy's comments? He is not, as many are, a pure political appointee. He does come out of the FSO ranks. But he was appointed by Bush because he was a professional, who would take orders. That's what ambassadors do. When they do not, on a question of major importance, they get in big trouble. Right?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:17 AM (DQYHA)

6 Your observation about bureaucratic culture does of course have merit. I'm sure you are familiar with Graham Allison's Essence of Decision, and other more formal treatment of organizational theory. But while those bureaucratic cultures are real and relevant to many types of policy analyses, they are not relevant here. For example: if you ask the Marines to become peacekeepers, it often doesn't work that well, because the Marines are trained, beautifully, to be fighting warriors. They have an institutional ethos and culture which isn't apt to the assigned task. Being Marines, they will do their damndest, of course, but it it doesn't match their long bureaucratic and institutional memory and training. Similarly, if you ask welfare offices to become workfare offices, there is a cultural backlash. That's how bureaucacies work. But setting foreign policy on a question of this magnitude--it is Bush and the people he appoints who do that. I agree that the State Department has historically had a more pro-Arab position than most presidents, with the possible exception of Reagan (really the president who was toughest on Israel in modern memory), but you are wrong to blame them for this ambassador's comments. It's pure Bush policy. We agree that it is WRONG.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:28 AM (DQYHA)

7 POLICY is set at the WH, but not the language used by State employees. That is really all I'm disagreeing with.

Posted by: Rusty at June 09, 2006 11:35 AM (JQjhA)

8 Well, I agree that state has some autonomy on language. But is it really your position that the problem with this equivocal statement about Mubarak's tyranny is the language? I think the language actually reflects Bush's ambivalence about Egypt rather well. The obfuscation begins at the top. We can't decide how to get democracy in Egypt without turning over the state to the Muslim brotherhood or worse. Hosni has played that fear like a fiddle, by eviscerating his moderate liberal opponents, and largely allowing the brotherhood to thrive by comparison. Thus, he puts it to Bush--either me, or Islamofascism. That leaves the US sputtering lame crap like what you have the ambassador saying. What's wrong with this statement is the policy it announces, not the language it uses.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 12:25 PM (DQYHA)

9 The CFR sets the tone world wide now. All those in the WH, and State who hold the real power are CFR members. That is why the border is so wide open, and Congress does not control the money anymore.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 09, 2006 04:07 PM (D2g/j)

10 You left out the Masons, the Illuminati, Henry Kissinger, Queen Elizabeth, and the Jews, Leatherneck.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:00 PM (DQYHA)

11 I do not know about the Queen, But Henry told Fox news in an interview we were the last great nation state, and that is why we are having so much trouble with our so called Allies. Are you aware the majority of Americans want the border secured. Why does Congress no longer control the money? You did not write you normal three pages on the subject. You just made fun of facts. Do you work for the government? Are you trying to mislead people? Do you think the CFR is loyal to this nation, or to a global government ruled by banking institutions?

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 09, 2006 09:10 PM (D2g/j)

12 I think conspiracy theories involving the CFR are beneath contempt, they are afactual fantasies that LaRouche and many others traffic in. It is very similar to the crap that Pat Robertson spewed in his book about the Rothschild. Like all conspiracy theories, it is oddly comforting to its adherents, because it suggests that whatever is wrong in the world can be solved if we just went after the small group controlling events. There is no group, which is scary for some. Most of history emerges from uncoordinated chaotic random interactions of large historical forces and unpredictable powerful and relatively powerless individuals. Deal with it.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 06:39 AM (DQYHA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 08, 2006

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemas?

CNN reports that Zarqawi was turned in by his own:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Betrayal inside his al Qaeda in Iraq terror group led to success in a painstaking U.S.-led operation to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

The article also states that 17 other raids were conducted simultaneously based on the same intelligence, garnering a "treasure trove" of information.

And this will make the Kos Kidz kringe:

Last night was the first time that we have had definitive, unquestionable information as to exactly where [al-Zarqawi] was located, knowing that we could strike that target without causing collateral damage to other Iraqi civilians and personnel in the area," Caldwell said.

Okay, back to my cowbell.

stein hoist to Cap'n Ed.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:39 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'd be cautious believing any of the background chatter on how the US knew which house to obliterate at the exact instance Zarqawi was inside. Does anyone think the US would tell the truth? Isn't it interesting that the Jordanian, Iraqi and US governments put out how they provided the intelligence? The more doubt in the surviving al-Qaeda leadership, the more they'll suspect each other. That is a very good thing.

Posted by: changehappens at June 08, 2006 06:55 PM (hGibF)

2 Does anyone think the US would tell the truth? Yea, Billions think that. As long as its not coming from CNN. (aka) The Crescent news network.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:04 PM (4Ospb)

3 I remember it as the Clinton News Network back in the wild Bill era. I swear, Clinton could be staring out the window in the Oval office, CNN would break away for a live shot. Same network that brokered a deal with Saddam to not report his crimes in exchange for CNN access.

Posted by: changehappens at June 08, 2006 08:34 PM (hGibF)

4 In Iraq, twenty-five million dollars will buy a lot of, um, well . . . what would it buy exactly?

Posted by: cobalt blue at June 08, 2006 10:14 PM (cJXpZ)

5 Vinnie, Unashamed just took another big fat dump on your thread. It's quite sickening. Would you mind deleting it. As you can see, the Libs are going apeshit over Zarqawi getting killed. You'd think someone just killed their mom or somethng. They are quite simply TERRIFIED of any good news coming out of Iraq. Can you imagine in WW2 after our some victory against the Nazis the Republicans start downplaying it and saying how it'll make no real difference in the war? FDR would have had them arrested for sedition. Boy, times have changed. It just shows how these Libtards are more afraid of the GOP than Al Qaida.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:10 PM (8e/V4)

6 Isn't it funny, if you believe the left, you wretched Americans are in iraq to slaughter and plunder their oil. However the leader of the supposed resistance against the wretched America, is so easily betrayed by the very victims of this American Imperialism and murderous plunder!! Now if all you conservatives could duck your heads, cover your ears, close your eyes tightly, and brace yourselves for the brain explosions over on the left.

Posted by: MathewK at June 09, 2006 12:13 AM (pVHqF)

7 Hi, I was listening to the World Tonight on BBC Radio 4 (UK), and they had a Washington Post editor on it claiming that Zarqawi was built up as a brandname and now his death is a problem for the US because this brandname cannot be used anymore, meaning that he wasn't as dangerous, his participation was deliberately blown up by the US. I was quite shocked and also because these claims went unchallenged by the presenter. Hettie

Posted by: Hettie at June 09, 2006 03:32 AM (sbBSP)

8 Hettie, don't be shocked. The media spent all this time complaining about Zarqawi (Zarqawi this and Zarqawi that) and now they're desperately trying to downplay his role. They've had access to informants of all stripes reporting to them in the green zone and now that there's a possibility they'll have fewer beheadings to report on they're scared of losing advertising. Oh, they'll still have IEDs to prattle on about, but that's not as juicy as a good beheading. And if al Qaeda changes their focus to Somalia, they'll have no access at all to news there. I think Zawahiri and/or bin Laden gave orders to someone within the organization to leak Zarqawi's whereabouts (or at least confirm the Jordanian's information) because they couldn't control him. I said on someone's blog last year, when Zawahiri wrote Zarqawi that letter chiding him about how beheadings were not likely to endear him to the Iraqi people, that they would likely try to get rid of him if he didn't stop -- and he didn't stop. He just quit distributing the films of it. Look at all the heads found in fruit boxes this week alone. I think Zawahiri and bin Laden are glad he's gone. He was hurting their mission.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 05:15 AM (YudAC)

9 Hey Vinnie, why aren't you threatening to ban all the lefturd trolls that shit all over this site, like you were crying to Rusty to ban me? I can't believe you're so chickenshit that you asked Rusty to ban me over my comment about unions. Really, how chickenshit it that? I made a comment based in truth, (unions were suggested by Marx in the Communist Manifesto after all, and you resorted to typical union thuggery by trying to get me banned; thank you for making my point for me. I hope plenty of regular viewers get to read this post before you delete it, as you almost certainly will. Now go cry to Rusty like the little bitch you are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 09, 2006 05:50 AM (0yYS2)

10 Enough of this ugly creep. Now let's get some more. Make Iraq the land of the flying turban. This they understand. OUTLAW ISLAM

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 05:55 AM (4Ospb)

11 Time to offer 50 million and a green card to whoever snitches of that goat fornicator Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 06:00 AM (4Ospb)

12 Your union comment had nothing to do with it, IM.

Posted by: Vinnie at June 09, 2006 06:13 AM (/qy9A)

13 No, of course it had nothing to do with the union comment, which is why you jumped on it so quickly. It must have been all my vitriolic rants against our enemies that did it, while they are pretty much free to post their idiocy unimpeded. You punish your friends and ignore you enemies. Good dhimmi.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 09, 2006 06:38 AM (0yYS2)

14 It's been a good past few days, that's for sure. Z gets a massive internal concusion and dies like a pig, IDF blows away a hamas animal named abu samhadana in gaza with a missle, the Jordanians arrest a relative of Z and an al jazeera journalist, Switzerland makes an arrest on a terrorist, Canada arrests a bunch of the scum, Iraq solidifies its government and I just read where a former islamic prison chaplain was popped on gun charges in NY. If this keeps up pretty soon the islamofacists are going to be relegated to only doing honor killings on their women for keeping the veil too low. The beer is on me today....

Posted by: goesh at June 09, 2006 07:08 AM (1w6Ud)

15 My thoughts on Leftist trolls that frequent this and other blogs: we wouldn't tolerate these assholes in our homes for one second and would literally knock their f****** teeth down their throats if they started spewing such sh**, so why tolerate them here? It's your blog though..

Posted by: goesh at June 09, 2006 07:15 AM (1w6Ud)

16 At the Democratic Underground website, users attempted to manipulate MSNBC's online poll to suggest that the mission to kill Zarqawi would be meaningless in the war in Iraq. Whether or not the death of Zarqawi will have a major impact on the war effort is beside the point. The efforts by liberals to manipulate a poll so as to beat down the morale of the American people and make them believe we can't win is revolting. There is a sickness that has infected the anti-war movement. Meanwhile, at another liberal website named Daily Kos, some liberals were outright upset that the military had chosen to kill a terrorist. "Bush's idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?" asked a user named "Justice." Another user named "ronik" expressed a similar sentiment: "If you agree with this killing, do you also agree with lynchings because people 'knew' the person was guilty and should be put to death? Also, do you support the death penalty? I don't, but at least those people have been put on trial. Why should it be different for this person?" Do these people not realize our nation is at war, and the enemy is attempting to kill our troops and eventually murder the rest of us here in the United States? Apparently not, because another Daily Kos member offered consolation about Zarqawi's death, opining that, "This too shall pass." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50572

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 07:18 AM (8e/V4)

17 "You punish your freinds" Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. How are you so different Improbulus? Seems to me as long as you get to do whatver the hell you like you're fine. But when someone asks simple a favor. Like repecting those who's platform you use. A favor for those who have to tolerate your anti-trolls and attacks on ourselves for tolerating/defending your ass. You act like they just pulled your nails out. Nope no loyalty or sense of reciprocation there. So who's the whiney bitch?

Posted by: Howie at June 09, 2006 07:33 AM (YdcZ0)

18 Oh and UP is back on due to a tech issue. Same one that brought super long crap troll back.

Posted by: Howie at June 09, 2006 07:40 AM (YdcZ0)

19 I have not been seeing a lot of Christian love in the comments section lately, you know the "love the sinner,hate the sin" stuff. As for the libs going apeshit, any links ? I always love to see over reaction.

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 07:56 AM (TcoRJ)

20 John Ryan: Linked on LGF Yesterday: Nutroots reaction from this link, which was said to contain to much insider information: inside taskforce 145 Using intelligence derived in part by an Arab-American soldier in TF 145, the task force obtained a time frame for when Zarqawi was due to travel down a stretch of highway along the Tigris River. This allowed a task force of Rangers and Delta operators to set up an elaborate ambush. But according to special operations sources familiar with the event, Zarqawi was late. PLEASE NOTE: this was from a much earlier operation to capture him! This was not the operation in which he was ultimately killed. It's possible Task Force 145 penetrated their group.

Posted by: davec at June 09, 2006 09:45 AM (CcXvt)

21 Trackback me no linkee.

Posted by: cobalt blue at June 09, 2006 10:13 AM (REXOp)

22 I didn't even know Maxie was banned. I was wondering what happened to him. Did Rusty get tired of his thorough cursing of fellow liberal posters? Also what union was he talking about. Please explain Howie. Thanks

Posted by: Scott Vargas at June 09, 2006 12:22 PM (CnDtU)

23 Vinnie: You should never have told the world you are a government worker and a union member. I realize it is possible for such to be normal. However, remember, most of your cohorts are democractic moonbats who do not understand where money comes from. Another thought for you I personally know that there are thousands of ex government workers who joined the union. Big brother doesn't like it.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 09:06 PM (4Ospb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What's OK for the Hitch is not for the Bitch?

'Scuse the language, but I've been mulling this over for a couple of days since I read about Ann Coulter's supposed gaffe on Drudge. I'm a little surprised at the reaction, because the accusations she actually levels at the Jersey Girls aren't that different from Christopher Hitchens' "ventriloquize the dead" statements about Cindy Sheehan in Slate. Except that the left was never quite able to demonize Hitchens in the way they'd have liked. But the truth is that these four women did pretty much what Cindy and Papa Berg did, by using their loved one's death to further their own socio/political agenda. If you agree with that agenda you'll probably see nothing wrong with that, but if not you'll see them as either crazy with grief or as manipulative opportunists. In either case they aren't sacrosanct. They made themselves public figures, after all. TigerHawk, who was a lawschool classmate of Ann's, has much more on the "defense of the indefensible."

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:40 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I think most people's problem with the queen of the harpies statment was the contention that the widows were "glad" that their husbands died.

Posted by: Sonic at June 08, 2006 03:00 PM (Gsn6c)

2 I'm no big fan of Coulter. She's too far right and too radical for me. But she's right on this one.

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 03:05 PM (ULAbo)

3 Sonic, since you're so fond of parsing words, she said they were "enjoying" their husband's deaths; meaning the fortune it has brought them. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you're of the crowd who proves her point about lifting these martyrs up and claiming they're 'untouchable' lest you be 'insensitive'.

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 03:15 PM (ULAbo)

4 Oyster, I'm flabbergasted at you. You are saying that these widows are "enjoying" their husbands death? that's what Coulter said. Not exploiting. Not using them for their political ends. ENJOYING. ENJOYING. What a sick, twisted, stupid, attention-starved, ridiculous witch she is. And for the record, how many of you have seen "Jessica's Story"? It was a devastatingly effective ad by GWBush in the 2004 ad, made about a father and a daughter who lost their wife/mother in the 9-11 attacks. The father said that he felt safer with GWB as president and the daughter talked about how much it meant that GWB hugged her. I've seldom seen something as exploitative of personal tragedy as that treacly ad (except the one for Clinton by the father of the little murdered girl). But if Coulter really believes that LIBERALS haul out people to talk about issues they are unqualified to talk about, and exploit human tragedy, then they certainly have company with GWB. Remember, also, that they had relatives of the slain at both conventions. But nobody, nobody, but Ann "batshit insane" coulter would say that they ENJOYED the deaths of their loved ones. Oyster, do you really agree with that?

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 03:18 PM (aqTJB)

5 >>>>But nobody, nobody, but Ann "batshit insane" coulter would say that they ENJOYED the deaths of their loved ones. No, the Harpies didn't enjoy the death of their loved ones, but they sure do seem to be enjoying the fame and attention it got them. Ann Coulter's point exactly.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 03:42 PM (8e/V4)

6 If that was her point, why the hell didn't she SAY that? And I think that unbelievable cheap shot about posing for playboy says that what Coulter was trying to do was just be cruel. These women have worked like dogs to publicize their views about the security lapses that led to their husbands deaths. You may disagree with them. They never said you couldn't. Many people have. But Coulter seeks to punish them for speaking out, by denigrating their loss. It is wrong for someone to shut down a viewpoint because it goes against a personal tragedy, I agree. That's why 9-11 families who disagree with the 4 women have formed themselves. there was no need to be a heartless fiend about it. That's what Coulter is. Actually, Andrew Sullivan has it more exactly: unlike Malkin, who believes what she says, you always have the sense that Coulter is a cagey performance artist, playing an extremist for fun and profit. A HUGE profit.

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 04:03 PM (aqTJB)

7 jd, Coulter really believes what she says, and that's pretty much how she explained what she meant on the radio today. She's a polemicist and she offends people, but behind the snark is always the hard truth

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 04:20 PM (8e/V4)

8 With respect to "ventriloquize" comment, Hitchens was simply pointing out that Sheehan, when it suits her, claims to speak for her son even when expressing views he opposed. Hey, it was called "Camp Casey" after all, not Camp Cindy, which would have been more accurate. Pointing that out is #1 factually accurate, and #2 a far cry from claiming Sheehan is glad her son is dead, and even Sheehan doesn't deserve that kind of grotesque smear. Honestly, it seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.

Posted by: Sean P at June 08, 2006 05:13 PM (DEeWo)

9 You are correct, the word was "enjoyed" How anyone can say that a widow, "enjoyed" the fact her husband burned to death escapes me. However Annie will sell lots and lots of books, one could even argue that she "enjoyed' 9-11, if that was not a sickening thing to say.

Posted by: Sonic at June 08, 2006 06:02 PM (Gsn6c)

10 Damn JD. You sound as if Ann Coulter was anti gay.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:08 PM (4Ospb)

11 test

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:07 AM (YudAC)

12 My entire comment is being rejected. I'll try again later.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:08 AM (YudAC)

13 The whole comment is being called "questionable content". Why I'm able to even post this is beyond me.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:10 AM (YudAC)

14 Pointing that out is #1 factually accurate, and #2 a far cry from claiming Sheehan is glad her son is dead, and even Sheehan doesn't deserve that kind of grotesque smear. Honestly, it seems like a pretty clear distinction to me. Honestly, it's like you've never heard of a wake. Of course it's possible to enjoy something that flows from the death of a loved one. It's the whole point of being Irish. Coulter's point goes a bit beyond that only in the sense that she thinks what the girls enjoy is something that she considers morally reprehensible... something closely akin to treason. And again, she didn't say they were glad their loved ones were dead. That's been pointed out several times, yet you continue to claim it. Sheesh, wake up!

Posted by: Demosophist at June 09, 2006 07:15 AM (Zcruy)

15 Demo, that's as pure a version of sophistry, in the modern sense, that I've come across in a month of sundays. You are indeed well named. An IRISH WAKE? Do you really think that was her meaning? She said they better hurry up and pose for Playboy. She said they were enjoying the deaths of their husbands. It is, as Sonic so wisely pointed out, a very different thing from what Hitchens said. Coulter has said some anti-gay things over the years, and the irony is that she is, apparently, in her personal life very tolerant of gays. She's spoken out against premarital sex, and does it regularly. That's why I don't think she believes what she says. It's like hearing Clinton lecture against infidelity. Oyster--the problem may be that you are trying to post something too long.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 07:59 AM (DQYHA)

16 An IRISH WAKE? Do you really think that was her meaning? How very sophisticated of you. Of course, I never said that that's what she meant. The comment was just by way of pointing out that all the self-righteous demonizing on the basis that she suggested someone might be enjoying what flows from the death of a loved one is a little overblown. I mean, the proper response wasn't "shock and awe" but "so what?" But then such a frank acknowledgement is hardly appropriate for women of such deeply sombre intensity. She said they better hurry up and pose for Playboy. She said they were enjoying the deaths of their husbands. It is, as Sonic so wisely pointed out, a very different thing from what Hitchens said. Of course you're right. Playing puppets with a corpse really isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be. Unless you're Irish, I mean. (And have had a few glasses of fine old Irish whiskey.)

Posted by: Demosophist at June 09, 2006 01:44 PM (Zcruy)

17 Imagine if some left intellectual said of the several parents of the fallen in Iraq who have supported the president: "they are just enjoying the deaths of their sons." they would rightfully be derided by all, left right and center. Same rules apply here. Unless you think it is fine to say that widows of those who died on 9-11 are enjoying their husbands death. What would she have to say to get some criticism from you people? She's already said that she regrets that the terrorists didn't take out the New York Times (thus saying that terrorism is a condign punishment for other Americans if she happens to disagree with them), she's called for us to invade other countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity....She mocked Max Cleland for the manner in which he became injured on active duty. I know what she'd have to say. "I'm voting Democratic." Other than that, any extremism, no matter how vile, how cruel, how destructive of the common discourse, will get a free pass from y'all. How lovely.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 03:54 PM (DQYHA)

18 Demosophist: "And again, she didn't say they were glad their loved ones were dead" Ann Coulter: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." I'm sorry demo, were you making some point about how I needed to wake up?

Posted by: Sean P at June 09, 2006 06:16 PM (DEeWo)

19 The demacraps are braying over what ANN COULTER said about HILLARY CLINTON just like them whan someone upsets hillary she lets loose her flying monkies that work in the main-stream left-wing news media

Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:45 PM (XnXsx)

20 Just for the record, I did not defend Coulter's choice of words, only the concept behind it. I started off with stating that I am no big fan of Coulter. Must I say I hate her guts and wish she were to dead in order to please you? I love how I, and others, are being accused of "giving free passes". It seems you're only upset with how she said it but I see little defense for what she's accused them of. They've simply gone on the attack for how it was said. Yeah, Coulter's delivery sucked; it often does. It's partly why I'm not a fan. But don't blow smoke up my ass by pretending these women aren't allowing themselves to be used by the anti-war crowd and enjoying the benefits it produces at the expense of moving on with their lives and once again becoming the normal people they were before. That's my last word on the subject.

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 07:51 AM (YudAC)

21 I don't think the war is what these women focus on. They focus on 9-11. They fought like hell for a neutral investigation, which Bush opposed. They fought like hell to get documents declassified, which Bush opposed. They fought like hell to find out that Bush was told in Aug of 01 "Bin Laden intends to attack in US". Hell, I'd end up not liking hte president very much if I knew that. They are not politically sophisticated, but I don't for a moment doubt their sincerity. They may be wrong. They may have endorsed Kerry, when he wasn't the man you like for president. But they certainly don't deserve to be treated the way Coulter treated them. The issue is not the "tone" of what Coulter said. It was what she said. It was vile. How can we as a nation pull together with a divisive force like Coulter out there? She's the white Al Sharpton. Both deserve nothing but disdain and disgust from all of us. I'm not asking anyone to disavow her. But I was responding to a DEFENSE of her posted here. I will judge anyone who tries to lessen how evil her words are.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 09:23 AM (DQYHA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MSM Mourns Loss of Ally in War on Bush

While the average American is celebrating news that al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, mainstream press reaction to the news of Zarqawi's death has been panic. The story, too big to simply ignore, endangers the carefully constructed memes of Iraq as a Vietnam-like quaqmire and President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as ineffective leaders in the War on Terror.

In response, major news outlets are desperately trying to portray Zarqawi's death as a minor development that will have little or no effect on fighting in Iraq and the greater struggle of the War on Terror. If Zarqawi's death does have an impact, the MSM predict, it will be to increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency.

Read the rest.

Update: comments have been temporarily suspended while we deal with a mentally ill individual trying to vandalize the site. We apologize for the inconvenience, but point out that this incident validates our points about the Left. They are not on our side in this fight.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:34 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

1 And why would it have an affect on the war on terror? There are a line of muslim fanatics to take Zarqawi's place. Time will tell..

Posted by: Splatter at June 08, 2006 09:53 AM (rtnQC)

2 Splatter, how would it have an effect? Of course as it wont end the war we should have just left him to carry on cutting heads off and bombing innocents. Killing him wont have any effect at all cept its one less bastard willing to cut peoples heads off, if it was you he captured and he got killed before he got his hands on you, you would damn well think that a difference had been made, so fuck him, I truly hope he burns in hell. The BBC news here is really pissing me off, he is now referred to as an extremist and not the mass murdering barbarian that he was.

Posted by: dave clarke at June 08, 2006 10:37 AM (VdBwc)

3 >>>fuck the corpses of our slain soldiers Bluto, please leave that vile post up. Folks need to see exactly what kind of enemies Bush has made.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 10:55 AM (8e/V4)

4 I think the two, long posts are surplus to our needs. The part about using two women to collect intel is almost as good, considering the "chastity" bit. "Women out of the house?!?!"

Posted by: Phillep at June 08, 2006 11:16 AM (OpGpa)

5 Bluto, just crop them down to size and leave it up. It's good stuff, and useful to our side. Karl Rove couldn't do a better job than this guy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:22 AM (8e/V4)

6 Why doess it matter? Becuase there are only so many leaders who are able to convince others to blow themselves up while they sit back and drink another beer. Because they can only say they are immune to the power of the allies for so long, until they are dead. Then the redshirts start to wonder if it really is worth all the trouble and what other things they have been lied too about. Because the media need a poster-child to dangle for higher ratings. Blood for advirtising. (I kid you not, always remember that is their sole reason for existance) And finally, because its just like the FBI vs. the Mafia. Keep cutting off the top and only the s**t remains to take controll.

Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 11:53 AM (sYpwq)

7 Rich, I like that: No blood for advertising!

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 11:57 AM (ULAbo)

8 Oyster, Thanks. Its even better when I spell advertising right. But it is so true and you have to always remember that conflict and tension will always be the MSM's goal because it oushes up ratings. Maybe sometimes the Moonbats have it right when they keep refering to the corporate media. heck, tehy detest them just as much as the right sometimes.

Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 12:16 PM (sYpwq)

9 LOL my ass. I'm retired not dead. I kept my notes too.

Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 12:53 PM (D3+20)

10 Would killing Hitler during WWII by the Allies been a good thing? What if Stalin had been killed by the Germans in 1941? Ho Chi Minh by the US? Stephan Harper(PM of Canada) by the Islamofacists? Of course killing the leader of the enemy is a damn enjoyable thing and sometimes its a game winner. I could care less about the corporate media, organized crime or other relentlessly irrelevant thoughts, the fact is, the leader of al-Qaeda is dead and Islamofacists everywhere are in a deep funk. We Americans ought to enjoy the moment, then get on with the business of killing more al-Qaeda leaders.

Posted by: changehappens at June 08, 2006 01:47 PM (Bmhbf)

11 So, changehappens, it sounds as though you advocate the murder of Stephen Harper. Is that really your opinion?

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at June 08, 2006 02:24 PM (USZUJ)

12 Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!!

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:28 PM (ZucvC)

13 Bluto, this is ridiculous. No one in the American MSM is "mourning" this death. Their JOB is to report the story. They report how Bush treats it, and go to talk to other people. Just because some people are minimizing this accomplishment, doesn't mean the MSM agrees with it. They have a professional obligation to be skeptical about all government claims. You will not be able to find one MSM outlet that is mourning this. The evidence you have is a quote from Berg, a quote from Zarqawi's brother, and some badly worded polls, and the use of the word "slain". If that's mourning, you don't know what the word means. You hurt the national unity in the war on terror when you tell lies about some people supporting Al Qaeda. I personally think that this is an important accomplishment, but I want to hear what other people think. That's what the MSM does--bring diverse views.

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 03:09 PM (aqTJB)

14 Bluto your hatred of the American media is ever present. Likewise I believe that you hate all of your fellow citizens who read,watch,buy or support it in any way. You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal. I would never be allowed to post anything like this on YOUR blog, differing opinions are not allowed to be posted there. As for the MSM predicting this will increase the resolve of the terrorist insurgency, my opinion after following this for 3 years is that NO ONE will be able to accurately predict anything. I have heard pundits predicting turning points so many times I scoff at all of them

Posted by: john ryan at June 08, 2006 03:56 PM (TcoRJ)

15 Damn well said, JR. There have been so many turning points in Iraq, it's a dodecahedron at this point: Mission accomplished, Bremer arrives, council appointed, elections held, Bremer turns over, Allawi brought in, Saddam captured, Uday and Qusay killed, Insurgency in "its last throes", elections held again, constitution written, Jafari put in, Maliki put in...and now this. Hope they aren't blowing smoke, hope this time it really is a turning point.

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 04:06 PM (aqTJB)

16 Thank you to the US Army, Airforce etc, for ridding this world of this pig waste. It is indeed a good day.

Posted by: MathewK at June 08, 2006 04:44 PM (pVHqF)

17 jd., the MSM does not tell the truth, nor do you. This moon god worshipper was in Iraq before 9-11, yet where is the MSM on the stroy. The economy is going like gang busters, but the MSM report how it will be bad soon. Always, the wrong direction for people to really understand what is going on in the world. But, that is the real point isn't it? Bush said something was wrong, and according to you lefturds there is no right, or wrong. Sounds New Age, and sounds like Europe. Go ahead boys, bugger each other in the ass. There is no G-d.

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 08, 2006 05:22 PM (D2g/j)

18 >>>Yay! This means the war is over and there won't be any more bombings or assasinations in Iraq! Yay! When I heard the news I almost cried! We can stop building those huge bases and bring the troops home! The Iraqis are free! Mission Accomplished!!!!! Ingnorant jackoff, I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany had a seemingly endless supply of generals and leaders to replace the ones we killed. But killing them was still a cause for celebration. This would be the equivalent of killing Albert Speer or Goebles. And if some dufus reacted to their death the way you are reacting to Zarqawis death, I think people would rightfully conclude they were dealing with a traitor. You would immediately be put under surveillance as a threat to national security.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 05:36 PM (8e/V4)

19 You people would probably consider me a little left of centre - but I have to say, I did a little happy-dance when I heard that this loathsome little insect had been squished. Having observed the videos of his handiwork circulating on the internet, I cannot see how any rational being could conclude his (hopefully painful) demise is anything but a cause for profound joy. Maybe it will affect the situationin Iraq, maybe not - either way, he richly deserved what he got. For the record, I'm from the UK. But to briefly quote from 'Team America' - "America - *f$$k yeah!*" Good job, boys

Posted by: dave at June 08, 2006 05:46 PM (+nY9I)

20 I don't understand JD. The Islamofacists are against gay marriage.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:19 PM (4Ospb)

21 >>>You are as off base as those moonbats that are saying that RIGHT is already mourning and missing their loss of the most fearsome boogey man in their arsenal. john, Libs are obviously off base because you can see and hear with your own eyes and ears how estatic conservatives have been about Zarq's death. So while Lib rhetoric is baseless (as usual), I don't see where Bluto is off base at all. Most of you are acting like it's your mom's funeral. All you have to do is read Splatter's comments and see for yourself. Or read a little bit of Sonic's. Or the dude that got his comments deleted because they were so vile in slandering our troops. Just look at how unwilling the MSM is about reporting this without making it seem like more BAD news. Just admit it, you people are TERRIFIED of any good news coming out of Iraq. You refuse to deviate from your narrative even for one day of celebration. Even the Iraqis are celebrating, so why all the long faces coming from you Libs?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:48 PM (8e/V4)

22 Listening to NPR this morning was enlightening. They expounded on Zarqawi's hatred for the Jordanian government saying it was because they had put him in prison a couple times, but never said why he was put in prison. They just left it up to the listener to imagine the reasons. Jordan's not exactly the 'model' government and one is left with the impression that maybe they put him in prison, as so many other Middle Eastern governments do, on trumped up charges or because he was merely a dissident. In fact, it was was rape and conspiracy. They didn't let anyone in on that though. The very worse thing they said about his growing up years was that he was a thug.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 06:32 AM (YudAC)

23 Did you see the Army Briefing today Carlos? The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast. They also asked whether we gave him medical attention. How Zarqawi survived the blast is a mystery. He died of his wounds later.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 07:46 AM (CnDtU)

24 I don't see any defenses here of the claim that the media is "mourning" Zarqawi. You can't point to a single slice of evidence of that, because it doesn't exist. So, instead of admitting overstatement, we just change the topic and move on. It's a lie. But it makes you feel better. Neither liberals nor the media regret this death. He was a waste of flesh, an evil and vicious killer. He richly deserved the death he was given by our brave forces. But the media MUST ask questions: what does it mean? There are differing opinions about it. And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:05 AM (DQYHA)

25 Hey I'm not a far right guy. That's Carlos' department. It just makes me sick that people were concerned about Zarqawi's well being when he beheaded Nicholas Berg and Olin Armstrong.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM (CnDtU)

26 George--I don't think that asking whether he survived the bombing raid, and if he was offered medical attention, means that the questioner was worried about his health from the standpoint of "gee, I love this guy, hope he lives!" Rather, it is an attempt to get the full truth out to the people, which is the media's job. It would be newsworthy if the man survived the raid, and was allowed to die, just as it would be newsworthy if he survived and was later shot. I don't think either thing happened, I think our forces would be smart enough to keep him alive for intel purposes, as we have done with other al qaeda figures. But let's suppose that someone killed him or allowed him to die by mistake? That's news. I know of NO ONE who isn't glad this puke is dead. Not any American, anyway. He was an enemy of civilization generally. This achievement belongs to all Americans, and we are all glad about it. There is no need to politicize his death. For once, let's be united as Americans, as we were on 9/12.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:23 AM (DQYHA)

27 >>>The news media was insinuating that we shot him dead after he survived the blast. George, When you were a kid didn't your mommy tell you not to believe everything you saw on T.V.? And even if it were true that he was shot, so what? Did we just drop two 500 pound bombs on his house? Means we wanted him dead, and I wholeheartedly approve. The last thing we need right now is another poster child for Amnesty International and the anti-American Left.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (8e/V4)

28 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

29 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

30 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

31 Amen JD.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:27 AM (CnDtU)

32 Sorry for the quadruple posts. The comment section is slow. Anyway Carlos didn't your mommy ever tell you to pay attention when I'm talking. I don't give a crap if the guy was shot. He wasn't Genius. I'm just telling you that the far left media is insinuating that we shot him dead after he was wounded when we didn't. Wise up man. I'm glad the piece of shit is dead.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:30 AM (CnDtU)

33 Oh and Carlos. Please don't hate my guts. Maxie who has disappeared already hates my guts. I want to have a fair debate with you. I don't know you so I don't want to insult you. I'm a moderate like Bill O'reilly. Not a liberal. I'll see you around.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:41 AM (CnDtU)

34 No, I don't think many are sad he's dead. Not even the media, but the way some in the media are downplaying his role suddenly does leave one to wonder why they're doing it. Afterall, if there was a boosting of his role (as some accuse the Bush administration of doing) the media have been just as guilty of it that as well. I don't believe his importance was ever played up too much. Although, I have read on some lefty blogs that outright killing him was wrong and he should have been captured alive and been given the right to a trial and why is it right for some and wrong for others and all that swill. Most of us have a sense of right and wrong and are glad we aren't being subjected to the moral obscenity of another trial in Baghdad for this monster.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 08:56 AM (ULAbo)

35 Oyster, can you tell me which leftwing American blog said we should have captured him because he had a right to trial? That killing him was wrong?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 09:51 AM (DQYHA)

36 Here's one: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/8/75854/67368 "Who are the experts who have determined Zarqawi's guilt? What is the criteria they used, and how did they come to their conclusions? If you agree with this killing, do you also agree with lynchings because people "knew" the person was guilty and should be put to death? Also, do you support the death penalty? I don't, but at least those people have been put on trial. Why should it be different for this person?" Yes, he's merely asking questions, but they're obviously rhetorical and reflect his opinions. Even after so many comments displaying glee at Z's death. I'll be back with more, but I'm really busy at work today.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2006 10:24 AM (ULAbo)

37 And the media DID report that he was in Iraq before the war. In fact, they have also reported that Bush knew about it, he was located, and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion. So Bush's intelligence of where the Zarkman was located on that particular occassion, was rock solid then JD? just all the intelligence after that was wrong? How was it again, that one of the first military operations in Iraq was to assault the Al-Sunna camp he was believed to be training? You guys pick and choose what intelligence Bush was right/wrong on, almost like you're flipping a coin...

Posted by: davec at June 09, 2006 10:44 AM (CcXvt)

38 Oyster, thanks for backing up your comment. Let me say this: I've never read the Kos comments page before, as I almost never go there. I think I'll start; there's a lot of stupid things said there, a lot of afactual assertions and poor logic. However, let's be clear--the quotes above were not from the blog itself, but from the comments. As you and I both know, one has to be careful to judge a blog by its comments. If I wanted to judge Jawa by its comments, I could easily say this is a blog that endorses genocide against Muslims, and mass murder of liberals, and the idea that ALL liberals are treasonous cowards who are mentally ill. The majority of responders that I saw on the website you gave did not say anything like "gee, too bad he couldn't have gotten a trial". There was a healthy degree of skepticism towards the administration, and many people saying this was very good news. Do you think the majority of reporters and leftists are mourning the loss of Zarqawi, as Bluto says?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 10:45 AM (DQYHA)

39 >>>and that Bush decided not to eliminate him because he was a useful reason for the invasion. jd, and that little whopper is just nonsensical on its face, given that attacking Zarq's camp would have BOLSTERED Bush's reasons for invading, not taken away from them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)

40 Whatever the truth of this debate, my point in raising the issue is to shoot down the idea that the MSM didn't report that he was there before the war. THEY DID. Agreed? And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)

41 >>>And do we agree that the MSM isn't "mourning" the loss of its "ally" Zarqawi? We agree that was a whole big load of lies by Bluto, right? jd, you've got blinders on, and that's the only way to explain how you can't see what's evident to us. Would you agree that people wear blinders sometimes? This is one of those times. Every headline they put out is purposely designed to dampen the good news lest it positively impact Bush and the Iraq war. Every story states as fact that it won't make a difference in the war on terror-- AS IF THEY FUCKING KNOW. But they state it as fact. yippeee!!! And then when one reporter was called out on it-- he was asked, how do you know it won't impact the insurgency-- the reporter fumbled around and said, "you're right, I don't know." In other words he was talking OUT OF HIS ASS. They don't report the news-- they establish the agenda. The MSM is AGENDA driven. It goes beyond mere bias.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 11:51 AM (8e/V4)

42 I agree people wear blinders. In fact, I've been begging Bluto to read an academic study on a documented psychological phenomenon called "the Hostile Media Effect" in which strong partisans of both sides perceive the media as deeply biased, even when it is not. I'm always open to the idea that I'm getting it wrong. I frequently do. Here's what I see when I read the media on this: many media outlets are asking legitimate questions about what this means. The ones I have read are not CONCLUDING that this means nothing. They are asking knowledgeable people what they think. Some, like the WH and some outside experts see this as a major turning point. Some are skeptical. I'm in the middle. I think that's where the media is--waiting to see what happens. There is a brilliant piece up on NRO by Rich Lowry stating that it is just too soon to tell whether this will work. I agree. We've had SO many turning points that it would be irresponsible of the media not to be skeptical. That's their job. Do you think you might have blinders on?

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 12:33 PM (DQYHA)

43 jd, I do agree that the Far Left also feels the MSM is too conservative. And by their wack standards they're probably right. Even moderate Liberals are too conservative for their tastes. But that speaks to how far out on Left field they are, not to how conservative the MSM is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)

44 ps., in other words, the MSM is too cold for the Far Left, just right for moderate Libs, and too hot for moderate conservatives. Think of it this way, if -10 is the Far Left, and +10 is the Far Right, with Zero being non-ideological, the MSM is a -5. The only people they can please are you NPR Lib types. Which is fine. Bias is almost unavoidable. But bial and agenda are two different things. And the NPR Libs have crossed the line into agenda.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 01:39 PM (8e/V4)

45 Interesting study done a year ago. they asked people three factual questions: Have WMD been found in Iraq? Was Saddam Hussein involved in planning 9-11? Did most of the world support our invasion of Iraq? Guess what? Your likelihood of getting all three wrong was directly related to what media you consumed. Those listening to NPR were most likely to know the correct answers to these FACTUAL questions (the first two have been conceded by Bush before the survey was done, the third is just too obvious to contest). Those most likely to get all three wrong? Fox News viewers. Those getting it from CBS,ABC, NBC television were better than Fox, worse than Newspapers. Perhaps NPR's liberal agenda is in fact, accurate reporting, which is what you perceive as bias.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 03:58 PM (DQYHA)

46 jd, that's not a surprise given that NPR would go out of it's way to hammer that home, while Fox wouldn't. It's in NPR's agenda to hammer that home. Not Fox's. That doesn' mean Fox is deceivig folks, it just means they chosen to hammer other stuff home-- the answers to which Libs would get wrong because they only listen to NPR, not Fox. But if you're going to conduct a study, who gets to choose the questions? What do you think the results would be if that study instead asked: 1) Did Congress authorize the invasion of Iraq? 2) Did America "go it alone" in invading Iraq? 2) Are there U.N. resolutions authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein? My guess is most Libs would get all three of those wrong, and that conservatives would get them all right. But I'm guessing Libs don't get quizzed the way conservatives do. Gee, I wonder why.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 04:42 PM (8e/V4)

47 jd, that's a pretty good example of the blinders you're wearing. It didn't even occur to you that the questions used in that study are examples of Lib bias. To you, Lib bias is default setting, it's as things should be in the universe. It's no more controversial than the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. You don't even perceive it as bias BECAUSE YOU'RE IN IT. Yet I can see it because I'm not. The MSM is in the business of managing perception. They have thoroughly succeeded with you. Dude, I used to be a Lib not more than 6 years ago. I know what it's like in that bubble. I know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 06:05 PM (8e/V4)

48 carlos, that is the best answer I've read here ever. You've really made an excellent, logical point in regards to the nature of the questions. Until they repeat the study with questions similar to the ones you propose, the claims made are not nearly as strong as they should be. Bravo for a very thoughtful response. Incidentally, I used to be a Republican. Bush made me a Democrat. First one I ever voted for (for president) was John Kerry. One of the things I truly believe is that Bush isn't even a conservative. He doesn't believe in the conservative values of Barry Goldwater, that's for sure.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:03 PM (DQYHA)

49 You sum up the condition perfectly. What a shame it is. I wonder if the decent, honorable Democrats will ever regain control of their party. Americans who cheer for the defeat of our country can not reasonably be trusted to govern us.

Posted by: pete at June 09, 2006 08:18 PM (bW9IA)

50 jd, again you shame us with your intellectual honesty, lol! Kudos for that.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:26 PM (8e/V4)

51 Pete wins.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 09:09 PM (4Ospb)

52 Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind. I mean, it only takes an average of 100,000 years and six tons of matter to witness a single proton decay....if you're lucky.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 06:41 AM (DQYHA)

53 >>>Well, I'm sure if I keep reading, I'll see a conservative change their mind. jd, our minds are all made up, that's why they call us 'conservatives'. lol!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:15 AM (8e/V4)

54 jd, but you're at a natural disadvantage on a conservative blog, just as I would be if I went to a Lib blog. The posts here go to conservative strengths, while the posts at Lib blogs go to Lib strengths. It's stuff we care about the most, and what we're most well-versed in, and vice versa at Lib blogs. Your choice of ideologies isn't who's the smartest or right most of the times, it's which ideology stresses the things you consider most important. We think killing terrorists and winning in Iraq is the single most important cause today, you folks think killing Tom Delay and winning back the White House is the most important issue of the day. That's why Lib blogs are so boring, and ours are so compelling.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:45 AM (8e/V4)

55 Nice theory, Carlos, but I was making a different point. Even assuming you are right about the broader questions (I deeply disagree), you will not always marshall the right arguments, you will make mistakes. Why? because you are human. What I fail to see here at Jawa is debates in which learning takes place. I offered up evidence, you replied with a thoughtful analysis of what I put forward, I read it and agreed that my evidence on this point had been deeply weakened. Try to get Bluto to admit the slightest error. Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error. The conblogger main arguing tactic is attack attack attack. If you find yourself caught out on facts, never admit it. Go on to different ones, and admit nothing. That's not learning. But it sure reminds me of Bush. He and Rummy seem to think that if they admit a SINGLE error of significance, the entire superstructure of their world view will collapse. This is a sign of deep intellectual insecurity. A confident thinker and a confident movement learns. They admit mistakes. They explore why they made them. Gingrich did that. Goldwater did that. Bluto never does. Howie did a little. Instead of reading posts for learning, people here tend to read posts for ways to remain fixed in their views. Any feeble point will do, so long as you have to concede nothing. I'm proud that several times here, I've admitted to changing my mind. To learning from other people's logic.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:31 AM (DQYHA)

56 Death Could Shake Al-Qaeda In Iraq and Around the World By Craig Whitlock Saturday, June 10, 2006; A01 BERLIN, June 9 -- The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could mark a turning point for al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, according to terrorism analysts and intelligence officials. ... It is unclear which of 39-year-old Zarqawi's lieutenants, or deputy emirs, will attempt to fill his role...For recruitment efforts, the importance of Zarqawi's death "cannot be overestimated," Germany's foreign intelligence chief, Ernst Uhrlau, told the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Guido Steinberg, an expert on Islamic radicalism at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said other groups of foreign fighters that kept a loose alliance with Zarqawi, such as Ansar al-Sunna, might turn away from al-Qaeda in Iraq now that he is gone. "It's a great loss for the these jihadi networks," said Steinberg, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to Gerhard Schroeder when he was chancellor of Germany. "I don't think there is any person in Iraq able to control this network the way Zarqawi did. It's very decentralized. He was the only person in Iraq who could provide the glue. "By losing Zarqawi, they run the danger of losing Iraq as a battlefield to the nationalist insurgents and others who aren't interested in bin Laden or the global jihad."

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:38 AM (DQYHA)

57 I've just posted excerpts from an article that does exactly what Bluto said the MSM does NOT do: report Z's death as good news for us. It is almost uniformly positive. Please, here's a test for you conservatives: read this, and answer me this: is Bluto right or wrong in his original post? The conclusion if you read this article is inescapable, but who will have the courage to say so? Surely not Bluto. Anybody else? He said the MSM would portray it as a "minor development". This article in a "liberal" paper does NOTHING of the kind. Who will admit it? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902040_pf.html

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:43 AM (DQYHA)

58 >>>Try to get YOU to admit the slightest error. I can admit to the slightest errors, no problem. Didn't I concede that not all Libs despise christianity? Did I not concede that the spaniards sometimes used violence to force their religion on the indians? People on this blog will attest to the fact that I often concede on points of fact. The problem is that folks like Bush and Rummy have no good reason to admit to the slightest mistakes because they know that the people demanding they admit it are intellectually dishonest partisan wolves intent solely on exploiting their admissions for the purpose of destroying them. Do you think they would say to Bush, "cheers to you for being honest! Let's report back to the American people how honest our president is!" ROFLMAO! No, they would use those admissions to destroy him. Bush would be fool to admit even the SLIGHTEST mistake to those assholes. In fact now that you mention it, even the fact that you Libs are demanding that Bush "admit his mistakes" is RIDICULOUS. What purpose does it serve? None. It's a political gimmick, nothing more.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 10:57 AM (8e/V4)

59 At this point in his presidency, you may be right. But I thought the contrast between him and Blair was deadly. Blair, asked about mistakes, said disbanding the army and too aggressive debaathification. Bush said "Bring 'em on". Bush's error was rhetorical, not policy. What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist. It sends the wrong message to our military. No problems, no mistakes, everything going as planned, when in fact, it is SNAFU and FUBAR as far as the eye can see. If Bush had not spent a year trying to confuse the issue on WMD before finally admitting it, we would have been able to put more resources into anti-insurgency. If Bush had been able to admit errors, he would have been a more effective diplomat at bringing in the nations his secdef had insulted (actually, firing Rummy would have done a lot). How about this: GIVING MEDALS TO TENET, FRANKS, and BREMER? After Cheney and Rummy, the very architects of this FUBAR? Tenent--slam dunk on WMD. Franks: no need for more troops to prevent total breakdown of civil society, Bremer: disband the army and debaathy radically. Each of those decisions and acts resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans. And this president, unable to say mistakes were made, gave them the highest honor of the nation. Despicable.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:05 AM (DQYHA)

60 Carlos--when you "conceded" on liberals was that you meant your comment to mean the leadership of the party hates Christians. You didn't say that members of the leadership are committed Christians, which is true. Can you admit that the statement itself was wrong, not that your meaning was misinterpreted? I think there are aggressively secular people in the leadership of the Democratic Party who treat fundamentalist Christianity with great disdain, and who have grave doubts about religion generally. They are not the leadership. They are just a part of it. As for Spaniards: ok, you got me. You did go from saying no one was converted at swordpoint to saying that some people were. I withdraw my comment about you as wrong.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (DQYHA)

61 The parallel comment would be: the Republican Party is a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who oppose abortion and gay rights. That woudl be ignoring the diversity within the Republican Party, which still has libertarian strains, Jewish members, etc. (and closeted gays in high positions, but whatever). Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong?

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 11:13 AM (DQYHA)

62 >>>What is the point of admitting error? Because it is tough to fix mistakes if you won't admit they exist. I don't buy that. You see, "admitting mistakes" isn't about forcing a change in policy for the better-- given that the policy has already long shifted by the time you get Bush to "admit his mistakes." It's simply gotcha politics-- making him feel pain for mistakes that are obvious only to hindsight. It's like a backseat driver warning about stuff in the rearview mirror. Wouldn't you just turn around and tell the guy to shut his big fat hole? Yes, our civilian planners make mistakes. But Newflash! They are infinitely further ahead of the curve than the schmucks in the media and the Democrat leadership, who are only experts because of hindsight. Their calls for "admitting mistakes" is pure gimmickry.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:26 AM (8e/V4)

63 >>>Did you read the article from WPost, Carlos? Do you think that Bluto was right or wrong? That was a great article. The tone was pitch perfect. But I wouldn't make too much about it. It's the exception, not the rule.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:28 AM (8e/V4)

64 Then you are, in effect, saying that Bluto was wrong when he said the MSM reports only negatively about Iraq? that EVERY story follows that "meme". That they sought, in EVERY story to portray the murder of Z as a non-event? Go ahead, say he was wrong. You disagree with him, without saying so. Lack of testicular fortitude?

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (DQYHA)

65 Well given that 1 out of 10 journalists are conservative, chances are that not EVERY single article is going to be a Leftwing hit piece. So if that's what Bluto meant, he was obviously wrong.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)

66 I think your numbers are suspect, Carlos. If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates? In fact, the Pew Research Center (one of the best, non-partisan centers in the country) has this to say of a large study of journalist ideology. Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public. About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans. *** 1-9 con-lib sounds really extreme. Do you have a source for that? 7-34 (12-23 at local level) con-lib seems much more accurate, and helps explain why I could find MANY examples of Bluto being dead wrong about the media and Z's death.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:32 PM (DQYHA)

67 >>>If 90% of reporters are liberal, and 10% conservative, where are the moderates? Let me correct those numbers. Liberal journalists outnumber conservatives by 9-1. That's more accurate.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 04:58 PM (8e/V4)

68 Also, are you sure you mean "liberal"? I've seen a few studies (a Lichter one) that shows something near that in voting by national reporters. But that was 1992. Clinton was not running as a "liberal". He was from the moderate wing of his party, the DLC. He had many conservative positions (end welfare, pro-death penalty, pro free trade, etc). Votes are not perfect measures of ideology to say the least. Also, consistently since the question was studied, two key facts stand out--that national reporters are more liberal than local ones, and that editors are less liberal, and publishers trend conservative. Also, national reporters aren't lockstep liberal even when they are "liberal". On social issues, VERY liberal. On issues like taxes, and particularly free trade, pretty conservative. I'll never forget an MSNBC segment where a reporter made it sound like lowering the mort. exemption to homes valued 300K or less was stalinism--she almost said no one had a house valued that low. National reporters are aloof from the economic concerns of the working class. this gives them a conservative bias on several issues, including things like taxes and free trade. It is also one reason they don't agree with many americans on immigration. It is MUCH more complex than many people here realize.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:10 PM (DQYHA)

69 A large study by Rozell of Virginia journalists also shows they are more secular than the American norm, altho again other studies show this is more national than local. Wealthy, highly educated Americans tend to be less religious generally, and national reporters are, compared to the median family income, pretty well paid. One big change since the early years of mass media journalism is that journalists today almost ALWAYS have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees. Graduate degrees are associated with lower levels of religious faith, as well. It is possible that journalists are not more secular than people with similar income and education.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 05:14 PM (DQYHA)

70 Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000? Yes, endorsements are made by editorial boards, and sometimes by the publisher, and sometimes by the combination. But IF the MSM is as biased as you people think, why don't the owners do something about it? And if, as you have said, the editors are the worst of it...how do you explain these endorsements? Give it a shot, folks. See if you can square these facts with your beliefs.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 09:00 AM (DQYHA)

71 >>>Finally, if the media are so uniformly liberal...why did more papers endorse Bush than Gore in 2000? hmmm, that's intriguing. Do you have a credible source for that allegation?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:01 AM (8e/V4)

72 This is from Salon, which you probably don't trust, but the study is from editor & publisher, which you probably do: Since 1940 when industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. In 2000, the overwhelming trend toward Republicans continued. According to estimates, candidate Bush enjoyed a huge newspaper advantage, picking up nearly 100 more daily endorsements than Gore. On the eve of the election four years ago, Editor & Publisher spelled out the newspaper love affair with Bush in a Nov. 6 article: "The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally." E&P's results come from industry-wide surveys it conducted among 800 top newspaper executives one week before the election. Asked how they were going to vote in 2000, 59 percent of newspaper publishers signaled they were voting for Bush, compared to just 20 percent for Gore. And even among newsroom editors, Bush won support among 33 percent, compared to just to 24 percent for Gore. **** Does it matter? Well, it kind of destroys the whole uniformly liberal media crap. Please note that editors, who someone here said were the most powerful, voted for Bush more than Gore...perhaps one reason why even conservative Robert Lichter said that Gore got screwed by the media in 2000.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:06 PM (DQYHA)

73 BTW, Carlos, if your source for 9-1 lib-con is Lichter's survey of journalists and how they voted in 1992: first, votes in 92 are not measures of ideology. Second, that survey has vast errors in it, that have been documented by several academics.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:08 PM (DQYHA)

74 Oh, and a countervailing fact: if you add up the circulations, as opposed to the number of newspapers, Gore does significantly better than he does by number of newspapers. This is because (shocking) newspapers tend to (but not always) reflect the views of their market, and urban areas lean Democratic, while rural ones lean Republican. But a counter-countervailing trend: one study I've read suggests that rural newspapers are more influential on their readers. This may be because they are more opinionated, with less professional separation between news and editorial. Or it may be that their readers are easier to sway.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 01:38 PM (DQYHA)

75 votes in 92 are not measures of ideology. What's that supposed to mean? Libs voted Democrat in 92, just as they do in every election. If there were errors in that study to account for the 9-1 ratio, they would certainly have to be pretty VAST errors. So when you say the publishers endorsed Bush, is that the bigwig capitalists who actually own the newspapers? If so, I don't think that necessarily reflects on joe blow journalist just out of NYU. One's worldview is tempered by the reality of running a business, the other one is an idealist trying to "make a difference." In fact, one might conclude that but for the publishers and people trying to turn a profit (including the editors), the papers would be even more Leftwing than they are now. Interesting about the newspaper endorsements, but do you think it's material?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)

76 Sure, I imagine that most liberals (say the overwhelming majority) voted for clinton. But the converse statement is not true: all Clinton voters were not liberals. In fact, if you look at the National Election Study data, a non-trivial number of liberals voted for Bush, and conservatives for Clinton. Happens every year. But the more vital number is the number of moderates who voted for both men. Thus, the 9-1 figure of voting is NOT the same as saying that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by 9-1. If (and there are HUGE criticisms of Lichter's methodology) his data is accurate that 9 reporters (and his study was just washington reporters, not even national) voted for Clinton for every 1 who voted Bush, that doesn't mean the 9 were libs (or the 1 con). They are correlated, but not the same. As for the EP. ABSOLUTELY it's material. It's not just the endorsements--it's the EDITORS voted for BUSH. Think about it. Earlier in this thread and also elsewhere when people talk about the liberal bias in the media, they say that editors are at least as powerful and force the liberal bias into the media. Well...if more voted for Bush...that suggests that they are probably more moderate than you realize. And publishers are not the only ones who determine endorsements. Sometimes they are the only voice. Sometimes they participate with the editors. Sometimes they let the editorial board do it. AND--if I own a newspaper, and I'm a conservative, and I see obvious bias (which is what you all think it is)--well, I'd take action. Unless these owners are just dumb...

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:39 PM (DQYHA)

77 Interesting pattern though. Why did you ask for a source if you didn't think it was impressive evidence of the non-liberal nature of the media? C'mon, give a little.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:40 PM (DQYHA)

78 jd, I can give a little, but agreeing with you that newspaper publishers are representative of most reporters isn't a little. I've always believed that the folks who run the newspapers run it as a business, and as long as the journos are selling papers, the tycoons don't get involved in the micromanagement. Why would I change my mind about that now? I asked for your source because I admit I thought it odd that newspapers were endorsing Bush more than Gore. But when I saw that the endorsements were mostly from the money bags in charge, it all made sense again. There is too much info out there confirming what I can see with my two own eyes-- that the MSM are all a bunch of NPR Libs-- to concede the issue based just on publisher endorsements.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:50 PM (8e/V4)

79 I NEVER said publishers were representative of reporters, did I? Nice straw man. What I said was: look at editors voting. You didn't. Why? And many cons have said, hey, the media is leftwing, that's why Fox is gaining viewers and MSM losing subscribers and viewers. So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective? The MSM doesn't see Zarqawi as an ally. They don't mourn his death. They don't twist stories against our troops as a rule. I think they could do a better job sometimes showing the accomplishments of our troops, but the media has a well-established bad news bias. If it bleeds, it leads. If the bleeding hurts liberals or conservatives, it doesn't matter.

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 06:41 AM (adM2O)

80 >>>So, why wouldn't smart CEOs fire the liberals who aren't objective? dunno. That does throw a wrench into the mix, and I admit I don't have a good answer to that. I'll have to think about that one.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 12, 2006 08:56 AM (8e/V4)

81 Fair enough. It is a complicated subject. I'm certainly open to the idea that the media has a liberal bias on certain issues. It is very tough for fundamentalist Christians to get a fair shake from the national media. The national media is pro-gay rights (along with most similar people of their education and income level) and pro-choice. I just don't think they are anti-American in covering foreign policy at all--in fact, much the opposite (good book showing that is Lance Bennett's News: the Politics of Illusion, if you can't bear to read Chomsky's flawed but important Manufacturing Consent). CNN's coverage is far more pro-American spin than it was in 91-2, thanks to competitive pressure from Fox. They are often selling patriotism. Whether that is bad or good depends on your own views on what the media should do, but it is afactual to argue that they are anti-American. They've become so pro-Am that they now have two coverages, one for domestic, one for foreign, because if they'd shown the world their American coverage during the iraq invasion, they'd have lost viewers, and if they'd shown the Americans their international coverage, they'd have lost viewers. That's how pro-Am their domestic broadcast is. Even more so the national media sometimes takes a conservative viewpoint on trade issues and general economic issues. No reporter is afraid of an illegal immigrant taking their job for half salary. The national media also isn't as sympathetic to the poor on health care, because most members of the national media HAVE health care. They aren't part of the 45 million Americans who don't. One other issue they don't cover fairly--the plight of newspaper delivery people (seriously!). The media has biases and blind spots. They just are uniformly liberal. That's why more editors voted for Bush than Gore.

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:28 AM (aqTJB)

82 Not that anyone who's reading wouldn't realize it, but just in case: the penultimate sentence should have an "aren't" not an "are"!

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 09:29 AM (aqTJB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

America's #1 Enemy, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Dead

Al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead! This post to be updated throughout the day.

[Right: An image of the dead al Zarqawi from Howie]

Vinnie's original report on Zarqawi's death. Demosophist: The Jeb Stuart al Zarqawi connection.

Today is one of the happiest days of my life. When I heard the news, I literally started crying.

To quote myself: Ding dong, the bitch is dead!!! Update: Great minds think alike.

Long-time readers know that The Jawa Report has had a personal grudge against al Zarqawi. Zarqawi first appeared on our radar screen when he was the leader of Tawhid and Jihad and began producing beheading snuff films distributed on the internet.

It was the murder of Nick Berg by Zarqawi, more than anything else, that set The Jawa Report on its present path. Seeing Nick Berg being murdered by al Zarqawi caused a reaction in my that is difficult to describe. It angered me. It made the war on terror personal. It made killing Zarqawi a personal goal for me.

In fact, over the past year or so not a single day has gone by when I have not fantasized that Zarqawi was either dead or captured. Today, my dream has come true!

Flashback: Nick Berg Gave Password to Terrorist

Log-time reader and hostage watcher George: Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong's killer has finally died. I would have prefered he be beheaded but at least he's dead. Nick and Eugene are smiling from above. I am sure of that. Maybe now we'll finally get Bin Laden. I have more hope now. I always knew we would get Zarqawi since he was in Iraq. Today is a good day Rusty. RIP Nick and Eugene.

Amen!

Report from Baghdad on Iraqi reaction:

Mid-morning local time the news broke, Abu Musab al Zarqawi has been killed. The celebrations on the street and the cheers at the press conference announcing this news may seem odd to some in the comfortable confines of the west. While a BBC reporter today referred to al Zarqawi as a Â“controversial leader of the resistanceÂ” the reaction among most Iraqis lacks such nuance, they are glad for one simple reason, al Zarqawi is dead.
The reactions among Iraqis to the death of al Zarqawi is quite different than that to the similar demise of Uday and Qusay. The deaths of the brothers Hussein was met with a jumble of emotions among Iraqis in 2003: some saw them as leaders while most saw them as the homicidal maniacs they were. The reaction to the death of al Zarqawi is far more visceral, akin to ridding oneÂ’s house of a menacing rat.
A reserved Sunni intellectual who is quite particular in the language he uses summed up the feeling surrounding al ZarqawiÂ’s death: Â“Goddamn that motherfucker for what he has done to Iraq.Â”

More reaction from Iraq: CONGRATULATIONS TO IRAQ, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD ON THIS VICTORY.

The death came courtesy of Task Force 145.

Zarqawi Air-strike video.

Video of al-Maliki announcing it.

Zarqawi family reacts:

The husband [of one of ZarqawiÂ’s sisters], who identified himself as Abu Qudama, said: Â“WeÂ’re not sad that heÂ’s dead.Â”
Â“To the contrary, weÂ’re happy because heÂ’s a martyr and heÂ’s now in heaven,Â” added the man, who said he lost one of his legs fighting Russian forces in Afghanistan as part of the Islamic Mujahedein.

According to CENTCOM, one of Zarqwi's key lieutenants was also killed in the raid, spiritual advisor Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman.

Reaction from the Left. Cut-and-run. And more. More Lefty 'elation'.

Nick Berg's father feels no relief that son's murderer killed. More from the 'peace dad'.

More insanity from Mr. Berg: Zarqawi's death will foster anti-American resentment among Al Qaeda members

Image before it was cleaned up via Michelle who has a roundup of her own.

How is Haditha related to Zarqawi's death? Because pro-insurgent forces love to lie about each and every incident in which someone in Iraq is killed. For instance, Lawrence at Is Full of Crap points us to this reaction from a resident of the town in which Zarqawi was killed as reported in the NY Times:

"Zarqawi. Zarqawi. Zarqawi. That's all we hear about. Zarqawi was not here. This home belonged to displaced people,'' said a village resident, holding up a teddy bear and a child's knapsack buried in the destruction.

So, one of the most evil & vile scumbags on the earth is killed and the reaction is....blame the Americans for killing children. See how this works and why we should be skeptical of claims of massacres in Iraq?

Bush on Zarqawi death.

Think Bluto's post about the MSM reaction is overblown? Read this report from the Financial Times. Not only is the importance of the Zarqeermaster's death downplayed, the al-Qaeda link is also questioned.

Right reaction: Beth:

HAHA, you fucking son of a whore, may the maggots in hell choke on the stench of your filthy rotting corpse. Fuck you, you dead piece of less-than-worthless garbage! Let Satan himself and all his pet goats skull-fuck you until your ugly fucked up head pops off. 72 virgins? Heh. Virgin leper hogs, maybe.

Somewhere in Hell there will be 72 very sore sheep tonight

Welcome to hell, Abu, you goat-raping half-a-man.

Hot damn, pizzas for everyone!

Good News.

The elimination of Zarqawi and his henchmen will kneecap the foreign insurgency.

See-Dub: I guess that machine gun he was working so hard at firing didnÂ’t come in to handy, now, did it?

Rest in pieces Zarqawi.

National Day of Mourning declared by French youth

Human Rights Groups Kill Abu Masab al-Zarqawi

Oyster: do not pass go, do not collect any virgins:

Pundit with good roundup. Lot's over at Hugh Hewitt from Hugh and Mary Katherine. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:05 AM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 1335 words, total size 12 kb.

1 when did he suddenly become enemy # 1? for example Rusty said " Iraqis Seek Extermination of Small Vermin Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." from chipmunk to surrogate OBL? how silly.

Posted by: Michelle Z. at June 08, 2006 09:20 AM (fXkLc)

2 Oh you have a link. Sorry! Anyway, he's enemy #1 in Iraq. Now we should focus on getting Ibrahim al Douri who was one of Saddam's top lieutenants.

Posted by: Jack Miler at June 08, 2006 09:22 AM (CnDtU)

3 >>What pisses me off is that Nick's father doesn't appreciate the fact that his son's killer is dead. Let's chop his head off too. That'll learn him.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 09:28 AM (UHKaK)

4 Nah, I don't want to chop off his head. He lost his son after all. A good beating with some soap in some socks ala Full Metal Jacket is good enough for me.

Posted by: Jack Miller at June 08, 2006 09:39 AM (CnDtU)

5 Maybe. But I still say we chop his head off. His wife's too. Maybe the neighbors.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 10:20 AM (UHKaK)

6 Just reading the links show that Nick Berg was a jew traitor to this country giving passwords and assistnace to these filthy arabs. He got what he deserved in the end--a just reward for his anti American activities. I personally plan to show the Berg video at my 8 year olds birthdy party next month and to all of his friends so they can see what happens to traitors and who the enemy really is, all arabs. So Zarqawi is finally dead, fine. We will not rest until every arab man woman and child has also been slaughtered. God Bless America

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at June 08, 2006 10:22 AM (Nhfns)

7 Holy Moly. I got a link! ~;-)

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 10:31 AM (ULAbo)

8 This will be a national day of celebration in Iraq, and should be great cause for celebration in the free world. There is even hope that my country (Canada) will slowly wake up to the fact that this is not just "Bush's war on so called terrorism", which I just heard today on the CBC when reporting on Zarqawi's death. Even though we just had a close brush with the real devils, Canadians, as a whole, just do not get it. This is a REAL war. Keep up the good fight.

Posted by: Grim Reaper at June 08, 2006 10:33 AM (fO5UN)

9 GMTA! Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead! I was singing that in the wee hours of the a.m., when I heard the news (I leave FOX news on all night). What gets me is that suddenly this asshole's arch enemy #1? What about OBL? Breaking news is one thing, but this animal doesn't deserve to take up so much news time. Good thing for Bush now, since his ratings plummeted. Maybe now that Zarqawi's dead, it'll take the heat off of those poor Marines accused of shooting civilians at random.

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 10:33 AM (WeRWZ)

10 Though if they're found gulty, you gotta admit the heat'll be back on.

Posted by: glenn at June 08, 2006 10:41 AM (UHKaK)

11 Berg's dad is even trying to deny that it's Zarqawi. Man, is he ever whacked out.

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 10:44 AM (ULAbo)

12 Can we put Nick's head back on so we can cut it off again?

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 10:51 AM (UHKaK)

13 What's the deal about Nick's Dad? Is he whacked out or what? They positively id'd Zarqawi. Know what? They should string his ass upside down and let the Iraqi's piss on him. Too bad he died a swift death, unlike his victims. RIP, Berg, Armstrong, Bigley, and all the others. This news is not going away anytime soon. The allegations against those Marines will take a much needed break. I hope they get off, fuck 'em, this is a war, right? Anything goes.

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 10:57 AM (WeRWZ)

14 >>>What pisses me off is that Nick's father doesn't appreciate the fact that his son's killer is dead. That seals it for me. I need no further proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 11:00 AM (8e/V4)

15 Not according to the Marine commander who's overseeing the investigation. But what the fuck does he know about war?

Posted by: glenn at June 08, 2006 11:05 AM (UHKaK)

16 >>>> fuck 'em, this is a war, right? Anything goes. Exactly, screw this "winning hearts and minds" shit. Blow away a couple of their toddlers and old ladies, maybe they'll start getting it: don't fuck with the USA.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 11:12 AM (UHKaK)

17 Good ! that muslitard is now in hell with mahomet the fake guru but real pedophil and murderer, today the world is more free and happy without that muslishit murderer's people. just thx to the usa for that good news and continue the good job guys. http://angelaaronscc.blogspot.com/

Posted by: slimangel at June 08, 2006 11:20 AM (ZYbRZ)

18 Thanks for the link! Thanks also to all those who would have pushed for rights for this maniac had he been captured. The US Military was thinking of you when they decided to drop bombs through the roof instead of special forces through the windows!

Posted by: Fred Fry at June 08, 2006 11:22 AM (JXdhy)

19 This is just a small victory. The real victory will be when the last arab man woman and child has been slaughtered and the streets of the world flow red with arab blood. Arabs are subhuman filth lower than cockroaches. I teach my son that if you ever encounter an arab you shoot them first no questions asked. He must know that arabs only wish to harm others and rape children. Praise Jesus and God Bless America

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at June 08, 2006 11:28 AM (Nhfns)

20 Do we get the burn his corpse and drag it through the streets now?

Posted by: Cmunk at June 08, 2006 11:31 AM (7teJ9)

21 This cat used all of his 9 lives up.

Posted by: Greg at June 08, 2006 11:41 AM (q5wwn)

22 >>>>> Think Bluto's post about the MSM reaction is overblown? I think ALL of Bluto's reactions to the MSM are overblown, fueled largely by sweeping generalizations, logical fallacies and non sequiturs that stretch the bounds of reason.

Posted by: glenn at June 08, 2006 12:46 PM (UHKaK)

23 Zarqawi's death will foster anti-American resentment among Al Qaeda members More evidence Liberals suffer from a mental disorder. I'm staring at the pic of dead Zarqawi and it fills me with such a calm and peace. I can actually feel the endorphins and dopamine begin to flow. Is that wrong? He looks like he's sleeping peacefully, but his soul is now burning in an everlasting eternal hell.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 12:50 PM (8e/V4)

24 Hoorah. The SOB deserved it. Though I am somewhat saddened, now who will I make fun of for being a stupid monkey unable to fire a gun in a propaganda video made to make us fear them? Unashamed Patriot...you sound like Guy de Lusignan or Reynauld de Chatillon. They believed much the same thing before setting out for Hattin. God and Jesus were on their side, it did not matter that Saladin held vast numerical superiority in a startegically and logistically superior position. It did not get them too far (especially Reynauld). Fighting smart, not zealously, wins the day.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at June 08, 2006 12:53 PM (S+598)

25 Wait a sec ... this is the guy who's planning to show Nick Berg's beheading at his kid's eighth birthday party. You can stop reasoning now.

Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 08, 2006 12:57 PM (UHKaK)

26 not so fast.Zarqawis death might be a huge pentagon psyops to prepare us for a huge attack here that they can then say was revenge.watch!!!

Posted by: judd at June 08, 2006 01:03 PM (PTskS)

27 Screw that, I'm gonna wallow in my bliss right now, I don't care what they have planned for us. You know how cockroaches are...kill a few, twice as many come back. Same thing with these insurgents. Zarqawi's just the tip of the iceberg. Gotta chip away at the rest of the ice too. I saw a reporter ask someone why didn't they show the rest of Zarqawi's body, and just the face? They said it was "too gruesome" from the attack....bullshit! Bring it on! Hey, we saw the beheading videos, this would be a piece of cake to watch! Then again, maybe his head is all that's left of the bastard. GOD BLESS AMERICA. REJOICE!!!

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 01:12 PM (WeRWZ)

28 he got fucxed up good SOB byy see u in hell ass wipe

Posted by: blackdog at June 08, 2006 01:13 PM (U5mdE)

29 Hey I don't support the murder of innocent civilians Laura and Party Pooper. That doesn't help our soldiers out there. I believe in innocence until proven guilty but if the Marines are guilty than they should serve life in prison. Snap out of it Laura. Zarqawi got what he deserve. The U.S must prove to Iraqis that it is better than the terrorists. We are humane. Zarqawi was not.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 01:19 PM (CnDtU)

30 Read my posts carefully George...do you REALLY think I'm on the same page with this Laura person? Or was I parodying her and her ilk? Hmmm....

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 01:28 PM (UHKaK)

31 Oh sorry. There's a lot sick people in this world who like killing civilians. I was directing my post to Laura. Sorry Party Pooper.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 01:30 PM (CnDtU)

32 I know ... I run across a few of them right here. Thank God they're insignificant. No problem.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 01:33 PM (UHKaK)

33 Amazing! He gets two 500lb bombs dropped on his ass and there's a no more than a scuff mark on his face! No wonder we can never kill OBL. I'll bet he has even more of the "Muslim magic."

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:31 PM (ZucvC)

34 >>>> >>>What pisses me off is that Nick's father doesn't appreciate the fact that his son's killer is dead. That seals it for me. I need no further proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 8, 2006 11:00 AM ------------------------------------------------ Yeah, really. Wasn't Jesus a screwball? I'll bet that wacko is spewing some kind of love your enemy garbage that only liberals with mental disorders agree with. Kill'em all. The real god will sort them out.

Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 02:34 PM (ZucvC)

35 I hope they get the labtop, and cell phone. That way, we can see who has been giving them the bombs to place in the street. I bet it is Iran, or China. ROPMA

Posted by: Leatherneck at June 08, 2006 02:49 PM (D2g/j)

36 *shakes head* I guess youse guys don't "see" my tongue in my cheek, eh? Do you really think I condone innocent civilians getting killed? Hell no. But when insurgents are shooting at you, using them as human shields, what the fuck else is left to do? Stand there and take it? War sucks, get over it.

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 02:49 PM (WeRWZ)

37 No Jesus was not a screwball. Loving your enemy does not necessary mean not punishing them. You love your children but if your children made a big mistake would you not discipline him accordingly? anyways i just like to say Al-Zarqawi got Pwn3d!!!!!!11111 C'mon say it with me. ALLAHU AKBAR! indeed. ...you gotta say that phrase at the correct moment.

Posted by: Billy Faeth at June 08, 2006 03:18 PM (c6Dyg)

38 No one said war didn't suck. And no one said civilians don't die in war. And no one said insurgents don't use the lowest tactics known to humankind. We all know these to be true But what if it really is revealed the three Marines the investigation is targeting actually walked in to this house, shot that old lady in her wheelchair, a mom and her kid in bed, and 19 other unarmed men, women and children? I'd say it kinda makes it hard to sell ourselves as liberators and friends, not to mention un-doing the "hearts-and-mids" work of tens of thousands of other soldiers over the past three years, don't you think? Are you willing to "Get over that?" Betcha the miliary Courts-Martial won't.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 03:40 PM (UHKaK)

39 Amazing! He gets two 500lb bombs dropped on his ass and there's a no more than a scuff mark on his face! No wonder we can never kill OBL. I'll bet he has even more of the "Muslim magic." Posted by iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 8, 2006 02:31 PM Is he any less dead? conspiracy kooks coming out of the woodwork I see -- did Karl Rove use the Roswell space saucer, with it's anti-matter ray to kill him IJ? Have you see his body below the neckline?

Posted by: davec at June 08, 2006 03:48 PM (CcXvt)

40 Why are you so quick to judge the Marines as already guilty? I've known a few Marines and they go through very rigid procedures...they're not known to "crack" like that! The media has done nothing to show our boys in a good light....any little thing that can grab onto to make them look bad, so that they (the libs) can look smug and say "I told ya so, this war is illegal!", they will. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Were you an OJ supporter as well?

Posted by: Laura at June 08, 2006 03:59 PM (WeRWZ)

41 >>>>Amazing! He gets two 500lb bombs dropped on his ass and there's a no more than a scuff mark on his face! Can you imagine the field day you conspiracy theorists would be having if he had been damaged beyond recognition??? lol! Sorry to dissapoint you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 04:22 PM (8e/V4)

42 He's dead. A job well done. The fat bastard can rot in hell with all the other islamic dogs.

Posted by: Jester at June 08, 2006 04:23 PM (oDbIP)

43 The backpack, teddy bear and sandal belonged to Zarqawi's child. One of his wives was also killed in the blast.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 04:47 PM (CnDtU)

44 >>>>Why are you so quick to judge the Marines as already guilty? Did you see the words "what if" in my post? That means "WHAT IF they are," not "they are." You gotta take a minute to read all the way through for comprehension.

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 08, 2006 05:43 PM (oxMjD)

45 Hey...He's probably dead BUT wouldn't dropping 2 500-pound bombs on him do a bit more damage than that photo???!!!! I mean, I'd expect nothing but small chunks of charred flesh and bone. His hairdo still even looks decent like he's ready for a night out. I guess direct hits by multiple 500-pound bombs is only mildly lethal! -C

Posted by: Chris at June 08, 2006 05:52 PM (EHnBF)

46 When do we get to piss on his grave?

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 08:23 PM (4Ospb)

47 So, Mr. Ramos. What are you trying to say?

Posted by: REMF at June 08, 2006 09:09 PM (7RMSi)

48 I'm just saying that Zarqawi's wife and child were killed in the blast. I don't need a far right guy telling me what I can and cannot say.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 06:59 AM (CnDtU)

49 Rusty using as an example of left wing bias in MSM and linkung that to the Financial Times I mean really, the Financial Times is now on the left side of politics ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 07:46 AM (TcoRJ)

50 George, Who gives a crap. Serves the bitch right for being married to the guy. Too bad for the kid I guess. I consider him just another victim of Zarq's terrorism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 08:08 AM (8e/V4)

51 I just read that now it appears that there was no kid in the house. Thank God for that. Some Iraqis were apparently Bsing. Make no mistake though. I have no sympathy for the wife Carlos. She was crazy for marrying the guy and deserved to die. There were three men and there wives in the house. They deserved to die.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:26 AM (CnDtU)

52 Why is it whenever I say something I'm considered a far left guy? Why do I even bother posting. I'm a proud American. I hate Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Zawahiri's guts. I'm a moderate guy. I give both sides a chance to express their opinions. Wise up Carlos. I don't care about Zarqawi's wife.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:34 AM (CnDtU)

53 Oh and Carlos. Please don't hate my guts. Maxie who has disappeared already hates my guts. God only knows what happened to Agent Smith. I disappeared after some dickheads used my identity to spout vandalism in this board. I want to have a fair debate with you. I don't know you so I don't want to insult you. I'll see you around.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:42 AM (CnDtU)

54 Hey, I heard on the news this a.m. that Zarcoward didn't die right away! He tried to escape from the gurney!!! He didn't have any last words though, and died shortly thereafter. This would make me assume that he didn't die instantly, so maybe the bastard did suffer. Alan Combs bitched about them killing him. He said he was probably more valuable alive than dead. He said if we knew he was in there, why didn't we take him as prisoner? Well, maybe it's because we failed on the other 56 attempts!

Posted by: Laura at June 09, 2006 08:42 AM (WeRWZ)

55 Yeah Laura. The guy wore a suicide belt and probably had spotters on the rooftops. Zarqawi could not be allowed to escape. I'm surprised he survived the blast but am totally glad that he died slowly and suffered. That way he knew that we got him. And besides, Zarqawi was sentenced to death numerous times. No point in capturing him if we were going to put him to death anyway.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 09, 2006 08:59 AM (CnDtU)

56 The only good thing to come out of capturing him alive is any information that may prove to be valuable to us....like maybe he'd have to squeal about where all the other cells were, or something to that effect. But yeah, he'd be sentenced to death and killed quickly by lethal injection, in a nice sterile environment. Too good for him. I don't know if it's true though, that he tried to escape from the gurney.....the reporters have said that the only took a head shot of him dead because the rest of him was "too gruesome" to be shown....which would mean the rest of him must've been blown off or mangled, so how could he try to run away? I believe this with a grain of salt, like I do all other reports. But one thing we do know for sure....the bastard's DEAD!

Posted by: Laura at June 09, 2006 09:04 AM (WeRWZ)

57 Fuck him, his kids,all his wives, and anyone like him. They'll be on the skewer right next to that filthy piece of shit for all eternity soon enough. I hope he was conscious for long enough after the bombs went off to at least say, "oh shit".

Posted by: Spanky at June 09, 2006 09:57 AM (Xk8Hy)

58 Stop hateing on Zarqawi. The man has past away, leave him be. He played the game and he payied. And please stop saying evil things about his relatives you all don't even know them. So stop judging them. Their human beings too. It sickins me to see all of you celebrateing a persons death. His gone know, who are we to judge him or his relatives?

Posted by: Nice man at June 10, 2006 08:50 PM (c7ncZ)

59 USA help dictators in AMERICA and make war all over the world....USA IS going to suffer all that killings.

Posted by: ARGENTO at June 10, 2006 11:09 PM (tuzo2)

60 Nice Man go to hell. We celebrate the death of someone no more human than a blowfly.

Posted by: Jester at June 11, 2006 04:16 PM (TuAMG)

61 Don't you get it? You live your lives hating, being afraid, and allowing your government to strip you of your rights so you can be "protected" from the "big, bad terrorists" by doing this, you accomplish what the bad guys wanted-for you all to walk on eggshells, forever. The very term "terrorist" denotes one who uses terror as a primary weapon. Guess what? They win-even when you blow one up. They'll just recruit another one. You, on the other hand, still go to bed afraid, and still allow your government to strip your "American way of life" in the interests of "security". You still keep spending boatloads of money that could be fortifying dikes in LA, sending boatloads of men to die in Iraq that could instead be helping to rebuild New Orleans. You think blowing up one guy or even 1000 guys is going to make the rest of them run and hide? You obviously don't get the mentality of these ppl. There is only one way to win the "war on terror". Stop making it a war. Go about your day, live your life like it's your last day on earth, stick up for your constitutional rights. Be an American. Sure, there will still be bombs, hijackings, and shootings. But there's also going to be earthquakes, floods, cat 5 hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters that take lives. There's gonna be car accidents, and gas line explosions, and house fires, and heart attacks, and cancer, and accidental overdoses, and drownings, and all other manner of death. So ask yourself if it's worth the headache.

Posted by: CanadianThinker at June 12, 2006 12:53 AM (kl/Lw)

62 It's to bad some people are bad.

check out this wierd site www.paulthev.piczo.com

Posted by: pual at June 12, 2006 03:32 PM (c7ncZ)

63 Hello fellow mujahadeen, This is Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. I have come back from the dead to tell you that Allah has run out of virgins. Instead, you will all have to screw your own mothers after you die as martyrs. I personally have chosen to screw my mother's rear end for all eternity here in heaven. Allah bless you and curse the American Satan!!! Yours truly, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi

Posted by: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi at June 13, 2006 02:15 PM (jmn+D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Zarqawi al Qaeda's "Jeb Stuart"?

I'm somewhat tentative about referring to Musab al Zarqawi as al Qaeda's Jeb Stuart, because I don't want to be misunderstood as suggesting that the two are comparable in every respect. The two commanders were alike in the sense that they were important second fiddles, but there's no comparison in terms of their ethics and morality. The difference is quite uncomplicated: Jeb Stuart, while arguably a defender of slavery, never blew up or sawed the heads off innocent noncombatants. And his military successes can rightly be called that, rather than the sort of piddling incessant vandalism that has undermined as much as advanced Zarqawi's co-called "cause." But the two are alike, in spite of what "terrorism expert", Richard Clarke, says, because they were both irreplaceable in the hierarchy of their respective armies, and their deaths will be seen to have marked a turning point.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 08:10 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

1 "Turning Point" is being used quite alot today regarding al-Zarqawi. Obviously possible. What is also interesting is comments like "we knew he was there", in a house in Zarqawi's dog patch. How did we know that? Then there was the announcement that 17 other raids/operations were launched with the conclusion of al-Zarqawi's life. This all shows we, the US, knows what al-Qaeda knows in Iraq. Hey, maybe we'll take out the nbr 2,3, and 4 today as well.

Posted by: CHANGEhappens at June 08, 2006 08:31 AM (hGibF)

2 Jeb Stuart was inarguably a defender of slavery. It is an interesting comparison. In the book Imperial Hubris (bad prose style and in need of an editor, but an excellent book in terms of content) the author compares bin Laden to Robert E. Lee....it's not something the author believes, he says that bin Laden occupies a similar role in the minds of many Muslims as Lee did in the minds of many Southerners. Knowing what I know about Lee's honor and integrity, the comparison is utterly foreign to me, but it taught me a lot about how some muslims view bin Laden.

Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 01:04 PM (aqTJB)

3 np. zark is alq's john stewart. WUZ!

Posted by: reliapundit at June 08, 2006 08:23 PM (Yteil)

4 the death of this great man will not stop the united states humiliating defeat, you should know that you have all ready lost by now! your armed forces only kill innocent women and children! it took cowardice marines to slaughter 24 women and children. and it took two companies of special forces, five snitches and two f-16 fighter planes to kill one brave muslim warrior, who killed scores of cowardice us soldiers who are suppose to be occupiers, but are afraid to step out of the green zone for fear of their asses being handed to them. "oh yeah youre winning this war allright"! mr. stuart you are the one going to hell. when abu musab alzarqawi meets all mighty god, god will recognize his servant and grant him entry into heaven. but when you meet god, god will say to you, jeb you coward, you and those marines who killed my believers can go to hell!

Posted by: sword in your heart at June 08, 2006 08:29 PM (jSCnq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

***Breaking*** Must Cite ABC News On The T.V., Then Cite Caltechgirl Then Cite The Jawa Report

Image from Fox News:

ABC News is reporting that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, along with his "spiritual adviser."

I have nothing to link to, I haven't found any web-based corroboration. Not even on the ABC website.

It's 2:19 a.m. here, and I'll do the best I can. Look for updates.

Cnn.com has it as breaking news.

I admit, I saw this on Kos too, looking for fodder for a different post, but Caltechgirl beat us all!

Well, except for ABC on the teevee.

Update: ABC news is reporting that Zarqawi was injured in an airstrike, and then later died after being transferred to Iraqi authorities

Update, Too: Foxnews has a banner.

Update Again: According to Fox, Iraqi PM has announced that Zarqawi is dead, to a cheering room.

Watching live press conference now.

"It is a good omen for Iraq..."

Gen. Casey:

"This happened in an airstrike which was conducted against an identified isolated safehouse"

"We have been able to identify al-Zarqawi through visual verification"

Right before the PC started, the Fox reporter stated that Zarqawi's death was verified by DNA, but the anchor cut in for the PC

Update IV: Oh holy Shiite, as sure as the sunni rises in the East, I will wake up with a headache in the morning.

He's DEAD!

Update V: He's F***ING DEAD, YEAH!!!! Below the fold is NSFW

Update Seex: Expect the leftists to ask.."Where's Osama?" He's reading your blogs, you assmonkeys.

Update Seven: Even Vinnie sleeps. Take it away, Rusty.

more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 01:27 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

1 It's true!! Ding Dong the Witch is dead!!! Guess Alla thought he has done enough and was time to reward him with a trip to heaven!! Can only hope it makes some difference! http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19406066%255E1702,00.html

Posted by: GoBA at June 08, 2006 01:59 AM (UJeKb)

2 Watching on CNN pipeline. They are trying to marginalize the event, and you heard one reporter at the conclusion of the press conference a reporter calling out "What does this mean to the American People!?" Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!? Sure it is a network, but you cut off the head of the snake and teh rest should follow suit. Just a thought.

Posted by: Rich in Martigues at June 08, 2006 02:15 AM (sYpwq)

3 It's just been confirmed by the Iraqis. Outstanding news. Let's hope he was unable to clear a jam in his weapon at some point in the fight. That would be a fine working definition of irony.

Posted by: pigilito at June 08, 2006 02:16 AM (PPqun)

4 I have plenty:

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 08, 2006 02:23 AM (FVbj6)

5 He didn't die immediately which seems fair. I'm sure there are many people around the world including a good number of Iraqis who hope he expired in terror and pain. Let's hope we see the the airstrike on TV. Pictures of his corpse are a must, to convince Iraqis.

Posted by: Al.R.O'Ackbar at June 08, 2006 02:26 AM (vWFNR)

6 Zarkman: You will be forever remembered in T-shirts worn by moonbat college kids on Campus's everywhere. Rest in pieces, Abu -- you have a date in a hot place soon. Jeez I wish I had kept some sort of bottle around to celebrate his death.

Posted by: davec at June 08, 2006 02:29 AM (CcXvt)

7 Excellent news, im only sad that it was an airstrike that got him and not some wild eyes special ops guy with a knife. Anyways frickin great news, im looking forward to seeing the headlines when they get the other bastards bin hidin and zawahooray.

Posted by: dave clarke at June 08, 2006 03:18 AM (cVbVm)

8 I love the way his death has obviously riled at least that one prick posting the shit above. hahaha, brilliant, lets kill more of their leaders and really piss them off.

Posted by: dave clarke at June 08, 2006 03:51 AM (cVbVm)

9 BOOOYAHH! This is great news to wake up to.

Posted by: Graeme at June 08, 2006 04:07 AM (qcTUb)

10 The world lost a great spiritual leader today. *Tear* As for everyone that's sane, rejoice!

Posted by: Typewriter King at June 08, 2006 04:09 AM (qjJ88)

11 The witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead.

Posted by: Chris Short at June 08, 2006 04:23 AM (0OCQY)

12 Note to self: Register a sockpuppet named "Lily Cleaver" I read they took him alive and that he died of wounds while in custody.

Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at June 08, 2006 04:27 AM (UxguT)

13 Very very very very very very very very very very good news - alot of lives have been saved by killing this bastard. Good work US Troops! Thanks!

Posted by: goesh at June 08, 2006 05:07 AM (vX0fY)

14 Be advised coward, I have your IP address, and I will be passing it on to Homeland Security and others. BTW, he was a failure and he liked young boys, that's haram... no virgins. It's a shame when your own brothers turn you in cause you're no longer effective and they want to make a martyr, nah; Do they really think reward money is coming? Nah. We're not financing for a death his brothers wanted because he was a liability, no new toys will be bought with our money for the new guy. Let's get on it and out him Rusty, obviously he wants to go to prison and is obsessed with a certain activity.

Posted by: Ali at June 08, 2006 05:15 AM (hDlfX)

15 Hell Yes, Rot in Hell Abu Muscab al-Zaqueery! I dumped your troll vinnie.

Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 05:19 AM (YdcZ0)

16 Holy shit! Is it fucking Christmas already?! A picture of that worthless bastard's corpse would be a nice stocking stuffer (not to mention a great image for a t-shirt). I couldn't be happier folks. Forgive me if I get a bit verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves ...

Posted by: Yo at June 08, 2006 05:38 AM (fkcf6)

17 TY mods!!!, for getting rid of my rants after that pratt flooded the post,was going to ask you to delete em if they were still there, but yur on the ball,just wanted to say ty. You can get rid of this as well if ya want?

Posted by: GoBA at June 08, 2006 06:29 AM (UJeKb)

18 This was the cat's ninth life, I think.

Posted by: Greg at June 08, 2006 06:34 AM (q5wwn)

19 Rot in Hell Mother F**ker, beheaded every hour Press conference from Baghdad, CNN, General says they knew where he was but waiting until he was in a spot where they wouldn't cause collateral damage to Iraqi civialians.

Posted by: Jane at June 08, 2006 06:54 AM (wZLWV)

20 Sorry if any one elses rant got caught up in deleting that one troll. ooops. Your email was somewhat similar to his pattern. It was early No coffee yet, giddy. He had so many I did a check check check del thingy. checked a few extra by mistake. My bad.

Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 07:17 AM (YdcZ0)

21 The only negative is, he died with his head still attached. At least we could have used a woodchipper on him heh heh heh

Posted by: n.a. palm at June 08, 2006 07:18 AM (m5cvY)

22 HELL YEAH. Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong are finally avenged. They are smiling from above. RIP guys. You didn't deserve to die like that. I am so fucking happy.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 08, 2006 07:19 AM (CnDtU)

23 he outta be wrapped in pigskin and suspended in an iron cage over downtown Baghdad for the next hundred years to serve as an object lesson.

Posted by: Pangloss at June 08, 2006 07:27 AM (QnYLZ)

24 I just woke up - Whaaaaa! YO! The fat lady is warming up off stage!

Posted by: hondo at June 08, 2006 07:29 AM (el7nZ)

25 And it got seven of his pals around him. Woo Hoo!

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 07:36 AM (ULAbo)

26 [Chris_Tucker] "Go clean yourself up. You Dead." [/Chris_Tucker]

Posted by: Macker at June 08, 2006 07:42 AM (jqKFF)

27 John Ryan crying in his milk. Lost another hero didn't you. You stinky anti-American Commie. I pray for the day we get you to.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 07:44 AM (2Ey+K)

28 greyrooster! What's your beef with John Ryan? He's no anti-American Commie! He's more of a wishy washy Charlie Brown! Pick on someone your own size!

Posted by: hondo at June 08, 2006 07:54 AM (el7nZ)

29 Kudos to our military. There'll be more like zarqawi, but at least his beheading days are over.

Posted by: Richard at June 08, 2006 07:55 AM (7KF8r)

30 mmmm, mmm, mmm. Dead jihadis in the morning makes for a fine cup of coffee! Now expect Zaraqawi's death to quickly fade into the background asap, and also observe how MSM efforts to highlight insurgent bombings will REDOUBLE in the next few days and weeks. But don't be fooled. The situation in Iraq won't be deteriorating-- it'll only seem that way! Lest we forget!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 07:56 AM (8e/V4)

31 Sacramento Bee has nothing about it in the on-line edition of their paper. LA Times has a single headline. WaPo has picture of the bum, and below it a headline for Haditha to offset the good news. Lefties are stunned, speechless and are presently developing talking points to spin this in their favor.

Posted by: Cmunk at June 08, 2006 08:23 AM (7teJ9)

32 WaPo has picture of the bum, and below it a headline for Haditha to offset the good news lmao! As per MSM formula.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 08:26 AM (8e/V4)

33 If there is such a thing as hell, I would dearly love to see his expression as the dark angels envelop his black soul and pull him down.

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 08:35 AM (ULAbo)

34 Drudge has a picture of him D.E.A.D.

Posted by: Oyster at June 08, 2006 08:50 AM (ULAbo)

35 I've got it too on the moisture farm, sent it to Rusty. Who will be along shortly. Now back to whatever it was I was doing before.

Posted by: Howie at June 08, 2006 08:53 AM (YdcZ0)

36 Hondo: But that's what I do.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 08, 2006 09:01 AM (7rJ1P)

37 I expected this, but not this soon! The Liberal media counter offensive begins: Berg: No good in al-Zarqawi's death http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_us/al_zarqawi_berg_4

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 09:18 AM (8e/V4)

38 We are VERY happy as middel eastern living in the US of the exciting news about Al Zarkaui, i hope he burns in hell very well FOR LIFE,,,, this mother fucker needed Jesus

Posted by: Samer at June 08, 2006 02:53 PM (KMhaD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

332kb generated in CPU 0.1667, elapsed 0.3313 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.2785 seconds, 775 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 35399
Files: 14
Bytes: 212.9M
CPU Time: 20:58
Queries: 3083339

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

June 11, 2006

June 10, 2006

June 09, 2006

June 08, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds