I'm just thinkin’ out loud here, but with LSU tanking the big one, here’s my prediction:
Providing Missouri beat Kansas.......the BCS should put them at # 1......and LSU could drop no lower than # 6 maybe # 7.......If Oklahoma wins the big twelve championship (link)........I'm thinking Kansas drops to # 9.........But who's # 2?..........if West Virginia, OSU, and Arizona St. win out they could all make a case for having that number. (If Missouri plays really bad, but wins, their one loss could come into question and then you would have four teams lookin' for that number) I'd love to see Oregon and Kansas in a game and LSU play Oklahoma.......Mizzu and W.Va in the big game and OSU and ASU in the consolation.......but I'm just thinkin' out loud. :)
If ya can't say anything else, ya can say this has been an awesome season of college football. Who needs a playoff with this kinda fun? BCS Rankings here
(And yes Mark, I do have time on my hands)....... :)
Update: ( I know all the Bowl games will mess this all up)
Friday, November 23, 2007
State of Denial
The Washington Post must sometimes have to just "grin and bear it" when Charles Krauthammer writes his columns that basically contradicts most of the Post's ideology and agenda. In today's Post Krauthammer points out the level of denial many in the democratic party are in framing the state of Iraq:
On Iraq, a State of Denial
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 23, 2007;
Page A39
"It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening."
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat".................. link
This is worth registering with the Post, (if you haven't), for it's reality that seems to be lacking on the left.
On Iraq, a State of Denial
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 23, 2007;
Page A39
"It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening."
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat".................. link
This is worth registering with the Post, (if you haven't), for it's reality that seems to be lacking on the left.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
New York Times Admits Surge is Working
Baghdad Showing Signs of Security
Yesterday marked an historical event in the United States. The "paper of record" has finally published a story that I'm sure the editors were struggling with right up to press time:
Generals on the ground say that if the situation continues at this pace, troop levels will be lowered and some will begin to get their orders to head home. Even with all the sudden changes of events through out Iraq, the Democratic Party is still pushing for legislation that demands the President abandon the new policies that have brought the Iraqi nation to the brink of real stability.
Rob at Say Anything thinks it's high time the Democrats swallow the pill of reality:
Baghdad Showing Signs of Security
Yesterday marked an historical event in the United States. The "paper of record" has finally published a story that I'm sure the editors were struggling with right up to press time:
"The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says."
"As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army."
"Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country. But the depth and sustainability of the changes remain open to question"...... LINK
Generals on the ground say that if the situation continues at this pace, troop levels will be lowered and some will begin to get their orders to head home. Even with all the sudden changes of events through out Iraq, the Democratic Party is still pushing for legislation that demands the President abandon the new policies that have brought the Iraqi nation to the brink of real stability.
Rob at Say Anything thinks it's high time the Democrats swallow the pill of reality:
"I think it’s high time we all agreed that, for now at least, the military problem in Iraq has been solved. Democrats need to quit their bellyaching in Congress, quit their attempts to undermine the war and the President’s management of it, and swallow that jagged little pill of reality. Which will be hard, as they’ve invested a lot of political capital in the idea of Iraq as a failure, but it’s what is best for the country."
"And once they do that, we can begin to talk about how to generate the political progress Iraq needs before it can become an independent, peaceful and functioning democracy in its own right. Which is something the Democrats claim to want to talk about, but always couple with a bunch of nonsense about a precipitous withdrawal of troops."
"As though abandoning Iraq to chaos were the best way to foment political stability. But then, the Democrats aren’t exactly in this for what’s best for Iraq. Or even what’s best for this country as a whole. For them, it’s all politics."Rovinsworld thinks "progress" in Iraq is the one thing the Democratic Party has not been banking on. In fact, they have put no investment into the sovereignty of a nation that has paid the price for their right to freedom from tyranny. And so has our men and women in uniform.
Please take the time to read the Anchoress's post on our "embargoed media"
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Question for One of My Favorite Bloggers
I've had Dafydd's Big Lizards blog on my "Bloggers of Choice" links for the better part of two years. The reason is obvious. Dafydd is an excellent blogger, and 99% of the time I like what he writes. Some time (early last summer) the grand lizard (Dafydd) argued in a post that this immigration reform bill would become a divisive wedge issue that could hurt the Republican Party. I submitted the comment that if the RNC approved this legislation it would come back to bite the Party because many did not approve of the "amnesty implications" in the bill.
That's the crust of the argument in a ruff nutshell.
What I would like to ask Dafydd NOW is with the current events that have unfolded with Hillary's drivers license "yes, no, yes, no" and (with the exception of Joe Biden) every democratic presidential candidate basically condoning issuing DL's to illegal immigrants, where does he stand now on using this issue to place the democrats in the hot water next year?
With over 70% of the people in this nation firmly against the issuing or DL's to illegals, AND 80% of the democratic leadership, (including candidates) firmly in favor, shouldn't this issue be a major "player" in next years election cycle?
Does Dafydd think this will still hurt the party? What do you think?
(editors note: sorry for the lack of links to last summers debate on this issue. I will try to insert them at a later date as they are found......Also, will Hillary's "NO" in the debate make this issue a little less impacted?)
Update: Dave at Ace of Spades thinks Hillary has "Taken a "Stand"
That's the crust of the argument in a ruff nutshell.
What I would like to ask Dafydd NOW is with the current events that have unfolded with Hillary's drivers license "yes, no, yes, no" and (with the exception of Joe Biden) every democratic presidential candidate basically condoning issuing DL's to illegal immigrants, where does he stand now on using this issue to place the democrats in the hot water next year?
With over 70% of the people in this nation firmly against the issuing or DL's to illegals, AND 80% of the democratic leadership, (including candidates) firmly in favor, shouldn't this issue be a major "player" in next years election cycle?
Does Dafydd think this will still hurt the party? What do you think?
(editors note: sorry for the lack of links to last summers debate on this issue. I will try to insert them at a later date as they are found......Also, will Hillary's "NO" in the debate make this issue a little less impacted?)
Update: Dave at Ace of Spades thinks Hillary has "Taken a "Stand"
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Simi-Live Blogging the Democratic Debate
The Clueless Party Met in Vegas
It's official--------the Democratic Party is toast. None of the candidates (except Joe Biden) wants to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving driver’s licenses. None (except Joe Biden) has a clue on how to put the safety and security of this nation ahead of world appeasement.
When it comes to fighting against radical Islamist that has the sole goal of destroying this nation, again only Joe Biden has a clue. The rest of the democratic candidates have to pander to the anti-war left to solidify their position to have any chance at being elected. There in lies the division. Not the division within the party itself, but the division within this nation that does not recognize the threat from abroad. Christopher Dodd understands that we are in a global economy and we need to be competitive. Obama thinks everything that comes out of his young mouth is "the right thing to do".
CNN is not only hosting a Democratic debate. CNN is framing most of their questions to frame the difference of ideologies between conservatives and democrats. Obama just told Blitzer that we need to be more positive about the solutions facing this nation, and not so negative. Wolffie said "I’m optimistic"
Clinton says she not paying the gender card, she's playing the winning card and she knows this was coming because she is winning. She said "I am thrilled to become the first women president" Now she says she's not running because she's a woman. Johnnie thinks Clinton takes too much money from special interest. Johnnie’s full of rhetoric and will not say anything that does not denigrate the Bush administration or Hillary.
BRAKE IN THE ACTION. (Disclaimer: I have to fix me a cocktail after hearing this entire BS)
IT'S OVER------TV IS NOW OFF AND IT WAS CLOSE TO BEING THROWN OUT THE WINDOW -FIRST QUESTION BY THE "SELECTED" AUDIENCE, CNN MARCHES OUT A MOM WITH HER SON WHO HAS SERVED 3 TOURS IN IRAQ. (STANDING OVATION) THE QUESTION BY SOME BIMBO WORKING FOR CNN IS " YOU ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOUR SON RETURNING TO IRAQ, YOU ARE AFRAID OF YOUR SON HAVING TO BE CALLED BACK TO FIGHT IN IRAN.......
I SAID EARLIER IN THIS POST THIS WAS A FRAMED IDEOLOGY BETWEEN THE LEFTOIDS (CNN, NBC, ANTI WAR LEFTOIDS) AND THOSE WHO SEE THE DANGER.
THIS IS THE FRACTURED MENTALITY OF A LOST PARTY THAT REFUSES TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS NATION NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED.
OK, I TURNED THE TV BACK ON TO HEAR THE "WE HATE THE MILITARY" REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THEY HAVE ONLY ANSWERS FOR HOW TO RUN FROM THIS THREAT.
JOHNNIE SAYS THE PROFILING NEEDS TO STOP AND THE PATRIOT ACT NEEDS REFORMING, CLOSING GUANTANAMO. WHOA THEIR ATTACKING THE PATRIOT ACT MORE. KUSINICH GOT HIS IMPEACHMENT ACT IN........RICHARDSON SAYS WE NEED TO STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE SOUTHERN MEXICANS.
WOLFFIE DOESNT LIKE DODDS ANSWERS----OR BIDENS----TOO CONSERVATIVE!
SOCIAL SECURITY--------OBAMAS AN IDIOT WITH IS "IT'S GW'S FAULT" CLINTON'S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY......LONG TERM CHALLENGES....FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BIPARTISAN COMMISSION......MEDICARE SHOULD......OBAMA RISES.....TO CLINTON AND SAYS WE ARE USING NUMBERS THAT CLINTON RISES.....SHE REPRESENTS FIRE FIGHTERS? SHE SAYS WHERE SHE WAS FROM THE BEGINNING, BLAAA BLAAA,BLAAAA AND THATS WHERE SHE STANDS.....WHAT??????
TV BREAK...........
IF THIS IS THE BEST THE DEMS HAVE TO OFFER FOR LEADERSHIP IN THIS NATION, WE CAN ALL PRAY THAT WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE NEXT NOVEMBER.
SUPREME COURT AND "DO YOU SUPPORT A JUSTICE THAT SUPPORTS ABORTION RIGHTS.......(ANOTHER CNN BS QUESTION)
GOING SOWN THE LIST FROM LEFT TO RIGHT SO FAR NO CANDIDATE HAS SAID THEY WILL DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS MERITS OF WHAT THE FOUNDER INTENDED.
NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTION......BLAMES BUSH.......
CLINTON SAYS WE ALL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AND THAT IS WHAT SHE DID AS A NY SENATOR???? BIDEN SAYS THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS THINK THIS WAR SUCKS.........WOLFIE CAN’T GET THE CANDIDATES TO SHUT UP
FINALLY.......IT'S OVER.........WHAT A JOKE.......HERE COMES THE REPORTERS.......ANDERSON COOPER.......RETAKES.....OBAMA AND EDWARDS ARE BOOED WHEN THEY ATTACK THE HILLDABEAST.
CARVILLE SAYS THE FIREWORKS BEGAN IN THE FIRST FEW MINUTES AND THEN THE CANDIDATES SETTLED DOWN TO REALIZE THAT THEY WERE EATING THE YOUNG.
REPLAY......CLINTON SAYS MUDSLINGING FROM EDWARDS WAS NOT APPRECIATED
CLINTONS ONE WORD ANSWER ON THE DL DEBACLE WAS "NO" SHE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE NY GOV......IT’S INSINUATED THAT SHE GOT THE GOV TO BACK OFF HIS AGENDA.......
(editors note: This post was created under duress by the fact that I had to listen to so much puke for mush of two hours. Forgive the structure. CNN didn't have it. And neither did the candidates.) (how many times can one group "have a plan" or knows what "comprehensive immigration" means?)
It's official--------the Democratic Party is toast. None of the candidates (except Joe Biden) wants to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving driver’s licenses. None (except Joe Biden) has a clue on how to put the safety and security of this nation ahead of world appeasement.
When it comes to fighting against radical Islamist that has the sole goal of destroying this nation, again only Joe Biden has a clue. The rest of the democratic candidates have to pander to the anti-war left to solidify their position to have any chance at being elected. There in lies the division. Not the division within the party itself, but the division within this nation that does not recognize the threat from abroad. Christopher Dodd understands that we are in a global economy and we need to be competitive. Obama thinks everything that comes out of his young mouth is "the right thing to do".
CNN is not only hosting a Democratic debate. CNN is framing most of their questions to frame the difference of ideologies between conservatives and democrats. Obama just told Blitzer that we need to be more positive about the solutions facing this nation, and not so negative. Wolffie said "I’m optimistic"
Clinton says she not paying the gender card, she's playing the winning card and she knows this was coming because she is winning. She said "I am thrilled to become the first women president" Now she says she's not running because she's a woman. Johnnie thinks Clinton takes too much money from special interest. Johnnie’s full of rhetoric and will not say anything that does not denigrate the Bush administration or Hillary.
BRAKE IN THE ACTION. (Disclaimer: I have to fix me a cocktail after hearing this entire BS)
IT'S OVER------TV IS NOW OFF AND IT WAS CLOSE TO BEING THROWN OUT THE WINDOW -FIRST QUESTION BY THE "SELECTED" AUDIENCE, CNN MARCHES OUT A MOM WITH HER SON WHO HAS SERVED 3 TOURS IN IRAQ. (STANDING OVATION) THE QUESTION BY SOME BIMBO WORKING FOR CNN IS " YOU ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOUR SON RETURNING TO IRAQ, YOU ARE AFRAID OF YOUR SON HAVING TO BE CALLED BACK TO FIGHT IN IRAN.......
I SAID EARLIER IN THIS POST THIS WAS A FRAMED IDEOLOGY BETWEEN THE LEFTOIDS (CNN, NBC, ANTI WAR LEFTOIDS) AND THOSE WHO SEE THE DANGER.
THIS IS THE FRACTURED MENTALITY OF A LOST PARTY THAT REFUSES TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS NATION NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED.
OK, I TURNED THE TV BACK ON TO HEAR THE "WE HATE THE MILITARY" REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THEY HAVE ONLY ANSWERS FOR HOW TO RUN FROM THIS THREAT.
JOHNNIE SAYS THE PROFILING NEEDS TO STOP AND THE PATRIOT ACT NEEDS REFORMING, CLOSING GUANTANAMO. WHOA THEIR ATTACKING THE PATRIOT ACT MORE. KUSINICH GOT HIS IMPEACHMENT ACT IN........RICHARDSON SAYS WE NEED TO STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE SOUTHERN MEXICANS.
WOLFFIE DOESNT LIKE DODDS ANSWERS----OR BIDENS----TOO CONSERVATIVE!
SOCIAL SECURITY--------OBAMAS AN IDIOT WITH IS "IT'S GW'S FAULT" CLINTON'S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY......LONG TERM CHALLENGES....FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BIPARTISAN COMMISSION......MEDICARE SHOULD......OBAMA RISES.....TO CLINTON AND SAYS WE ARE USING NUMBERS THAT CLINTON RISES.....SHE REPRESENTS FIRE FIGHTERS? SHE SAYS WHERE SHE WAS FROM THE BEGINNING, BLAAA BLAAA,BLAAAA AND THATS WHERE SHE STANDS.....WHAT??????
TV BREAK...........
IF THIS IS THE BEST THE DEMS HAVE TO OFFER FOR LEADERSHIP IN THIS NATION, WE CAN ALL PRAY THAT WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE NEXT NOVEMBER.
SUPREME COURT AND "DO YOU SUPPORT A JUSTICE THAT SUPPORTS ABORTION RIGHTS.......(ANOTHER CNN BS QUESTION)
GOING SOWN THE LIST FROM LEFT TO RIGHT SO FAR NO CANDIDATE HAS SAID THEY WILL DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS MERITS OF WHAT THE FOUNDER INTENDED.
NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTION......BLAMES BUSH.......
CLINTON SAYS WE ALL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AND THAT IS WHAT SHE DID AS A NY SENATOR???? BIDEN SAYS THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS THINK THIS WAR SUCKS.........WOLFIE CAN’T GET THE CANDIDATES TO SHUT UP
FINALLY.......IT'S OVER.........WHAT A JOKE.......HERE COMES THE REPORTERS.......ANDERSON COOPER.......RETAKES.....OBAMA AND EDWARDS ARE BOOED WHEN THEY ATTACK THE HILLDABEAST.
CARVILLE SAYS THE FIREWORKS BEGAN IN THE FIRST FEW MINUTES AND THEN THE CANDIDATES SETTLED DOWN TO REALIZE THAT THEY WERE EATING THE YOUNG.
REPLAY......CLINTON SAYS MUDSLINGING FROM EDWARDS WAS NOT APPRECIATED
CLINTONS ONE WORD ANSWER ON THE DL DEBACLE WAS "NO" SHE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE NY GOV......IT’S INSINUATED THAT SHE GOT THE GOV TO BACK OFF HIS AGENDA.......
(editors note: This post was created under duress by the fact that I had to listen to so much puke for mush of two hours. Forgive the structure. CNN didn't have it. And neither did the candidates.) (how many times can one group "have a plan" or knows what "comprehensive immigration" means?)
When Once is not Enough.......Try it another 58 times
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wasted another day pandering to their anti-war cut and run crowd passing a military funding bill that will go absolutely nowhere:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — The House on Wednesday approved $50 billion of the nearly $200 billion that President Bush had requested for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but attached many strings to the measure, virtually guaranteeing that Senate Republicans would block it. (LINK) (editors note: The New York Times change their links like they change their diapers-----example)
This is the 58th time the 110th congress has attempted to micro-manage a war while they have barely managed to pass 2008 appropriations that were due October 1st. While Washington Post staff writer Thomas E. Ricks files this story suggesting that the Iraqi government is missing the boat, one could suggest that the Democrats look in the mirror:
Iraqis Wasting An Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say
With Attacks Ebbing, Government Is Urged to Reach Out to Opponents
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A01
CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq -- Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.
In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it's unclear how long that window is going to be open." LINK
Wouldn't it be nice if our government took some similar advice and provided some legislation that actually meant something t0 this nation?
Note to Democratic Congress: OUR MILITARY FORCES ARE WINNING THIS WAR WITH OUT YOUR "HELP" OR INTERFERENCE. Troops are already coming home and 3-5 brigades may be coming home early next year. The protest signs should read: U.S. CONGRESS OUT OF IRAQ!
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wasted another day pandering to their anti-war cut and run crowd passing a military funding bill that will go absolutely nowhere:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — The House on Wednesday approved $50 billion of the nearly $200 billion that President Bush had requested for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but attached many strings to the measure, virtually guaranteeing that Senate Republicans would block it. (LINK) (editors note: The New York Times change their links like they change their diapers-----example)
This is the 58th time the 110th congress has attempted to micro-manage a war while they have barely managed to pass 2008 appropriations that were due October 1st. While Washington Post staff writer Thomas E. Ricks files this story suggesting that the Iraqi government is missing the boat, one could suggest that the Democrats look in the mirror:
Iraqis Wasting An Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say
With Attacks Ebbing, Government Is Urged to Reach Out to Opponents
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A01
CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq -- Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.
In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it's unclear how long that window is going to be open." LINK
Wouldn't it be nice if our government took some similar advice and provided some legislation that actually meant something t0 this nation?
Note to Democratic Congress: OUR MILITARY FORCES ARE WINNING THIS WAR WITH OUT YOUR "HELP" OR INTERFERENCE. Troops are already coming home and 3-5 brigades may be coming home early next year. The protest signs should read: U.S. CONGRESS OUT OF IRAQ!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Markos Moulitsas to Cover Presidential Election for Newsweek
Newsweek press release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, November 13, 2007
MARKOS MOULITSAS, FOUNDER AND PUBLISHER OF DAILYKOS.COM, TO BECOME NEWSWEEK CONTRIBUTOR FOR 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
New York — Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of dailykos.com, will become a Newsweek contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign, offering occasional opinion pieces to the pages of the magazine and to Newsweek.com.
"We have always sought to represent a diversity of views in Newsweek, and we think Markos will be a great part of that tradition," said Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. "He will give our readers in print and online a unique perspective. As always, our job is to create the most energetic and illuminating magazine possible, and Markos will help us do that as the campaign unfolds."
Moulitsas thinks that Newsweek will hire (invite) a conservative to "balance" out his "unique perspective" and to that I say:
"Balance him out? Why bother?"
"Moulitsas solipsism hardly allows for "balance" in his perception of reality. I'd like to see Newsweek expand on what they define as "unique perspective". Will Newsweek provide a link to KOS with each "perspective" written? And will KOS link to Newsweek?"
"The "media concert" is still in the early stages and we can look forward for more stooges joining the orchestra. This is but a small part in what the "investment" the mainstream media will undertake in the months ahead to shape the dialogue of todays electorial process. And there will be little "balance" in their confabulations."
John Stephenson at Newsbusters and Ed at Captain's Quarters have posted storys about this 'assignment".
Newsweek press release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, November 13, 2007
MARKOS MOULITSAS, FOUNDER AND PUBLISHER OF DAILYKOS.COM, TO BECOME NEWSWEEK CONTRIBUTOR FOR 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
New York — Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of dailykos.com, will become a Newsweek contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign, offering occasional opinion pieces to the pages of the magazine and to Newsweek.com.
"We have always sought to represent a diversity of views in Newsweek, and we think Markos will be a great part of that tradition," said Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. "He will give our readers in print and online a unique perspective. As always, our job is to create the most energetic and illuminating magazine possible, and Markos will help us do that as the campaign unfolds."
Moulitsas thinks that Newsweek will hire (invite) a conservative to "balance" out his "unique perspective" and to that I say:
"Balance him out? Why bother?"
"Moulitsas solipsism hardly allows for "balance" in his perception of reality. I'd like to see Newsweek expand on what they define as "unique perspective". Will Newsweek provide a link to KOS with each "perspective" written? And will KOS link to Newsweek?"
"The "media concert" is still in the early stages and we can look forward for more stooges joining the orchestra. This is but a small part in what the "investment" the mainstream media will undertake in the months ahead to shape the dialogue of todays electorial process. And there will be little "balance" in their confabulations."
John Stephenson at Newsbusters and Ed at Captain's Quarters have posted storys about this 'assignment".
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
US STOCKS-Market soars on tech, banks, Wal-Mart and oil
Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:31pm EST
By Ellis Mnyandu
NEW YORK, Nov 13 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks snapped a four-day losing streak on Tuesday with Nasdaq notching its biggest gain in more than four years after news that Apple Inc (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) was in talks to offer iPhones in China sent investors bargain hunting among battered technology stocks.
Reassurance from the chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) that the investment bank does not face big credit losses helped ignite a rally in financial stocks, easing some worries about the breadth of the credit crisis.
Retailers also caught fire when surprisingly strong earnings from Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and another big drop in oil prices eased worry about consumer spending on the doorstep of the holiday shopping season. U.S. oil futures ended below $92 a barrel..............LINK
Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:31pm EST
By Ellis Mnyandu
NEW YORK, Nov 13 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks snapped a four-day losing streak on Tuesday with Nasdaq notching its biggest gain in more than four years after news that Apple Inc (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) was in talks to offer iPhones in China sent investors bargain hunting among battered technology stocks.
Reassurance from the chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) that the investment bank does not face big credit losses helped ignite a rally in financial stocks, easing some worries about the breadth of the credit crisis.
Retailers also caught fire when surprisingly strong earnings from Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and another big drop in oil prices eased worry about consumer spending on the doorstep of the holiday shopping season. U.S. oil futures ended below $92 a barrel..............LINK
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Salute to Our Veterans
The top photo is my father, a UNITED STATES MARINE
WE HONOR ALL OUR VETERANS FOR THEIR SACRIFICE AND DEVOTION TO A GRATEFUL NATION-----GOD BLESS THEM ALL
New York Times Swaps, (Creates Own Biased) Headline
The New York Times (Online) yesterday took an AP story that told an incredible tale of Iraqis asking the U.S. military to stay out of a fight where they killed 18 bad guys, AND inserted their own biased headline. Here's the original story released by Associated Press:
Nov 10, 9:14 AM EST
Clash in Iraq Kills 18 al-Qaida Members
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq launched an attack against the terror group and killed 18 of its members, asking the U.S. military to stay away while the battle raged, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.
Most members of the Islamic Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, joined U.S. forces battling al-Qaida in Iraq earlier this year, though some of the group's leaders deny any contact with American troops.
A top Islamic Army leader, known as Abu Ibrahim, told The Associated Press that his fighters ambushed al-Qaida members near Samarra on Friday, killing 18 people and seizing 16 prisoners..............
"We found out that al-Qaida intended to attack us, so we ambushed them at 3 p.m. on Friday," Abu Ibrahim said.
He asked that Iraqi authorities inform the American military about his plans, and requested that no U.S. troops interfere, they said. He worried that U.S. helicopters might mistakenly fire on his fighters, since they had no uniforms and were indistinguishable from the al-Qaida militants, they said............(full AP story)
Was this headline by AP good enough for the New York Times?
The answer is NO!
Here's the same story, but with a different headline:
Roadside Bombs Across Iraq Kill Seven
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 10, 2007
Filed at 9:13 a.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq launched an attack against the terror group and killed 18 of its members, asking the U.S. military to stay away while the battle raged, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.
Most members of the Islamic Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, joined U.S. forces battling al-Qaida in Iraq earlier this year, though some of the group's leaders deny any contact with American troops.
A top Islamic Army leader, known as Abu Ibrahim, told The Associated Press that his fighters ambushed al-Qaida members near Samarra on Friday, killing 18 people and seizing 16 prisoners................ (New York Times Link Here)
14 paragraphs down (in both story's) this was written:
"Meanwhile, roadside bombs and shootings killed at least 12 Iraqis early Saturday, police said, and the American military issued a statement saying a U.S. soldier was killed in Diyala province."
While I'm still trying to decipher where the "seven" comes from in the NYT's headline, I wrote an email to the public editor and asked "if this is common practice to change headlines submitted by AP to suit a particular bias"? A automated reponse was returned that said they will look into this matter and get back to me (if necessary). My response to the New York Times------ IT'S NECESSARY!
EDITORS NOTE: ( I plan on doing a little follow up on this in the next few days to give the Times a chance to respond. Please check back.)
UPDATE: NOW IT APPEARS THE LINKS TO BOTH STORIES HAVE BEEN CHANGED. NOW THE LINKS TAKE YOU TO THIS:
Nov 11, 10:12 AM EST
Iraqi Leader Says Baghdad Violence Down
Did the AP change this link? Where's the Saturday story to this link?
TWO WORDS FOR AP AND THE NEW YORK TIMES-----SCREEN CAPTURE!
The New York Times (Online) yesterday took an AP story that told an incredible tale of Iraqis asking the U.S. military to stay out of a fight where they killed 18 bad guys, AND inserted their own biased headline. Here's the original story released by Associated Press:
Nov 10, 9:14 AM EST
Clash in Iraq Kills 18 al-Qaida Members
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq launched an attack against the terror group and killed 18 of its members, asking the U.S. military to stay away while the battle raged, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.
Most members of the Islamic Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, joined U.S. forces battling al-Qaida in Iraq earlier this year, though some of the group's leaders deny any contact with American troops.
A top Islamic Army leader, known as Abu Ibrahim, told The Associated Press that his fighters ambushed al-Qaida members near Samarra on Friday, killing 18 people and seizing 16 prisoners..............
"We found out that al-Qaida intended to attack us, so we ambushed them at 3 p.m. on Friday," Abu Ibrahim said.
He asked that Iraqi authorities inform the American military about his plans, and requested that no U.S. troops interfere, they said. He worried that U.S. helicopters might mistakenly fire on his fighters, since they had no uniforms and were indistinguishable from the al-Qaida militants, they said............(full AP story)
Was this headline by AP good enough for the New York Times?
The answer is NO!
Here's the same story, but with a different headline:
Roadside Bombs Across Iraq Kill Seven
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 10, 2007
Filed at 9:13 a.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq launched an attack against the terror group and killed 18 of its members, asking the U.S. military to stay away while the battle raged, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.
Most members of the Islamic Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, joined U.S. forces battling al-Qaida in Iraq earlier this year, though some of the group's leaders deny any contact with American troops.
A top Islamic Army leader, known as Abu Ibrahim, told The Associated Press that his fighters ambushed al-Qaida members near Samarra on Friday, killing 18 people and seizing 16 prisoners................ (New York Times Link Here)
14 paragraphs down (in both story's) this was written:
"Meanwhile, roadside bombs and shootings killed at least 12 Iraqis early Saturday, police said, and the American military issued a statement saying a U.S. soldier was killed in Diyala province."
While I'm still trying to decipher where the "seven" comes from in the NYT's headline, I wrote an email to the public editor and asked "if this is common practice to change headlines submitted by AP to suit a particular bias"? A automated reponse was returned that said they will look into this matter and get back to me (if necessary). My response to the New York Times------ IT'S NECESSARY!
EDITORS NOTE: ( I plan on doing a little follow up on this in the next few days to give the Times a chance to respond. Please check back.)
UPDATE: NOW IT APPEARS THE LINKS TO BOTH STORIES HAVE BEEN CHANGED. NOW THE LINKS TAKE YOU TO THIS:
Nov 11, 10:12 AM EST
Iraqi Leader Says Baghdad Violence Down
Did the AP change this link? Where's the Saturday story to this link?
TWO WORDS FOR AP AND THE NEW YORK TIMES-----SCREEN CAPTURE!
Friday, November 09, 2007
Now is the Time for an American Surge!
by Rovin
With the "sudden" changes in the tides of war in Iraq brought about by Gen. Petraeus, the surge, and the change in the rules of engagement, now seems to be a good time to recognize the sacrifices that our brave men and women have endured, (tour after tour), with an “AMERICAN SURGE” of our own. An organized nation-wide salute to our troops for a final push to what we can call VICTORY in Iraq. We, (this nation), need to let our "battle-weary" know that we are beside them 100% in the cause for a free and independent Iraq and the defeat of our enemies.
With the Hollywood (traitorous) left preparing to release a barrage of movies that berates the sacrifices our military have made, we need to shout from the rooftops that this nation will not accept the defeatist attitude Hollywood is attempting to portray. List the movies that they plan to release and send them across the blogosphere that WE WILL NOT ATTEND their revisionist screed that denigrates our troops in harms way.(include list below)
Let the anti-war left know that this nation will not be defeated again by those who hate our military as much as they hate our President. Tell them we will not turn our backs on the sacrifices this nation has endured and they will be on the wrong side of history in defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them all know that the political ambitions of the left that they have put ahead of the greater good of this nation will not be forgotten, or forgiven in the near future.
This "battle" also needs to be waged in the mainstream media that have been the promoters of defeat with their lies and sick propaganda that has only encouraged our enemies. The garbage written by the Richs, Krugmans, Dowds, (add to this list), should be also published through-out the sphere. Let their advertiser's know we do not plan on supporting their products under these conditions.
We need a SURGE of our own------ right here at home to let our hero's overseas know that we will not be defeated here either.
TAKE A STAND ------ TAKE THE REIGNS --- TAKE A LEAD --- WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BY THE COWARDS WHO ACCEPT AND PROMOTE DEFEAT.
RISE ABOVE THE LOSERS OF THE LEFT WHO HAVE SHAMED THEMSELVES AND THIS NATION FOR THEIR SELFISH POLITICAL GAIN, WHILE THEY HAVE TURNED THEIR BACKS ON OUR FIGHTING MILITARY.
MAKE THIS ACTION AN “AMERICAN” GROUNDSWELL SURGE THAT EVERY SOLDIER WILL HEAR ACROSS THE OCEANS ------ LET THEM ALL KNOW WE ARE AT THEIR SIDE IN VICTORY!
(editor's note: This post will be edited several times through-out the month to include a list of the people who promote defeat----publishers, advertisers, politicians, and the Hollywood writers, producers, and advertisers that shame this great nation-----this will be my personal crusade-------JOIN ME!)
Update: Curt at Flopping Aces has a post up you won't find in the MSM titled The Success Not Reported with excellent graphs and stats. (h/t Vets For Freedom)
Troop Support Blogs:
Support Our Troops
America Supports You
The Victory Caucus
by Rovin
With the "sudden" changes in the tides of war in Iraq brought about by Gen. Petraeus, the surge, and the change in the rules of engagement, now seems to be a good time to recognize the sacrifices that our brave men and women have endured, (tour after tour), with an “AMERICAN SURGE” of our own. An organized nation-wide salute to our troops for a final push to what we can call VICTORY in Iraq. We, (this nation), need to let our "battle-weary" know that we are beside them 100% in the cause for a free and independent Iraq and the defeat of our enemies.
With the Hollywood (traitorous) left preparing to release a barrage of movies that berates the sacrifices our military have made, we need to shout from the rooftops that this nation will not accept the defeatist attitude Hollywood is attempting to portray. List the movies that they plan to release and send them across the blogosphere that WE WILL NOT ATTEND their revisionist screed that denigrates our troops in harms way.(include list below)
Let the anti-war left know that this nation will not be defeated again by those who hate our military as much as they hate our President. Tell them we will not turn our backs on the sacrifices this nation has endured and they will be on the wrong side of history in defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them all know that the political ambitions of the left that they have put ahead of the greater good of this nation will not be forgotten, or forgiven in the near future.
This "battle" also needs to be waged in the mainstream media that have been the promoters of defeat with their lies and sick propaganda that has only encouraged our enemies. The garbage written by the Richs, Krugmans, Dowds, (add to this list), should be also published through-out the sphere. Let their advertiser's know we do not plan on supporting their products under these conditions.
We need a SURGE of our own------ right here at home to let our hero's overseas know that we will not be defeated here either.
TAKE A STAND ------ TAKE THE REIGNS --- TAKE A LEAD --- WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BY THE COWARDS WHO ACCEPT AND PROMOTE DEFEAT.
RISE ABOVE THE LOSERS OF THE LEFT WHO HAVE SHAMED THEMSELVES AND THIS NATION FOR THEIR SELFISH POLITICAL GAIN, WHILE THEY HAVE TURNED THEIR BACKS ON OUR FIGHTING MILITARY.
MAKE THIS ACTION AN “AMERICAN” GROUNDSWELL SURGE THAT EVERY SOLDIER WILL HEAR ACROSS THE OCEANS ------ LET THEM ALL KNOW WE ARE AT THEIR SIDE IN VICTORY!
(editor's note: This post will be edited several times through-out the month to include a list of the people who promote defeat----publishers, advertisers, politicians, and the Hollywood writers, producers, and advertisers that shame this great nation-----this will be my personal crusade-------JOIN ME!)
Update: Curt at Flopping Aces has a post up you won't find in the MSM titled The Success Not Reported with excellent graphs and stats. (h/t Vets For Freedom)
Troop Support Blogs:
Support Our Troops
America Supports You
The Victory Caucus
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Pelosi--Harry Reid --- Democratic Leadership Holding Vets Hostage
The Veteran's Funding Bill has been approved in committee and should be headed to President Bush's desk, but the majority party has decided to attach another bill with nine billion in pork added. Email and call your democratic leadership and tell them to let this bill go to the President unattached and stop hurting our military.
The Veteran's Funding Bill has been approved in committee and should be headed to President Bush's desk, but the majority party has decided to attach another bill with nine billion in pork added. Email and call your democratic leadership and tell them to let this bill go to the President unattached and stop hurting our military.
New York Times Cheerleading for MSNBC's Continued Bush Bashing
by Rovin
The New York Times (Business section) thinks it's a good idea to continue to lean left and attack the Bush Administration by contorting a "wave" of Keith Olbermann followers, (drones and Koskids), while pushing General Electric, (Parent Company of NBC) to dump Tucker Carlson for Rosie O’Donnell :
Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left
Riding a ratings wave from "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," a program that takes strong issue with the Bush administration, MSNBC is increasingly seeking to showcase its nighttime lineup as a welcome haven for viewers of a similar mind.
Lest there be any doubt that the cable channel believes there is ratings gold in shows that criticize the administration with the same vigor with which Fox News’s hosts often champion it, two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie O’Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC............. LINK (registration required)
Where the "wave" comes from, this blogger would like to know given the current cable news ratings of Olbermann's program:
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 1,454,000 viewers
CNN – 590,000 viewers
MSNBC- 549,000 viewers
CNBC –193,000 viewers
HLN – 386,000 viewers
8PM - P2+ (25-54)
O’Reilly Factor- 1,824,000 viewers (265,000)
Countdown w/ Olbermann- 789,000 viewers (193,000)
( How old are the other 1.5 million Factor viewers?)
Source: Inside Cable News:
If this is what the New York Times calls a "wave", what do they call the latest newsprint decline----"a ripple in a pond"?
NEW YORK The Audit Bureau of Circulations released circulation numbers for more than 700 daily newspapers this morning for the six-month period ending September 2007. Of the top 25 papers in daily circulation (see chart, separate story), only four showed gains.
For The New York Times, daily circulation fell 4.51% to 1,037,828 and Sunday plunged 7.59% to 1,500,394, at least partly due to a price increase.
Keep up the "good work". Any more leaning left and they'll be sideways.
by Rovin
The New York Times (Business section) thinks it's a good idea to continue to lean left and attack the Bush Administration by contorting a "wave" of Keith Olbermann followers, (drones and Koskids), while pushing General Electric, (Parent Company of NBC) to dump Tucker Carlson for Rosie O’Donnell :
Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left
Riding a ratings wave from "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," a program that takes strong issue with the Bush administration, MSNBC is increasingly seeking to showcase its nighttime lineup as a welcome haven for viewers of a similar mind.
Lest there be any doubt that the cable channel believes there is ratings gold in shows that criticize the administration with the same vigor with which Fox News’s hosts often champion it, two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie O’Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC............. LINK (registration required)
Where the "wave" comes from, this blogger would like to know given the current cable news ratings of Olbermann's program:
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 1,454,000 viewers
CNN – 590,000 viewers
MSNBC- 549,000 viewers
CNBC –193,000 viewers
HLN – 386,000 viewers
8PM - P2+ (25-54)
O’Reilly Factor- 1,824,000 viewers (265,000)
Countdown w/ Olbermann- 789,000 viewers (193,000)
( How old are the other 1.5 million Factor viewers?)
Source: Inside Cable News:
If this is what the New York Times calls a "wave", what do they call the latest newsprint decline----"a ripple in a pond"?
NEW YORK The Audit Bureau of Circulations released circulation numbers for more than 700 daily newspapers this morning for the six-month period ending September 2007. Of the top 25 papers in daily circulation (see chart, separate story), only four showed gains.
For The New York Times, daily circulation fell 4.51% to 1,037,828 and Sunday plunged 7.59% to 1,500,394, at least partly due to a price increase.
Keep up the "good work". Any more leaning left and they'll be sideways.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Chink in the Clinton Armor........
(via Matt Lewis at Townhall)
Actually, this is far more than a "chink in the armor". More like a defining moment when voters are looking for a leader that takes a stand (on one side of the fence or the other) on this issue of illegal immigration. Clinton knows very well if she "jumps" off the fence to either side, she will alienate a strong portion of a voting block. This is nothing new for the style of governing that the previous Clinton administration illustrated by checking the direction of the wind daily. If Hillary wants to run for a national meteorologist position, she may have my vote. But in a post 9/11 era when we are at war, fence-sitting is a sign of weakness. This nation cannot afford to elect a President that is not committed to the safety and security of its people. Senator Clinton believes she can ride the wave to the White House with out being COMMITTED to anything.
(via Matt Lewis at Townhall)
Actually, this is far more than a "chink in the armor". More like a defining moment when voters are looking for a leader that takes a stand (on one side of the fence or the other) on this issue of illegal immigration. Clinton knows very well if she "jumps" off the fence to either side, she will alienate a strong portion of a voting block. This is nothing new for the style of governing that the previous Clinton administration illustrated by checking the direction of the wind daily. If Hillary wants to run for a national meteorologist position, she may have my vote. But in a post 9/11 era when we are at war, fence-sitting is a sign of weakness. This nation cannot afford to elect a President that is not committed to the safety and security of its people. Senator Clinton believes she can ride the wave to the White House with out being COMMITTED to anything.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Mainstream Media Can't Find Faults in So Cal Fire Operation
But they're trying........
Why is the mainstream media attempting (and failing) to find only the negative stories in the tragedy that is still unfolding in Southern California? For the past two days the msm has tried to drive a "story" that there was not enough equipment and manpower to battle the firestorms that broke out across the region. The FACTS are that while the infrastructure was mobilizing and setting up parameters, the wind velocity was so dangerously fierce that it was decided that the planes would remain grounded for the direct safety of the pilots and crew onboard. Ask a pilot if he would care to fly through mountain passes where the Santa Anna winds are blowing with gust ranging on some days between 75 and 110 mph. Meanwhile CNN this morning (Thursday, Oct. 25th) are still asking this question to anyone who will be interviewed still hoping to find an idiot that will say they could have flown. With the President now in flight to visit the region, I'm sure that it will be reported by one or more of the major networks that proclaim the President was too slow getting to the scene. The "hate Bush" agenda of the MSM (that began it's infancy in 2000) is to find FAULT where ever they can and "create" a connection to the Bush Administration. This agenda has become so obvious that even many on the moderate left have held their collective heads in shame. And yet they still continue to self-destruct what little credibility that remained within their "journalistic" prowess. Even as I write this MSNBC is running the story of Governor Schwarzenegger telling a "journalist"(paraphrasing) "you’re looking for mistakes in this operation and it's all good news". "As much as you hate it, it's ALL GOOD NEWS!"
While the Terminator was holding the reporter's hand (gently) he should have stuck his big powerful hand right in her face and said "talk to the hand". And then chucked the reporter and her MSM's ilk over the side of the hill and into the fires of their depravation. Of course this could only happen in the movies. Take # 2007.......Action!
But they're trying........
Why is the mainstream media attempting (and failing) to find only the negative stories in the tragedy that is still unfolding in Southern California? For the past two days the msm has tried to drive a "story" that there was not enough equipment and manpower to battle the firestorms that broke out across the region. The FACTS are that while the infrastructure was mobilizing and setting up parameters, the wind velocity was so dangerously fierce that it was decided that the planes would remain grounded for the direct safety of the pilots and crew onboard. Ask a pilot if he would care to fly through mountain passes where the Santa Anna winds are blowing with gust ranging on some days between 75 and 110 mph. Meanwhile CNN this morning (Thursday, Oct. 25th) are still asking this question to anyone who will be interviewed still hoping to find an idiot that will say they could have flown. With the President now in flight to visit the region, I'm sure that it will be reported by one or more of the major networks that proclaim the President was too slow getting to the scene. The "hate Bush" agenda of the MSM (that began it's infancy in 2000) is to find FAULT where ever they can and "create" a connection to the Bush Administration. This agenda has become so obvious that even many on the moderate left have held their collective heads in shame. And yet they still continue to self-destruct what little credibility that remained within their "journalistic" prowess. Even as I write this MSNBC is running the story of Governor Schwarzenegger telling a "journalist"(paraphrasing) "you’re looking for mistakes in this operation and it's all good news". "As much as you hate it, it's ALL GOOD NEWS!"
While the Terminator was holding the reporter's hand (gently) he should have stuck his big powerful hand right in her face and said "talk to the hand". And then chucked the reporter and her MSM's ilk over the side of the hill and into the fires of their depravation. Of course this could only happen in the movies. Take # 2007.......Action!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Returning to Cinders
Taming the Beast that's Still Hungry
California: Much of California will see above normal fire potential for the summer. Warm and dry conditions dominated California during May with near record breaking heat across the southern portions of the state. LINK
National Climatic Data Center, 15 October 2007:
This year has been very dry in southern California. As of September 25, Pasadena experienced its driest year since records began in 1878, and the mayor has asked Pasadena residents to voluntarily conserve water. LINK
Mechanical removal of the fuels has not kept up with the fuel build-up for several reasons. Some community covenants have restricted landowners since the 1920's from tree removal activities on private land within the National Forest. The Forest has not had an active timber harvest program for nearly 10 years. There are no lumber mills in southern California and now the current removal of dead and dying trees is difficult and expensive.
Changes in Wildland Fuel Conditions. Fire suppression activities over the last century have left much of the state’s wildlands filled with fallen trees, standing dead trees, and heavy undergrowth. As these fuels have built up, the risk of catastrophic fires has grown. In addition, several years of drought followed by insect infestations in Southern California and the Sierras have killed many trees, increasing the risk of large, dangerous fires in these regions of the state.LINK
Conflagration – A popular term for a large, fast-moving wildfire exhibiting many or all of the features associated with extreme fire behavior.
Taming the Beast that's Still Hungry
While the southern California fires continue to consume anything in it's path, thousands are getting the "all clear" to return to areas that the "beast" has visited with no idea what they will find. In what has been described as the largest evacuation in California's history, and still only one percent contained, the news that the windy conditions may subside over the next few days is welcomed by firefighters and residents that have remained in their homes waiting for the call to leave.
With no loss for fuel supply, and fed by the Santa Ana Winds, the conditions for a perfect firestorm has taken it's toll on an area where close to 50,000 more homes are still in danger. From Fox News it's reported " In San Diego County, authorities placed evacuation calls to 346,000 homes while over 560,000 people were ordered to leave."
With no loss for fuel supply, and fed by the Santa Ana Winds, the conditions for a perfect firestorm has taken it's toll on an area where close to 50,000 more homes are still in danger. From Fox News it's reported " In San Diego County, authorities placed evacuation calls to 346,000 homes while over 560,000 people were ordered to leave."
Blame game begins............
It's being reported that U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who's district includes Southern California, has made this disaster political by stating that there are too many national guard in Iraq that should be home to help in fighting the fires. While fire officials say more resources could have always been supplemented, the conditions on the ground would have made little difference in this battle because of the natural fuel supply and the 30 to 50 mile an hour winds that made this inferno unstoppable.
I would ask this question to Boxer: "Why did you let these conditions develop in your region that many knew was a disaster waiting for the right time to strike?"
Here's a little info you may have missed Ms. Boxer:
Here's a little info you may have missed Ms. Boxer:
California: Much of California will see above normal fire potential for the summer. Warm and dry conditions dominated California during May with near record breaking heat across the southern portions of the state. LINK
National Climatic Data Center, 15 October 2007:
This year has been very dry in southern California. As of September 25, Pasadena experienced its driest year since records began in 1878, and the mayor has asked Pasadena residents to voluntarily conserve water. LINK
Mechanical removal of the fuels has not kept up with the fuel build-up for several reasons. Some community covenants have restricted landowners since the 1920's from tree removal activities on private land within the National Forest. The Forest has not had an active timber harvest program for nearly 10 years. There are no lumber mills in southern California and now the current removal of dead and dying trees is difficult and expensive.
Changes in Wildland Fuel Conditions. Fire suppression activities over the last century have left much of the state’s wildlands filled with fallen trees, standing dead trees, and heavy undergrowth. As these fuels have built up, the risk of catastrophic fires has grown. In addition, several years of drought followed by insect infestations in Southern California and the Sierras have killed many trees, increasing the risk of large, dangerous fires in these regions of the state.LINK
Conflagration – A popular term for a large, fast-moving wildfire exhibiting many or all of the features associated with extreme fire behavior.
"Mechanical removal of the fuels has not kept up with the fuel build-up for several reasons. Some community covenants have restricted landowners since the 1920's from tree removal activities on private land within the National Forest. The Forest has not had an active timber harvest program for nearly 10 years. There are no lumber mills in southern California and now the current removal of dead and dying trees is difficult and expensive."
"I am very concerned that what we are seeing on the San Bernardino National Forest will happen again in many other forested areas in California. Forest conditions -- dense and overgrown -- on other national forests in California are similar to those on the San Bernardino."......JACK BLACKWELLREGIONAL FORESTER, PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION FOREST SERVICE
"The forest health situation on the San Bernardino and throughout the Pacific Southwest Region is very dynamic. The key to avoiding potential catastrophic wildfire is by taking a comprehensive, strategic approach with all involved organizations, and having all the necessary management tools available to use. Long-term success will also require building and maintaining relationships and cooperative planning that draws on the strengths of everyone involved."
"The forest health situation on the San Bernardino and throughout the Pacific Southwest Region is very dynamic. The key to avoiding potential catastrophic wildfire is by taking a comprehensive, strategic approach with all involved organizations, and having all the necessary management tools available to use. Long-term success will also require building and maintaining relationships and cooperative planning that draws on the strengths of everyone involved."
Everyone failed Ms. Boxer --------- including you.
Update: Sister Toldjah has Harry Reid blaming the fires on global warming. This is our democratic leadership?
Others Blogging:
(photo credits to Fox News)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Fortunate to Live in Nor Cal
Over 500,000 evacuated.......Google Map of Fires
Updates developing...........
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Phony Senators and Newspaper Spin
In the aftermath of the letter the U.S. Senate (written by the Majority Leader, Harry Reid) sent to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting Rush Limbaugh for what they interpreted (via an out of context excerpt from Media Matters) as bashing military personnel who speak out against the war in Iraq, our esteemed "fabricators" and "spinmiesters" at the New York Times and the Washington Post have published these storys IN ERROR, again.
Stephanie Strom (at the NYT's) begins her "ill-informed" article by stating/repeating the outright lies that Media Matters started:
"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as "phony soldiers," he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators. He decided to auction the letter, which he described as "this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance," for charity, and he pledged to match the price, dollar for dollar."
Ms. Strom waits until the bottom of the article to print what was really said by Limbaugh:
"Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was referring only to one soldier, who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army, never seeing combat."
In the meantime, Neely Tucker, (sex unknown at this print) at the Washington Post waste no time "spinning the story" with this headline:
Limbaugh Spins Reid's Letter Into Charity Gold
Tucker starts out this post by calling it "petty bickering", when in fact this is the most blatant attack by a government official on a private citizen in our nations history, followed by the LIE that brought this story an unprecedented 4.2 million delivered to a noble charity foundation that provides scholarships to the children of the fallen:
"Petty bickering about patriotism and Who Loves Our Troops More has never been seen as a financial growth industry, but there's no stopping American capitalism. This is why a perfunctory bit of political grandstanding, committed to U.S. Senate letterhead this month, became worth a reported $4.2 million yesterday, instantly becoming one of the most valuable printed documents of the modern era."
"The letter in question is an Oct. 2 two-pager from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting the syndicate's Rush Limbaugh, who had recently criticized U.S. troops who were against the war in Iraq."
While these two newspapers continue to lose readership and advertising dollars because they can't seem to get a story straight, Strom and Tucker might wonder whether their next paychecks will be coming from their parent company's or the National Inquirer.
For the TRUTHFUL RECORD, Limbaugh was referring to the "phony soldiers" such as Jessie McBeth and Jimmy Massey that fabricated (lied) stories about atrocities in Iraq. While most everyone knows exactly where Limbaugh stands and shows his unrelenting support for our military, Media Matters thought this little matter would not be noticed when they pulled Limbaugh's comments out of context and Senator Reid swallowed, hook, line, and "stinker".
Now you have the New York Times and the Washington Post (leading fabricators) not only missing the point of the entire story of a private citizen being admonished by a federal official, but still insisting on fabricating the actual intent that Limbaugh made in his initial scolding of the "phony soldiers". Who's PHONY now?
Update: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has summed up the Reid/Limbaugh fiasco, while a commenter hits the nail on the head:
"The conservative thinks of a free-market way of raising private funds to aid a worthwhile causes and backs his commitment with his own money."
"The liberal asks other people to donate funds, doesn't donate any of his own money, and tries to take credit for the generosity of others."..........(PackerBronco)
Update 2: Sister Toldjah "feeds" Harry some crow here
In the aftermath of the letter the U.S. Senate (written by the Majority Leader, Harry Reid) sent to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting Rush Limbaugh for what they interpreted (via an out of context excerpt from Media Matters) as bashing military personnel who speak out against the war in Iraq, our esteemed "fabricators" and "spinmiesters" at the New York Times and the Washington Post have published these storys IN ERROR, again.
Stephanie Strom (at the NYT's) begins her "ill-informed" article by stating/repeating the outright lies that Media Matters started:
"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as "phony soldiers," he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators. He decided to auction the letter, which he described as "this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance," for charity, and he pledged to match the price, dollar for dollar."
Ms. Strom waits until the bottom of the article to print what was really said by Limbaugh:
"Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was referring only to one soldier, who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army, never seeing combat."
In the meantime, Neely Tucker, (sex unknown at this print) at the Washington Post waste no time "spinning the story" with this headline:
Limbaugh Spins Reid's Letter Into Charity Gold
Tucker starts out this post by calling it "petty bickering", when in fact this is the most blatant attack by a government official on a private citizen in our nations history, followed by the LIE that brought this story an unprecedented 4.2 million delivered to a noble charity foundation that provides scholarships to the children of the fallen:
"Petty bickering about patriotism and Who Loves Our Troops More has never been seen as a financial growth industry, but there's no stopping American capitalism. This is why a perfunctory bit of political grandstanding, committed to U.S. Senate letterhead this month, became worth a reported $4.2 million yesterday, instantly becoming one of the most valuable printed documents of the modern era."
"The letter in question is an Oct. 2 two-pager from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting the syndicate's Rush Limbaugh, who had recently criticized U.S. troops who were against the war in Iraq."
While these two newspapers continue to lose readership and advertising dollars because they can't seem to get a story straight, Strom and Tucker might wonder whether their next paychecks will be coming from their parent company's or the National Inquirer.
For the TRUTHFUL RECORD, Limbaugh was referring to the "phony soldiers" such as Jessie McBeth and Jimmy Massey that fabricated (lied) stories about atrocities in Iraq. While most everyone knows exactly where Limbaugh stands and shows his unrelenting support for our military, Media Matters thought this little matter would not be noticed when they pulled Limbaugh's comments out of context and Senator Reid swallowed, hook, line, and "stinker".
Now you have the New York Times and the Washington Post (leading fabricators) not only missing the point of the entire story of a private citizen being admonished by a federal official, but still insisting on fabricating the actual intent that Limbaugh made in his initial scolding of the "phony soldiers". Who's PHONY now?
Update: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has summed up the Reid/Limbaugh fiasco, while a commenter hits the nail on the head:
"The conservative thinks of a free-market way of raising private funds to aid a worthwhile causes and backs his commitment with his own money."
"The liberal asks other people to donate funds, doesn't donate any of his own money, and tries to take credit for the generosity of others."..........(PackerBronco)
Update 2: Sister Toldjah "feeds" Harry some crow here
Friday, October 19, 2007
Rush's Auction Winding Down
Harry's letter to admonish Rush has reached the two million mark. The leftoids are in mourning.
Update:
"They have done nothing. It is they who need to "save face." We've got a little montage here of the Drive-Bys just beside themselves over the Democrats' inability to get anything done."
ROBACH: (music) It happened with war legislation, and now it looks like it will happen again with children's health care. The president takes a stand, the Democrats promise a fight, but in the end, the president comes out on top. FOREMAN: (music) Democrats at several levels of government are stumbling. CUOMO: Democrats appear headed for defeat in the battle over expanding children's health insurance.HUME: This looks like kind of an embarrassing defeat for the leadership BLITZER: House Democrats may be losing yet another battle, this one over domestic spying. YELLIN: Republicans are crowing and Democrats are trying to figure out what to do next. BASH: A rebellion among Pelosi's own Democrats...FRANKEN: Such a political debacle for the Democrats...COURIC: Why aren't these things getting done? CAFFERTY: You know, Ray Charles could have seen that was a stupid idea from the beginning. You're just doing a great job, Pelosi. Terrific.RUSH: That was Jack what his name, Cafferty, on CNN. You heard Katie Couric and a bunch of others in there. So we're winning. We're stopping these guys from their ridiculous pieces of legislation, and the Drive-Bys are getting real frustrated with them right along with the fringe lunatics that are in their base. LINK
Harry's letter to admonish Rush has reached the two million mark. The leftoids are in mourning.
Update:
"They have done nothing. It is they who need to "save face." We've got a little montage here of the Drive-Bys just beside themselves over the Democrats' inability to get anything done."
ROBACH: (music) It happened with war legislation, and now it looks like it will happen again with children's health care. The president takes a stand, the Democrats promise a fight, but in the end, the president comes out on top. FOREMAN: (music) Democrats at several levels of government are stumbling. CUOMO: Democrats appear headed for defeat in the battle over expanding children's health insurance.HUME: This looks like kind of an embarrassing defeat for the leadership BLITZER: House Democrats may be losing yet another battle, this one over domestic spying. YELLIN: Republicans are crowing and Democrats are trying to figure out what to do next. BASH: A rebellion among Pelosi's own Democrats...FRANKEN: Such a political debacle for the Democrats...COURIC: Why aren't these things getting done? CAFFERTY: You know, Ray Charles could have seen that was a stupid idea from the beginning. You're just doing a great job, Pelosi. Terrific.RUSH: That was Jack what his name, Cafferty, on CNN. You heard Katie Couric and a bunch of others in there. So we're winning. We're stopping these guys from their ridiculous pieces of legislation, and the Drive-Bys are getting real frustrated with them right along with the fringe lunatics that are in their base. LINK
Sunday, October 14, 2007
At What Point Can We Question Their Motives........Or Their Patriotism?
Kim Priestap at has posted an interesting article over at Wizbang that points out (rather blatantly) how our mainstream media manages to omit just enough of a story to fit their biased agenda:
"I know the mainstream media is reporting on General Sanchez' speech, but they reported only the part of his comments that were critical of the administration and how it conducted the war, completely ignoring his damning statements about their journalistic ethics, proving that what he said about them was on target. Since the MSM refuses to reprint the general's comments about the media, I will. This portion of his speech that was posted at Power Line had some errors in capitalization that I corrected. Read these comments carefully and take in how thoroughly General Sanchez hands the media their asses:"
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen
Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have firmly believed since Desert Shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division during desert storm.
Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nation’s military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.
Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:
"dictatorial and somewhat dense",
"not a strategic thought",
Liar,"does not get it" and
The most inexperienced LTG.
In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond; otherwise, we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.
I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility
The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:
1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty
All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.
My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on tv, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.
It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.
Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?
Kim provides links to an AP report, the New York Times, and the Washington Post where the first two left out the Generals total disdain for the media's "selective" reporting completely and the Post managed to fit in one paragraph at the end.
While General Sanchez's scathing accounts of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war may be ill advised while American soldiers are in harms way, his out-right lambasting of the mainstream media's total misrepresentation and lack of factual reporting in the theater (THAT THE MEDIA OMITTED PURPOSELY) is a story in itself.
How can the people of this country find out what the truth is by reading what is supposed to be our main source of information when the MSM uses their editors as pawns to fit any agenda-driven (insert your own adjective and noun here). I will just come out and say what needs to be said:
"TO THE THOSE JOURNALIST AND PUBLISHERS WHO FIT INTO THIS STORY, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A PACK OF LIARS THAT HAVE DISTORTED EVERY ACCOUNT OF WHAT WAS THE VERY BEST THIS NATION HAS INTENDED TO RIGHT THE INJUSTICE'S AGAINST US------I NO LONGER QUESTION YOUR INTEGRITY, YOUR ETHICAL STANDARDS, OR YOUR PATRIOTISM-----YOU HAVE LOST THEM ALL BY YOUR SHAMEFUL ACTIONS AND PITIFUL EXCUSE FOR WHAT WE USED TO CALL JOURNALISM.".........ROVIN
Update: Debow at Blackfive has a good post up and the comments (from some who are “military”) are well thought out and expressed.
Others posting on this story:
Kim Priestap at has posted an interesting article over at Wizbang that points out (rather blatantly) how our mainstream media manages to omit just enough of a story to fit their biased agenda:
"I know the mainstream media is reporting on General Sanchez' speech, but they reported only the part of his comments that were critical of the administration and how it conducted the war, completely ignoring his damning statements about their journalistic ethics, proving that what he said about them was on target. Since the MSM refuses to reprint the general's comments about the media, I will. This portion of his speech that was posted at Power Line had some errors in capitalization that I corrected. Read these comments carefully and take in how thoroughly General Sanchez hands the media their asses:"
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen
Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have firmly believed since Desert Shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division during desert storm.
Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nation’s military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.
Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:
"dictatorial and somewhat dense",
"not a strategic thought",
Liar,"does not get it" and
The most inexperienced LTG.
In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond; otherwise, we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.
I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility
The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:
1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty
All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.
My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on tv, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.
It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.
Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?
Kim provides links to an AP report, the New York Times, and the Washington Post where the first two left out the Generals total disdain for the media's "selective" reporting completely and the Post managed to fit in one paragraph at the end.
While General Sanchez's scathing accounts of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war may be ill advised while American soldiers are in harms way, his out-right lambasting of the mainstream media's total misrepresentation and lack of factual reporting in the theater (THAT THE MEDIA OMITTED PURPOSELY) is a story in itself.
How can the people of this country find out what the truth is by reading what is supposed to be our main source of information when the MSM uses their editors as pawns to fit any agenda-driven (insert your own adjective and noun here). I will just come out and say what needs to be said:
"TO THE THOSE JOURNALIST AND PUBLISHERS WHO FIT INTO THIS STORY, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A PACK OF LIARS THAT HAVE DISTORTED EVERY ACCOUNT OF WHAT WAS THE VERY BEST THIS NATION HAS INTENDED TO RIGHT THE INJUSTICE'S AGAINST US------I NO LONGER QUESTION YOUR INTEGRITY, YOUR ETHICAL STANDARDS, OR YOUR PATRIOTISM-----YOU HAVE LOST THEM ALL BY YOUR SHAMEFUL ACTIONS AND PITIFUL EXCUSE FOR WHAT WE USED TO CALL JOURNALISM.".........ROVIN
Update: Debow at Blackfive has a good post up and the comments (from some who are “military”) are well thought out and expressed.
Others posting on this story:
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Democrat Leadership Spitting on Military-----Again
Just when you thought you had seen almost everything the liberal democrats could do to prevent Gen. Petraeus and our military from achieving stability in the middle east, along comes the democratic Foreign Affairs Committee with an asinine resolution that may threaten military supply lines into Iraq:
A US congressional panel defied President George W. Bush on Wednesday and approved a measure calling the killings of Armenians early in the last century genocide. Bush had warned this would damage US goals in the Middle East.
The measure that would recognize the killings of Armenians as a genocide had been strongly opposed by Turkey, a key NATO ally that has provided support to US efforts in Iraq.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee's 27-21 vote now sends the measure to the full House floor _ unless the Democratic leadership reverses course and heeds Bush's warnings.
Bush and other senior officials had made a last-minute push to persuade lawmakers on the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee to reject the measure. LINK
With a majority of the peoples business yet to be dealt with in congress, the democrats "march" out a WWI disputable injustice to throw in the face of a country that has allowed the U.S. access to critical supply lines and safe passage into Iraq.
Shortly before Bush spoke against the resolution, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates stood before microphones on the White House driveway to express the administration' s worries.
Gates said that 70 percent of US air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about a third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq.
"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said. He also said that 95 percent of the newly purchased Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are being flown through Turkey to get to Iraq.
So, there you have it. Equipment critical to our military personnel may be held up or even delayed by months because of this resolution that happened almost a hundred years ago. First and foremost, I question this "leaderships" timing. What is the motivation for such a measure that could put our military in harms way? If Mr. Santos, (Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman) thought there were "security concerns", then why did he go forward?
The committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos, expressed concerns about security implications of the resolution but ultimately voted in favor.
This measure now goes to the house floor for a full debate and vote as soon as next week. Write your local representative and let them know that the full support of our military comes ahead of the senseless legislation.
Just when you thought you had seen almost everything the liberal democrats could do to prevent Gen. Petraeus and our military from achieving stability in the middle east, along comes the democratic Foreign Affairs Committee with an asinine resolution that may threaten military supply lines into Iraq:
A US congressional panel defied President George W. Bush on Wednesday and approved a measure calling the killings of Armenians early in the last century genocide. Bush had warned this would damage US goals in the Middle East.
The measure that would recognize the killings of Armenians as a genocide had been strongly opposed by Turkey, a key NATO ally that has provided support to US efforts in Iraq.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee's 27-21 vote now sends the measure to the full House floor _ unless the Democratic leadership reverses course and heeds Bush's warnings.
Bush and other senior officials had made a last-minute push to persuade lawmakers on the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee to reject the measure. LINK
With a majority of the peoples business yet to be dealt with in congress, the democrats "march" out a WWI disputable injustice to throw in the face of a country that has allowed the U.S. access to critical supply lines and safe passage into Iraq.
Shortly before Bush spoke against the resolution, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates stood before microphones on the White House driveway to express the administration' s worries.
Gates said that 70 percent of US air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about a third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq.
"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said. He also said that 95 percent of the newly purchased Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are being flown through Turkey to get to Iraq.
So, there you have it. Equipment critical to our military personnel may be held up or even delayed by months because of this resolution that happened almost a hundred years ago. First and foremost, I question this "leaderships" timing. What is the motivation for such a measure that could put our military in harms way? If Mr. Santos, (Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman) thought there were "security concerns", then why did he go forward?
The committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos, expressed concerns about security implications of the resolution but ultimately voted in favor.
This measure now goes to the house floor for a full debate and vote as soon as next week. Write your local representative and let them know that the full support of our military comes ahead of the senseless legislation.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
SCHIP AND 401K EXPANSIONS
Anti-capitalist socialist vs. a free market economy---where ideologys collide
We already have a government sponsored 401k retirement program. It's called Social Security, and it has not been solvent for years. If the democrats want the people of this nation to mimic the socialist policies of communist Russia a generation ago where dependency on the government failed, why don't they just come out and say it.
This nation was founded on independence and self-reliance of the individual and the framers saw how important it was to limit government intrusion. Every time we accept a new government "entitlement" we shackle and bind the next generation to a government controlled dependency. This is all about POWER AND CONTROL of our hard earned dollars to re-introduce the welfare state of the Carter administration that thought it was easier to feed the lazy who found it was more convenient to rely on the government than to get off their ass's and go to work every day.
This is the cruel and harsh reality of the programs that the new Mrs. Bill Clinton intends to craft for the sake of the "needy". The tax relief programs that Reagan and Bush introduced is what has provided real growth for this nation by putting the money back into the hands of the individual. The democrats believe it's their money to re-distribute as they see fit.
Anti-capitalist socialist vs. a free market economy---where ideologys collide
We already have a government sponsored 401k retirement program. It's called Social Security, and it has not been solvent for years. If the democrats want the people of this nation to mimic the socialist policies of communist Russia a generation ago where dependency on the government failed, why don't they just come out and say it.
This nation was founded on independence and self-reliance of the individual and the framers saw how important it was to limit government intrusion. Every time we accept a new government "entitlement" we shackle and bind the next generation to a government controlled dependency. This is all about POWER AND CONTROL of our hard earned dollars to re-introduce the welfare state of the Carter administration that thought it was easier to feed the lazy who found it was more convenient to rely on the government than to get off their ass's and go to work every day.
This is the cruel and harsh reality of the programs that the new Mrs. Bill Clinton intends to craft for the sake of the "needy". The tax relief programs that Reagan and Bush introduced is what has provided real growth for this nation by putting the money back into the hands of the individual. The democrats believe it's their money to re-distribute as they see fit.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Silencing of the Lions
by Rovin
So, in the period of one week three lions of conservative talk radio are "lionized", impugned, and smeared by an almost methodical (well planned) duration of diatribes. Bill O'Reilly , Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage are now categorized as racial, military hating bigots according to the democratic left. Somewhere there has to be a offensive attack on Sean Hannity. From Harry Reid and Tom Harkin to the San Francisco Supervisors, government officials are now entering the fray. Isn't there something in the first amendment that prohibits the government from restricting free speech?
Much of this barrage is emanating from a far left web site called Media Matters run by a one time conservative David Brock. It has been reported that Brock is being paid around 200k a year to take comments and opinions out of context to fit the liberals contention that conservative thought is filled with (insert your own adjective).
With the fallout of MoveOn.org's "betray-us" ad in the New York Times, the left has been pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the bleeding. Or, as AnonymousDrivel (a CQ commenter) puts it, " a dream Karl Rove could have never envisioned" :
From the WorldNetDaily:
San Francisco supervisors condemn Savage: Officials pass resolution against talker for 'hate speech'
by Rovin
So, in the period of one week three lions of conservative talk radio are "lionized", impugned, and smeared by an almost methodical (well planned) duration of diatribes. Bill O'Reilly , Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage are now categorized as racial, military hating bigots according to the democratic left. Somewhere there has to be a offensive attack on Sean Hannity. From Harry Reid and Tom Harkin to the San Francisco Supervisors, government officials are now entering the fray. Isn't there something in the first amendment that prohibits the government from restricting free speech?
Much of this barrage is emanating from a far left web site called Media Matters run by a one time conservative David Brock. It has been reported that Brock is being paid around 200k a year to take comments and opinions out of context to fit the liberals contention that conservative thought is filled with (insert your own adjective).
With the fallout of MoveOn.org's "betray-us" ad in the New York Times, the left has been pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the bleeding. Or, as AnonymousDrivel (a CQ commenter) puts it, " a dream Karl Rove could have never envisioned" :
"Hmmm. Maybe the MSM poll du jour can ask who has more credibility: Harry Reid's Democrat-led Senate or Rush Limbaugh... assuming the people they poll even know who Reid is?While much of the attention is on Rush's comment about "phony soldiers" where it is obvious that he was referring to the Jesse Macbeth's fabrications, Savage is being attacked by the "kings and queens" of hypocrisy, the San Francisco Supervisors.
The "Betray Us" ad is providing sweet, delicious schadenfreude the likes of which a Karl Rove could have never envisioned. As the Democrats throw spaghetti at the fridge to try and rehabilitate themselves from their Soros-funded complicity, we observe the wonderful, and thankfully more transparent, theater that is politics.One would have to engage in the willing suspension of disbelief to think that Democrat wailing will tarnish Rush's known and undeniable support of the military. The Left's distraction can be seen for what it is and Rush has just been given more ammo to fire at his critics. It'll be a turkey-shoot."
From the WorldNetDaily:
San Francisco supervisors condemn Savage: Officials pass resolution against talker for 'hate speech'
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today condemned nationally syndicatedradio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in city by the bay, for "hate speech."It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.In August, a single vote by a member whose grandfather emigrated from China seven decades ago halted a similar resolution in its tracks.The previous vote was 9-1, with third generation San Franciscan Ed Jew turning in the veto vote, after getting up and affirming Savage's First Amendment right to express his opinion.Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced the resolution in August to condemn the radio talker. After the vote, he called for the tally to be rescinded and the proposal sent to committee, which essentially is a polite way of letting the issue die."For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments," Jew said.Sandoval responded with a personal challenge to Jew."If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part," he said.
Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution."You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired...............
It seems apparent that our dear friends on the the left are in the mode of a total meltdown when it comes to the first amendment rights that have stood as a bedrock for democracy. Many have also suggested that this is a precursor to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine", a sure fire way to "silence the lions".
Update: The influencepeddler (a site devoted to the lefts hypocrisy) has an excellent post up here.
Update # 2: Mike at Flopping Aces has a post up called "Phony Congress/Phony Patriots" that illustrates the hypocrisy of the democratic leadership.
Update # 3: Sharon at Gold Plated Witch on Wheels exclaims "If it wasn't obvious before, liberals hate free speech."
Update #4: Rush takes on Harry Reid
Monday, October 01, 2007
Why Do They Have To Lie?
Paul at Wizbang pulls no punches when it comes to our dear friends on the left that have a party so fractured that now a Senate Majority Leader has to bring the debate to a lower level by attacking Rush Limbaugh. One might have thought that the donkeys might have waited for a few months before wasting what credibility a once respected party deserved. (note to dems: you gotta work on your fabrication skills.)
Ried is a Grade A Left-Wing Moonbat.
by Paul from Wizbang
With all the other good news coming out of Iraq this month (see below) Reid has to change the subject. So he introduced a bill condemning Limbaugh in the Senate. Big mistake. The movone.org and backfired on Democrats and so will this. The problem is Rush's comments where not egregious in any way. In fact, two days before Rush made his comments, ABC News used the same language and the same context to report on the Department of Justice crackdown called Operation Stolen Valor. -- As many people on the right know, there is a growing problem of "Phony Heroes." (Surprise! The Left has no idea what is important to our military!)……….Link
There's a healthy debate in comments...........
Two words ........ Jesse MacBeth
Ried is a Grade A Left-Wing Moonbat.
by Paul from Wizbang
With all the other good news coming out of Iraq this month (see below) Reid has to change the subject. So he introduced a bill condemning Limbaugh in the Senate. Big mistake. The movone.org and backfired on Democrats and so will this. The problem is Rush's comments where not egregious in any way. In fact, two days before Rush made his comments, ABC News used the same language and the same context to report on the Department of Justice crackdown called Operation Stolen Valor. -- As many people on the right know, there is a growing problem of "Phony Heroes." (Surprise! The Left has no idea what is important to our military!)……….Link
There's a healthy debate in comments...........
Two words ........ Jesse MacBeth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)