From News24.com:

Copenhagen - Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which angered the Muslim world by publishing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad last year, has won a Danish critical journalism award for its initiative, the jury said.

Denmark's largest daily was honoured with the Victor Prize for "having opened everyone's eyes by showing how easy it is to introduce cracks in freedom of expression and how so-called political correctness is infiltrating what we believe to be inalienable rights," Hans Engell, the editor of tabloid Ekstra Bladet which awards the prize, said during a prize ceremony in Copenhagen late on Thursday.

Via Michelle Malkin.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll let David Ignatius of the Washington Post write the opening paragraph for me, with just a couple of minor changes:

There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous politicians journalists and leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the political needs of the moment. That arrogance of power is on display with the Bush administration American mainstream media.

This is a press corps suffering a collective psychotic break, completely out of control; willing to do anything to reach its frustrated political goals. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:14 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

While the world marvels at the grotesquely disproportionate spoiled-child reaction of Muslims to the Danish Mohammed cartoons, American journalists are staging their own tantrum.

The Washington Post angrily sulks in an editorial today about the delay in getting out information about Dick Cheney's shooting accident:

The shooting wasn't disclosed until Sunday morning, when Katharine Armstrong, a member of the family that owns the ranch, called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the paper posted the story on its Web site in the afternoon after confirming the account with Mr. Cheney's office. Until then, the White House and the vice president's office were mum. By every standard and by all accounts, the failure to promptly disclose the accident was wrong.

And the Secret Service reportedly notified the local sheriff's office of the incident on Saturday, according to the New York Times.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:42 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

The Weekly Standard has reproduced Jylland-Posten's Mohammed cartoons, accompanied by this Editor's Note from William Kristol:

TO ACCOMPANY the editorial in the new issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, we have reproduced the page with the Mohammed cartoons from the September 30 Jyllands-Posten. Readers should be able to see what this controversy is about. More important, in light of recent instances of capitulation to the threats of radical Islamists, and in response to eloquent pleas by individuals like Walid-al-Kubaisi in Norway to publish the cartoons in order to protect freedom of expression, we wanted to do our small part to stand against intimidation by extremists.

--William Kristol

Posted by: Bluto at 12:12 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Time has been salivating for months over the possibility of "getting" President Bush with juicy photos of the President with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Time writers Adam Zagorin AND Matthew Cooper set the stage:

Just how close was the relationship between the White House and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

Now, finally, the first such photo has come to light.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:30 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, writing in Commentary, examines the question that should have been the hot topic in the mainstream media for the past month: did the New York Times violate the Espionage Act in printing James Risen's story about surveillance of international calls and emails from al Qaeda suspects to people inside the United States? more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 3 kb.

1 If you want to read the Gray Lady's article for free, you can click right here. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that anything in this article damages national security. The existence and use of this capability was widely known prior to 9/11; the only thing in this article that is really new is the fact that warrants aren't being issued prior to surveillance. Unless terrorists have somehow comprormised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, (or Gawd forbid, the National Security Agency) it's very hard to see anything in here that actually compromises national security. Someone should explain this argument -- in some detail -- if it's going to hold up to scrutiny.

Posted by: IO ERROR at February 03, 2006 12:52 AM (FVbj6)

2 Bluto He's got a point. NYT is many things but stupid isn't one of them. They had their lawyers all over this for a year prior so they could find the gray areas and cover their asses. They probably expected (and wanted) a legal confrontation on this from the start. This type of case by nature is very difficult to pursue. They would then use the proceedings as a rally point for their overall agenda - and as a massive high profile PR generator. I believe this is what they want - and I don't want to give it to them! There are other options - continue the program - don't back down - hammer on the key facts ... 1) FISA overwhelming adhered to - these are necessary exceptions. 2) target specific - AQ and possible associates within US all reference War On Terror 3) not issue of Law - issue of ongoing pursuit of War to disrupt/prevent enemy actions within US 4) begun in ernest immediately following 9/11 and very important ... 5) No further attacks - and program key element to that SUCCESS! At this point, we can afford some degree of release of info on successful ops which are currently classified - I'm hoping Congressional Hearings will "see to that". Just a taste is all that is required. This is not a battle for the courts (advantage them)- it is a battle for public opinion! (advantage us) NYT and the Lib/Left have an agenda - so do I! While politizing National Security is generally not an overall good thing - its happening anyway - so - play the game. We got a strong hand here, and they're the ones who have to push, pull, twist, and exaggerate this to sell their fears to the American public. We already know what they are gonna sell - Their fears and visions of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE - but they have been playing that song for 40 years and it doesn't work outside a leftist dance club. (some might hate my following terminology, but so what! - I'm being blunt - deal with it) We will sell them a Raghead! - with a desire to kill, the capability, and a PROVEN track record. Let the public decide - its all politics in the end - and all numbers. What's that Karl? Did I forget something? ...

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 02:05 AM (3aakz)

3 I think it's the intent that matters, and the intent was to damage the war effort. If the NYT is so worried about civil rights, where were they after Vicky Weaver was murdered by an FBI sniper, or Janet Reno's BATF Nazi's were using a freaking Abrams tank on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, where dozens of innocent people, including women and children, were burned to death, then both cases blatantly covered up? Slimy liberal traitors and the bastards in government that are in collusion with them should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 02:11 AM (0yYS2)

4 Hondo is right. The NYT's wants nothing better than to get in a court fight with the Administration looking like the victim of the police state. We are winning in the court of public opinion and we need to stay there. This thing would drag out in a court of law for years, with the Times getting the free publicity for their side. This could turn the tide against us.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 03, 2006 05:18 AM (rUyw4)

5 I think it should take years in court, and hopefully draw lots of attention, so as to spotlight the leftards' treasonous ways. Remember that the light of day is the best weapon against this scum.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 08:55 AM (0yYS2)

6 Maxie How can you shine the light of day on something that's been out in the open glowin' like the sun for nearly 40 years? Technically, it ain't treason unless your working for the other side - and they are not - they are working for themselves - their agenda - its a whole nuther ballgame. Maxie - you seem obsessed telling all that the sky is blue and the world is round.

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 10:42 AM (3aakz)

7 If I am, it's because everyone seems to have forgotten.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 11:11 AM (0yYS2)

8 In fact, I believe that the NYT will not be called on this because of the obvious 'graymail' issue. I thought I stated that pretty clearly. IO ERROR, you are in error. Surveillance was widely suspected prior to the NYT story. The NYT put terrorists on notice that their chances of being monitored were much greater than they had thought.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 03, 2006 12:26 PM (RHG+K)

9 Bluto, whatever do you mean? Your blog's already a star. Just for the record, I'm not at all convinced that this program is in any way illegal. A few aspects of it, and things that have come out since, give me reason for concern, but I suspect the program will be vindicated in the end. That doesn't mean the NYT compromised national security by reporting on the legal questions surrounding the program -- which was, after all, the thrust of their reporting. Merely knowing it exists hardly jeopardizes anything, except perhaps a few highly placed people's political careers. Of course the terrorists had reason to believe that they would be under surveillance. Remember Clinton launching a cruise missile at Osama bin Laden in 1998? He stopped using his satellite phone because of that. In any case, what seems to have happened is that since then, they got sloppy. Michael Hayden in his Jan. 23 press conference said that "they don't always act like they know they're being monitored." So essentially at this point we're catching terrorists because they've gotten slow and stupid. I fear for what might happen if the terrorists become smart and fast again.

Posted by: IO ERROR at February 03, 2006 02:48 PM (vhWf1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment