Bobby Calvan: Arrogant Idiot

I missed this story over the past week, but cannot resist posting on it. Apparently Bobby Calvan, a staff reporter for the Sacramento Bee in California had a little confrontation with an enlisted soldier in Iraq. The cause of said confrontation? Calvan did not have the proper identification to pass a checkpoint. Instead of behaving in a civilized manner, Big Man Bobby tried to pull the 'Do You Know Who I Am?' card. Not only did this card fail resoundingly, Big Man Bobby then blogged about his arrogance on his blog. Not surprisingly, his readers failed to be impressed by his 'courage' and responded overwhelmingly negatively. Bobby's reaction? He pulled the entire blog, rather than respond.

Fortunately, by the time Big Man Calvan showed the world his courage in real adversity, several other bloggers had saved the original blog, including many of the comments. They can be read at Doc Weasel's blog.


UPDATE: The original blog entry is now back up, minus the comments, along with Calvan's following note:

(NOTE: This post was previously edited, then removed. By doing so, I was informed, I have violated blog protocol. I have reposted it in its entirety, with the caveat that it was reproduced using a post from another blogger who had preserved my original post.)

Notice that Big Man Calvan is so brave when facing an American soldier trying to do his duty (protecting Calvan), but cannot even face negative comments on his personal blog. And also note how Calvan admits that he doesn't know blog protocol. This is a professional reporter? Someone paid to present the news and who is supposed to be a master of communication? Yet he cannot handle criticism and doesn't understand that he can't simply delete content that does not meet universal acclaim. Where in journalism school did he learn that? Or is this the Old Media tradition- never admit mistakes or slanted coverage and pretend that content one dislikes does not exist?

This arrogant little Mr. Big perfectly typifies all that is bad about the media, and explains why so many are abandoning the dinosaur media. As so many of the commentators wrote, this little boy is no MichAel Yon. Perhaps if Calvan spent some time with Mr. Yon, he MIGHT learn what real reporting is all about. of course, that would require him to leave his arrogant attitude at the door and also to actually report, as opposed to bloviate. Two things that I fear are beyond Calvan's capabilities. After all, he is merely a media hack, not a real journalist like Yon.

By the way- Michael Yon subsists entirely on his own resources, so drop something in his tip jar if you can. It is brave journalists like Yon that we rely on to counter the propaganda propagated by inflated asses such as Calvan.

Hat tips to Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds.

Symbol of Hope In Baghdad

Michael Yon, the intrepid reporter, photo-journalist and mil-blogger extraordinaire, has posted a remarkable image of the progress being made in Baghdad, despite the best efforts of mainstream media, defeatists Democrats and Iranian money. As linked below, this shows the cross of St. John's Catholic Church being replaced by a mix of Christian and Muslim Iraqis.



If only the mainstream media would cover events such as this as assiduously as they list the casualties and complain about their lack of amenities in the Green Zone, perhaps more Americans would have a better understanding of the events actually taking place on the ground in Iraq, and maybe they would not be so pessimistic. Maybe if the media actually carried out their task of reporting and allowing the public to decide, and if they reported equally on good as they do on the bad, then the American people would be better served and would have a greater appreciation for the events occurring in Iraq. Of course, if that happened, then maybe the current President would have better ratings and that would defeat the entire purpose of putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

I wish the media and the Democratic Party understood that politics is less important than standing together as a country. But it seems they believe that to be a good American, you have to help destroy everything that makes your country great first. I wish we had more reporters like Michael Yon.

As a reminder, Michael Yon is entirely self-financed. he receives no support from any media organization. If you like his work, I strongly urge you to contribute to Michael's tip jar or to purchase his books, as that will allow him to continue his work in Iraq of reporting the real news- the news that Iraq is a place of hope- despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to hide that news.

Remember Sergeant Jeffers

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was killed in Iraq yesterday. Most of my readers probably don't know who Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was. Maybe they don't care- they never met him, and now they never will. But Sergeant Jeffers was a man who counted, a man who fouhgt even while he recognized that many of his countrymen could not or would not participate in the fight with him.

Let me tell you about Sergeant Jeffers. I never met him either, but I wish I had. He was a man who understood what counts, and a man of honor I would gladly stand beside. And though he was only 23 when he was killed, he had a more mature and responsible outlook on life and the war in which we are engaged than many of his countrymen, no matter their age or their supposed intelligence. Bloviating fools like Senator Edward Kennedy, or Representative Nancy Pelosi, or media hacks like Chris Matthews lack Sgt. Jeffers' comprehension. But maybe it is not too late even for such as they.

Back in February, Sergeant Jeffers penned a piece for the New Media Journal entitled Hope Rides Alone, wherein he introduced his readers to his life and how he views those who for political or partisan gain, or though ignorance are helping the enemies of this country. Regarding his ignorant countrymen and women back home, Sgt. Jeffers wrote,

People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are. They don't realize its effects on this war. In this war, there are no Geneva Conventions, no cease fires. Medics and Chaplains are not spared from the enemy's brutality because it's against the rules. I can only imagine the horrors a military Chaplain would experience at the hands of the enemy. The enemy slinks in the shadows and fights a coward’s war against us. It is effective though, as many men and women have died since the start of this war. And the memory of their service to America is tainted by the inconsiderate remarks on our nation's news outlets. And every day, the enemy changes...only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society...and they are becoming our enemy.

Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word "quagmire" around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war.

But Sgt. Jeffers has room for hope, despite the sickening cowardice or partisanship of so many in this country. He concluded his piece by saying,

We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted, raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.

Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers. Right now, hope rides alone. But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.

Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight!

Isn't that what America is about anyway?

Isn't it? When did we cease being a nation that understood the darkness that is Muslim, or any totalitarian aggression? During World War II, we understood the stakes, and although we might have differed on strictly domestic issues, as certainly the Republicans did at that time, we stood together- no one made Roosevelt's handling of the war an issue during the campaigns of that time. When did it become acceptable to call a sitting President a Fascist, or call a commanding general a traitor?

We need more like Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, more men and women who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up against that darkness that threatent to overwhelm the world, as it has tried so many times before. But Sergeant Jeffer is right. Let's take his advice and stop the bickering. Give the troops what they need to win. Imperialist Islam is like a Hydra- cut off one head and many more appear, but it is cowardly at its heart- it will not attack those it perceives as stronger. We can only be defeated by ourselves. That is what the enemy hopes for- they know that they can never defeat us on a battlefield. So let us stand together and deny them that victory. And let us honor men and women like Sergeant Jeffers, for they stand between us and a barbarism like none the world has known for many a long year. May God rest your soul, Segeant Jeffers, and thank you, thank you for everything.

Never Forget

Today is the sixth anniversary of the deadly terror attacks on the United States by Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda organization, part aof a worldwide Muslim imperialist movement to destroy Christian and Jewish civilizations. al-Quaeda, like many other Islamist groups around the world, espouses a traditional, fundamentalist approach to the Kporan, taking its words literally. Thererfore, when the Koran tells its followers to destroy the infidel, al-Quaeda and its allies take that as divine orders, and thus the current war against Islamic fundamentalists should be considered a part of Islam's long-running war against the West.

We should never forget the heroism displayed by so many that day in 2001, and also we should never forget the despicable attacks by these cowardly men- afraid of granting women rights, afraid of showing their faces in publicl, and afraid to fight an open war against the United States military. But we shouldd also never forget that Islam has been attacking and destroying non-Islamic civilizations since the mid-sixth century AD. The invasion of Spain, India and the destruction of the ancient civilizations of North Africa was unprovoked by any attack on Islam. The attacks and eventual conquering of one of Christiandom's most ancient cities- Constantinople (known today as Istanbul), were unprovoked- the Eastern Roman emperors had little interest in conquering Islamic territory, and I am unaware of any such attempts from the West. In addition, the Muslims weere invading Europe as far west as Vienna in 1699, where they were repulsed. Since that time, no Muslim armed force has attempted to defeat the West by force of arms- they have preferred the Soviet method of destruction from within, using the many useful idiots and ignorant do-gooders who reside in the ranks of the Press and the educational establishments.

On this day, let us remember the bravery of men like Staff Sergeant Dave Karnes and Sergeant Jason Thomas. Let us remember the courage of Todd Beamer and his 'Let's Roll' that led to the frustration of the Flight 93 hijackers' plans. Let us celebrate their heroism, along with the bravery of all the current and former members of the United States Armed Forces who are currently defending us by taking the fight to Islam in the deserts of Iraq and all around the world.

But let us remember also that our enemy is patient, without mercy and utterly conscienceless. To Islamists, no Christian is an innocent. There are no such things as 'civilians' and fighting using methods that most of us find abhorrent is their modus operandi, as they are well aware that they cannot defeat us on the battlefield in a straight fight. Our enemy also has learned well the Soviet art of disinformation and undermining- helped, I regret to say, by the cowardly partisan hacks who are so prevalent in our media and in Congress.

Today is the sixth anniversary of a deadly attack. But if our eyes were opened, and if we can but sustain the resolve, we will triumph in the end. Islam cannot offer anything compared to what our society's freedom can, and ultimately, I believe we will win, if only our politicians and media will allow us.

Media- Liberal Brains Better Than Conservatives

Yet another story is in the media highlighting the supposed superiority of liberals' brains to those of conservatives. Not long after the president of the American Publishers' Association claimed that liberals were simply more intelligent, based on a poll that showed liberals tend to read more books (one a year) than conservatives, a new study is highlighted by the Agencie France-Presse claiming that liberals and conservatives brain functions differ.

The story waits only four short paragraphs beofre focusing on the supposed superiority of liberals by claiming that,

Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

So, liberals show a 'higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity'? I guess we poor conservatives simply can't deal with complex and ambiguous issues. The story continues to point out the liberal advantage in dealing with change, stating,

The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine.

Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed."

So I gather that conservatives cannot change even when it is necessary. To do it credit, the study does admit that these results could be seen in different ways, pointing out that,

Whether that is good or bad, of course, depends on one's perspective: one could interpret the results to mean that liberals are nimble-minded and conservatives rigid and stubborn.

Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal.

However, the main thrust of the story leaves no doubt of the writers' opinions- liberals are superior to those poor, plodding, inflexible conservatives. The repeated references to the supposed adaptability of liberals to 'unexpected situations' is one example. The equally repetitious nature of the authors' references to conservatives' 'refusal to deviate from old habits'. The point is made- adaptability and flexibility in reacting to conflict is good, steadfastness is bad.

This story is amusing on a variety of fronts. Firstly, the story assumes that change is a good thing, but history shows that change is not always for the best. Who can deny that the change to Communism was disastrous for millions in Russia and China (and we won't even mention the bloodletting upon the fall of South Vietnam)? Who can deny that the change in the educational system here in the US over the last forty years or so has had disastrous effects as the once-accepted concentration on classical liberalism and core skills (the three 'R's) has degenerated into a potpourri of multiculteralist garbage and a loss of some of our best and brightest with the de-emphasizing of mathematics, reading and writing. Today's students are indoctrinated- not taught to think for themselves. And who can deny that the so-called welfare society has been an unmitigated disaster, destroying the economies in Europe, while potentially also causing huge problems here in the US with the imminent insolvency of Social Security?

And that brings us to the second howler in this story. Liberals in fact are not known for their adaptability. In both higher education and in politics, liberals who are faced with a new situation- the loss of the once-monolithic liberal press voice- are reacting by trying to silence their opponents, not adapt to the changed playing field. Case in point is Dartmouth's recent decision to pack the board of trustees with appointed members so as to silence the voice of the alumni-elected members. On the current battlefield, liberals are unable to concoct a strategy to fight the Muslim imprialists who are trying so hard to kill us either, though conservatives have been willing to change strategies as events on the ground have changed. Liberals still are calling for a withdrawal of forces, irregardless of the actual conditions. They seem unable to embrace change and adapt to it.

So once again the media take a study that could be interesting, depending on the criteria used, and twist it into yet another 'liberal brain better' story.There may indeed be a difference in the way that liberals and conservatives think. but I serioiusly doubt that one is superior to the other. And certainly based on current events, to suggest that liberals are somehow more flexible is a laugher. You would think that after liberals and the media have been proven wrong on so many fronts- from socialism to communism to the war on paverty to their hopes for a defeat in Iraq- they might take stock of the fact that conservatives seem better able to actually analyze events and make the right calls on a more regular basis. Instead of actually taking stock and analyzing events however, the media is still pushing stories on why those poor conservatives are just dumb reactionaries. Media bias? Oh, you mean that media bias....

Hat tip to Power Line for the stories on Dartmouth College and the Democrats' pre-emptive attacks on General Petraeus. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Kucinich Kraziness

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is apparently running for President, though his chances are only slightly better than mine, appears to have a very strange view of what is and what is not illegal. During his current visit to the Mideast, he found time to visit the dictatorship of Syria, and praise them for taking in Iraqi refugees. According to the Jerusalem Post,

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

He also praised Syria for taking in Iraqi refugees.

However, at the same time, Kucinich exposed his limited understanding both of international law and of the real facts of the Middle East. He reportedly refused to visit Iraq due to his dislike of the Bush Administration and his possibly sincere though naive and ignorant belief that the United States' overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is illegal. As the Post wrote,

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

In these two statements, Kucinich showed clearly why he should not even be consdiered as a serious contender for the nation's highest office. Firstly, his refusal to visit Iraq showed his disdain for the men and women of the UNited States Armed Forces. Democrats like to say they support the troops but not the mmission. However, visiting Iraq to get an actual picture of how conditions are for many fellow Americans could be accomplished whether one supports the rationnale for sending them or not. Kucinich showed that for him, military servicemen and servicewomen do not count. How then can he consider himself qualified to ask to be their Commander-in-Chief?

Secondly, Kucinich apparently has no problem with Syria's far longer occupation of Lebanon, judging by his willingness to visit. He accused his own country of acting 'illegally' in occupying Iraq- a nation whose leader representeed a clear threat to the United States, yet showed no concern with a much longer, far more brutal and continuing pressuring of Lebanon by Syria. If the US occupation of Iraq is 'illegal' according to Kucinich, how can Syria's occupation fo Lebanaon not be 'illegal'?

Of course, the media did not appear to be interested in asking those questions. Even the Jerusalem Post, which one would have thoughb aware of the inherent contradiction in Kucinich's comments, failed to ask the congressman of how he could determine one occupation illegal and one not. Especially since the Syrian occupation was condemned by the United Nations as well.

Fortunately, Kucinich's chances of becoming President are slim. But it is worrying that a candiadte for the Presidency in this day and age should display such shocking ignorance and disdain his fellow countrymen and women as blatantly as did Kucinich. And it is also worrying that the media do not call him on this, though their role as watchdog seems to occur to them only when a Republican might be embarrassed.

Most Americans Believe Iraq Victory Possible: Press Misses Story

A new Zogby Poll says that 54 percent of Americans believe Iraq is not a lost cause. However, the mainstram media have so far not managed to report much if anything on the startling new poll.

A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

Many Democrats, seeing the fact that the surge appears to be working, have realized that their defeatist attitudes and willingness to surrender may cost them dearly in the enxt election, have changed their tune somewhat, or, like the New York Times, have merely moved the goalposts of what constitutes victory. However, the major media, who have been overwhelmingly in favor of a precipitous defeat seem to be a little slow in reporting that their years of negative reporting and defeatism have not yet managed to dissuade a majority of their countrymen from wanting to win.

As of 1637 Pacific time today, the New York Times had still not put the new poll on its front page. ABC News seems to think that audio of Senator Craig's police interview is more compelling- they also have not yet mentioned the new poll. MSNBC also has not yet posted anything regarding the new poll; neither has CBS News, which has had time to post a top story about a teenager who posted a nude picture of his ex-girlfriend on MySpace. CNN also has the Senator Larry Craig story front and center- not a mention of the new Zogby poll.

So let me recap- bad news about how Americans view the Iraq conflict gets front page coverage. The news that most Americans believe the United States can win is ignored? Just another day for the liberal media, I gather. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

NY Times's New Line on Iraq

Now that the military surge led by General Petraeus is clearly succeeding in lowering the violence level in Iraq, the liberal media cheerleaders for defeat are scrambling for a new strategy to convince Americans that Iraq is a disaster. But what line will they choose?

The New York Times has apparently decided that since success on the military end of things is now fairly evident, that it is time to begin chipping away at the poilitcal side. To this end, they have once again utilized their favorite tool, the anonymous source, to try to destroy Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The Times story, posted on the front page of their web site, is entitled Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq's Government. Once a reader gets past the scare-mongering headline, the report continues to cast doubt on the Iraqi government in every way it can, stating,

The administration is planning to make public today parts of a sober new report by American intelligence agencies expressing deep doubts that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, can overcome sectarian differences. Government officials who have seen the report say it gives a bleak outlook on the chances Mr. Maliki can meet milestones intended to promote unity in Iraq.

Naturally, the Times used an anonymous official to reinforce their position. "“The report says that there’s been little political progress to date, and it’s very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future,” said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents."

It is no surprise that the Times uses "an anonymous Congressional offiical". During the course of their campaign for defeat in Iraq and the destruction of President Bush's Adminstration, the Times has rarely dared to actually quote from true named experts, and many of the anonymous experts they have used in the past, such as Michael Scheuer, have been easily discredited once their real names and positions became known. Whereas, by using an "anonymous" expert, the actual espertise fo thier chosen commentator is difficult to discern.

It appears that the Times has decided that since military success is virtually impossible to deny, that it is time to attack the civilian authorities, despite the fact that they too have made great strides since the beginning of the campaign. al-Maliki has managed to reach out to Sunnis and hang on to his own Shi'ite support as well, in the process marginalizing the Moqti al-Sadr forces as well. In the Times's view, any American defeat that hurts the Administration is apparently better than a victory that actually strengthens America.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Galloway Punished at Last?

It has been apparent since the fall of Saddam Hussein that most of his erstwhile defenders were in fact on his payroll. The governments of France and Russia who worked so hard and so long to prevent the United Nations from enforcing the fourteen separate resolutions finding Iraq in non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire had under-the-table sweetheart deals with Iraq. As for appeasers at the U.N., the entire Oil-for-Food boondoggle was designed to enrich the top officials at the U.N.and allow Hussein to continue his weapons programs- not put food into the mouths of the oppressed Iraqi people.

The loudest and most despicable of Hussein's apologists has been George Galloway, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Now, a new report released by Parliament finds Galloway took money for Hussein in return for using his position to delay sanctions and military action against Iraq. The report recommends that Galloway be suspended from Parliament for a month.

while none of this is exactly news, it is nice to see Galloway get some punishment for his activities. In my opinion, the disciplinary committee should have thrown Galloway out of Parliament and stripped him of his citizenship. Accepting money from a foreign power with which your country is at odds is disloyal at best and treason at worst. And no country in the world extends legal protection to traitors- Member of Parliament or not.

Hat tip to Power Line.

WMDs Update

The Democrats and their enablers in the Drive-By Media have made a mantra out of claims that George Bush lied to America about the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein and brought new hope to Iraq's terrorized citizens. The Press and their Democratic Party fellow-travelers in the United States Congress have been claiming with increasing hysteria that 'Bush lied, people died'. Never mind all those who died under Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, or all those who deals under the many other dictators that Democrats and MSM types have cuddled up to for so many years- Castro, Mao, Stalin, Che Guevara, etc.

However, there is now news that might finally lay this tired falsehood to rest. According to Fox News, it appears that not only were the Democrats wrong, George Bush was right- a piece of news almost certainly destined to produce hair-tearing amongst the Democrats and most of the media. In a story published today, Fox reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.

The story says that the United States "has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, according to two Republican lawmakers." This is good news, at least to those of us who believe that the President was entirely justified in his actions since the September 11 attacks on the United States by Islamic elements. While the Press probably wouldn't recognize a WMD if it was placed under their seats in their Bush Derangement Syndrome feverpits, most responsible people recognize the chemical weapons are actually WMDs, and thus Bush's arguments leading up to the 2003 invasion were justified.

The Republicans in question are Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Both made the point that while the weapons found appear to have been manufacturered prior to 1991, they prove two important things- first that Saddam Hussein lied when he claimed all WMDs had been destroyed. Second, and more importantly, these weapons show that the 'weapons inspections' vaunted by the United Nations were in fact not working and were probably enabling Hussein to continue his little game of divide and conquer vis-a-vis the Western powers in order to circumvent the sanctions placed on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They also make fools of the dictator-loving Democrats who claimed so loudly that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. It also raises questions as to the competency of Democrats to run the United States, since they can't even tell the truth about clearly proven issues such as this.

Now we await the Mainstream Media to actually leave off their jihad against the Bush Administration and report that he was in fact correct when he went to war in 2003 against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I expect we will be waiting for a long, long time. After all, to actually report this would require the media to report good news for the Republicans and the Bush Administration. And we all know that they are completely unable to report honestly when Republicans in general and this President in particular are involved. It is too much easier to slavishly cover Cindy Sheehan's little circus, without delaying with the fact that they might be in the wrong.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Democrats React To al-Zarqawi's Death

Scott Ott of Scrappleface blog posts a satire on the Democratic Party response to Zarquawi's death that is sadly not too far different from what the Drive-By Media and the Democrats on the Loony Left would really say if they thought they could get away with it. In this case, art imitates life a little TOO closely. However, it is still hilarious. Read the whole thing.

In the same Power Line post that brought this to my attention, there is also a link to a sober article by the esteemed Richard Miniter of the Human Events Online magazine on Zarqawi's atrocities (which interestingly the MSM are never eager to report on- much easier to excoriate the U.S. for holding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay) and a piece from the good folks at MEMRI on the reaction to Zarqwi's death in the Islamic media

(Note: the Iraqi paper Al-Rafadin called on al-Zarqawi and Hamas to go to hell after Hamas declared al-Zarqawi a martyr to the Arab nation. The Minneapolis Star-Tribue- yes, the same paper that illegally broke the news of the US breaking Japanese codes in WWII- fell far short of this standard in its own coverage iof the same event.) Read these as well. Interesting stuff. And the Drive-By Media will report on this, when.....?

Hat tip to the guys at Power Line.

One Down- How Many Left?

I have been unable to post due to personal and professional commitments for the past few days, but the news from yesterday is simply too good to pass up. One of the biggest enemies to Western society and our way of life perished when the United States military, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday.

This news cannot be overstated, despite the near-gloom on the Left side of the blogosphere and the attempts of the Drive-By Media to downplay this. One commentator I heard made the very good point that the MSM seems highly pout out that the US is able to score a victory of this magnitude despite their determination that we have lost the war. Perhaps if they would spend a little more time actually reporting honestly on what is happening over in Iraq, fewer people would be against the war? The media has been trying since 2000 to destroy the Bush Presidency and they are determined to cause another Vietnam in Iraq, Interestingly enough, when I GOOGLE for al-Zarqawi's death, I cannot find any of the stories that ran yesterday on it. Could it be that the MSM do not want this story to be read? It is a thought....

I do not know the source of the media dislike for the United States, but I wish that they would either admit it or report objectively. The First Amendment is all well and good, but the Press needs to have some kind of oversight, since they are clearly walking very close to treason and in some cases (The New York Times comes to mind) they have already crossed that line, in my opinion.

However, this does not obscure the fact that AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!! We got the son-of-a gun, and hopefully the charred carcass of Bin Laden himself will not be far behind.

This also brings up an interesting point as to al-Quaeda's organization. With al-Zarqawi dead, the organization in Iraq lacks a leader. Bin Laden has been steadily more isolated and is running out of cohorts, as the US and its allies move ever closer to whatever cave he hides in. In Iraq, the al-Quaeda leadership has been decimated in recent months, according to documents and communications that have been intercepted. Now, with one stroke the US has wiped out the leader and several of his closest deputies, making it even harder for al-Quaeda to function. They may want to make a big splash, but they are finding it ever harder to move around and operate as the Iraqi forces become ever more efficient and the US troops move closer to their boltholes. This has already happened to the main al-Quaeda leadership- they are trapped in case and are not able to move freely anymore.

It will be very interesting to observe what happens now with al-Quaeda. I for one think their days are numbered. We are clearly winning on the battlefields. And if our media would display even a l;little patriotism, we would be winning here at home as well. Only the media's determination to destroy the United States and George Bush have given the Islamists the hope that they can win. Isn't it time to deploy the treason laws against the media, since it is easily provable that they are doing their best to help the enemies of the United States? It is proven from the terrorists' own mouths...

Staff Sergeant Sheik!

Apparently the mainstream media (better known in the blogosphere as the MSM) can overlook a positive story about Iraq and the U.S. military no matter what the circumstances. Besides their well-known reluctance to live by the laws they like to presccribe for others (see the Helen Thomas fiasco for proof), they also appear to have a strong aversion to actually doing their jobs (ie. reporting the day's occcurrences instead of pontificating their personal preferences for Soviet-style Communism- usually dressed in socialistic rhetoric). In this case, apparently the MSM cannot even report when an American soldier is rewarding by the Iraquis themselves in a most unusual way!

As it happens, an American Army sergeant was elected a Iraqi Sheik in the town of Qayyarah because of his assistance to common Iraqi people, and the MSM (surprise, surprise) ignored it. Fortunately, the Salt lake Tribune has either more professionalism or a less-biased worldview than most of the MSM, and reported the entire episode. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

War and the American Left

The Left's view of the war on Iraq continues to confound me. Apart from the exceptionally clear-eyed Christopher Hitchens and a few others, the Left is simply in denial as to the nature of this conflict upon which we are currently engaged. Radioblogger has a wonderful exchange between Ron Reagan Jr and the afore-mentioned Mr. Hitchens. The execrable term "bitch-slap" defintely applies here, as Mr. Hitchens takes Ronnie to the proverbial woodshed for his lack of understanding and historical perspective.

However, the exchange proves little other than that most leftists are incapable of putting aside their fervent and damaging partisanship long enough to confront the threat that this country and indeed our civilization, face from the Islamists. I would provide a point of reference, however. In 1996, then-President Clinton launched missile strikes against Iraqi targets (as documented at the time by CNN) to punish Iraq for attacking the so-called Kurdish safe areas. The Republican response, voiced by then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, was praise for Clinton's action and a recommendation of even stronger military action. There was no chant comparable to the oft-repeated "Bush lied, people died" from the conservatives. The same was true in Somalia and even in Kosovo. Conservatives wondered how these operations advanced U.S. interests, and there were rumblings of worry regarding the percieved wasting of valuable resources on non-strategic objectives, but by and large the Right supported the actions, despite their misgivings. The same spirit is evidently not true of the Left- unless it is in power at the time.

Compare the differing reactions from the media on Clinton Administration warnings of Iraqi danger as opposed to how the same media organs reacted to Bush's essentially restating the same facts less that three years later. If the charges were true in 1998 when advanced by a Madeleine Albright, why were they less true in 2002 or 2003 when advanced by Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell? It seems to me that the answer is that it was a despised Republican making the arguments, not a beloved Democrat.

I would wish that the left today would show the patriotism that their forbears showed in Korea, World War II and even in Vietnam. However, I fear that the days of the Democratic Party as one of loyal opposition may be gone forever.