Allies and Hawks; Friend and Foe

Before we get too far a disclaimer to keep in mind:

“Several current and former officials, as well as outside experts, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the intelligence surrounding the Israeli strike remains highly classified.”

The “intelligence” is “highly classified,” so how do they know anything and are they worth quoting or basing an article on? Now on the chosen colors representing the bad and the good.

According to The NY Times:

“A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.”

This debate revolves around intelligence provided by Israel, which led that nation to its decision to bomb a location in Syria believed to be the location of Bashar al-Assad’s nascent nuclear program; spermatozoon in the test tube courtesy of stature lacking Kim of Korea.

One thing worth noting is that the toilet paper has in the past written of debates within the administration, rarely described as “debates” but more colorfully described as “rifts” between “hawks” and doves regarding Iran. We might be comforted with the fact that the administration does debate issues, but that would require injecting connotation that weakens the “hawk/dove” angle; this is just something the msm doesn’t do.

As the toilet paper rarely passes an opportunity to report as factually as it can stand while implying with words of choice who is on the rights side and wrong side of the “debate.”

The two sides in the “fight” are “Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks” and “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies.” Remember WWII, a war fought between the “Axis” and “Allies.” Any questions as to which side the toilet paper is more supportive of? Reporting the news with an eye toward swaying opinion; this is not reporting the news, but the toilet paper does it seven days a week.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Faultline USA, third world county, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Confidence Game Politics

Roger Cohen of International Herald Tribune fame had me at the onset of his OpEd at the Times this morning; but lost me at paragraph three, which began the descent into a laundry list of must dos (without how to do them) and a nuanced helping of ‘let’s go back to the way we used to do things.’ The hook:

“The unpopularity of George W. Bush has led many to believe global America-hating will ebb once he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. That’s a dangerous assumption.

It’s dangerous because the extent of American power will continue to invite resentment whoever is in the White House, and because America’s perception of the terrorist threat will still differ from that of its Asian and European allies. Asians are focused on growth, Europeans on integration: different priorities cause friction.”

Once out of office, President Bush won't be around, but the damage he has done will, so be prepared for things taking a while to return to normal (whatever that is). Cohen chooses the "things won't be easy" tack and admits that working internationally is a battle, but zero regard for how this could, did or can play into dislike toward the United States when perhaps everyone else is wrong.

No Line, Just a Sinker

Tidbits from Cohen that irk me ever so slightly…”

“The Iraq-linked damage to U.S. credibility is too severe to be quickly undone.”

“The most critical is a switch from the politics of anxiety to the politics of confidence.”

“Bush and Cheney never emerged from the 9/11 bunker. Their attack-dog snarl alienated a globe asked to step in line or step aside.”

The Left and Leftists among us love to point to the Bush Administrations efforts and those that support it as mainly “living in fear,” which is annoying in the sense that perhaps those against the actions are “living in arrogant ignorance.” How about “living in fear” themselves, as it is a fear of an unknown, of ruffling international feathers and/or of stepping outside the mold of “stability” at almost all costs.

No one it appears can find anything of worth from this new doctrine; is it really that bad? No just scary…

Cohen fits in with those that fall under Mark Steyn’s essay from yesterday:

“Civilized nations like chit-chatting, having tea, holding debates, talking talking talking. Tyrannies like terrorizing people, torturing people, murdering people, doing doing doing. It’s easier for the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then for the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything.”

To put it succinctly to Mr. Cohen and others out there, Victor Davis Hanson's word show another side to the debate; one they will continue to ignore:

"the current orthodoxy that America is losing the war on terror inside and outside Iraq, while bereft of allies, is simply not true. Instead we are winning — it’s ugly perhaps, but winning nonetheless."

All talk, no action assisted greatly in our Tuesday morning revelation in 2001 and given the opportunity we will return to that do nothing time; hopefully we would have the option of returning to the tactics in practice now. No matter how feel good the attitudes of the Cohen’s are it will be necessary to return to offense that so many find offense with.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

May Cooler Heads Prevail - The Board

It seems that the NY Times editorial board is quite offended by the hooting and hollering of those upset and taking swipes at Columbia University for its “no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran’s repressive state than by showcasing America’s democracy and commitment to free speech.”

See how free speech works? We should put Ahmadinejad on a pedestal for all to view in his ugly existence; shout down a minuteman not allowing him to speak and refuse accepting ROTC/military recruiting on the campus. Then we can hear about how bad we all were for perhaps speaking freely about how we feel about the “great” republic’s president.

The threats to the university were pathetic and the board has a failure of imagination:

“we can imagine no better way to lay bare the bankruptcy of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views than to have him speak, and be questioned, at a university forum.”

Up, up, up and above so that we can’t avoid seeing how vile a propagandist and liar he is as exemplified by the Daily Kos diary with a review of Ahmadinejad’s Press Club speech as linked by Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

“I have to say that I think our government and the MSM have really spun us on Iran and this guy… He ain't such a bad man.”

Well, that worked…

From Hewitt is the free speech opinion that Bollinger got spanked or “punked:”

“What a fiasco. On and on Ahmadinejad goes, creating a windfall of propaganda for his barbaric regime that will be sliced and diced a hundred ways in the Muslim world, while Lee Bollinger congratulates himself on his long list of questions not one of which has been answered.”

Will cooler heads prevail; the board hopes so:

“We hope cooler heads prevail once Mr. Ahmadinejad leaves town. And we hope that what Americans and Iranians will remember is that image of professors and students, in a true democratic forum, challenging the Iranian president for his Holocaust denial, his threats against Israel and the repression of Iran’s citizens.”

The “hope” that “cooler heads” prevail is no different than the “hope” that Americans and Iranians “remember” the “image” evoked by this historical moment of “clarity.” From IRNA this morning, some headlines:

Ahmadinejad urges Western media not to tell lies about Iran

IRI President addresses students at Colombia University

Najjar: Iran to give crushing response to any threat

Yeah, that went well….

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blue Star Chronicles, Outside the Beltway, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

September 11, 2001 is Ancient History; Let's just forget it

“Does anyone go out on the streets of New York and commemorate the firing on Fort Sumter?”

Why continue to commemorate September 11, 2001? This is a question the NY Times asked or at least wrote about on the second of this month.

From the toilet paper of record:

“Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.”

I suppose it is a valid enough question, but it’s also an odd question. It’s been almost six years since the attack on our soil that took the lives of so many people that were innocently going about their day. This was no Katrina that was a natural disaster with poor responses from local, state and federal agencies, but the media will tout that anniversary with a vengeance at least until the Bush Administration is no more.

September 11, 2001 was a day of sorrow with many more to follow; once the tide of grieving changed many people and the media have tried to make it go away as though now, six years later it might be a good idea to let it go. The reason from the perspective of the media is more in line with keeping the tide of anger or offense from our minds; after all the military actions of our nation since then has been ignorant, hegemonic and undiplomatic in nature, at least to them. We don’t hear a lot from the msm on this subject as we might and I believe one reason for this is they do not want the public’s emotion to affect our foreign policy and even national policy as this is the mo of the msm and is not for us, the common public.

These days I get a bit tweaked that D-Day and Pearl Harbor are somewhat ignored, but those days in history are a ways back; they’re also much easier for the msm to ignore. There is also that possibility that this may help the forces of pride in our nation, which is something the msm cannot countenance.

Our media has chosen to not offer glimpses of that day due to concern for our feelings or emotions. What’s this all about?

September 11, 2001 did more, much more than take the lives of 3,000+ people. It opened the eyes of many if not most in this nation that there are forces in the world that would and will do us harm. Much of that is forgotten these days as the msm prefers to paint others with the blame and that the best way to deal with it would be to ease up internationally, since our previous actions in our history are what really brought this attack on the nation.

Had they their way, we would forget all this silly commemoration and go about our lives; this would make their jobs all the easier. In life as time passes tragedy is easier to deal with, especially if you were someone that was not personally affected by this date with the loss of a family member or friend. Those of us that don’t miss someone, perhaps almost daily may get by without the commemoration, but that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea to forget.

We, as a nation, have gotten passed much of what that day revealed to us about the world we live in; it’s a shame that there may be a necessity for a repeat to open our sluggish eyes again. Those that inform us of what is important (msm) have done its share in making this date appear like ancient history or an anomaly. Assuredly the attack itself could be considered somewhat of an anomaly if it makes us feel better, but that doesn’t really change anything.

9/11 is not a war or battle cry, but it is a huge piece of the puzzle in explaining the actions of our military over the past half decade; forgetting or ignoring that will do much more to tie our hands in the future when faced with difficult questions, questions many would prefer to believe don’t warrant asking.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Thoughts, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hillary; compassionate misanthrope

Hillary doesn’t trust humankind, which fits in nicely with the Liberal mindset; leave it to us and the nanny state will take care of you.

Here’s a question and it’s something that has been irking me for some time now; why are all the candidates referred to as Romney, Richardson, Paul, McCain, etc., yet Clinton is always “Hillary,” by haters and lovers alike?

But I digress…ever since the “secret” letters came out in the NY Times from a young “Hillary” the toilet paper has been all about her. Posts here were not in depth, just with a certain disgust when I would view the front page for tripe being shoveled out to the masses. The same day an announcement was made in the Times that it and NBC News were joining forces or collaborating on election coverage both entities of the same stripe had humanizing “Hillary” filler. The day that followed offered yet more of the same; you couldn’t get away from it.

Enjoy Brent Bozell’s latest, as were going to be seeing a lot more of it, “Humanizing Hillary, Canonizing Chelsea:”

“Here’s one sign that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential frontrunner. Reporters are tripping over themselves to convince us how likable and human she is, strong and yet nurturing. It’s the same playbook the media used for Al Gore and John Kerry, both just as stiff, robotic, and unlikeable then as Hillary is now. So they’re portraying Hillary not only as strong and invincible, but also as warm as a down comforter and as sweet as Mrs. Butterworth.

The New York Times stands out as a primary transmission belt for the Clinton campaign’s effort to melt the ice-queen image. On the front page July 29, Times political writer Mark Leibovich lavished his awe on personal correspondence Hillary wrote as a Wellesley co-ed to her high school friend John Peavoy at Princeton. The headline was “In the ‘60s, a Future Candidate Poured Her Heart Out in Letters.”

Not an easy thing to do, but they’re pros, read the rest of “Humanizing Hillary, Canonizing Chelsea.”

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/3935742769189819472

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, Webloggin, Republican National Convention Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, Pursuing Holiness, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

To the MSM, Shift is a Euphemism for Withdrawal

The behind the Times offers up a dish on Defense Secretary Gates’ “blunt” review on the progress in Iraq. What strikes me in the tone of “articles” on our efforts in Iraq is that what is honest assessment is viewed as some kind of admonition of guilt for something; each is an ‘we told you so’ moment for the msm.

For all its supposed wisdom and intelligence it always gets down to its not being over yet therefore and even without actually saying it, it has failed.

“In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration’s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said, “I think the developments on the political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level.” He said that despite the Sunni withdrawal, “my hope is that it can all be patched back together.”’

Following this revelation that all is not perfect and that the new strategy is not a silver bullet on its own, the toilet paper then leads us to the place it wants the reader:

“Mr. Gates gave little indication whether he was leaning toward recommending a shift in the administration’s strategy next month, when officials are planning to review whether progress has been achieved by sending nearly 30,000 additional American troops to Iraq.”

What is this “shift” the paper refers to? Or rather what do they want and expect the “shift” to be? If this “shift” is not what the toilet paper means by “shift,” will there be holy hell to pay?

The “shift” is a euphemism for “redeployment,” “retreat,” “draw-down,” “time-line,” and “withdrawal.” Now, were the media actually unbiased, “shift” it would not matter so much whether a “shift” was new tactics, more soldiers, or withdrawal for example. But, “shift” has only been allowed to be one thing and as the president hasn’t ordered this “shift” anything else is wrong and a recipe for failure; especially since we have already failed.

These people (the msm and antiwar folks) have lost and so has the nation; therefore there can only be one “strategy” or “shift.” This unbending “shift” is what has been standing still, unbending and stubborn since the onset.

The administrations and military’s strategies and reassessments deal with changing realities oftentimes from failures (how else does one learn) and other times from what works. The other side of the argument being the msm and Left, has never had a different strategy. The idea when entering into a field of battle is to win and you keep morphing and changing in an effort to do just that.

This does not mean endlessly, but it should recognize how rapidly things have moved from the first day into Iraq even though they don’t want to or even can’t if they tried.

As has been said many a time here; this is too big for such a huge of seriousness.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/9011782854374808303

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Medias and Democrats Iraq; a crack in the veneer

Rather than being a case of vindication it is more relief that we are not insane. Some may want to jump up and down with a loud ‘I told you so’ but it is more than that. The relief comes from the crack in the veneer that blocked the light of fact.

There has never been any doubt in the mind of many that Iraq can be a violent place. The daily death and mayhem is not ignored, the separated families are not mere trifles, and the challenges are recognized; but through it and standing for continuing with our actions was and is not a political game of we can’t lose this.

It is the ramifications of not succeeding, of not quitting too soon or let’s try this hopefully improved tactic. It is not that we want this to go on endlessly throwing our military at the enemy as if they are so many chips in the pot. Iraq obviously cannot go on for years and years more as though it’s not big deal.

We have learned through the historical lessons of our military that its success is in its ability to adapt and improve based upon what it is faced with; because of our nations past, even in the face of failures, that we can complete and do what we set out to do.

Not blind optimism, rose tinted glasses or blind faith, but an understanding that if what we are up against involves a long struggle then we cannot expect an over night success or even success in half a decade.

The veneer the light seeps through is an OpEd in of all places The NY Times; a media when faced with the reality that certain successes cannot be ignored; a new tactic being followed through on by a president continuously harangued with criticism of his policies, his hard-headedness and refusal to change course. The veneer cracked shows more that those appearing to have nothing but “criticism of the Bush administration's policies designed more to hurt Bush than to win the war.”

As Debra Saunders wrote of an article in the Times that Janet Elder wrote based upon the papers poll “found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-Jul” which lead to another poll:

“the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."’

Regarding the articles title “Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm,” Saunders suggests, “America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."

Now that makes me smile, but only just; it is this very fact that should cause so much concern. The media is the trough that we feed from. It is not our ally or friend, it is a business and a business that influences the views of so many. It would not be so out of touch if it actually did its job, rather than play its own version of power politics.

It has taken pushing, shoving, posting and screaming to allow this one glimmer of reality through and it shouldn’t have. Rather than catch on and look into the various aspects of what is going on in an effort to report more accurately and with less bias (which they don’t recognize), they will likely regroup and push back harder.

They will push back harder because they don’t want to lose. Much like the Democrats in office, it is not so much about “the war” it is about power. There is a bit of a tizzy going on these days, which is best brought forth by Spree at Wake up America, “Democrats in the house starting to panic;” where she finds the time or energy I have no clue, but the wheel once invented doesn’t really need to be re-invented so pop over while I go back to sleep.

Oh, yeah…wouldn’t it be nice if they weren’t in a panic about their own a*ses?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6320305727366976785

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Thoughts, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Thoughts on Competition and The Journal from The Board

From the editorial board at The NY Times regarding the purchase of “The Journal:”

“When Americans are served by many different, responsible, competing news outlets, they can make more informed judgments.”

“The exodus of American news organizations from Iraq, for example, means more Times exclusives from the war zone, but Americans need and a healthy democracy demands as broad a view of the war as possible.”

This is very much the case as with few exceptions at the NY Times we have to receive its slanted dregs every day. Like this thoughtful article on the front page this morning, “In Fox News, Giuliani Finds a Friendly Stage,” versus say earlier front page articles this week on Hillary Clinton and Chelsea, “Two Liberal Wrongs do NOT Make a Right,” and “NY Times Loves Hillary Unbiasedly.”

In closing, the board hopes, but you know they have already made up their minds:

“The best way for Mr. Murdoch to protect his $5 billion investment is to protect The Journal’s editorial quality and integrity. That will mean continued high-quality competition for The Times and other news organizations. And that will be good news for all Americans.”

Let’s hope this acquisition is not just a further boogeyman to the “old gray lady” that thinks so highly of herself.

For much more detail on the acquisition visit Spree over at Wake up America, who has as usual outdone herself with all that is really fit to print, “Owner of Fox News Now Owns Wall Street Journal.”

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1575888537635170051

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Victory has a Hundred Fathers, but Defeat is an Orphan

Yesterday saw the publication of an OpEd in The NY Times regarding the Iraq Theater in the war on terror written by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack entitled, “A War We Just Might Win.” Say, have you heard about it?

Today, possibly as a counterbalance (as opposed to the editorial page’s usual ever so slight, falling over LEFTIST tendency), to yesterday’s opinion is one submitted by Nicholas Thompson, a senior editor at Wired magazine, “A War Best Served Cold.” Thompson is currently authoring a biography about George F. Kennan, a career foreign service officer who is credited with formulating the policy of “containment,” against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

According to Thompson, Kennan “gave American strategy a name, but not much else.” Also the article, “X” published in Foreign Affairs “sixty years ago this month” was basically “grounded in a misunderstanding. Kennan didn’t make clear whether he intended containment to be primarily a political or military strategy. Despite the article’s ambiguity, everyone assumed the latter.”

Admittedly, Thompson says of the Kennan view of “containment” that:

“we can’t know for sure how his recommended, wholly political version of containment would have fared in the cold war. But we do know that a militant foreign policy didn’t lead to nuclear war and did, eventually, help bring about the collapse of Soviet communism. We also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.”

Which is an honest enough assessment of not knowing how things would have turned out had we done X rather than Y, but in writing of the almost half century long Cold War it appears a bit incongruous to point out that “we also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.”

Thompson takes Kennans explanation of containment, which lacked the clarity of whether it was “primarily a political or military strategy,” and turns it into his own version lacking clarity by making it an outright “political” one, forsaking a “military” side to the equation:

“A 21st-century rendering of X’s vision of containment would involve the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, an unambiguous renunciation of torture and an abandonment of the notion that our legal and moral norms don’t apply to the current struggle. Kennan believed we gave our opponents a propaganda victory each time we acted in a manner unfitting of our ideals.”

Thompson’s assessment sounds more akin to the arguments we have been hearing over the past few years, but with a “twist of Kennan” to somehow give it more credibility. Ultimately though it falls flat and could just be that based upon the opinion of an author in the throes of writing a book about and honorable and intelligent subject.

It would seem more likely that today’s generational war will be best accomplished with various pieces of past lessons paired with adjustments to the ever-changing landscape of war in general.

Yesterday also saw an NRO Symposium entitled “Turning Point?” If you haven’t read it, it is a must read:

“The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” — Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.

Read the responses from; Frank Gaffney Jr., Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford May, John McCain, Mackubin Thomas Owens, James Robbins, Peter Rodman, Joseph Morrison Skelly and Michael Yon.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6232131706495933981

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

NY Times Loves Hillary Unbiasedly

Just in case you missed it yesterday on the front page the Hillary Clinton/Chelsea Clinton fawning pieces are up on the FRONT Page still.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Two Liberal Wrongs do NOT Make a Right

The NY Times and NBC News are going to be “collaborating” in their coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Interesting, that word “collaboration,” Vichy is the first word to come to mind. So it’s official, rather than trying to bounce off each others tactics the two Liberally slanted sources of “news” will be openly conspiring together to slant the “news.”

Executive editor of the paper, in a message to the staff said:

“In brief, the arrangement goes like this: We will give NBC stories, graphics, pictures and The Caucus blog for their Web site. They will give us video for ours along with links that should expose many new readers to our online journalism.”

And it begins, I guess with video and article about the woman who would be president. Collaboration it is…

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1612179175841838802

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, third world county, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Thoughts, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Recent Deaths PROVE Iraq is a Distraction from Real War on Terror

Just trying to get a jump on the Editorial Curve


According to CNN:

"Car bombers targeted throngs of Iraqis Wednesday as they spilled into Baghdad streets to cheer a national soccer victory, killing at least 17 people and leaving scores more wounded.

Attacking revelers in the Mansour district of western Baghdad, a suicide car bomber killed at least 10 people and wounded 62, said an Interior Ministry official. Later, in the southeastern neighborhood of Ghadir, a second car bomb killed at least seven and wounded at least 27, the official said. The attack is near an Iraqi army checkpoint.

Thousands of fans had filled the streets of the capital after Iraqi athletes competing in Malaysia defeated South Korea, catapulting the nation to the Asian Cup finals for the first time."

Having foolishly believed in the past that Iraq is a central or the central front in the war on terror I have now come to my senses having read the above. Our military should not be in Iraq to either referee soccer matches or their aftermath. NO BLOOD FOR SOCCER!!!

This blogger apologizes to the ever-prescient editorial board of The NY Times for this and previous attacks upon their present and previous omniscience in these most trying of times.

NO BLOOD FOR SOCCER!!!

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6268313482964182882

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

Will someone please, please, please flush the toilet Paper???

According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

"Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists."

This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, "Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier." Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a "quagmire" would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to "plan" or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

What would our "exit plan" be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we're already there? Hasn't Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

Of Iraq, the board asks:

"What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?"

(bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that "know" that getting out of Iraq is "THE essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

This is the boards over riding "intelligence" estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for "extremists" would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they "stubbornly and damagingly" hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

Of Petraeus and Crocker's plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the "assumption" that "a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years." Forget the fact that it is a "war plan" and not the "change in direction" or "exit plan" the editors envision and "assume" is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):

"Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing."

One "illusion" here is that the board considers itself part of "everything" or perhaps "everything (that matters anyway)." Another "illusion" is that the "surge" and this newest plan isn't a re-evaluation of strategy. The last "illusion" is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

It must be nice to know.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1606177156462559660

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The "Stymied" NY Times and Democrats

The NY Times editorial board is at it again with (italics mine) “Stymied by G.O.P., Democrats Stop Debate on Iraq:”

“After Senate Republicans yet again thwarted a proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq,…”

Oh, wait…sorry, my bad…this colorful use of leading connotation is actually a “news” article. The article does however, have a nice and even-handed treatment of the debate with its “In Their Own Words: Comments from the Senate Floor” multi-media pop-up consisting of “words” from four Democrats and a Republican; so I guess we’re on balance there.

The Editorial board is just a bit more judgmental, even with their lack of contemplation on all the “news that isn’t fit to print.”

“The nation’s anguish over the Iraq war was kept on hold in the Senate yesterday as the Republican minority maintained serial threats of filibuster to buy time for President Bush’s aimless policies.”

Sadly for the nation and the paper an attempt to vote on something months before the agreed to Petreus report in September is now scheduled to take place when it actually was. A time when the realities of the report will still be ignored by the “old fart of a gray lady” and the Democrats. In Septembers time a pull-out probably won’t be appropriate, especially if things are improving, otherwise what is the point of anything we are doing, if not to try and see it succeed.

Cherry picking through the editorial like the Dems recently did with the NIE I offer a few “pie” worthy morsels. Beyond that, I cannot stomach much more of the arrogant ignorance.

“Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war.”

So, the board and Democrats are drinkers? The Democrats and board do not consider anything in sober terms and this editorial is example of the usual condescending vitriol the editors do best.

“The Iraq war stands apart as a watershed issue — a downward spiral that the public increasingly sees as a colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

This, thanks in no small part to the continual misleading hammering and one sided reporting from the MSM and Democrats.

“In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.”

“In postponing real action to September…” or postponing the “theatrical” debate and vote brought up two months earlier than agreed to when all agreed to Petraeus and the “surge” plan. The board, like the Democrat majority obviously takes part in the weekly conference calls with the likes of the MoveOn.orgers….pathetic.

The board speaks of a “ducking” of responsibility on the part of the Republicans as though the support they offer is only in deference to the president, while painting the “majority” as pushing a pullout as the only appropriate thing to do or some kind of selfless calling. Ignoring the “ducking” of responsibility of the majority and itself regarding the real on the ground realities of what the piece Iraq plays in the entire puzzle that is the greater war on terror.

Who is ducking responsibility?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5847355755231683077

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Red Mosque Siege in Pakistan and the Board

Yesterday, the editorial board of The NY Times had some advice for the Bush Administration regarding General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Of Musharraf the board said:

“he has done far less than he promised — and far less than is needed. It’s not clear which side his intelligence services are rooting for, while Taliban and Qaeda fighters continue to find shelter and support on Pakistan’s side of the Afghan border.”

One cannot disagree that Musharraf’s Pakistan has done less than promised in the fight against terrorism, however via the opinion of the toiletPaper all the nuance that they find commendable in a Kerry, they don’t apply to themselves with regard to a problem that is not at all as simple as they would like.

Question to the board: whose intelligence will Musharrafs be if he is replaced whether Democratically or by other means?

The board believes:

“Washington needs to make clear to the Pakistani people that America is the ally of their country, not their dictator, and that the United States favors the earliest possible return to free elections and civilian rule.”

Well, this is hard to disagree with as well; but their people are definitely a mixed bag as are the many different parts of the government there. “America is the ally of their country,” including one assumes of Mohammed Abdul Aziz and Abdur Rashid Ghazi; the fellas in the lead on the Red Mosque stand-off.

Did the boards words strike fear in Musharraf and lead to the recent military storming of the mosque? Hmmmmm…..

BBC News considers the consequences of the siege:

“Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has often been accused of tolerating elements in the military and the intelligence services who are known to maintain ideological and strategic links with the country's Islamic militants.

That includes those holed up in Islamabad's Red Mosque (Lal Masjid).

So does the final showdown at the mosque mean that Gen Musharraf is moving decisively against those elements - and if so, what are the consequences?”

The board should consider more than just their simplistic biased views when blowing the hot air of their clarion call; whatever the subject.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8479943656982506143

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, CommonSenseAmerica, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.