MSM Fact-Checking? What MSM Fact-checking?

So the Los Angeles Times is the latest 'news' source to admit that their reporters apprently missed the class in journalism school about research and checking sources. According to Breitbart.com, a story invented as an April Fool's joke ended up on the LA Times front page. However, the funniest part came a little later in ths story, when a red-faced editor admitted:

The reporter saw it on the Internet and had talked with the governor in the past, so she was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes that she thought it sounded authentic, and she didn't check, which she should have," Times Deputy Metro Editor David Lauter told the Casper Star Tribune.

What?! She 'saw it on the Internet'? And ;'she had talked with the governor in the past' so she 'was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes...' Heh. That sounds like unmitigated hubris to me. I have met and talked with a number of people in high positions, but a brief conversation does not an expert make me regarding their speech and writing styles. In addition, most reporters' interviews wwith politicians are extremely limited and I doubt that a minor LA reporter would be on close and personal terms with a governor- not even a fellow Democrat! And to claim that based on a brief acquaintance that she 'knew how he talked and wrote' is the height of arrogance. This is the kind of attitude that makes people distrust the media- their elitism and their know-it-all behavior. They are only ashamed because in this case, they were caught red-handed and the story was undoubtedly fake. They couldn't even trot out their 'fake-but-true' mantra in this case!

Remind me again about mainstream media 'professionalism'? I don't know any serious blogger who would have been caught that way. What were those qualifications that so-called 'professional journalists' are supposed to possess that bloggers don't again? *snicker*

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

About Those Bush 'Lies'.....

The Chicago Tribune has taken a long-overdue look at the Bush-haters' claims that the president lied in order to bolster the case for war against Iraq. Despite the continued Bush Derangement Syndrome evident in most of the MSM, the Tribune decided to at last do a little actual journalism, and has found, in an editorial published today, that Bush DIDN'T lie!

Not to put too fine a point on this, but in light of the Tribune's reporting of this not-exactly-new information, maybe the main purveyor of falsehoods regarding Iraq (that would be the New York Times, for those of you scoring at home), might want to reconsider their relentless (and entirely untruthful) campaign againt the Bush Adminstration. Just asking, mind you. The main job of 'professional journalists' IS to perfrom accurate and impartial reporting, isn't it? And their mantra is that ever error will be corrected. Isn't it?

Eurpoean 'Tolerance'...

Europeans love to lecture to the United States about 'tolerance' toward others' viewpoints- especially viewpoints from enemies of the United States. However, it appears that they are not very good at practisiing what they preach.

According to Breitbart.com, Arnold Schwarzenegger's hometown, the Austrian city of Graz has acquiesced to Schwarzenegger's wishes and has removed his name from a soccer stadium named in his honor. The city has also eliminated any reference to him on the city website, again in response to a request from Schwarzenegger.

This comes after many of the town's inhabitants savagely attacked Schwarzenegger for refusing to spare the life of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, a convicted multiple murderer and the founder of the Los Angeles-area Crips street gang. The opposition to this richly-deserved execution had begun a movement to strip Scwarzenegger's name from the stadium, and the Governor chose to remove the temptation by writing to the city and formally severing ties. This included sending back an ornate ring the city had given him, as well as requesting the removal of his name from the stadium. Schwarzeneger's rationnale was simple- removing his name aand completely severing public ties with Graz would draw the fire of the anti-death penalty zealots, and would not place the elected officials of Graz (who mostly supported retaining Schwarzenegger's name on the stadium) in a difficult position. In my opinion, this was the only thing for the governor to do- he is a US citizen, who is currently serving the people of California.

A little perspective here. Many of the news articles (including the one linked above) that I have read on this subject speak at great length about how the inhabitants of Graz view the death penalty as 'barbaric'. Some even mentions that Graz' offical slogan is 'City of Human Rights'. No mention if that includes the rights Williams took from his victims by murdering them. However, in all of this outrage, there is one point that the media apparently missed. Europeans are entitled to their view. However, in poll after poll, a sizable majority of citizens of the United States of America in general and the State of California in particular approve of the death penalty. Especially for convicted and unrepentant multiple murderers such as 'Tookie' Williams undoubtedly was. Therefore, since the citizens of the United States (and especially the citizens of California) approve of the death penalty, it is meet for their elected officials, of whom Governor Schwarzenegger is one, to follow their constituents' directives- not the uninformed and rather naive fantasies of the citizenry of a foreign country.

The entire affair makes the Austrians look both petty and intolerant in my opinion, as they are quite ready to preach tolerance and understanding for the views of those trying to kill us all (including them), yet they are not willing to show the same tolerance or understanding to the views and opinions of the citizens of the United States- and yet they attempt to claim the moral high ground. This sort of moral hypocrisy (the Kyoto treaty is another shining example) is one of the reasons that fewer and fewer Americans (except a large percentage of the Democratic Party and their stooges in the MSM) pay much attention to what most of Europe has to say. In fact, I regret that Europe is rapidly growing irrelevant- and if they don't stop wasting their time in hypocritical moralizing to the one country that has kept them safe from totalitarianism thus far in the Twentieth Century and start waking up to the Islamist threat within their borders, they will be worse than irrelevant.

About Those WMDs....

Here's hoping that all of you out there enjoyed a very merry Christmas and further hopes that your New Year's celebration will be equally entertaining. And now, back to our regualr posting...

Thanks to Captain Ed Morrissey, it appears that a major hole has just been poked in the Democratic/MSM argument that Bush Lied about WMDs in Iraq.

According to the London Times, a Dutch businessman has just been sentenced to fifteen eyars in prison for supplying those non-existent WMDs to Saddam Hussein! In fact, he was specifically sentenced for supplying the WMDs used agains the Kurds in 1991. The same WMDs that the treaty that ended the First Gulf War specifically called on Saddam to either give up or present proof of destruction. Proof that Saddam never provided, which was one of the many valid reasons why George W. Bush finally deposed him.

Hmmm, haven't noticed much play on that story by our own so-called 'mainstream' purveyors of propaganda (ie the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, et al....) But of course, if the MSM actually took note of htis story, as Captain Ed so correctly notes, that would mean they might actually have to acknowledge that their trademarked Bush Lied story does not now and did not then hold any water whatsoever. And we all know how much the MSM hates to admit their many mistakes.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

Merry Christmas

As tomorrow is Christmas Day, there will be no posting unless some enormous story breaks, and I feel an uncontrollable urge to comment. In that unlikely event, I will post on Christmas. However, I would like to take the opportunity on this Christmas Eve of 2005 to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and wish you all a Good Night.

Merry Christmas!
メリークリスマス！

Entertaining the Troops

The AMC channel has been running a 'Christmas with the Duke' film festival of some of John Wayne's best-known films. I was watching the classic World War II film Sands of Iwo Jima, and was struck by the dedication to the men of the United States Marine Corps, as well as the portaryal of them as ordinary men who manage to perform heroic acts under pressure. The hero, Seargeant Stryker, as played by Wayne, fulfills his mission when he himself is killed, and the men he trained pick up his letter and carry on. The movie, filmed in 1949, is still remarkable for showing some of the actual work of war, and co-starred the only three survivors of the famous flag-raising on Mount Suribachi.

That message, and the underlying support struck an even stronger nerve as I read an article posted today about the current 'celebrities' distaste for performing for the troops. It is so different from the true patriotism showed by the stars of yesterday, who were willing to far more than just 'entertain' for the troops. Many of them actually enlisted in the US military and some, such as James Stewart (USAF, Brigadier General), even fought in the war, rather than stand on the sidelines. Bob Hope went overseas as long as he was able, entertaining his way through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War and the First Gulf War. He was loved by the troops for his indomitable spirit, and his genuine suppoort for the boys overseas. Yet today's entertainers seem to have forgotte that the men and women of the Armed Forces share the same native country as do they, and it is their blood and sweat that make America safe for the Jane Fondas to spit at them.

Reading this article, the section that really got me, though was as follows:

...many celebrities have been wary of going because they think it might be seen that they are endorsing the war. "And I say it's not. I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can."

Fear is also a factor. "They're scared," country singer Craig Morton, who is in Iraq on the USO's Hope and Freedom Tour 2005, told USA Today. "It's understandable. It's not a safe and fun place and a lot of people don't want to take the chance."

I'm sorry, but to me, no it is not understandable. These entertainers make enormous amounts of money by entertaining other people, while our soliders make a mere pittance in comparison, and the comparitive value of their profession is incalculable. No singer, entertainer, journalist or film star has ever saved a single person's life, nor have they contrinbuted anything of value to this great country. In comparison, soldiers have kept us free and have allowed those same entertainers to voice thoughts which are frankly disgraceful. Under an Ismlamic system like that espoused by al Quaeda, or by the Taliban, they certainly would not be making any money- and the vast majority of their 'art' would bring them prison terms at the very least. Again, the only thing that stands between them and that unwelcome future are the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. The least that they could do is donate a little of their time to help those same men and women sitting in foxholes feel a little better. Isn't it?

I will give some kudos to Al Franken and Robin Williams, who despite their frequent bouts of idiocy regarding current national security, do at least appear to have some idea of patriotism, and who at least are willing to go to the troops. Maybe if they spend enough time over there, they might even convince their Leftist cronies to drop the 'baby-killer' moniker, which was never true. But I won't hold my breath....

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Liberals and the Courts

Interesting that liberals consider that only Supreme Court decisions that benefit their cause are sacrosanct. They have been struggling for years to get courts to overturn the gun ownership rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and have fought hard to get the courts to step into all kinds of things that are not their business, such as national security. And it is funny that the anti-smoking lawyers are heroes on the Left after they lost over 700 court decisions before finally beginning to wwin.

Liberals are very willing to fight against clearly stated Constitutional language or against common sense until they find the rigvht judge. Those decisions obviously were not sacrossanct! Yet Roe versus Wade, widely reviled as one of the flimsiest legal decisions ever, since it is based on a supposed 'right' that clearly exists nowhere in the Constitution, is somehow exempt from discussion? That sounds suspiciously like the Southern slave-owners, after the infamous Dred Scott decision. That one was overturned by the results of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment (ratified under Andrew Johnson in 1865). I believe that eventually Roe will also fall, since the Court did not then and does not now enjoy the right of legislative power. Roe is the classic example of the Supreme Court overstepping its authority, and the Congress of the time being too happy with the results to rebuke the Court. The Presidency could not interfere, as at that time, remember, it was being seriously wounded thanks to Nixon's shenanigans. Not until Bill Clinton would we have a President who so seriously undermined that august office.

So now that Samuel Alito, a widely respected jurist, who has been a model of strict contructionism, has been revealed to have argued in 1985 for Roe's repeal, I am sure that the Left and their DEmocratic allies will seize on this as evidence that Alito is somhow not in the mainstream. Maybe not in the mainstream of journalistic iwshful thinking, but certainly in the manistream of the American public. After all, the Left and their allies in the MSM are so out of step that the New York Times called Alito "an advocate for the right', but called Ruth Ginsburg, undeniably a far-left advocate, a "balanced jurist at home in the middle'. Hmm...Who's out of step with the mainstream?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Presidential Power versus the NY Times

Lost in the fuss the New York Times and other major media outlets are making over the suddenly hot topic of 'warrantless' searches as posited on the pages of the Times, is the fact that every President since at least Carter has claimed this privilege, and in fact it was expanded under the Clinton Administration through the mouthpiece of the hypocrtical Jamie Gorelick in 1994.

Perhaps the New York Times would care to explain why it was perfectly legal and not worthy of a hysterical front-page article during the Clinton Administration (A Demcratic Administration, if you recall), but now, that we are engaged in a war to the death with Islamic terrorists who have proven time and again that they respect the law of neither God nor Man, that these same provisions (when used by a Republican President) are somehow terrifying? This despite the fact that Clinton's Administraiton lied under oath (Lewinsky), ignored court orders (Elian Gonzalez), and massacred American citizens (Waco)- none of which has occurred under the Administration of George W. Bush!

Charles Hurt in the Washington Times makes the (I believe legitimate) argument that the President does indeed have the power to order such searches, and makes the point that both previous aAdministrations and the courts have entirely and consistently agreed with him, even in the case of FISA. Mr. Hurt is backed up by the research of the guys at Power Line who have done some serious research and have concluded that the Preseident's actions are legal, no matter which yeardstick has been used. They also quote from usually-liberal law professor Cass Sundstein, who agrees with them that this is part and parcel of the President's authority under the Constitutions- which neither Congress nor the Courts can lightly disregard.

Now when is the New York Times going to spend this kind of energy on researching and exposing a truly illegal act- the leaking of the NSA material to them in the first place? I''m not holding my breath....

Hat tip to Matt Drudge and the guys at the Power Line.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

When Bill CLinton was running for President back in 1991-1992, we were inundated with advertisements (and 'news' stories too) telling us that 'it's the economy, stupid!'. Democrats love to look back on those halcyon days when the economy was supposedly strong and the news media seems to think that the economy was at its peak. Well, no. Current economic performance has outpaced the so-called 'Clinton Era', and according to Breitbart, despite the travails of the past year the economy still managed to grow at 1.5 percent, which is the fastest in over two years.. This despite the effects of Katrina, and the other economic hits we have taken.

Yet none of the major media is talking about it. When Clinton's economy was doing much less well, it was front-page news, yet Bush's economy, which is eclipsiong the CLinton achienvementson all fronts, is barely mentioned. Why is this? The most amazing thing, though, is the Bush Administration's failure to make this a selling point as well. Most Americans would be far more charitable toward this Administration if they made their economic case more strongly, in order to counter the daily lies and innuendoes published by the Exempt Media as 'news'. The only news they can see is defeatism- whether it is the US economy under a Republican President or a war that they disapprove of. Maybe the Brian Sussman Solution might help- pretend that all of this good news is happening under Clinton's watch!

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

What Victory Means

No, I have not yet arrived at any real estimation of what conditions that assure us victory will look like. However, the very talented Tigerhawk has done an admirable job in laying out his idea of the conditions that must occur before we can safely and truly claim victory in the war against the Islamists (al Quaeda, Taliban wannabes, etc). Among the many salutory points in his remarkable essay, is the following:

Give the average Muslim an idea worth fighting for. Average Abdul need not "like" the United States or give us "credit" in any way, shape or form for this strategy to work. He only needs to want to choose his own government and have an idea how to do that.

This is an astounding point that most, if not all of our so-called Exempt Media have completely missed in their rush to claim defeat and predict the eternal hatred of 'the Arab street'. Perhaps if they were not so focused on their own anti-Bush agenda and theirt desire for their country to lose this war (why that is, I do not know, as they would surely be some of the first to die in the inevitable bloodletting that would accompany such a defeat), they might even be able to grasp some of this.

In any event, this essay is a must-read, together with Tigerhawk's equally cogent updated and annotated version of Steven Den Beste's essay on the strategic overview of the war. Read the whole of both essays and then decide.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Media Short-Sightedness

Excellent post on the media's incurable and downright dangerous lack of a sense of history at Real Clear Politics. This goes hand in glove with the media's lack of any real qualifications to perform their job. A journalism degree is one of the easiest, in terms of scholastic requirements, to obtain, and requires no real skills other than the ability to write. Most journalists would fail miserably if presented with a course of study that required work where the answers cannot be fudged. And few schools of journalism present the past in context, nor do they have teachers who are interested in presenting the United States as the force for good it has generally been. They are too busy finding fault with their homeland.

Most journalists, therefore, have no understanding of history, and thus are unable to put contemporary events in any historical context. Coupled with their general distrust and dislike for thier own country (especially when a Republican is president) they are singularly ill-equipped to execute their duty to inform the public regarding contemporary events and are decidedly unquailifed to present commentary on those events.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

And black celebrities still don't get it....

So it appears that Mary J Blige still doesn't understand. In a recent interview she gave to the UK Guardian, the spoiled-brat singer claims:

"The blacker you are, the worse it is for you. If you're mixed, you've got a shot. If you cater to what white America wants you to do and how they want you to look, you can survive. But if you want to be yourself, and try to do things that fit you, and your skin, nobody cares about that. At the end of the day, white America dominates and rules. And it's racist."

Never mind, Mary, dear, that you owe everything you are to that 'racist' society. Never mind that so-called racist society allowed you and helped you to become a celebrity. Could you have done that in any other society? I don't think so. If you were actually born in your so-wonderful Africa, you would be scratching for a living or maybe living as some dictator's whore if you weere good-looking enough. If you were in some Communist paradise like Cuba or North Korea, you would be on a farm because Asians as a race look down on blacks- especially American blacks who don't realise how good they have it. You would not be rich, famous, and able to make these asinine comments that only prove you know absolutely nothing about real racism. And it is true. You you know absolutely nothing about racism. Have you ever been follwed by little children screamin, 'Look mom, it's a black person!"? I have had that experience, though in my case it was 'Look mom- it's a white devil'- simply becasue I was living in a place where non-colored people were rare. Thus I was an object of real racism. Has any white person ever told you you cannot enter their place of business because of your color or race? Not in America, Mary dear. But in many parts of the worl,d, if you are not the right race/color, you cannot enter a place of business. It has happened to me. That is racism, Mary dear.

In fact, I have lived abroad in many places, and America is one of the least-racist places on earth. And if you can't appreciate it, maybe you should leave those bodyguards and limousines behind and try living in a place as a normal person where you really are an object becasue of your race. It might make you appreciate your own country- or at least stop spouting idiotic and unture rhetoric. You don't know what racism is, and you don't even have the grace to thank those 'racist' white people who made you a multi-millionaire. They didn't buy your album becasue of your color, Mary dear. They bought because they appreciated your art. I don't but as a musician myself, I can at least appreciate good music, and I don't really care who makes it. You are the real racist, Mary dear, not the folks who made you rich and famous by buying your albums.

Gankomon is Back

I have been traveling for the better part of the past two weeks, and am very glad to be back home. Travel wears after a while- even in as nice a place to stay as the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas! In any event, I am back and posting will resume as per normal from today.

Liberal Bias? What Liberal Bias?

Well, maybe the liberal bias that you folks in the MSM have spent so much of your time denying. I t turns out that not only are the mainstream media biased, but thery are pretty badly biased. A new study by a group of UCLA researchers has found that the media lean 'significantly' to the left. In order to maintain their independence, the study's research assistants were evenly divided between Bushies and Goreites from the 2000 elecetion, and they accepted no outside money for their research. They basically scored members of Congress and then studied news articles in comparison. the results, as any conservative could have told them, was that the media are indeed biased and pretty badly so. Maybe they might actually start doing something about it, since they are losing readers in droves...OK, that was a pipe dream. But we can hope....

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Where's the Outrage?

This post may be a few days late- I have beeen traveling and have not been able to keep up with my blogging as well as I had hoped. However, as I was traveling a few thoughts occcurred to me regarding both our current conflict and one in particular that we participated in approximately fifty years previously.

The previous conflict was of course, the Second World War, and the day before yesterday was the 64th anniversary off the December 7, 1941 attack on the United States Pacific Fleet moored in Pearl Harbor. Although the US no longer adequately remembers this event, there are some interesting parallels with the current conflict that erupted into the national conscience following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

In both attacks, the perpetrators struck an America that was at peace- and America that had not engaged the oppressors in military action and in fact had worked to assist them in various endeavors, though less so in 1941 than in 2001. In both cases, political disagreements had preceded the attacks, though the United States had not engaged in military actions against the attackers.

However, there are also some important differences. In 1941, Japan had planned to declare war precisely one hour before the attacks, thus satisfying the laws of war. They were unable to deliver ttheir declaration on time but it was the idea that the Japanese were attempting to break the spirit of law as opposed to the letter that outraged the American people of that time. The Japanese also confined their attacks to military targets using a conventional military force operating according to the established laws of war. The US Pacific Fleet was a legitimate target. And finally, the American people reacted with outrage to the attacks.

In September 2001, the Islamists had actually declared war against the United States previously, and had spent the previous decade attacking Americans, both military and civivlian targets. However, the Administration of the time- Bill Clinton's- ignored the declaration and took no action against the perpetrators. The attack on the World Trade Center, unlike the Pearl Harbor attack, was inflicted entirely on civilians, although the attackers attempted to hit the Pentagon as well, which is a military target.

However, the largest difference was the response by both the media and the politicians in the opposition. In 1941, the media deplored the attack and had no problem depicting the attackers as dangerous enemies of the United States. Likewise, the Republican Party, which had just lost the White House to FDR's Democratic Party once again, had no problem putting politics aside to stand with the Democrats against the nation's enemies. However the media in 2001 was more interested in blaming their own country for being attacked and showed no sign of patriotism whatsoever, as was evidenced by the entirely needless and selfish debate among the nation's anchors over whether they should even wear an American flag when on camera! Likewise, the vast majority of the Democratic party, instead of standing with the Republicans, chose to use the atttacks as an opportunity to attack their political opponents, even going so far as to characterize Republicans as more dangerous than the Islamist attackers.

Where's the outrage? The United States was attacked. Many of our citizens are dead. And yet the media and the Democrats still can't put their country ahead of their own narrow partisan interests. On this anniversary of the December 7 attack, a day that 'will live in infamy', can't we realize that we must stand together and defeat our enemies before we once again return to our partisan infighting. I think national survival is more important than which party occupies the White House. Do the Democrats and the media agree? That is the question.

Monday Night Spin

This post today in the Carolina Journalby Jon Ham, father of the well-known blogger Mary Catherine Ham, contemplated the amusing result if Monday Night Football was covered like the war in Iraq. The story finishes by saying,

The insurgent Steelers, striking sporadically with lesser equipment against the hegemonic Colts, inflicted serious damage with several tackles, a sack and some pass breakups, holding Indianapolis to only two field goals in the 15-minute span. Observers said it looked as if the tide were turning in favor of the insurgent Steelers.

In the third period, the Steelers again held the Colts to a single touchdown, damaging the Colts’ aura of invincibility and giving hope to the insurgents that their time would come. Some critics pointed to the stands as some Colt fans began filing out, saying that this showed the Colts losing support at home.The Steelers were even stronger in the final period, holding the Colt juggernaut to a mere three points. “I think Indianapolis was just in the wrong game, at the wrong place at the wrong time,” one Colt critic was heard to say.

The final score, by the way, was Colts 26, Steelers 7.

Just imagine that the media reported on all events the way they are "reporting" on the economy and Iraq. Just like the "news" being propagated by our Exempt Media in regards to the economy and Iraq, the facts are accurate (mostly) but the spin is ridiculous.

On a side note, it is a constant amazement to me that the media has managed to bury the economic numbers, which are far mor spectacular and steadier, than Bill clinton's ever were. Yet that was a 'Boom Era' and this is a "recession'. I cannot understadn why the Administration doesn't pound this drum constantly, especailly since the numbers are so clearly in their favor. And if they would actually defend themselves and point out how disingenuous and downright dishonest the Democrats have been, I think the President's poll numbers would respond as well. Pardon the excursion. Back to the point at hand.

Not that I suppose any of our so-professional, so-objective Exempt Media Organs will appreciate ithe humor in the preceding article. They have already proven to be able to forget today what they were saying yesterday, and they clearly have no opinion at all of the actual epople of this country- unless they occupy positions of prominence in Hollywood or the Democratic Party's undergrowth. Yes, just imagine if we had a truly honest and patriotic media as well....oh, wait.....off in fantasyland again, I suppose.

Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt.

And More Media Hypocrisy

John Leo over at the marvelous TownHall.com site reminds us that the Press' current outrage over the news that *gasp* the United States Armed Forces may be paying to have positive (and true) stories printed in the Iraqi press may be due to their own richly deserved guilty consciences over their own lack of courage in revealing Saddam Hussein's atrocities.

We all have heard of the Abu Ghraib prison now, but John Burns of the New York Times reminds us that under Saddam, the prison was "the heart of Saddam's reign of terror." Yet Burns says that few if any of his colleagues even knew what Abu Ghraib was! In face, when Saddam allowed limited access under pressure from George W Bush, the BBC didn't even go, beceasuue they were afraid to cause trouble. Only when the United States military came into the control of Abu Ghraib did most news reported suddenly discover that the prison even existed. Knowiing of course that they were under no threat whatsoever from the US military- despite Eason Jordan's over-wrought claims.

It appears that the media only expresses outrage regarding propaganda when it is propagated by a force that is both truthful and sincere. And when the news propagated by said force easiy debunks the MSM's own propaganda- which is neither truthful nor sincere.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge and Glenn Reynolds.

Objectivity from the Media? Hah!

So Jimmy Breslin of Newsday is unhappy with Hillary Clinton's stand on Iraq. Well, well. My heart simply bleeds for Brelsin's unhappiness. While I would agree that Hillary is probably one of the most dishonest and thoroughly calculating politicians in recent history, I think Mr. Breslin's rant says more about his own beliefs and preferences than it does about Hillary Clinton. The Press hass long tried to pretend that they are objective, but here Breslin clearly thinks that because he opposes the President Bush's policies, Hillary should come out against them as well. Unfortunately for Mr Breslin, the majority of Americans, despite the Media's five years of attacks on the President, disinformation and outright lying, still think that we should not cut and run from Iraq- despite the wishes of many Democrats and the vast majority of the Exempt Media. And last itme I checked, the United States was a representative republic. That menas, Mr. Breslin, that just because a majority in the Press longs for an American defeat. The majority of real Americans, not the hypocrites who populate Hollywood and most pressrooms, are not cowards nor are they willing to see their country defeated.

As has been said many times before, we can have a real debate regarding the intellignece (or lack thereof) that led up to the invasion of Iraq. We can have a debate on whether or not the strategy first implemented was correct. However, events are going our way now (though the Exempt Media is doing their best to ignore it) and a pullout now would unquestionablly be seen both as a sign of weakness and as a defeat. That is the last thing we want. We have the Muslim terrorists on the run at present, Mr Breeslin. bi Laden is hiding in a cave, and the al Quaeda leadership is decimated and depressed. The only thing keeping them in this fight is the US media with their treasonous support. And your lack of understanding as regards military strategy is shocking for someone whose job it is to present events to the nation. Tell me again what qualifications are required to be a 'professional' journalist?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.