Sunday, December 30, 2007
The Anointed takes center stage. Note - at the actual Article, another picture of Mr. Obama.
WOW! Abc is really pushing this hard. Obama gets the center again!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Bin Laden Issues Warning on Iraq, IsraelWhen you read the article though, you will find:
a. - A good picture of Bin Laden
b. - "warned Iraq's Sunni Arabs against fighting al-Qaida" HUH? we thought that there were no Al quada in Iraq? And now Bin Laden has to warn Iraqis not to fight them? What??
c. - "attempt to keep supporters in Iraq unified at a time when the U.S. military claims to have al-Qaida's Iraq branch on the run." The us military always "claims" stuff. But Bin Laden "Aims to unify" Benefit of doubt=AQ, by ABC. The press is the enemy.
d. - " In Iraq, a number of Sunni Arab tribes in western Anbar province have formed a coalition fighting al-Qaida-linked insurgents" A stunning development indeed. Did it happen before, or after the war was lost by Sen. Harry Reid (D)? And on what frontpage was this reported? Does it not beg a willing suspension of disbelief?
e. - "Bin Laden said Sunni Arabs who have joined the Awakening Councils "have betrayed the nation and brought disgrace and shame to their people. They will suffer in life and in the afterlife." Oh please ABC, tell us more, verbatim, please! In fact - please link us to the whole transcript, so we can decide for ourselves. No? Well, thank you for your effort in clarifying Bin Laden's word for us.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Quoth the newsfilter:
"The terror group has also been campaigning to reach a broader audience, announcing that its No. 2 figure, Ayman al-Zawahri, would respond to journalists' questions sent over the Internet. The deadline for the queries was Jan. 16."
Lets see If ABC asks him whether he "ever admits to any mistakes"
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Best Guy Evar, reaching out to shake your hand!
The Grimacing Monkey.
Remember this "unbias" whenever you read a Gallup poll.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Senate leaders would like to wrap up debate Tuesday, though GOP conservatives may balk, unhappy with spending above Bush's budget and a secretive process that produced a 1,482-page bill with almost 9,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers.
Oh, and Article contents contradicts headline.
Soundbite file transfer complete. You are what you read peeps, don't eat gum off the ground!
Here is what really happened.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Mark Steyn summarizes:
"Honor killings" were something we assumed took place on the fringes of the map - the Pakistani tribal lands, Yemen, Jordan. They now happen in the heart of western cities, and western feminist groups are silent, and western media rush to excuse it as just one of those things, couldda happened to anybody. The underlying message the press coverage communicates is horrible and heartless: the murder of Aqsa Parvez is an acceptable price to pay for cultural diversity.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Aaaahh. Here it is. The "Damning But". In the form of the "poll" on the right.
While the level of violence has reduced, the threat has certainly not gone away. "
The Money Shot: "Ali Mokhtare, who is still employed by the State Department, was investigated in 2005 after a female Halliburton/KBR employee said he sexually assaulted her at the company-run camp in Basra, Iraq."
A Google search for abc, Juanita Broddrick, or Juanita Hickey (Broaddrick) comes up with nothing palpable. Because that was "just an allegation", and was treated as such. And O'l Billy boy was the anointed one.
This is how the game is played!
Anything, anything at all, that can be negatively tied to the Iraq war and ANY of its participants be they our troops, contractors, Republicans, suppliers, or ordinary Iraqis, for that matter, will be played up all the time, incessantly, without fail.
Any success will be Ignored. ABC is a Leftist Propaganda outfit.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
And, because now our spooks have become the best in the world since their last wmd estimates, Bush looks stoopid. Just look at that picture! Stoopid!
Thank God Bill is here to look good!
At least he was not a Bible basher like this guy....
Democrats good, Republicans Bad. As I said - Back to normal!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Michelle Rakes The Anti-US Foer's Decks. The Heading says it all, and the content is devestating. With Juicy "look at what he did NOT mention linkage and images
John Tabin gets his hooks in for the boarding "When critics first started raising red flags about the Baghdad Diarist articles, there were charges that TNR was advancing an anti-military agenda. Such charges were somewhat unfair in July. They're perfectly fair now."
H/t Instapundit, as Usual
Sunday, December 2, 2007
For months, our magazine has been subject to accusations that stories we published by an American soldier then serving in Iraq were fabricated.
Imagine that! Accusations! For such Sterling work, all you get are... accusations.
When these accusations first arose, we promised our readers a full account of our investigation.
Then we stalled, prevaricated, and just plain old hoped-it-would-just-go-away.
We spent the last four-and-a-half months re-reporting his stories.
Re-reporting? Were you not supposed to be verifying? Were the UNVERIFIED parts of the story not the problem?
These are our findings.
When Michael Goldfarb, a blogger for The Weekly Standard, left me a message on a Tuesday afternoon in mid-July, I didn't know him or his byline. And I certainly didn't anticipate that his message would become the starting point for a controversy.
Yes. His message was the "starting point". Not the fiction you sold as fact, but his message is the problem. I think I discern a pattern of blame in this here first paragraph.
Goldfarb said he had been contacted by tipsters who thought these scenarios sounded concocted by a writer with an overactive imagination--or perhaps by a total fabulist. He asked for evidence that might answer these complaints, "any details that would reassure that this isn't fiction." Among other things, he wanted the name of the base where the author had mocked the disfigured woman.
A day earlier, The New Republic had published a piece titled "Shock Troops." It appeared on the magazine's back page, the "Diarist" slot, which is reserved for short first-person meditations. "Shock Troops" bore the byline Scott Thomas, which we identified as a pseudonym for a soldier then serving in Iraq. Thomas described how war distorts moral judgments. To illustrate his point, he narrated three disturbing anecdotes. In one, he and his comrades cracked vulgar jokes about a woman with a scarred face while she sat in close proximity. In another, a soldier paraded around with the fragment of an exhumed skull on his head. A final vignette described a driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle who took pride in running over dogs.
Because Life in Iraq is disturbingly similar to a 80's era Vietnam movie.
Hmm - rather specific questions - Could you name all of them in one list? Or is being concise not really a part of this here exercise?
The same afternoon, we contacted the author, asking permission to answer Goldfarb's queries. We thought we could provide details that might answer these concerns without revealing the author's identity and violating the compact we formed when granting him a pseudonym. He agreed.
I told Goldfarb that the insults to the woman had occurred at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon. A day later, Goldfarb sent a link to an item on the Standard blog. It quoted an anonymous source who said the story sounded like a collection of the "This is no bullshit ... stories soldiers like to tell." Goldfarb called on the military blogosphere to do "some digging" and for "individual soldiers and veterans to come forward with relevant information."
Embarrassing huh? When you verify something, you ask the same guy who may have told you the lie in the first place, while Mr. Goldfarb goes and does what is called "independent verification" That is, he checks the information as close to the actual event or place of the event as he can, and independantly of the author, whose work is suspect.
By the weekend, the Standard's editor, William Kristol, published an editorial that, without evidence, pronounced the Diarist an open-and-shut case.
Yeah. No evidence. All he had was your and "Scott Thomas’s" word, which are not to be questioned at ALL, for fear of , umm , becoming a starting point in a controversy? You are kinda right he had no evidence. He had no evidence that what you guys printed was true. And right now, here today, it turns out - neither do you.
Kristol wrote, "But what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops. How else could they have published such a farrago of dubious tales? Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support."
An then it goes on. And on. And on.
So, in the interests of brevity, and your and my time, Ill selectively quote and fisk as without regurgitating the entire bore fest Mr. Foer coughed up.
Here goes more!
"Naturally we wanted to learn more about the dog-hunting and the skull--although, in hindsight, the genesis of these anecdotes in such a nonchalant aside should have provoked greater suspicion. Beauchamp revised the piece, and we sanded down the prose. A month after he submitted the first draft, after several revisions, it entered into galleys."
Here we learn that TNR's Editors had a LOT of time to look at this piece. They had time to "sand the prose" and make "several revisions" Nowhere in this process, it seems, did anyone question the actual events being desccribed.
Facing the difficulties of verifying the piece, but wanting to ensure its plausibility before publication, we sent the piece to a correspondent for a major newspaper who had spent many tours embedded in Iraq. He had heard accounts of soldiers killing dogs with Bradleys.
They fact checked this piece, about the agile-as-dogs armored vehicle with another MSM Journalist? And he had "heard accounts" Tell us. who is this man, and what is his opinion of the Iraq war?
Reeve also asked a National Guard medic who had served in Iraq if he had seen burn victims in chow halls. He replied, "[N]ot many ... but a couple."
Could you actually find any yourself? Scratch that - If you cannot find the one that is mentioned in the story, your story is horseshit. And She must also verify the incident - OK?
I almost fell for the clever little lowering of standards there - fact checking now seems to have become "probability searching" "If it is at all possible, it HAS to be true!
He also added details to his accounts. The woman Beauchamp said he had mocked loomed large within his circle of friends. They called her "Crypt Keeper" or "Mandrake's Bride."
Um, Yay. Did you consider the the embellisher might be embellishing? Some more?
The bones, meanwhile, had been uncovered while filling sandbags in a small section of his combat outpost. (I received a photo of Beauchamp holding a bone in one hand while obscuring the name on his uniform with the other.)
No pic, no believe. Print the picture.
He provided us with the names of the soldier who wore the skull and the driver who ran over dogs. And he solicited corroborating accounts from five other soldiers.
Provide these names, Please.
Soldier A: "While digging we came across several bones and a guy named [name withheld] said he was part Indian and danced around the bones to show he was peaceful and he did a proper burial procedure."
The nature of these contacts wasn't ideal: Beauchamp was soliciting his own witnesses. But, once Beauchamp established the initial contact, we tried to communicate with these soldiers independently. We always considered the possibility that they were lying to cover for their friend, but there was no way for us to know that for certain, and we couldn't dismiss what they told us. They were not only Beauchamp's buddies, but, in some instances, the only witnesses to the events described.
Wait. You only thought of that afterward, right? Not before?
Beauchamp instant-messaged us that officers had "made people sign sworn statements saying that brads don't intentionally hit dogs and that no mass grave was found" at his combat outpost--"in fact, that no human remains at all were found there."
Beauchamp said he was under enormous stress.
Yeah, that happens to Liars when they get caught out.
"[I] wanted to get out of the room alive," he told us.
Because the US army Executes those who refuse to sign? On the spot?
He signed statements but tried to phrase them carefully. "[I] think i worded it pretty well enough to buy me some more time without contradicting myself."
"buy me some more time" The Meme is set!
Earlier that morning, we had received an e-mail from a soldier in Beauchamp's unit who had mentioned seeing the disfigured woman in Kuwait
A pattern began. Beauchamp's behavior was sometimes suspicious--promising evidence that never arrived--but so was the Army's. Beauchamp had corroboration, but his confusion over Iraq and Kuwait was troubling. And we were running out of leads; one of the few remaining was a former member of Beauchamp's unit named Kristopher Kiple.
A Name! Who remembers Beauchamp's Fantasy! And might have read the fantasy, Like everyone involved most likely did. Did he ask you for a job?
You see, Mr Foer, by now anything you say gets questioned. Nothing less than FULL transcripts of ALL your conversations with EVERYONE about this will do. But we won’t be getting them from you, now will we?
"Without new evidence to be gleaned, we began to lay out the evidence we had assembled. It wasn't just the testimonials from the soldiers in his unit. Among others, we had called a forensic anthropologist and a spokesman for the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Nothing in our conversations with them had dissuaded us of the plausibility of Beauchamp's pieces."
Nothing....had dissuaded us of the plausibility...." This is really the centerpiece, the method of your defense. The allegations you and your correspondent had made, had only to be "plausible" to be true. All you had to verify, is whether things were "possible" Not whether they actually had occurred.
For an enlightening clarification on how this works, your "fact checking" with the Bradley expert went almost to the letter, down the road of "could a Bradley possibly kill a dog?" You asked as general question as you could, got the most slight whiff of a possibility, and called it "verification". Yet, you question every one else's integrity.
You are a Laughingstock. Resign. Or Hell, Stay, and give us more fodder to laugh at.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Make the picture of the MASSIVE crowd, small. Like this!
(Don't forget to mention Cavez wins elections by wide margins) Yeah... Dictators do that!
Now, When you want to report "protests", but not many people show up, you do Close-ups, Like these, of perrenial favourite Bush-ally-tyrant-Musharraf protesters.
Or just report on the "Protest", with no pictures at ALL of the actual event. Just a blow-up doll of your hero.
"It seems more “plants” are being uprooted with each passing day. Almost a third of the questioners seem to have some ties to Democratic causes or candidates."
Read the whole thing
Michelle Malkin has done the hard work
We Can tell, Becaus CNN leads with aplane crash in a foreign country. Mainly, I think, because there are good pics...
MSNBC dredges up an old favorite, Aids. Complete with "I am a victim - healthcare for all! - socialist goodness.
They could not resist a Bad pic (upnostril), and an Accusation against Rudy. This is Sourced from the NYT, Long time ally and supporter of "America's Mayor". Read some of these, then ask thyself - they are accusing Rudy of futzing the numbers?
ABC got Nuthin!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
118 arrested and 1,300 guns seized in massive firearms raid.
"Raids in hotspots which account for more than half of Britain's gun crime - Manchester, London, Liverpool and Birmingham - involved more than 1,000 officers yesterday.
The operation seized 10 handguns and £5,900 in cash. "
1000 Cops! 10 handguns! European money! What Success! And then.........
"six imitation handguns, 1,290 other realistic imitation firearms,"
UH-OH. Here we go. A raid, with 1000 Cops, yields some 1300 "guns", 6 of which were "imitation", 1290 were toys, and 4 were Airguns? With pictures of which the caption says "pretty impressive", and a file picture that has NOTHING to do with the raid, the haul, the confiscated cars?
Yet the people who wrote this trash, consider themselves the sole qualified arbiters of our window on the world. Because of "levels of editors". Or some such.
No Anti-gun meme here!
Hat Tip: BMEWS
This requires a willing suspension of belief. Thanks for the moment of clarity there, Hillary. Now - if anyone finds this grim milestone in a MSM headline today, you win $25! Good Luck.
Sadly, No. It's not a debate. It's a setup, and a bad one, at that. When Will the Republicans learn that they do not need the modern leftist press to get their message out?
C'mon guys, when you want a debate, don't do it at your enemy's behest. (Update - Someone Agrees)
Strident Republican Growls, Grimaces, And up-Nostril Shot Bonus!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
It started here - note the lame "editor's note", and the link only to the Bush Critics (3rd par.). I specifically don't include CBS in my morning headline critiques, as they have lost credibility as a news source.
Heeeheeee. Someone made a prediction about THIS headline! MSNBC with a typical "Damning But" Style Headline.
Don't Worry Hillary, CNN still loves ya! (The pic is from their front page, 8am est - article pics differ)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Read the Whole thing.
2 Things from that Article:
- Good News about the war, is bad news for Democrats, who could not successfully sabotage our efforts. (Thank
- They actually KNOW that the press cover it negatively.
I wonder how this will affect Barack's invasion plans? Think ABC will ask him?
Also, the press don't deal well in events older than 10 days, apparently. There were a few Embarrassing reasons for Bhutto leaving Pakistan in the first place..... Now, she has become the anointed again - see the good pics?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
But Musharraf is all over the headlines. Wonder why?
Because it presents a problem to President Bush, and that's news! Problems for Bush!
Socialist Dictators, well, all they ever do is provide good medical services.
Friday, November 9, 2007
It's here! But nowhere to be found here.
If a Democrat makes a doubleplus ungood speech, and the NYT ignores it - did it happen?
This is how the game is played - Talk only about the things that fit your agenda - make them "issues", and stay on that message. Never give your philosophical opponent the mic, and if you DO let him speak, make sure it is through an interpreter-Journalist who can put it in the right context for you.
The problem for readers? You are slightly dumber after you had read this publication, becase vital information is being kept from you deliberately.
That's right! The constant drums of bad economic news you hear in the distance is because of.... depressed drummers. Every stocks downturn will be drummed! Every good indication, ignored.
Ah well. Might as well move to France.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Thus quoth the editor, Rick Stengel: He'd polled his staff and found Gore to be the "runaway favorite."
That would be AFP malfeasance.
There are more of his kind, here, here and here.
In contrast: Anything that goes wrong in the (US) military gets frontpaged at CNN.
MSNBC cannot let go of scary toys blah blah.
ABC meme of the moment, The veterans are homeless! Complete with annoying, un-turn-offable sound. They sure are "Big Picture" guys, those ABC professionals
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Summary - Iraq is doing well today! But you are poorer, and bad Guns killed some children.
(Link was to The Michael Yon reference nov 7 - I dont know how to link to individual posts on Prof Reynold's site)