Monday, January 31

Terrorists Kill Handicapped Child

From the AP via Yahoo!
Iraq's interior minister said Monday that insurgents used a handicapped child as one of the suicide bombers who launched attacks on election day.
Can these "people" sink any lower? There couldn't be a clearer contrast between the Iraqis that went out and voted yesterday and the terrorists that blow up children in order try to stop them.

Noteworthy Courage in Iraq

I think this quote from an elderly Iraqi woman says a lot about the attitude of the 8+ million people that came out to vote yesterday.

From CSM:
"Why should I be afraid?" asked Arifa Abed Mohamed, an elderly woman in a black abaya, who was first to vote at dawn on one Baghdad polling station. "I am afraid only from God."


Update: (More Courage)

From Reuters:
Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said, leaning on his metal crutches, determination in his reddened eyes.

Two Sure Winners in the Iraqi Election

The Iraqi people


The first clear winners given today's events are the Iraqi people. For the first time in their history, they looked tyranny in the eye, and tyranny flinched. They have also put the lie to the assertion that Muslims and Arabs in particular are incapable of Democracy and have added yet more weight to the assertion that freedom lives in every human heart regardless of race or religion.

President Bush and the US more broadly


Today's events vindicate, at least in part, the vision that the President put forward in his inaugural speech. They also show that Iraq is on an almost unstoppable course toward democracy. The next two votes in Iraq, the one on the constitution 9 mouths from now and the Presidential election in about a year, will solidify this course. This will effectively end the insurgency. If you don't believe me just ask Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi:
if we fight them, that will be difficult because there will be a schism between us and the people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the Americans start withdrawing? The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority. This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.

Friday, January 28

Dean's a shoo-in, Again…

From the AP via SFGate.com:
Harold Ickes, a leading Democratic activist and former aide to President Clinton, said Friday he is backing Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- giving a powerful boost to the front-runner.
Doesn't this all sound familiar? Dean's the big favorite. Dean gets the key endorsements. So where's the microphone? It's time for him to make himself look like an idiot again.

The UNron Scandal Continues

From Fox:
Paul Volcker (search), the man tapped by the United Nations to lead a probe into the troubled Oil-for-Food program, has potentially too-close-for-comfort ties to companies he's supposed to be investigating
So not only does the UN get to investigate itself, their so-called "independent investigator" is compromised, but no, they won't just give up this farce. Will they?

Thursday, January 27

The Washington Post is Pathetic

"Pathetic" is the only word I can think of to describe this story. As they say, it isn't the crime (in this case bias) that gets you. It's the cover up. Today the Washington Post has printed a story and then changed it without a correction. Following that, they denied that a correction was made and engaged in the slander of bloggers. After it became clear that this wasn't going to fly, they put the blame on the "website folks" at washingtonpost.com.

Here's the original paragraph that got slammed for it's obvious bias:
Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
Anyone that has seen the four underlined senators speak on the senate floor knows they are far from "centrists."

The Post then changed the paragraph, which was reported by the Powerline guys:
the Post has now removed the word "centrists" from its article. I assume this was the result of our pointing out the absurdity of the characterization. But there is no indication of any correction, no acknowledgement that the change was made. So go the mainstream media.
The following is an E-mail sent by Chuck Babington the writer of the Post article:
Thanks for writing. You will not find this quote in my article:

"Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)." You (and many others) are victims of a cut and paste job that rearranged paragraphs in order to attack the story. You can read the real article on Washingtonpost.com. I'd be happy to respond if you want to take it from there.
again, thanks,
cb
At the time this email was sent, the article had yet to be reworded by the post, and that paragraph was still on the Post's website.

Once that email showed up on the internet, it must have dawned on Mr. Babington that it was time to cut his loses. The following is from another, later, email by Babington:
You are quite right... The website folks updated the morning story after the vote, and combined some paragraphs.
There seems to be only two options here. Mr. Babington is lying, in which case he wrote as it was printed and is now covering himself. He's been trying to do that without much success all day. The other option is provided by Powerline:
anonymous staffers at the Post revise articles written by the paper's reporters and inject their own political views into the paper's characterizations of members of the Senate.
Either way, the Post has had a pathetic day.

Saturday, January 22

Hilarious Counter Protest

I can't imagine what the leftists must have been thinking when they saw this:



Indepundent's description of events:

Finally, they reached the front rows of the march -- and turned their signs around:
FREE
CUBA

REAL
LIBERALS
FIGHT
TYRANNY

FREE
VENEZUELA

For a few moments, nobody noticed. Then, to my left, I heard someone gasp, "What do those signs say?"

"Free Venezuela?"

"Those signs are total BULLSHIT!"

Meanwhile, my team was also making our way forward. I found myself immediately behind a man with a megaphone, who was directing the crowd in angry anti-Bush chants. I recognized him as Justin Akers, a community college professor who moonlights as an organizer for the local chapter International Socialist Organization.

That's right -- my property taxes pay the salary of this man, who uses his classroom to indoctrinate young, impressionable students into his radical ideology. And I was close enough that I could almost reach out and touch him...

After marching a few more blocks, we quietly melted away, cutting through the side streets to reach our final rally point at 3rd & Broadway, right outside the NBC Building. There, we waited for the marchers to return.

Meanwhile, some pedestrians began to notice our little counter-rally, and took a moment to absorb the meaning of our signs.

"Hey," one man shouted, "Why don't any of you young guys go over and fight in Iraq?"

I hear this one at almost every one of these events. "I've already been."

This stopped him in his tracks, momentarily. "Well, why don't you go back?" Also predictable.

"If they send me, I'll go again."


He walked away, cursing at us under his breath.

Another man responded to our "Free Venezuela" sign.

"Venezuela is free!" He declared.

I wanted to ask him if he was aware that Venezuela strongman Hugo Chavez recently outlawed the "cacelorazo," a form of protest involving the banging of pots and pans in the streets (which was being practiced by many of that evening's protestors in San Diego, without any sense of irony). But he was gone before I could respond.

Several people didn't seem to understand our point. "Thank you guys for doing this," one man says. "Nobody can blame me when things go all to Hell," he continued, "because I voted for Kerry!"

Others read our signs and smiled, or gave us a thumbs-up.
Could there be any better spokesman for the Left?

Thursday, January 20

Hard Line Iranians Threaten UK

From the Arab Times:
A hardline Iranian religious group threatened on Wednesday to carry out suicide attacks on a UK-based Iranian exile TV presenter, saying his broadcasts were inflammatory and insulted Islamic values.

Mojtaba Bigdeli, the spokesman of Iran's Hizbollah group, said the British government must ban the satellite channel run by Iranian exiles within 30 days or face the consequences.

"After one month, our commandos will carry out suicide attacks in London against the shameless presenter of the channel," Bigdeli told Reuters by telephone.
Hardliners are just digging their own graves.

The Final Pathetic Death Wails of the Yanukovych Campaign

From Interfax:
Supporters of Viktor Yanukovych, who is judicially contesting the announced victory of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine's December 26 repeat presidential runoff election, put up a tent camp on the central square of Symferopil on Wednesday.

The campers put up seven tents on a square area of about 15 meters to 15 meters, fenced the area off with spikes which they tied together with ropes with blue ribbons attached to them, and called it a territory "free from Viktor Yushchenko." Banners were fixed to the tents some of which read, "For Yanukovych, for stronger Ukrainian-Russian unity."
For comparative purposes, here is a picture of the protests in Ukraine's capital after the first "election:"


Why Do I Have to Read an Iraq Newspaper to Hear the Real Story?

From Al Nahrein via Powerline:

19 Terrorist suspects arrested and 11 Killed in the Yusefiah area in south central Iraq.

A high ranking U.S. Army officer announced today that his forces, in conjunction with the Iraqi Army and Iraqi security forces, killed 11, arrested 19 armed terrorists and captured a large cache of weapons and explosives stolen from the previous regime’s army. The arrests and killing of armed terrorists happened as a result of an armed clash during a campaign covering a wide area in the Lateefiah area south of Baghdad. Brigadier General Michael, commander of the second combat troops army brigade said that this campaign was conducted differently from others in the past, it depended on tips and information the Iraqi forces received from the local population. This information was about the location and existence of armed terrorists in this area. He added that the campaign was not only military but also in preparation of the elections to be held in two weeks. It included securing the area and restoring irrigation and drinking water, electricity and roads for which 55 million dollars in reconstruction funds have been set aside.


As the guys at Powerline adeptly pointed out, the Iraqi paper calls our enemies by their correct name, terrorists. What is wrong with our press that the Iraqis, a people that have had a free press for all of a year and a half, can get the facts right and our media can't?

Wednesday, January 19

The Arrogant, Conceited New York Times

From the NYT:
When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq?
I've noted before that the New York Times has sided with enemy, but this story has solidified that belief. In case you didn't know Ali Fadhil is a blogger for Iraq the Model. The above quote is the first paragraph of the article in which the Times interviews Ali, and it shows the incredible insulation and partisan bias at the Times. The idea that any Iraq that supports the United States must be a CIA or DOD agent, or better yet just "mixed" up, is totally absurd. Think about the beliefs that must under lie this reasoning. Namely, that no rational Iraqi would support the US goals unless of course we we're paying them off.

Chrenkoff puts this idea better I did:

an Iraqi can only seem "genuine" if he shares the liberal media elite's doubts about the liberation of Iraq. God forbid that anyone could possibly be happy that Saddam's gone and Iraq now has a chance for a better future - such people must obviously be frauds, or better still, frauds on American payroll.

Where is the Coverage?

From The LA Times: (12/28/04)

Iraq's most prominent Sunni Muslim religious party announced Monday that it was withdrawing from next month's parliamentary elections, saying that violence remains too grave to conduct the vote.

The move by the Iraqi Islamic Party threatens to deepen the political alienation of the nation's Sunni Arabs, who make up about 20% of the population but were long favored under Saddam Hussein's government. Many Sunnis have supported the insurgency and fear that the upcoming ballot will only cement their loss of influence as majority Shiite Muslims vote for members of their own sect. Yet Sunni support for and participation in a new government are considered crucial to stabilizing Iraq.
And now three weeks later, the election is still on, and their gambit hasn't paid off. So naturally, they do the old John Kerry Flip-flop.

From AINA:

Iraq's principal Sunni Muslim political party conceded Wednesday that its effort to delay Iraq's parliamentary election had failed and that it was preparing a strategy to influence the elected government following the vote on Jan. 30.

The Iraqi Islamic Party's willingness to accept and engage a new government indicated a possible avenue for Sunni participation
[...]
"The Americans are insisting these elections go on time," Ayad al Samaraee, deputy chairman of the Iraqi Islamic Party, told Knight Ridder. "Most probably, there will be no delay."

Instead of trying to halt the elections, al Samaraee said the party would focus on giving Sunnis a voice in the new government and was now reaching out to other parties and encouraging them to work together.
Now they want to be part of the new government, which is fine, but where is the coverage of this? The headline from the LA Times and the rest of the MSM was "Top Sunni Party Quits Election." Where is the headline saying, "Top Sunni Party Wants into New Government?"

-------------------------------------------

While we are on the topic of the AINA article, what is this?
It also said that 72 parties, coalitions of parties or individuals have joined its call for a boycott. They include Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Kurds, said Sheikh Omar Zaydan, a spokesman for the Muslim Scholars Association. The claim couldn't be verified.
Since when do you print unverified claims?

Just a Small Thing

From mnf-iraq.com:

Mosul, Iraq -- Multi-National Forces from 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team), were able to defuse a roadside bomb after an Iraqi boy provided them with information about it in northern Iraq on Jan. 10.

Soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, were on patrol in Mosul when an Iraqi child informed them of a roadside bomb in the area. The tip led to the diffusion and destruction of the bomb.
Isn't it amazing that a child instinctively recognizes that trying to blow people up that are helping you is wrong, and goes to tell a responsible person that someone is doing something wrong. Now if only this was so clear to adults.

More Bias By Omission

From Black Five:

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. Just yesterday, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.
The essential point that is being made here is that this war is more about perception then anything else. The terrorists in Iraq have never and can never win any militarily significant victory. Every day we remain in Iraq, we get one step closer to victory, and they get one step closer to defeat. There is only one way the terrorists can win, and that is the same way evil people and evil ideologies have always won, which is by default. In other words, the good guys left the field of battle. The terrorists know this. They time attacks so that they make the morning headlines in the US. Every time the media spends hours and paragraphs talking about something the terrorist did, it is victory for the them against us. I'm not saying don't report the bad news. I'm say is put it in context. For example, the idea is being floated about that the terrorists are winning in Iraq. This is the result of the media feeding off itself. They report all these events out of context, and then conclude on that basis that the terrorists are winning. If this continues, they'll start concluding that we are defeated when we're really winning.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of Fallujah?
[...]
The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia -- Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked.
This is why I believe the media is politically biased and not just biased toward reporting bad news or shocking news. What could be more shocking or bad then 200 headless bodies in what is supposed to be a holy site? And yet, not a word from the MSM. Many in the media aren't just biased against the war or against this administration, they are biased in favor of the enemy. Our own media is betraying us.

Tuesday, January 18

There's Optimism on the Front

From Cpl. Isaac D Pacheco via The Cincinnati Enquirer:

I've become somewhat callused to this kind of seesaw reporting because every day I work with the news agencies that manufacture it. However, many service members shake their heads in frustration each time they see their daily rebuilding efforts ignored by the media in favor of the more "sensational" car bomb and rocket attack stories. Not to say that tragedies don't happen - Iraq is a war zone - but there is so much more happening that gets overlooked if not ignored.

Army Sgt. Addie Collins' Kicks for Kids program is an example of this. Three months ago this Army Reservist from Los Angeles asked her friends and family to forgo sending the usual box of goodies, and instead send a few pairs of kid-sized shoes, which she would hand out to Iraqi children she'd seen walking barefoot. Friends and family told friends and family, and today, 10,000 pairs later, Collins is outfitting an entire Ramadi community with sneakers, sandals and boots.

Where's her morning talk show appearance?
The days when media bias was about telling you things that were false or misleading are over. We've see with the CBS debacle that stories are now fact checked to their minutest detail. The media bias that we see today is more insidious. We'll call it media bias by omission. Basically, they aren't reporting news worthy stories. The BBC doesn't think it's news when American soldiers are assisting the Tsunami survivors. Cpl. Pacheco has shown us something very important. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The MSM is examining every terrorist attack in minute detail, but when something good happens, it's not news worthy. We need a media in this country that reports both sides of the story. Not just the side that they think is important.

Sunday, January 16

Israel is Done Waiting for the Palestinians to End Their Hopeless War

From the AP:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Sunday he was giving Israel's army free rein to battle militants in Gaza, and the Palestinian leadership called for a halt to attacks on Israelis.
[...]
The Israeli assault on Khan Younis refugee camp in southern Gaza came as Israel Radio reported Sharon had ordered troops "to act immediately with no political or military restrictions" to halt repeated rocket fire into southern Israel Sunday.

"I won't let this mad situation continue," Sharon told the mayor of Sderot, whose residents have threatened to launch a commercial strike Monday in protest at the rocket attacks.

Sharon also told his cabinet the army had been "instructed to take any action needed without restriction to stop terror, and they will continue to do so... as long as the Palestinians do not lift a finger."
Not surprisingly, Israel has little patients with the Palestinian leadership whatever it's form. If the Abbas doesn't stop terror, the Israelis will. Eventually the Palestinians will have to realize that the ball is in their court. The Israelis can live with the Status Quo. The Palestinians can't. In the year, the Palestinians will be contained behind the Israeli Security Fence, and severely limited in the number of attacks they can carry out. The strategic Israeli position is getting strong in relation to the Palestinians. The longer the Palestinians wait to end their hopeless war. The less they will get from the Israelis when the inevitable peace deal is struck.

Genius Leftists Find another Way to Protest

It appears that Deacon of Powerline has found some more people that are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome:

An attorney at a Washington D.C. law firm (not mine) told me that her firm is closed for inauguration day, but a number of attorneys plan to work anyway as a protest against another Bush term. To me, this raises an interesting philosophical question: can something be a protest if those against whom it is directed (a) don't know about it; (b) can't be affected by it, even indirectly; and (c) would be completely indifferent about the conduct associated with the protest even if they knew of it?
It's just like the idiots whose big idea was to turn around at the Inauguration.

Population Statistics: A Palestinian Fraud

From the Jerusalem Post:

While terrorism is the outward face of the post-modern aggressor, social psychology is perhaps his greatest weapon. If the target population can be manipulated to view itself as the aggressor, if it can be brought to view its position as untenable, then it will sue for peace and surrender. So it was that Kadoura Fares, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and one of the heads of Fatah who signed Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accords, said in an interview with the pan-Arab London-based newspaper Al-Hayat in October 2003 that the Palestinian aim in signing the accords was to "foment a piercing public and political debate in Israel."

While Hamas has placed its emphasis mainly on the terrorist aspect of the post-modern battlefield, the PLO has placed an equal emphasis on the psychological component of the war. In fact, it could be said in retrospect that the greatest single victory the PLO has scored in its 46-year-old war with Israel was the publication of a single report in 1997. That report, "Demographic Indicators of the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2015," is based on a census carried out by the PA's Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) in 1997. It projects that the Arab population west of the Jordan River will by 2015 outnumber the Jewish population.

These numbers were immediately adopted by such prominent Israeli demographers as the University of Haifa's Arnon Soffer and the Hebrew University's Sergio Della Pergola, who have both warned that by 2020 Jews will make up between 40 and 46 percent of the overall population of Israel and the territories. The Palestinian projections, which place the Arab population of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip at 3.83 million and the Israeli Arab population at 1.33 million for a total of 5.16 million Arabs west of the Jordan River, put Israel with its 5.24 million Jews at the precipice of demographic parity with the Arabs.
If you been around this debate for a while, you know that these numbers were accepted as fact and used to further the Palestinians case. These numbers put pressure on the Israelis to settle the conflict or face the possibility that they would be facing Palestinians demanding not a state, but the right to vote in Israeli elections. This was sobering stuff for the Israelis. But, no longer...

The average of the last two scenarios, which corrected for the Palestinians living abroad and were based on base populations comprised of ICBS Palestinian population survey projections from the 1990s and Palestinian voting records in 1996 and 2004, brought the final projected number of Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria to 2.42 million - nearly a third less than the 3.83 million figure currently being used.

The study, which has been accepted by prominent American demographers Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt and Murray Feshbach, shows that contrary to common wisdom, the Jewish majority west of the Jordan River has remained stable since 1967. In 1967 Jews made up 64.1 percent of the overall population and in 2004 they made up 59.5 percent. Inside Israel proper, including Jerusalem, Jews make up 80 percent of the population.
With the political motivation gone, Israel is not likely to be looking for much compromise. That puts the ball firmly in the Palestinian's court. If they want talks if they want a state, they must end terrorism.

A Woman Stands Against the Mullahs in Iran

From CNN:

Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi told Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Court on Saturday she won't obey a vague summons on her to appear for questioning, even if it means she will be jailed -- an open challenge to a powerful body that has tried and convicted many pro-reform intellectuals.

Ebadi, the first Iranian and Muslim woman to win the Nobel peace prize in 2003, vowed in a wide-ranging exclusive interview with The Associated Press to resist hard-line threats against her life and will never bow to intimidation.
[...]
"I've tasted jail myself: 25 days in solitary confinement with no access to radio, newspapers or lawyer. And I'm not afraid of prison," she said. "I'm a lawyer and familiar with the law. I haven't done anything other than defend human rights in Iran."
This is a good example of what Iran needs, which is people that stand against the Islamic extremists there. The more this happens the more the Mullahs will take notice. There are limits to the amount of people you can jail without starting a rebellion. The Mullahs may not realize it, but I believe they are getting close to that line. I would not be surprised if they wondered by it in the next year or two.

Saturday, January 15

Decision Time For Abbas

Abbas says he wants to lead the Palestinians to Freedom and a state of their own. This is his chance. After a Palestinian terrorist attack that killed 6 Israelis, Israel did not retaliate militarily. They simply cut off ties with the Palestinians until the terrorism stops. Abbas will have no better chance to lead his people then right now. He must not just denounce terror, but stop it. He can, and he must. The Palestinians have suffered for years because of a warped culture and inept leadership. If Abbas shuts down terrorism, Israel will be open to negotiation and the quality of life in the Palestinians areas will increase. If he does not, there will simply be more of the same.

Friday, January 14

The Loser

I had to laugh when I saw this as the title of a Reuters story:
Ukraine Court Agrees to Hear Vote Loser's Appeal
I was beginning to doubt whether good headline writers even existed anymore, but alas there is yet hope. As to Mr. Yanukovych, this same court has already rejected his previous claims. He has about as much chance of becoming the President of Ukraine as I do at this point.

In Denial

From melaniephillips.com::
I asked Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain],whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred. He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision'.
This is similar to what Jesse Jackson and others do all the time. It's a simple theory, really. Just ignore the problem. Deny it exists. Blame everyone else for the problem, and then you don't have to step up to the plate. Take responsibility, and fix it.

CBS Takes Underhand Slap at Bloggers

From LGF:
CBS has altered the PDF file for their report on Memogate, to prevent copying and pasting.

Here's the page at CBS News, with modified PDF file: CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story.

Rather obviously (pardon the pun), this is aimed at making it harder for blogs to criticize the report, by stopping them from copying and pasting sections to illustrate points.
These people are stupid. First, for even thinking they could pull this off. Our friends at LGF have already posted the first unedited version with copying enabled, and second, for thinking they weren't going to get ripped for this. They are supposed to be a news provider. They're are supposedly in the business of spreading information, not figuring out creative ways to suppress it.

Just One Hour of CNN Bias

From Powerline:
I'm back after nearly a week of tough business travel, culminating in four hours at the Boston airport. The worst thing about being stuck in an airport these days is the televisions running CNN non-stop. But today Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics was so over-the-top that it provided comic relief. In one hour she ran the following stories:

1. Big business is rewarding President Bush for past favors and purchasing additional influence by paying for the inauguration festivities. Pro Bush companies, particularly energy and financial services companies, are paying $250,000 a pop.

2. The inaugural festivities cost too much -- at least $40 million. It's true that Clinton's cost about $33 million, but that was when we had budget surpluses and no natural disasters like the current one in Asia. (But I thought big business was footing the bill in order to buy influence -- if so, in the absence of a lavish inauguration, they wouldn't be allocating the bribe money to pay down the budget deficit or provide humanitarian relief).

3. Torture, always torture. Public opinion surveys showing that Americans (like their president) don't favor torture provide the pretext for CNN to show more Abu Ghraib footage and to take another shot at Alberto Gonzalez.

4. President Bush lacks public support for privatizing social security. And, according to Democratic consultant Ann Lewis, it's no wonder, what with the market down 100 points today and the same people who told us there were WMD in Iraq now telling us that social security is in trouble. (I'm not making this up; thank God Lewis is a Democratic consultant).

5. "Everyone loves Laura?" I'm not sure what the question mark was doing in the story, since CNN's poll showed that Laura Bush has an approval rating of something like 86-5. But CNN is quick to claim that this rating tends to go down when the First Lady takes controversial positions on public policy issues.

Woodruff also included a piece on blogging, in which CNN's reporter noted that blogs aren't going away now that the election is over. Instead, they are focusing on substantive issues and local political races. But even this unobjectionable piece was marred by Woodruff's need to explain that "blog" is short for "web log."

During breaks, CNN ran a commercial touting its war correspondent Christiane Amanpour. According to Amanpour "being a war correspondent is more than being a war correspondent," since her stories, "told well have the power to make a difference" and her "job is to make a difference for the good of the world." Judy Woodruff presumably answers to the same job description. Dan Rather too, for a little while longer.
This is why I'm willing to subjected myself to MSNBC when I'm not watching Fox. CNN's like a cess-ridden stream of propaganda.

Thursday, January 13

Ted's Off the Wagon Again

From ABC:
Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "Osama bin … Osama … Obama."
Looks like that after the election Teddy boy is back to drinking his lunch everyday.