134 Comments

1. Terrye:

Roger:

One of the reasons that many people think the war on Terror is bogus is because journalists have not really reported on Islamic extremists. I know I have had friends and relatives roll their eyes and sigh at my gullability for buying Bush’s doctrine and the need for democracy in the Arab world.

If these journalists had been as ready to run with stories about how truly nuts some of these people are as they are to trash neocons and soldiers perhaps more people would realize what we are up against. Instead a lot of folks relied on Michael Moore’s version of reality and just assumed that anyone who did not was a right wingnut.

Well they saw the wingnuts in the streets and Newsweek had to know better. I think they were too busy hoping for AbuGhraib11 to give a damn. But they outsmarted themselves and it blew up in their faces.

disgraceful.

May 19, 2005 - 12:18 pm 2. paleocon:

Unlike Roger, I eagerly await Ann Coulter’s column every Thursday. She usually nails it, and this week is no exception. Her style may be off-putting to some, especially those who think they can convert the neo-fascist left to their point of view by sweetness and niceness, but she points out facts, in her own inimitable manner, that need to see the light of day. She has probably been wrong in her facts from time to time, but I’ve never seen such a case.

Incidentally, I have about 10 more years on my odometer and probably (Can’t see under the hat) a few fewer hairs on my head than Roger.

May 19, 2005 - 12:32 pm 3. Buddy Larsen:

Way to stay on point, the both of yez. Roger, please continue to weave in the critical overarching issue of proportion, perspective, weight, scale, and plain old importance-to-the-big-picture, of everything from Isikoff’s feelings to Annan’s career. Words are funny, “nothing” is seven letters and a full 78% of the size of “something”, which has nine letters. Good that you’re pointing out the maddening disproportionality that abstractions permit. Brooks is betting grocery money on penny-ante.

May 19, 2005 - 12:42 pm 4. RBMN:

On David Brooks:

There’s nothing more worthless than a conservative columnist who seeks respect and admiration from his colleagues in mainstream journalism. You can be their favorite columnist on the right, but your auto mechanic, who just bought a new wheel alignment machine, has a favorite road too. The motivations are the same.

May 19, 2005 - 1:06 pm 5. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

Personally, I don’t think that Isikoff or Thomas bear any more responsibility for the Muslim deaths than you or I would bear if we handed a Zippo and two five gallon cans of gas to a guy wearing an orange jumpsuit with “CONVICTED ARSONIST” stenciled on the front and back. How could we actually know , epistemolgically, what would happen?

I sure feel better about the atmosphere at Newsweek for having read Brooks piece. I was picturing a group of Young Pioneers who whistled the Internationale all day long while they hammered away at their word processors, stopping only to look things up in the Manifesto. Instead, Brooks has convinced be that they’re all just Dem operatives with a wide streak of fundamental anti-Americanism.

What a relief.

May 19, 2005 - 1:14 pm 6. thibaud:

Coulter’s piece today is surprisingly calm, matter-of-fact, and with very few snarky touches. In good lawyerly fashion she puts forth facts concerning two diametrically opposed cases of MSM behavior and then simply asks, Why the huge discrepancy?

That Ann Coulter, of all people, scores a bull’s eye by doing what journalists are supposed to do– put forth a tight argument using incontrovertible facts and logic– should tell us that a new tipping point may have been reached. Isn’t it f’ing obvious by now that no amount of PR, no amount of bowing and scraping, be it via Bush’s “Religion of Peace” mantra or MSM dhimmitude, will persuade these idiots of our good intentions?

There are only two ways to fundamentally alter most muslims’ opinions of the US: either

a) withdraw from Iraq immediately and abandon all support for Israel while simultaneously championing Hamas and Hezbullah’s cause; or

b) trounce Zarqawi and any other islamist nutter in the only arena that really counts, the battlefield.

This is not a war of ideas. It’s a war against primitves, period. The PC/PR effort IMO is shaping up as a huge waste of time and energy, directed mainly for our own consumption and benefit rather than for any muslim’s. They couldn’t care less– otherwise, Abu G would have had far more impact than the Piss Koran fable.

May 19, 2005 - 1:19 pm 7. thibaud:

Carry on the fight for Andrew Sullivan’s heart and mind!

Actually, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we demonstrate our good will toward the muslim world by finding an oppressed (by Christians) muslim insurgency that we can support, with massive displays of air power, so as to save many thousands of innocent muslims from slaughter by the infidels?

Oh, wait, sorry– forgot we already did that, in 1999.

What was our recompense for this good deed, you ask? To get attacked by muslim jihadists, the planning for which began at about the same time we saved some 50,000+ muslim lives, an attack which millions of muslims on the West Bank and elsewhere applauded.

File under “Intentions; road to hell”

May 19, 2005 - 1:27 pm 8. thibaud:

To be clear, I support the democracy promotion effort, and of course we should help muslim moderates wherever possible. But we cannot and must not agonize over whether we are offending the delicate sensibilities of the head hackers and that majority of muslims worldwide who refuse to challenge or confront the wackos.

May 19, 2005 - 1:31 pm 9. Buddy Larsen:

Well, Rick, let’s just be as fair as we can be. When you say anti-Americanism, you’re committing to a vision of America that I think (from reading your thoughts) pretty much forms along the lines of Constitutional strict-constructionalism, followed by an equally strictly-constructed evidentiary identification that basic principles are like lodestones around which an American way of life will–unimpeded–coalesce. And beyond a steady loyalty to that bare-boned yin/yang, what-the-hell, let the chips fall where they may.

Yet, you disagree strongly with the ethos of that (above evoked) newsroom. So it follows that in that newsroom there must be another, de-facto competing, vision of what America rightly is.

Wonder what that vision is? Maybe we could all just get along, if only we could know what that vision is. Why won’t they tell us? Can’t the professional communications industry communicate? I read and read, and watch and listen, but I honestly cannot catch a glimmer–or at least no sort of steady one, such as what emanates from the other side–of what that other vision is.

May 19, 2005 - 1:43 pm 10. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

I think David Brooks is an insightful and high-integrity guy, but I’m disappointed in this column. It’s true that the primary responsiblity for the riots and the killings lies with those who did the rioting and the killing. But this by no means implies that Newsweek’s hands are clean.

Analogy: Imagine that it’s 1958. Racial tensions are high throughout the South, and in a particular state, the KKK is very active in several towns. A respected statewide newspaper hears a rumor that black men have been insulting and assaulting white women. The rumor is false, but the paper publishes it without adequate checking. KKK-led riots take place, and several people are lynched.

Would anyone claim that in this scenario the newspaper is without blame, or that government officials should refrain from criticizing it? I don’t see much difference between this scenario and the choices made by Newsweek.

May 19, 2005 - 1:46 pm 11. Knucklehead:

Not that Terrye and others here haven’t said this many times over, but why aren’t the Isikoff’s of the MSM doing at least half their jobs?

Why aren’t they out there doing even a little of what MEMRI does? Why aren’t they having a look at what the murdering Salafists are saying and doing? Why aren’t they giving us some idea of how real the problem of radical madrassa teaching hate and murder is? Why aren’t they out there telling us what “moderate” Islam means and whether or not the “moderates” are trying to gain some control of their religious whackjobs and, if they aren’t, why they aren’t?

May 19, 2005 - 1:56 pm 12. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

You’re right – I should have clarified that I was speaking of the Kojevian EUnuchistan vision of the Kerry/Dean mini-wing of the once great and proud all-American Democratic Party.

It is very difficult to truly define that vision because it is always in constant flux and totally dependent upon constant polling for its daily redefinition.

It’s not as if we’re speaking of a vision defined by any princple other than “holding power is good”. A very slippery devil to see, let alone grasp.

May 19, 2005 - 1:57 pm 13. thibaud:

Knuck – because they’re

1) lazy

2) ignorant of islam and non-Beltway matters generally, and

3) unable to grasp any subject without fitting it into the grand Vietnam-era construct of Brave Journalistic Truth Warriors vs Lying Pentagon Warmongers.

In Issikoff’s case, he seems to have viewed this as basically another delicious Lewinskian scoop. You’re asking pygmies to scale a 20-foot wall.

May 19, 2005 - 2:05 pm 14. Terrye:

Knucklehead:

Two reasons:

1] craven cowardice

2] partisan politics.. in other words they are waiting for a Democrat to get elected to the Oval Office so that they can pull their heads out of their asses. Would not want to look like we think maybe just maybe bush is not the second coming of Hitler. That would be way uncool.

May 19, 2005 - 2:17 pm 15. Buddy Larsen:

Wonder if the soto voce message is, “So, you’re getting a little tired of us? We’re wearing you down, demoralizing you? Good, then, let us win the next election, and then we’ll HAVE to grow up and make sense of the war effort, non-discretionery spending, entitlements, empty federal benches, and rabid media hyperpartisanship.“

May 19, 2005 - 2:48 pm 16. Jim Rockford:

The biggest problem is that the Commentariat, along with most of the Democratic Party, will convince terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, M.I.L.F. (Moro Islamic Liberation Front), Jemiyah Islamayah, reconstituted GIA, and all the other fringe Jihadists that America can be decisively destroyed by more terror, the destruction of a city in the US.

This is the standard approach to fighting us; Tojo, Hitler, Mao in Korea, Giap in Vietnam, Saddam in Gulf War 1, and bin Laden in Somalia all approached the problem of overwhelming US advantages in this way. Some were successful when the fight was perceived not to be worth it (Korea, Vietnam) and spectacularly unsuccessful in other conflicts when the threat was existential.

The response to Hitler was the firebombing and destruction of German Cities, lest anyone mistake our intentions, resolve, or cost of threatening the US’s existence. The response to Okinawa’s toll (20,000 Americans dead, 34 ships sunk, hundreds damaged) was Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We upped the ante on death to a point where Japan could not respond.

The danger is that the Commentariat and Democratic Party, out of reflexive partisanship and class hatred (Bush, the most patrician of Presidents, appears as a middle class Evangelical) will persuade foreign enemies that another “Bigger” 9/11 will finish the job of restoring the status quo ante. Instead it would simply galvanize beyond description the US forces, into a true WWII style mobilization and cause immense destruction and death in enemy lands, to everyone’s disaster.

We won’t see the Leftist fantasy of fascism, but a radical reshuffling of parties, with probably a split in the massively swollen Republican Party with the Democrats ending up a lame fringe party with no respect. While there are a billion Muslims, their states and societies are weak as a result of anti-Modernism and a truly mobilized America would have no problem decisively re-ordering their societies by force if provoked.

The Commentariat does a very bad job of accurately reflecting political reality in the US; in that politics have decisively changed already after 9/11 (it is IMHO the only reason Bush won) and that provoking the US with more terror attacks on US soil is a disaster of the highest order for everyone involved. That this sort of thing will simply result in the US upping the ante on death so decisively as to totally destroy and remake societies along the lines of Germany and Japan.

Too much of the Commentariat lives in denial of the post 9/11 world, with their mental model being of “end of history” moral relativism, multicultural fantasies, and the wish for peace at all cost to avoid a cold war nuclear global war. This world view certainly had it’s use in acting as a brake on nuclear war in the Cold War, but as Emilio Estevez once said, “That was then, this is now.”

May 19, 2005 - 3:10 pm 17. JK Ribera:

Well said.

May 19, 2005 - 3:20 pm 18. Knucklehead:

Thibaud & Terrye,

I was axing rhetorically. Your answers, of course, were elegantly eloquent, but unnecessary

BTW, in this vein, see Chicagoboyz .

May 19, 2005 - 3:22 pm 19. Buddy Larsen:

Rockford, “Repo Man”?

May 19, 2005 - 3:31 pm 20. Buddy Larsen:

ABC’s Terry Moran, the “Are you the editor of Newsweek?” shouter, dropped some bombs on himself (thank you, Terry!), as well as the White House press corps.

May 19, 2005 - 3:53 pm 21. richard mcenroe:

I’m starting to think the MSM will not take the war on terror seriously until someone crashes an airplane north of 42nd Street…

May 19, 2005 - 5:23 pm 22. charlotte:

Poor David Brooks might be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

If you write for the NYT and regularly comment on PBS programs like Newshour and All Things Considered, and once were a contributing editor at Newsweek, as was Brooks, and unless you’re made of some really stiff, stern, and stout stuff, at some point you’re going to start identifying with your mediafascist captors. Should blogs take up a collection to ransom him from those awful people, or did he go too far this time?

May 19, 2005 - 5:47 pm 23. ShrinkWrapped:

“To make my own view clear on this, I think the danger in reporting like Michael Isikoff’s…is the influence it has on the home front, on America.”

Roger,

I completely disagree with you here. At home, this will most likely just continue the accelerating marginalization of the MSM. In the Islamic world however, Newsweek’s irresponsibility launches a PR drive for recruits that would put our best Ad agencies to shame. Much of the Islamic world still believes we are the Great Satan and along with Israel, the Little Satan, are the source of all sorts of paranoid delusions; they believe we set off the Indonesian Tsunami! They think we are all powerful infidels, agents of evil; they mean exactly what they say when they call us the Great Satan. While they hear this everyday from their Imams and on al Jazeera, eventually it loses some of its impact and their losses in Iraq begin to discourage the Jihadists. The calculation changes when it is a “highly respected” member of the MSM who promulgates these stories. Now an American infidel has confirmed their worst fears, that America is waging war on Islam (in this part of the world an independent media, not under the control of the governemnt, is a fiction). What do you suppose this does for recruitment to a death cult which can tolerate no such insult?

While Isikoff’s story may have only killed 17 (and I do believe the “rioters” were fully prepared and just waiting for the right trigger) there promise to be more such stories unless the MSM start to understand that this war threatens them, too, that Islamic fascism is the enemy, not George Bush and the American military.

May 19, 2005 - 6:11 pm 24. richard mcenroe:

Personally, I also see this as just more of the racism of the “progressive” in America, particularly by the MSM. Just as moaning white-guilt cracker Raines at the time originally tried to pin the blame for Jason Blair on a black editor, now Newsweek wants us to accept that it is not their slovenly reporting that is at issue here but those bloody excitable wogs overseas.

May 19, 2005 - 7:07 pm 25. Caroline:

Shrink Wrapped “While Isikoff’s story may have only killed 17 (and I do believe the “rioters” were fully prepared and just waiting for the right trigger) there promise to be more such stories unless the MSM start to understand that this war threatens them, too, that Islamic fascism is the enemy, not George Bush and the American military”

Shrink Wrapped – you don’t get it. Isikoff’s story didn’t kill anyone. Rioting Islamists are the ones who killed people. This same point has been made by several journalists besides Brooks in the past few days – the ones who come to mind are Andrew McCarthy at NRO, Jeff Jacoby at Boston Globe, and Bruce Thornton at victordavis.com.

Don’t think I don’t get your point re Newsweek and their opportunistic, partisan shot at the Bush adminstration that backfired, but Brooks is not wrong in his attack on the blogosphere for this one. I spend enough hours on the blogs to know.

Several days ago on this blog I used the analogy of the couple stranded in the shark-infested waters in the movie “Open Waters”, bickering with eachother on who was to blame for landing them there, as an analogy for the partisan way in which this story has unfolded on the blogs and in the media in general: Democrats and Republicans bitching at eachother while meanwhile the real threat – the sharks – circle both.

I understand the conservative anger over what Newsweek did, but conservatives need to understand that by pointing the finger at Newsweek, they are handing our enemies a huge propoganda victory! (I won’t even comment on the liberals who are pointing the finger at our military for supposedly flushing the Koran down the toilet – they are way beyond hope).

Because the point conservatives are inadvertently making by directing their wrath at Newsweek, is that IF the story HAD been true – the Islamic reaction would have been justified! Is that the point you want to make? Because if so – then forget Theo Van Gogh right? Cause he DID make the movie Submission. That movie DID insult Islam. In other words, the conservative response to this story basically gives credence to Van Goghs murderers!

Wake up folks! Keep your eyes on the ball! We’re all in this together – liberals and conservatives. Don’t let us inadvertently feed the sharks cause we’re so preoccupied with pointing the finger at eachother!

May 19, 2005 - 7:16 pm 26. Caroline:

Richard Mcenroe: “now Newsweek wants us to accept that it is not their slovenly reporting that is at issue here but those bloody excitable wogs overseas.”

Uh – sorry Richard – Newsweek is certainly responsible for ’slovenly reporting’ as you put it but it is indeed those ‘bloody excitable wogs overseas’ (as you put it) who bear the real responsibility for what happened this week.

May 19, 2005 - 7:32 pm 27. Caroline:

Shrink wrapped: “there promise to be more such stories unless the MSM start to understand that this war threatens them, too, that Islamic fascism is the enemy, not George Bush and the American military.”

And apropos of what I said above, there promise to be more such stories unless you can understand that the liberal MSM is a secondary rather than a primary target in the WOT – from a strategic POV. Or do you not in fact understand that by going after Newsweek, you are throwing a big bone to our real enemies. We live in a global media world, remember?

May 19, 2005 - 7:37 pm 28. ed:

Hmmm.

“I understand the conservative anger over what Newsweek did”

No. I don’t think you do.

Newsweek is a symptom of a disease that has infected the media for the past 40+ years. And 40+ years is frankly 39 years too long to put up with that nonsense. Newsweek editors knew what they were doing. This GWOT is largely a propaganda war. One reason why we’re in Iraq is to generate enough effective propaganda to change how muslims view the Western world. Not as an enemy, but something to emulate at least in part.

In this war the media, almost entirely liberal and Democrat, are not allies but are instead helping the enemy.

“Because the point conservatives are inadvertently making by directing”

Completely incorrect. The point is that Newsweek was not justified at all for printing that story. One major problem with the media is that they view themselves as neutral observers. As far as I’m concerned that makes them traitors.

Every single story published by the American media has the potential for adversely affecting the GWOT. And that effect can, and probably already has, result in the death of American soldiers and civilians.

And to be quite frank about this. If someone were to line up many of the media “stars” against a wall and shoot them, I wouldn’t lose a moment of sleep. Add in Bill Moyers and I’d even applaud.

I certainly hope you’ll understand now.

May 19, 2005 - 7:38 pm 29. Luther McLeod:

ed, I can understand your frankness, and nothing personal, but I think you may have gotten a little carried away with that last graf. You sound scarily familiar to some other ism’s out there. That is not where we (or at least I) want to go.

Also, Caroline, IMO the greatest enemy we face is ourselves. The only way this war will be won is if ‘everyone’ understands that there is a war.

We are a long way from that understanding.

May 19, 2005 - 7:55 pm 30. Caroline:

Ed: “This GWOT is largely a propaganda war.”

No argument there. Newsweek sucks – no doubt about it – but ask yourself, from a global perspective, whether pointing the finger at Newsweek, rather than the insanity we witnessed this week from the Islamic protesters, who directly caused the death and mayhem – doesn’t in fact “pass the buck” and score major points to the anti-American propogandists overseas.

“See?”, they say, “the Americans themselves admit that we aren’t responsible.”

Ed – what if the story were true and they were just reporting it? I understand your frustration that such reporting might be unnecessary and might undermine the WOT. But still – what if it were true and Newsweek were doing what journalists legitimately do – reporting facts?

Then you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on would you? You would have already relinquished the moral high ground to be able to say, “Too bad! Criticizing or insulting Islam is not an excuse for murder!”

I bring up Van Gogh because Van Gogh DID criticize and blaspheme Islam. Follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion and you will find that you would have to give in to Van Gogh’s murder. On what basis could you protest it if you won’t point your finger right now at those who are REALLY responsible for what happened this week?

May 19, 2005 - 8:04 pm 31. Buddy Larsen:

Ed is right, tho I wouldn’t risk a rogerban with the ‘up against the wall’ thing. As ed sez, great effort, great amounts of blood & treasure have gone and will yet go into this war for the future, and all of the sacrifice is, in the end, in order to put up the picture of the face of America as it can be seen by the people–thru their own prism, how else?–who are imperiled and imperiling.

For our press, our domestic-politics obsessed injustice-nurturers (’injustice’ being the lost elections), using the goodwill of previous generational sacrifices to toss off cheap, wrong, stupid confusions in order to deliberately negate the great gouts of blood and treasure put up by the nation and its folk, is as Roger said in the first post and Ed said in the last–with many in between–immoral, vicious, stupid, suicidal, and frankly ought to be criminalized–if only so doing wouldn’t pave the way for oppressive government. Which, by the way, if you read this, you will be able to imagine might someday happen.

May 19, 2005 - 8:11 pm 32. richard mcenroe:

Caroline ó The point is, either the Newsweek “How could we have known?” defense is either utterly disingenuous, or it indicates an embarassing ignorance of the situation they are presuming to comment on. As Mark Steyn pointed on on the radio with Hugh Hewitt, link available through Steyn’s site, the MSM knows better than to goad American Muslims this way, but didn’t imagine what the reaction would be in Karachi and Kabul? It beggars credulity

May 19, 2005 - 8:19 pm 33. Patrick Tyson:

Buddy—

Off-Topic:

They made the S.E. Hinton novel of that name into a movie. Emilio starred. Unlike the other (all better) S.E. Hinton movie adaptations, The Outsiders, Rumble Fish and Tex, which were filmed in and around Tulsa, That Was Then, This Is Now was filmed in and around St. Paul-Minneapolis. Emilio is the star of my favorite scene from an S.E. Hinton adaptation. It’s in The Outsiders—chocolate cake and brew for breakfast.

On-Topic:

[blue-penciled] Nevermind.

May 19, 2005 - 8:19 pm 34. Caroline:

Richard McEnroe: “or it indicates an embarassing ignorance of the situation they are presuming to comment on.”

That I would believe. I have come to believe that the very same ignorance extends all the way to the highest office and quite possibly includes both Bush and Condoleeza Rice.

May 19, 2005 - 8:23 pm 35. Buddy Larsen:

Patrick, quickly, thanks–but that line shoulda been in ‘Repo Man’!

May 19, 2005 - 8:24 pm 36. JK Ribera:

In what sense is the liberal media actually liberal? The term makes no sense at allwhen you think about it. What does it stand for? I have no idea except as a habit of mind.

May 19, 2005 - 8:26 pm 37. Buddy Larsen:

Caroline, we were dealt these cards a long, long time ago–back in the late 70s. Just because the play went table-stakes on 911 doesn’t mean that GWB and Condi set the house rules. Their play strikes very, very many smart historians as being good play of a bad hand. What is it that you know that the rest of us don’t? Your feelings, perhaps?

May 19, 2005 - 8:32 pm 38. Caroline:

Nah Buddy – merely the nagging feeling that both Bush and Condi really do believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

May 19, 2005 - 8:35 pm 39. Buddy Larsen:

Wow, caroline…that’s a hall of mirrors, isn’t it? But can they do otherwise than plant that very feeling?

May 19, 2005 - 8:38 pm 40. thedragonflies:

Neo-Neocon (I believe) made the point a while back that liberals lost their trust in the military (and administrations conducting wars) during Vietnam. What they did in response to that “betrayal” and loss of trust was transfer their trust to the MSM. Thus, it is the most natural thing in the world for libs to believe any anti-military, anti-American propaganda that comes out of the MSM.

Conservatives, on the other hand have lost their trust in the MSM. Thus, it is the most natural thing in the world for us to believe that stories like the Koran-toilet story reveal their pro-democrat, anti-republican agenda.

It is time, I believe, for libs to wake up to the fact that the post-Vietnam era ended on 9/11/01. In order for us to survive, we cannot indulge in the mindless self-criticism and self-hatred coming from the libs. It is a suicidal mindset. One that we must discredit and change.

May 19, 2005 - 8:41 pm 41. Terrye:

What the press needs to do is stop going out of its way to promote antiAmericanism. I don’t care if the ranting and raving is Galloway in front of the Senate, ANSWER at a rally, Moore in a movie or Dan Rather on TV an incredible amount of the crap our enemies trapse out in front of us originates with our own press.

And if they are wrong, which they often are the damage is always already done. oops sorry.

We can’t win with these jokers and I am tired of it.

May 19, 2005 - 8:46 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Me too, Terrye…the initial thrill of encountering so many kindred spirits in the blogs has given way to a cold grim burn that began when I saw American teenagers falling in the sands of the middle east in response to our MSM’s coddling of a candidate that failed every conceivable test of what an American president must–must–be. I tried to shake it off telling myself that the election was poorly timed for our troops on the line…but the truth is, our liberal press was feeding the terrorists in the same chow line with the moonbats. This is bad, bad, bad stuff.

May 19, 2005 - 8:54 pm 43. Buddy Larsen:

If you think that’s hyperbolic, just imagine how demoralizing it would be for the enemy if this nation had a hard, united, war face. what option would they then have but to give it up?

May 19, 2005 - 8:57 pm 44. Caroline:

thedragonflies: “Conservatives, on the other hand have lost their trust in the MSM. Thus, it is the most natural thing in the world for us to believe that stories like the Koran-toilet story reveal their pro-democrat, anti-republican agenda.”

Of course such stories reveal the anti-American agenda of the leftist media. Yawn. It majorly sucks without a doubt. But – don’t tell me that such a story couldn’t be true (even if this one weren’t). Let’s say that this story is false – which it quite probably is. Are you gonna tell me that somewhere, sometime as this WOT goes on (probably throughout my lifetime) that at some point sometime in the future somewhere such a report won’t actually be True?

Well – what then when the Islamists riot and use it as a pretext to nuke one of our cities?

In other words, what the hell does this have to do with the MSM? Where is the universal outcry from all US political parties that murder and mayhem is not an acceptable response to desecration of a Koran? Come on! Where are all the libs here? – the ones who advocated govt funding for Piss Christ? Where are all the conservatives who endured the insult of Piss Christ to also stand up and say hell – we had to put up with it – you can too! Geez – where is all the appropriate defiance and outrage towards those who call for a jihad against us for this so-called “desecration” of Islam?

May 19, 2005 - 9:07 pm 45. Buddy Larsen:

We are on a conveyor belt, it’s ‘time’, and we have no choice but to ride it to either victory, or defeat, or endless war. Which is the preferred outcome, and who is trying for that outcome? And who isn’t? And which outcome do they want? And why would they want it? What is the major malfunction here? If our elites see civilization so darkly that they can no longer believe in a future, why the f*ck don’t they just shoot themselves and leave the rest of us the hell alone?

May 19, 2005 - 9:09 pm 46. Luther McLeod:

Well, forgive the hell out of me. Could someone please explain the difference between ed’s comment and SteveJ’s comment that would lead to one of them being banned and the other not. As I have stated before I am an uneducated sot who has no business commenting here. OTOH, I’m not stupid. What is going on, just different target’s? And I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with ed, but aren’t there some things we should keep to ourselves?

May 19, 2005 - 9:14 pm 47. Buddy Larsen:

Luther, the head of state has a different rule than ordinary joe. He just focuses too much energy for the rules to be otherwise. That’s my interpretation, anyhoo–Roger was reflecting a reality that even federal law has codified. Plus, all that other guy ever did was cut and paste de-contexted quotes, never engaging the ideas behind them.

May 19, 2005 - 9:22 pm 48. Rick Ballard:

There are limits as to what can be accomplished just by exhortation in blog comments but I have been heartened to see at least four people announce cancellation or non-renewal of Newsweek just on this blog.

If each person who reads these comments and agrees that MSM has allied itself clearly with defeat and submission would vow to not tolerate a publication of the Copperhead press within their homes – it will have an effect. It’s been at least fifteen years since I have watched anything on the alphabet networks and it’s been somewhat less but still quite a while since I’ve subscribed to any publication that holds view inconsonant with what I regard as American ideals. I don’t miss anything about the networks or the publications.

It’s not just Newsweek – make a pledge today – cancel a subscription, turn off the networks and deny those who oppose the interests of the United States their profit. We can’t call for a wall or a rope for journos but we can sure as hell do everything in our power to deny them the means to make a living peddling anti-Americanism.

It works – note the falling circulation and especially note the decline in ticket sales for Hollywood’s crap. Your checkbook is as good as a machine gun – it just takes a little longer to bleed the enemy out.

May 19, 2005 - 9:27 pm 49. Caroline:

Buddy – the history of civilization suggests that there has always been endless war. Much of it, as we are coming to appreciate, has been due to the force of the Islamic ideology over some 1400 years. What sets our confrontation with this ideology apart, though, is the fact that we can communicate with eachother long distance. That has to be appreciated as an advantage that previous folks facing jihad didn’t have.

May 19, 2005 - 9:29 pm 50. Luther McLeod:

Well Buddy I realize that, and I am certainly not sticking up for SJ. I have read, enjoyed and learned much from ed’s comments. I also don’t think Roger has even read these comments. My question wasn’t directed at him anyway. It just strikes me as somewhat odd that I’m the only one to think that that paragraph is somewhat out of place, in this place. Thanks for your response.

May 19, 2005 - 9:36 pm 51. Buddy Larsen:

Rick, that IS the only effective behavioral therapy option–tho it will drive the entities into niche marketing, and niche marketing gets brutal over market-share–meaning leftward nets, rags, and mags will just go harder and harder leftward, and the culture will continue to variegate redder red and bluer blue.

Caroline, right, it certainly is pointless to try to make oneself see it as unnatural.

May 19, 2005 - 10:00 pm 52. Buddy Larsen:

(*sigh*) Google News’ lede link right now is the story up on a site with the slogan “Marxist Thought Online”. The opening lines of the article–the Google lead-in–is “On May 16, 2005, rather than lose its press pass, Newsweek fell on its sword and retracted its story about U.S. investigators confirming the desecration of the Koran by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo.”

Well, there ya go…it’s history, “rather than lose its press pass”…So, Bush threatened Newsweek, and made them lie about the “…U.S. investigators confirming the desecration of the Koran by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo.”

Just plain old ‘make shit up’. How many lefties have the brains to see what a great Manna from Heaven story that would be for Newsweek? Have the “press pass yanked”? Hoo-boy!

Way to go, Google…great arithmetricks.

May 19, 2005 - 10:53 pm 53. Syl:

Let’s keep something in mind here re the Newsweek piece that makes it different from the hints, speculations, and allegations of Koran abuse around.

Newsweek reported that an official investigation would conclude that the incident actually took place.

That’s different from relaying/reporting on speculation and allegations. One could conceivably conclude from this that it was official US policy.

That’s the ugly part of the weakly sourced reporting.

As for the reaction in the muslim world, I don’t know if that makes much difference, but the fact that various allegations have been floating around before without these same consequences makes you wonder.

And, please, let’s be careful the way we tend to paint with a broad brush. Most muslims would be offended, but most muslims would not react violently. If we can’t keep them straight, we’ll never get anywhere in this war.

May 19, 2005 - 10:54 pm 54. Syl:

x-posted with Buddy.

It’s bad enough we have to deal with the reactions of certain muslims, we also have to deal with the a**holes in our own country. Sigh. I’m getting so tired of the stupidity.

I was reading comments on a David Corn piece about Isakoff. I also read a blog I’d never seen by a Saudi (Saudi Jeans or something like that). I would much rather have that young Saudi male for a friend than any of the commenters at Corn’s site.

We’re wondering where the moderate muslims are (they’re all over the place, just going about their lives). Is that the same deal with moderate Democrats? I’m really beginning to wonder. Where the hell are they? Why don’t we hear from them?

May 19, 2005 - 11:02 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:

Good question, and good advice about recognizing our friends. It is depressing as hell, though…vast undulating wilderness alive with insanity…what the Greeks had in mind with Medusa.

May 19, 2005 - 11:13 pm 56. Carol_Herman:

I dunno. Because, first off I think Isakoff was getting leads from some source at the Pentagon; and as a free press in America, they were in their rights going with this story. I think what’s caught most Americans off-guard was the speed the Mideast deteriorates. If these are arabs heading for democracy, and multiple voices of leadership to elect into offices, HOW COME THEY REVERTED TO BURNING FLAGS? And, their general propensity to hate the West? Just asking.

Bush is playing with making terrorist states (even growing a new one, soon), as some sort of cure-all for the mess on the ground in Iraq, NOW.

What kind of a mess? You can’t drive from to or from the airport in Baghdad. Everyday journeys are fraught with dangers. The Italians fed the terrorists a lot of money to buy bombs and equipment. The Sunnis are pressuring for entry into the government, even though they weren’t elected. And, Bush plays with the Saudi-MENACE.

Was back in the 60’s there was some “news source,” that said LBJ had sex with JFK’s corpse, on the plane out of Dallas. Believe me. Americans are used to this stuff. And, the Internet is wide open to porn sites. (Much more popular than political sites.)

Here, if Bush was hoping he could create a firestorm of support, I think his efforts lagged. And, I don’t think anyone has to apologize to the arabs. For anything. It became a stupid argument. And, some day it will run as a plot line on how dirty-tricks can get done from the White House. It’s as if NIXON LIVES! How come politicians keep trying those failed attempts at controlling the political winds? Was this stuff ever successful?

Let alone, here we’re watching 100 senators being told that only half of them will have clout over the next couple of years. And, Rumsfeld blithly closes bases (that Ralph Peters opines is harmful to our troops). And, there’s no blowback?

If this was fiction, nobody would believe that this stuff was happening.

May 19, 2005 - 11:20 pm 57. Buddy Larsen:

Carol, maybe I’m just stupid, but I can’t imagine the administration cooking up this Newsweek thing as a ‘dirty trick’. It just doesn’t match the life-history of that corporate ethos. You can assert differently, of course. Or anything, really, that can be put into words.

The Afghan riots were some Afghanis, not “Afghanistan”. The House of Saud is factionalized, and to trash the baddies right now, we have to trash the anti-AQ’s too; it is a family divided, and at some point you have to habd the portfolio to someone who can keep their mouth shut. If you don’t trust this administration to be working America’s interest, then fine, don’t–you have elections coming up.

Just please don’t make shit up–the oldest writings we have include such stories as the Tower of Babel and the Ten Commandments that warn and warn and warn against the things we see nowadays. Even the most dedicated atheist should be able to understand the practical wisdom of thousands of observed years of human interaction. Lies drive madness and give us Horrors and Hitlers. This ain’t beanbag. All is motion and things become irreversible. Wars start before anyone realizes it. The bullets come along much later. Our miseries–your and mine–today are the harvest of bad seeds planted nonchalently, without thought, in the past. What are we for, if not to learn this, and to try to make the future better?

May 19, 2005 - 11:42 pm 58. Buddy Larsen:

The security situation in areas of Iraq is bad–in those areas. Our military is trying to win a war that has been drawn to those areas–which is why the security is bad. It’s a war-zone. Your nation is trying to win this war because the enemy wants to and has demonstrated the capacity to, put an end to our culture. We didn’t want to end their jihad until their jihad came after us. But it did come after us, a quarter-century ago. What do you want someone to say to you when you describe the horrors of this war? That we can choose to opt out, that it’s a simple matter of choice? Do you believe that to be true, Carol?

May 20, 2005 - 12:00 am 59. Rick Ballard:

Syl,

I think many of the moderate Dems are right here masquerading as Independents. Think of them as living in tents while the remodel is being completed. The Soros/Dean group running things at the national committee level is going to be crushed in ‘06 and I don’t think the party will let St. Hillary ride in to save it.

In one sense, the decline of the Copperhead press will probably aid in the rebirth of the Dem party. There definitely won’t be any turnaround in Dem party fortunes until beyond ‘12 and I don’t expect the MSM to be recognizable in ‘10. Somewhere along the line the party is going to have to dig up some principles to be for, rather than just defining itself as not Republican. I haven’t a clue as to what those principles will be but I know that the party will not get off its knees until they are discovered.

I really appreciate your comments concerning moderate Muslims. It’s the point I was trying to make the other day – every group has some rabble and every group has a great many more moderates. The rabble in the ME has been relentlessly stimulated by the tyrants who run things there for a very long time. Getting to democracy is going to be a very tough row to hoe but annihilation would be even tougher. Not physically tougher but we wouldn’t be America any longer if we turned our full force on them. We may yet have to provide a clear example of hell for them to contemplate but we’re not at that point today and rabble in the street should be ignored. Not the fellas that provided the matches and gas though.

May 20, 2005 - 12:11 am 60. Buddy Larsen:

And Rumsfeld the Warhawk is now to be excoriated for closing military bases? Would you laud him if he were opening new ones? Well, you’d HAVE to, wouldn’t you–if you want to be coherent? But, you and I both know that you would not so laud a reverse action. So where does that leave us? I’m trying to respect your arguments, but I run into conumdrums. Maybe I just misunderstand you–that’s a distinct possibility; if you’re way ahead of me on this stuff, I’d by definition be the last of you and I to know it. Well…late..g’nite…hope i haven’t been rood

May 20, 2005 - 12:13 am 61. Buddy Larsen:

Jeez, Rick…good letter!

May 20, 2005 - 12:16 am 62. Doug:

The story of Mr. Dilawar’s brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point – and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 – emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army’s criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

—

Well, isn’t that special.

Limbaugh predicted this just this morning.

—

I think folks better start going to prison for life, or this country is in deep do do.

It’s been half a century, it seems, since anybody’s paid for revealing classified info.

—

SLIMES .

Maybe those 1,700 of America’s finest gave their lives for nothing.

…thanks to the Enemy Media and the Traitors in the Government.

May 20, 2005 - 2:33 am 63. Doug:

What I don’t understand about the many people making your argument, Caroline, is that if we say damn every stinking terrorist to Hell, they’re the ones killing people, etc,

you still seem to have a problem with us then taking all the many Newsweaks to task for subverting our cause and putting our troops unnecessarily in harms way.

Repeatedly and incessantly.

…without shame.

We cannot tell where we’d be right now without them, but it wouldn’t be here.

May 20, 2005 - 2:41 am 64. Doug:

“And a few days ago, a group of Iraqi journalists actually went to Jordan and got right in the face of Jordanian columnists and editors, demanding to know why they were treating Muslim mass murderers in Iraq like anticolonial war heroes. It’s already changed the tone. That’s the war of ideas.

The greatest respect we can show to Arabs and Muslims – and the best way to help Muslim progressives win the war of ideas – is to take them seriously and stop gazing at our own navels. That means demanding that they answer for their lies, hypocrisy and profane behavior, just as much as we must answer for ours.”

.Friedman

May 20, 2005 - 4:01 am 65. Robert Crawford:

Caroline:

Wake up folks! Keep your eyes on the ball! We’re all in this together – liberals and conservatives.

Oh, please. If there were any evidence of liberals being on the side of the US, it would be obvious. Instead we’ve gotten nothing since 9/11 but hand-wringing about “excessive patriotism”, whining about being “silenced” when people are simply criticized, and an endless parade of excuse-making from the “liberals”.

When “liberals” spend more time addressing the tragic fate of Theo van Gogh than they do obsessing over Gary Trudeau taking a pay cut, you might have a point. Until then, please, don’t try to tell me things I can see aren’t true.

May 20, 2005 - 4:31 am 66. ed:

Hmmm.

1. “ed, I can understand your frankness, and nothing personal, but I think you may have gotten a little carried away with that last graf.”

*shrug* I’m not proud of it at all but it’s truly how I feel. Was Abu Ghraib really worth 4 months of non-stop coverage in all print and video media? Aren’t things, just as bad or worse, going on in almost every single prison in the world. And on a daily basis? And why is Abu Ghraib never far from the media at all, even now? Will we have Abu Ghraib shoved in our faces 10 years from now?

And yet we never hear of Nick Berg? Screaming as he was slowly decapitated. Are our sins so terrible that they exceed THIS? Did anyone die from that nonsense at Abu Ghraib?

The simple fact is that we’re in this fight for not just our lives but the lives of muslims all over the world. This GWOT must have a winner and that winner absolutely will be America. Whatever it takes.

If that victory can be had by liberating the muslim world and bringing their societies forward to the 21st century, then that’s great! If it means slaughtering each and every single muslim on earth down to the last man, woman and child, then so be it.

We’re fighting for the former, so we won’t have to do the latter. But don’t think for a moment that the latter might not be necessary. If it’s a choice between the population of Iran or my two lovely neices, Iran loses.

Do I like stating such in so stark a fashion? No. I’d much rather return to the pre-9/11 days. But don’t think for a minute what America’s reaction will be if a nuke goes off in downtown Manhattan or a weaponized anthrax bomb in Des Moines. Americans are pretty patient, but not THAT patient. It is the jihadists wet dream to murder twenty million Americans. And if they are successful in murdering twenty million Americans, I wouldn’t bet a dime on how long any particular muslim nation would survive the next sunrise.

2. “No argument there. Newsweek sucks – no doubt about it – but ask yourself, from a global perspective, whether pointing the finger at Newsweek, rather than the insanity we witnessed this week from the Islamic protesters, who directly caused the death and mayhem – doesn’t in fact “pass the buck” and score major points to the anti-American propogandists overseas.”

There is no such thing as a “global” perspective, all perspectives are local.

Hmmm. Are you actually surprised by the muslim extremist action over Newsweeks article? This after 9/11? After 50+ years of terrorism, kidnapping, murder and destruction? If you’re surprised then you’re quite frankly someone I won’t bother debating. If you’re NOT surprised then you have no basis for defending Newsweek.

Nobody can be surprised at how such articles can affect, influence and be utilised in the muslim world. Nobody. That Newsweek’s editors tried to portray themselves as if they didn’t realise this could happen shows the level of deceit and depravity on their part.

3. “what if the story were true and they were just reporting it? I understand your frustration that such reporting might be unnecessary and might undermine the WOT. But still – what if it were true and Newsweek were doing what journalists legitimately do – reporting facts?”

I don’t give a rat’s ass about “moral high ground”.

If the story were true they still should NOT have run the story. The media has to make a choice. Are they American or are they not? Are they in favor of America winning the GWOT or are they not?

This story, of flushing a koran down a toilet, does absolutely nothing. Do I care? Not a bit. Does anyone in America, other than a Bush hating liberal, care? Not a bit. The only people who would care are the people we’re fighting.

Frankly the media has gone far too forward into this insane meme that they can be “neutral” observers in the GWOT. That’s nonsense. What they are doing is setting up the circumstances of the complete eradication of the MSM from American life. So far the consequences of such stories have fallen on the shoulders of American soldiers and civilian contractors.

But if terrorists attack America domestically and use such propaganda as their motivating force, what do you think is going to happen to the media? You think they’re going to escape unscathed?

America needs an independent press. America doesn’t need a fifth column. The press doesn’t just rely on the First Amendment for it’s operations. They also rely on such mechanisms as Sullivan vs NYT, which places the onus of proving defamation on the plaintiff. Remove such protections and the press’s job because infinitely more difficult.

And it also takes a participating and believing public. If the public won’t participate or believe in the press, and the nonsense they routinely offer, then the press is effectively dead.

4. “Then you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on would you? You would have already relinquished the moral high ground to be able to say, “Too bad! Criticizing or insulting Islam is not an excuse for murder!”"

Don’t be foolish enough to put words in my mouth. What I write, *I* write.

May 20, 2005 - 5:59 am 67. madawaskan:

If wars were all conducted in a vacuum then we could find the right formulas and win them every time. To win a war however you have to have situational awareness,consider the variables, and know the environment.

Afghanistan-perhaps because of its geographical location has been unstable for centuries. The various ethnic tribes contribute to that. The one thing that is a unifer is their religion.

While you are there you might want to take advantage of the ethnic rivalries but at some point you have to reach equilibrium. After you leave you want the important shared cultural values-such as Islam to be a factor in uniting the area. You certainly do not want Islam used as a unifier of the tribes against you.

If you feel that Islam is completely radical then you are in effect abdicating Newsweek of responsibility. Islam may indeed because of its de-centralized nature be susceptible to looking as if it is overpowered by radicals. In a strange way both extremes of the political spectrum- in the US- are so blinded by hatred that their arguments are actually helping to prop the other. If you believe that Islam is radical then this will also naturally lead you to the conclusion that they are incapable of self-government. So then the natural question is what is the alternative?

A return to the days of empire? I think the British already tried that.

Back to the nature of freedom of press and its natural antecedent freedom of speech. This is something that the region is unaccustomed to. They have only known the media to be an extension,voice or tool of propaganda for whatever entity is ruling at the time. That is why Newsweek’s deflection of blame on the Pentagon and the “Rove is the all powerful press trapper” theory continues to make the problem worse.

The President went to great lengths not to set the Muslim world completely against us and end up with The Crusades II. The Pope being agianst the war might have cost us some of our traditional European allies -who the Democrats are overly impressed with -and also caused these same “sudden papist” to use the Pope as a means to attack the President on the war effort.

If you are unhappy with Condi Rice and the President again I ask -what was the alternative?

As for the base closings honestly give me a break. Do you really want the military to be inefficient, or should they streamline things a bit? When the property values near a base go up you want us out and you complain about the jet noise. The public did this at Luke and at the Air Force Academy which has been there before the new housing area went up. All of a sudden residents noticed the noise of the tow planes for the glider program,the noise of the T-41’s, or the Italian bird, and had the audacity to tell the Academy that perhaps they should concentrate on scholastics and stop teaching the cadets the fundamentals of flying.

May 20, 2005 - 6:38 am 68. madawaskan:

Slayer Daddy-

T-38! The ground dart-short wing span?

May 20, 2005 - 6:48 am 69. Charlie (Colorado):

Let alone, here we’re watching 100 senators being told that only half of them will have clout over the next couple of years. And, Rumsfeld blithly closes bases (that Ralph Peters opines is harmful to our troops). And, there’s no blowback?

Ah, crap.

Carol, “critical thinking” doesn’t mean “thinking of anything I can say that could possibly be critical.” In this case, a little bit of knowledge and/or research would tell you that:

(1) the changes the Republican leadership is suggesting would be proposed using a precedent established by Robert Byrd we he was majority leader.

(2) Senators have individual “clout” over judges which would not be diminished, including the effective ability to block a judge nominee from their own state and the ability to effectively nominate district court judges.

(3) Many things in the Senate are done by unanimous consent, and a number of things must constitutionally be done by two-thirds or greater.

Now, if I were to make an inference from the argument, it would be that the Democrats have an underlying (and possibly unconscious) conviction that they’re still entitled to run things, like when they were in the majority. But that would be an inference. But the notion that “only half of them will have clout” is just counter-factual.

Oh, and if you have followed Ralph Peters in the past, you would know that he rarely, if ever, agrees with Rumsfield and never saw a base closing he liked.

May 20, 2005 - 7:02 am 70. Knucklehead:

Caroline,

I’m somewhere around 80% agreement with you. My answer to “why do they hate us?” is “Because they are trying to live by 15th century rules and ideas in the 21st century and that leads to frustration that approaches outright dementia. They hate us because of their own faults and flaws, not because of anything specific we have ever done to them.”

The blame for murder and terrorism lies squarely on the shoulders of the sick, murdering terrorists.

That said, the Sturm und Drang gang, the MSM, operates with complete and utter disregard for their responsibilities. They fail to investigate and criticize the sociopathic sicknesses that exist in this world (Islam or the Salafist portion thereof, Marxist idiocies, etc) while willfully blowing petty – and even conjured, “remotely plausible so let’s treat it as true” – examples of US or western or modern flaws out of proportion – they are like some twisted version of a 21st century Molly Pitcher running buckets of water and ammunition to the enemy. Whether they do this for commercial or philosophical reasons is, in the end, irrelevant. They’re irresponsibility is doing great harm and damage and they should be called to account for it wherever and whenever possible.

The MSM needs to grow a backbone and stop tip-toeing past the graveyard wrt to Islam/Salafism and they need gain some perspective regarding the culture that provides their comfy lifestyle.

May 20, 2005 - 7:20 am 71. Curmudgeon:

Forgive me for sticking to the original subject so late in the comments, but I just read the post this morning.

1. Brooks’ column is execrable.

2. Dennis Prager is not a blogger. He has undoubtedly said many sensible things in the last five or six years, but I haven’t read any of them unless somebody else quoted him. The first article of his that I read was an apparently serious argument that non-believers were not, and could not be, as moral as believers. After that, I couldn’t care less what he had to say about anything.

3. Ann Coulter is mean as a snake, often unfair, and much funnier than Bill Maher. I read her religiously.

May 20, 2005 - 7:21 am 72. ricpic:

Every poster on this thread knows in his/her gut that as 9/11 recedes in time it is harder and harder for the average American, not just liberals, to take the Islamic threat seriously.

Yelling “Wake Up!” in the sleeping giant’s ear won’t do it. It will take another 9/11 (or worse). That’s the terrible fact we’re up against.

May 20, 2005 - 7:49 am 73. Knucklehead:

Luther,

Re: the difference between what SJ said and what Ed said…

SJ’s comment was, essentially, advocating the assassination of the POTUS. Not only is it very specific in it’s choice of target, but it has become a widespread meme among the moonbats. It’s on T-shirts and coffee mugs and bumper stickers. It is unacceptable behavior and cannot be tolerated. Roger chose to censor SJ and as much as I dislike censorship I think he did the correct thing.

Ed’s comment re: lining up Hollywood moron’s was a relatively non-specific and throw away comment. Over the top, perhaps, but not nearly in the same category as the incessant drum-pounding of “Kill Bush Volumes I through XX” of the Dementius Moonbatus crowd.

May 20, 2005 - 8:12 am 74. madawaskan:

“Ours is not a war on Muslims or the Arab world. Rather, we are in a struggle against a new fascism that resorts to terror. Osama bin Laden must distort Islam and deflect blame onto the United States for the self-inflicted miseries of the Middle East, created by its own illiberal dictatorships.

“Therefore, American strategy is three-pronged:

“We will hunt down terrorist cells in the United States that due to our laxity have already infiltrated the West.

“America will remove rogue regimes abroad that have funded and supported these killers.

“In their places, the United States will support consensual governments to ensure a third choice other than just Islamic theocracy or brutal dictatorship.

Victor Davis Hanson speech writing for George W. Bush in today’s Chicago Tribune.

Muslim haters need to suggest some alternatives or you are just as guilty as the liberals in viewing the military as expendable. If you really think that ALL Muslims are our enemy you are going to have to remove yourselves from the observation deck or your plush box seats and participate.. Or sign your children up.

Sorry but I am tired of gratuitous tough talk and Monday morning quarterbacking from some right wing fringe elements. It only ads to the Conservative crack up that is the real threat to the War on Terror it isn’t the impotency of the Left that threatens.

May 20, 2005 - 8:17 am 75. Pat Curley:

This one seems to be one of those “eye of the beholder” columns; I note that Glenn was nowhere near as harsh on Brooks as Roger. I mostly agreed with the column.

My take is that Brooks was giving the lefty bloggers a little bone with his criticism of the right wing before hitting them with the lash. Obviously I am more sympathetic with his latter arguments.

To me, the question of culpability on the part of Newsweek is complex. Could they have suspected that their story would lead to riots and death? Yes. Should they have known that? I don’t know. Did they know that? No, pretty clearly–similar stories had been published; about the only “news” in the story was that the administration had supposedly acknowledged that it did happen. Did they intend for their story to lead to riots and death? Obviously not, it was just a chance to get a dig in at the Bush Administration.

So are they the enemy? Not any more than the rest of the liberal media. Yes, they wrote a careless and thoughtless piece in an effort to trash Bush, and for that they should and will pay a price in the marketplace of ideas. But the real bad guys used it as an excuse; had Newsweek not published the story they would have found another one.

May 20, 2005 - 8:59 am 76. madawaskan:

Great…now the Conservative media is in on it.

The photos, which appeared on the front pages of the British tabloid Sun and the New York Post and were broadcast across the Middle East by some Arab satellite networks, were expected to fuel anti-American sentiment among supporters of the former dictator who are believed to be the driving force behind the country’s insurgency.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq

Over-privileged, sell-out, super-special ruling elitest with real world experience in….? I’m drawing a blank. And who do they talk to in their insular little cabals?

Each other.

May 20, 2005 - 9:19 am 77. Buddy Larsen:

Madawaskan, I think you’re right, it could almost be said that the jihad is an opportunistic sally into the schism that has opened up in western culture. The attitude you scorn is the attitude the far left and far right share, “let’s just blow everything up”. We may indeed get to that point someday, if we can’t wise up, or if the enemy won’t.

But, unless we get to that point-of-no-return knowing that we exhausted the other options, down the scale of humane-ness, then we won’t be the same country, even in victory–which begs the question “what IS victory?”.

No, the nation needs to proceed against the modern jihad in a sort of sequenced escalation/de-escalation–’breathing’–with the suicide theme of this jihad in mind, that major enemy weapon that so weakens our intimidation power, we don’t want to overkill and create enemy that is enemy only because WE are.

This murkiness is the heart of the jihad–it amplifies the meaning of the murdering. With no enemy state to sign surrender documents, we must be clearly always holding out peace with one hand while either killing the enemy or burying our dead with the other.

Of course this ‘nuanced’ war-making pisses EVERYBODY off, and is the most grindingly bloody of strategies for the nation’s military.

And with all this in mind, so much more the shame of the anti-victory (read “anti-Bush”) western press, because so much more the nation’s need for its itellect, its heart, and its cooperation. And reciprocally, so much greater the harm of its drown-out of its antithesis.

May 20, 2005 - 9:40 am 78. Buddy Larsen:

Pat, there was a comment on a previous thread that newsweek had trumpeted the little “Periscope” item via blast-emails that circled the global press. All due respect to your intent to calm troubled waters, this Newsweek action–if it really happened (maybe someone reading this will know?)–really damages your suppositions.

May 20, 2005 - 9:57 am 79. Carol_Herman:

Sorry, Buddy Larsen, though it’s not my job to tell you what to believe; the Nixon administration was hip deep with Dirty-Tricks.

As to the recent Newsweek story, since it wasn’t invented; it had to come from “somewhere.” And, it seems Issikoff is claiming that he had a source within the Pentagon. That he trusted.

For a source to be trusted, Issikoff must have been on the receiving end of a lot of information. (Just as he once got the Linda Tripp information, first.)

Anyway, the only one who knows for sure if he bit into a set-up, or not, is Issikoff, himself; and, now, maybe his editors?

As I said, you’re free to believe what you like. But way back in Nixon’s time, what we learned came from a source called “DEEP THROAT.” How come people believed this stuff then, if now they think all writers just make stuff up? Dunno. Don’t care about your personal beliefs.

What a strange chat room this is turning out to be.

May 20, 2005 - 10:05 am 80. Carol_Herman:

You’ve got it, Caroline! When the MSM gets attacked here, it’s really an attack against all of us who hold personal opinions. And, they’re the “creationists” avowed attempts at feeding false science down a lot of throats.

We’re not the MSM. They’re not paid to write for Roger L. Simon. And, from where I sit, what I’ve just seen is that the democrats have come off the mat, and are hearing their engines spring to life, again. While it’s Dr. Frist, and his companions, that have hijacked the GOP.

If this were a chess match, instead of what’s gonna be up ahead in the senate; I’d say the DEMOCRATS have REGAINED the MIDDLE GROUND.

And, you bet! Let’s blame the riots on where they belong! GIfted to us through the Saudi-MENACE, and his boi pal up in Crawford. You can only wonder at the deals they’ve made!

As to freedom and democracy springing up all over the Mideast; I think Americans who like to call themselves moderates. And, independents. Have just found themselves without a home in the GOP. AND, that we’ve been sold a BILL OF GOODS.

Iraq’s probably more dysfunctional today than they were under Saddam, as horrid as he was! Why’s that? Because Saddam DIDN’T deal with those Saudi Arabian MONSTERS!

And, who knows what’s next? If Bush is “designing” this “freedom sprout,” it’s up there with telling reporters what to write. And, by the way, blaming Newsweek was not just stupid. But insulting, too.

Anyway, up ahead is the senators fighting for relevance and survival. Let’s see what 100 people can do. They’ve been vested with votes. Because we have a REPUBLIC. We’re not a mob ruled democracy. And, one reason Dr. Frist was doing a walk about the ledge; was that he didn’t have the votes! He’s been hoping that citizens, calling into their senators, would provide him with what he needs. Well, did their nonsense even save Terri Shiavo? Why think Dr. Frist wins? Why think anybody with such a severe pull to the religious right (nutcases) holds any cards to play?

UNCERTAINLY? SURELY. NO ONE CAN ARGUE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE. UNTIL WE REACH THESE OUTCOMES IN THE PRESENT. Can I make some guesses? Yeah. We all can. And, then the race begins. And, the horses run. (And, at the Derby, a 50-to-1 shot won.) Life is just so full of surprises.

May 20, 2005 - 10:18 am 81. thibaud:

I think we can all agree that Newsweek choked on its own mix of scoop-greed and hostility to Bush.

But should we as a nation should continue to obsess about the impact of US reporting on that mythical beast known as the Moderate Muslim?

We’re arguing in a void here. Who are these “moderates”, really? What is the effect on their views of exposure to western culture and values? Does anyone know?

More questions: Where are they and how many of them are there? How do their opinions and behavior change, if they do change, in response to US media coverage of battlefield outcomes, abuse of detainees, Bush admin statements, etc?

I’ll take a crack at summarizing our knowledge of the above.

Who are these people? What is the effect on their views of exposure to western culture and values? Does anyone know?

A: We have next to no idea.

Yes, we have names of a few courageous individuals like the Fadhil brothers in iraq, and names of some NYT OpEd-writing dissidents in Egypt and elsewhere, as well as lots of photos of bodacious Lebanese. But I’ve yet to see any real research into the profile of the moderate muslim: education, age, location etc. As to western exposure, all we know is that this causes some to be pro-Western and others like Mohammed Atta to become jihadists, ie, we have no clue.

Where are they and how many of them are there? A: Some scattered polls in Iraq indicating they may be a slight majority in that country. Ditto for Lebanon. Other than these, I have not seen any thorough or reliable surveys that would enable us to draw any conclusions as to the relative weight of “moderates” and “militants” for the remaining 1 billion+ muslims.

How do their opinions and behavior change, if they do change, in response to US media coverage of battlefield outcomes, abuse of detainees, Bush admin statements, etc? A: Here we do have some evidence. Take three examples, Kosovo, Abu G, and PissKoran.

Re Kosovo, there were some expressions of official gratitude for our massive, politically very costly intervention to save tens of 000s of muslim lives, but no real outpouring of muslim support. Kosovo never seems to come to mind when muslims describe US policy.

Re Abu G and Piss Koran, I have yet to see any evidence that it shifted muslim opinion more than a few % points in Iraq and more than a % of a % among muslims worldwide. I could be wrong, but Abu G’s real impact was on the homefront, not among muslims. As to Piss Koran, there has been some slight evidence of moderate muslim pushback against the militant maroons in Afghanistan — see Karzai’s statements — but little outcry elsewhere.

Could someone please explain to me why this discussion, and our foreign policy and our media reporting, should obsess over the effects of US policy on a supposed muslim amjority for which he have no solid evidence and into which we have almost no insight?

A gentle proposition: accompany every mention of Religion of Peace with ironic quote marks. Avoid references to the “impact on moderate muslims” from any account, comment or policy document — unless it can be qualified by country or region and supported by some reliable, recent survey data or other solid evidence. And cease obsessing about Piss Koran.

May 20, 2005 - 10:21 am 82. Buddy Larsen:

Carol, I think you’re mischaracterizing my post. I don’t believe Newsweek simply invented the item. What is “made up” is the impression that such items are calculated to convey.

May 20, 2005 - 10:22 am 83. thibaud:

madwaskan,

I’m not a “muslim-hater.” I agree completely with Victor Hanson’s “Three Points” summation of US foreign policy re the muslim world. But I think we need to detach this policy from any presumption that

a) “moderate muslims” are a majority of muslims worldwide or even in most muslim nations aside from Lebanon and Iraq and maybe Iran; and

b) US press reporting, administration statements and other publicity has a dispositive effect on the opinions of muslims re US foreign policy.

Note that Hanson’s support for promotion of “consensual government” is couched as an alternative to, or in VDH’s wording, replacement for, nightmarish rogue states. It does not presume the existence of a moderate muslim majority in those or other nations. It makes no judgment as to the urgency or recommended nature of democracy promotion in non-nightmare states, some of which may have moderate majorities, many of which, like Saudi and Pakistan, manifestly do not.

In short, VDH has a tight argument focused on liberalization/democracy’s role in advancing US security needs, not on improving or ameliorating the muslim soul.

IMHO a good way to move forward would be to put aside the latter and try to focus more on the former.

May 20, 2005 - 10:36 am 84. Doug:

Curmudgeon,

1.” Brooks’ column is execrable.”

Oh, that’s why I have yet to red the whole disgusting THING.

(Compare my quote of the Liberal Friedman above, to the execrable crap of the “conservative” Brooks.

2.” Dennis Prager is not a blogger. He has undoubtedly said many sensible things in the last five or six years, but I haven’t read any of them unless somebody else quoted him. The first article of his that I read was an apparently serious argument that non-believers were not, and could not be, as moral as believers. After that, I couldn’t care less what he had to say about anything.“.

Dennis studied USSR in College. Jewish Scholar, Conductor, linguist, Phd, many other credentials far exceeding most bloggers, but I agree, he like most of us, sometimes gets carried away.

On GWB, the courts, and the WOT, he has been spot on most of the time.

Would probably dismember Brooks, intellectually and academically.

Isikoff a knat in comparison, and a blinded one to boot.

3. Ann Coulter was definitive about this:

I posted some of her stuff with points in bold at Belmont, and it would take a locked mind not to get them.

…there are plenty of those, most spouting the Brooks/Caroline line.

May 20, 2005 - 10:39 am 85. Doug:

“read”

May 20, 2005 - 10:40 am 86. Pat Curley:

Buddy, no intent to calm the troubled waters here; I’m happy to see Newsweek take it on the chin. It’s just that there’s a limit to their culpability in this incident. Some have compared it to handing gasoline and a match to an arsonist; I just don’t see it that way. The blast email doesn’t matter again unless there was some malign intent (beyond the usual US/military/Bush-bashing malign intent which suffuses the entire liberal media).

May 20, 2005 - 10:45 am 87. Doug:

“Could someone please explain to me why this discussion, and our foreign policy and our media reporting, should obsess over the effects of US policy on a supposed Muslim majority for which we have no solid evidence and into which we have almost no insight?”

—

It sounds a whole lot more sophisticated than Patton, although Patton would probably still be closer to the truth.

…but more importantly:

It’s PC.

May 20, 2005 - 10:46 am 88. thibaud:

Marty Peretz trashes Newsweek and the MSM in a recent TNR article. But he also makes this important point:

The New York Times reported that, by Friday prayers, “thousands of Muslims, from Gaza to Pakistan to Indonesia, emerged … to join Afghans in rapidly spreading protests over the reported desecration of a Koran by American interrogators.”

It would be too much to expect that the American press, and the Western media more generally, would grasp from such frenzy a deep truth about much of the Muslim world, which is that it practices a politics of frenzy, that it is gladly feverish, and that it regularly mistakes excitability for authenticity.

Mobs go into the streets at a mere hint from some muezzin, and they may so go anywhere and everywhere in what Stefan Zweig presciently called “this age of simultaneity.” Just because “the Muslim street” reacts is not proof that anything has happened. Like Isikoff, the raging crowds in the streets did not read any Pentagon document. But sometimes it is easier to believe what one has not seen.

Again, it would be helpful if our pundits and media betters followed Peretz’ example and applied some critical analysis to muslims’ behavior. Note that Peretz instinctively uses quote marks for the “the Muslim street”, an empty vessel into which lazy and ignorant journos can pour just about whatever they wish (usually it’s employed as a vague signifier of some unspecified number of “People Who Hate Us”).

It would also be nice if they could make some basic distinctions, using empirical evidence, about which muslims reacted (why is it muslims are always protrayed as “reacting”?), and where and when, and which of these reactions are authentic, based on reality, etc. Call it reality-Based Reporting, to coin a phrase.

May 20, 2005 - 10:53 am 89. dougf:

And I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with Ed, but aren’t there some things we should keep to ourselves?

Does keeping it to yourself make it go away? I loathe the media beyond words at this point,and I will ‘keep to myself’what I truly feel needs to happen to it,but I still think it.I have felt this way for at least a year.The difference between a year ago and now is that now MANY others appear to feel exactly the same way.

This WILL end badly,one way or the other.It is now obvious to most everyone that for one side to win the other must lose.It has now become a zero sum affair of existential values.

And frankly—- the MSM is totally responsible. I just wanted a ‘fair and balanced’presentation,but now I want VICTORY.

May 20, 2005 - 11:01 am 90. Buddy Larsen:

Thibaud, “Could someone please explain to me why this discussion, and our foreign policy and our media reporting, should obsess over the effects of US policy on a supposed muslim amjority for which he have no solid evidence and into which we have almost no insight?”

Because the “moderate Muslim” and the “Religion of Peace”–regardless of how small their embodiments may be–are the only battleground we have?

Other than wholesale extermination of the host populations, what else can stop the jihad? Where and how else do we engage it?

Granted, it’d be FAR better if the “moderate Muslim” was louder and more numerous and fast-growing to a point that would eliminate the sinking feeling we all have that we may be losing ground these days. It would be even better if the “peace” part of the “Religion of Peace” shoulda coulda woulda made impossible an embodied jihad in the first place.

But for all the reasons that we may forever debate, we have the situation as it is, and it includes precious little option other than to support the concepts and try to hope they’ll grow. If we denigrate these things, then they may fold and we will have in effect decided that the whole population is hopeless. What’s next, after that?

May 20, 2005 - 11:04 am 91. Doug:

thibaud,

You remind me.

An Iranian caller to a talk show said that since most Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Iranians, know no Arabic, they also know next to nothing about the Koran except for what pleasant folk like the Taliban tell them.

…Things like kill a fellow Muslim for dropping it onto the soil.

…then they get into the heavy stuff about Jooos and the Great Satan.

(Citizens of which 85% are Jews in the minds of some Egyptian/Moroccan college students!)

May 20, 2005 - 11:09 am 92. Buddy Larsen:

Just read your 10:36 Thibaud…Forget my last post–you already answered it. You’re speaking of emphasis, rather than radical re-evaluation. I’d read you wrong.

May 20, 2005 - 11:13 am 93. Doug:

Buddy,

I think some of the mind-numbed commentators denigrate most everything they comment on.

That’s part of the problem also, in the media as well as here:

Robotically repeated “truths.”

…kind of like a chant.

May 20, 2005 - 11:16 am 94. Doug:

“The blast email doesn’t matter again unless there was some malign intent (beyond the usual US/military/Bush-bashing malign intent which suffuses the entire liberal media).”

—

In time of war, that’s good enough for me.

Although to be honest, I knew they were haters at heart before, anyway.

…as does Horowitz.

Kind of a waste trying to justify haters.

May 20, 2005 - 11:30 am 95. Buddy Larsen:

Carol, your 10:18 upthread, thanks for the insight into your thinking.

May 20, 2005 - 11:33 am 96. Doug:

Sure pray she’s wrong about Frist and the votes, though.

May 20, 2005 - 11:37 am 97. Doug:

“You’ve got it, Caroline! When the MSM gets attacked here, it’s really an attack against all of us who hold personal opinions.”

—

Whenever I’m out in my Hummer, if I see anyone w/a sign expressing an opinion.

They’re Gone.

May 20, 2005 - 11:43 am 98. thibaud:

Np, Buddy. Appreciate your thoughts, as always. btw, I agree generally with your first comment. But it’s a matter of tone and emphasis. The PissKoran episode is a tempest in a toilet.

So fine, long may the GOP salute the “ROP”. Automatically, without fail, the way we say “Have a nice day” to the checkout counter woman. But let’s also remember why the history books pay slightly less attention (when they do at all) to the Red Army’s rapes of over a million German women in 1944-45 (Robert Conquest estimates the figure at closer to 2 million) than they do to the Red Army’s victories on the battlefield. Or to Patton’s men’s executions of SS prisoners in Italy (IIRC), rather than to Patton’s battlefield victories.

Fundamentally, our struggle in Iraq, and secondarily against Iran and Syria, is not really a war of ideas. It’s first and foremost a war, like any war, fought on a battlefield. Winning that war comes first, and reporting accurately on that war– the political context and stakes, the nature of the battle, tactics used and their results– is far, far more important than reporting on our treatment of detainees. Again, the latter is of course newsworthy, it of course concerns us if done in violation of our principles and laws, but it falls far behind the strategic reporting on the battlefield and on Iraqi politics in importance.

As to the other struggle, any war for the muslim soul will play out slowly and unexpectedly over several decades, and will be won or lost with little input from the US newsmedia, the Bush admin, or any of us infidels. I think it a mark of supreme self-absorption and mediamania for us to think that US newsmagazines have any major sway for good or ill over the fundamental views (as opposed to the frenzy du jour) of 99%+ of the muslims on this planet.

May 20, 2005 - 11:49 am 99. PeterUK:

Carol herman has unconsciously hit upon the nub of the matter when she says “If this were a chess match, instead of what’s gonna be up ahead in the senate; I’d say the DEMOCRATS have REGAINED the MIDDLE GROUND.”

To the MSM the WoT is utterly unimportant other than being a useful stick with which to beat the administration ,all that concern them is which party rules.

It a form of insular decadence, which in the current climate is suicidal.

May 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm 100. Doug:

Exploitation of a German Woman of Today

May 20, 2005 - 12:37 pm 101. Buddy Larsen:

Thibaud, I pretty much agree but for one very fine but crucial point…that there are enemy strategists (strategiarists?) with their long cold fingers on the western polity’s pulse at all times. To the extent that our own media induces continual palpitations, to that extent enemy actions are taken (or forsaken).

“Fight or flee” decisions are made not on your own condition but on your appreciation of your enemy’s condition–on the basis of the available diagnoses of the enemy’s health.

IOW, we may be fine, but if we look sick to the wolf, he’s more likely to make a run on us.

Wolves aren’t mind-readers but they’re great at being wolves, so what is the cost/benefit of teasing them? The benefit is political and accrues only to the MSM/DNC complex, the cost is global and is paid by the soldiers who are defending among others a faction of disgraceful ingrates who scorn them for it.

Doug, LOL the Hummer comment. Smash those idiots with those personal opinions!

May 20, 2005 - 12:45 pm 102. Doug:

Buddy said,

“–if only so doing wouldn’t pave the way for oppressive government. Which, by the way, if you read this, you will be able to imagine might someday happen.”

—

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. announced that commentator Mark Hyman will appear on the FOXCable News program, “The O’Reilly Factor,”

tonight where he will discuss his commentary calling for the resignation of Linda Foley, President of theNewspaper Guild of America (NGOA).

Jennifer Gladstone of Sinclair’s NewsCentral provided an exclusive report on Wednesday of the NGOA’s allegationthat the U.S. military has been targeting journalists in Iraq – a charge thatthe U.S. military emphatically denies

….Asked to support her allegation, Ms. Foley declined to comment.

May 20, 2005 - 1:00 pm 103. Doug:

Buddy,

Your last post reminds me how impressed I was last nite by Jim Rockford’s post above.

(Re-posted part of it at Belmont.)

Much as the left likes to pretend that as long as their words claim the moral high ground, they’re fine.

It’s still real life.

Real lives.

Real blood.

(Not that most of them care that much about the unters that earn their meals in the military.)

May 20, 2005 - 1:10 pm 104. neo-neocon:

I’m a bit late to the party, as I often am (no one to blame but myself). If anyone’s still reading here, I want to say that there are two separate issues with Newsweek that are being lumped together.

The first issue has to do with practicality–what was written and what were the consequences of publishing it. Questions about the information’s truth or falsehood don’t enter into this first consideration. Even if it had been true, an argument could be mounted against the need to to print it. In the last analysis, that’s a judgment call (I wrote a post on this subject here).

The second issue has to do with what’s called “process”: how was the information authenticated, and was this in agreement with commonplace journalistic standards that are (or used to be) in place to make certain that anything printed in an article is likely to be correct? The answer in this case is “no.” But this is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with either truth or consequences–although, of course, we are only talking about the issue because of the dire consequences of publishing this particular poorly-researched article.

When you put the two issues together, and look at what Newsweek has done here, you have an affront to both common sense judgments and time-honored journalist practices. Brooks’ analysis in his column ignores all of this. I am, quite frankly, really surprised at his lack of intellectual rigor. I think it only shows that, in this case, he is letting his identity as a journalist trump his ability to think straight. And it’s not just his identity as journalist–it’s his identity as a former writer for Newsweek, and a colleague of Isikoff and the rest. My guess is that he has an emotional allegiance to them, and doesn’t like seeing them bashed by those mean old bloggers, and this is clouding his judgment.

The liberal media doesn’t have to be way out there with Chomsky to be negligent nevertheless. I wonder whether Brooks ever heard of the old concept of “contributory negligence”–meaning one can still be responsible for something without being 100% responsible. There is a partial responsibility. In this case, of course the fundamentalist Moslems who were all riled up about this and went on a rampage bear the greatest responsibility. That goes without saying, and that’s why no one felt the need to say it.

But the fact that others–the ones who committed the acts–bear the greater responsibility does not in any way absolve Newsweek of its partial responsibility in the matter. We expect more from Newsweek–we expect them to use good judgment, and to follow proper journalistic safeguards before they publish a story–and yes, to think about the possible consequences of that story vs. the public’s need to know. Is that too much to ask?

May 20, 2005 - 2:04 pm 105. Buddy Larsen:

That’s an excellent well-organized interrogatory, nnc–the sort that finally shamed the original purveyors of Yellow Journalism.

(Doug, thanks!)

May 20, 2005 - 2:35 pm 106. Pat Curley:

Hmmm, read it again, and I see at least one fatheaded comment from Brooks that I didn’t catch the first time around; that Newsweek’s liberal, anti-military mindset had nothing to do with them publishing the story. That’s wrong, just as the New Republic’s anti-Republican mindset had everything to do with them believing Stephen Glass’s tale of the Church of George H.W. Bush.

May 20, 2005 - 2:57 pm 107. Doug:

Pat Curley said:

“ that Newsweek’s liberal, anti-military mindset had nothing to do with them publishing the story. ”

—

That’s when I decided not to force myself to read the whole thing, and question anyone who thinks Brooks is worth reading.

—

Coulter’s post proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the opposite pertains.

May 20, 2005 - 3:53 pm 108. Caroline:

Neo-neocon -

I couldn’t agree more with your post, except for this part:

“In this case, of course the fundamentalist Moslems who were all riled up about this and went on a rampage bear the greatest responsibility. That goes without saying, and that’s why no one felt the need to say it.”

Many people are saying it now, but they were not saying it when the s**t first hit the fan. It looked to me like pure partisan finger pointing with the left pointing the finger at our military for ìabusingî the Koran (stifling a giggle here) and the right pointing the finger at Newsweek, for causing the riots.

You may, as a rational person, have felt that it didn’t need saying but it DID need saying, loud and clear and I didn’t hear it being said much in the blogs, let alone by the administration – to the whole world! However, I just caught a clip of Bush responding to a reporter’s question about the Saddam in his underwear pics, asking Bush whether this could spark more riots. I don’t have the quote (I literally just caught this in passing) but his response was something to the effect of – pictures don’t cause violence ñ people inspired by a barbaric ideology cause violence (understatement of the year to call that a rough translation of what I caught)..

But I thought to myself – yeah ñ now THATís what I want to hear the president of the United States say to the world.

May 20, 2005 - 4:00 pm 109. Omaha1:

The comments on this thread are really resonating with me. You have given eloquent expression to my personal, internal conflicts. I am so frustrated at times, and have nowhere to direct all of my negative emotional energy. I am angry at our media, who could minimize the duration and the casualties in this war if they would show some balance (or God forbid, support for our cause), at the anti-war Democrats, who treat the war as a political game, at some citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq, who don’t appreciate what it has cost us to take their country from tyrants and give it back to them.

For all of the ugly accusations leveled against us, we conservatives have been very restrained since September 11th. No one has been given reason to fear us, or to even show us a modicum of respect. We console ourselves by commenting on blogs, writing letters to editors (which are mostly ignored), and screaming at our televisions. When I am abused and disdained daily by the finger-pointing “elite” in the media, my rage is compounded. As a Christian, I try to suppress my baser impulses, but at times I feel a bitter attraction towards the hateful things of which I am constantly accused. I do not like the angry person I am becoming, and I suspect there are a lot of quiet people out there who feel exactly as I do. At times I almost feel a grudging empathy for the historical supporters of fascism.

I wish that torture and murder never happened. I wish that there was no such thing as a suicide bomber, proudly displaying a Koran in his farewell “martyr” video, before he goes out to dismember innocent Israelis, whom he considers apes and pigs, in a pizza parlor or shopping mall. I wish there were no need for places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, where soldiers barely out of high school encounter innocents who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, along with hardened terrorists. I wish there were easy and painless ways to extract crucial intelligence from suspects captured by our military. I wish the World Trade Center was still standing, filled with workers of all races, ages, and religions, just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. I wish our young men and women did not have to witness first-hand the insane hatred of some people in the Middle East. My own son saw a young child shot in the head by a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. I would give my life’s savings for him to have never known that kind of evil, but it exists, and must be defeated. If it is not defeated in the battle for “hearts and minds,” it WILL be defeated nonetheless, in ways that may cause Americans to despise themselves.

I totally sympathize with the comments made by “ed” and I fear what we will become if we cannot unite our nation enough to win this war in a “civilized” way. President Bush has taken precisely the right approach to this conflict, a narrow compromise between condemning Islam, and condemning Islamist terrorism, though admittedly, mistakes have been made in both directions, in its implementation. If only our media could recognize the fragility of his balanced approach, and do their part not to sabotage his efforts, perhaps I would not be so fearful and angry.

May 20, 2005 - 5:29 pm 110. Buddy Larsen:

Omaha, hang in there, you have lottsa company…honest of you to admit that flashes of reaction pass thru your mind…that, I would say, is the worst thing the turkeys could do to you, to make you lower yourself. Guard against that, and you can’t be really defeated.

May 20, 2005 - 6:03 pm 111. Buddy Larsen:

And please thank your son. There’s so many out here who deeply, deeply appreciate what the soldiers are doing, and what it’s costing them and their families. What you said about the things he has seen is so painfully honest and touching. Maybe the pride of doing for others can over time tamp down the shock.

May 20, 2005 - 6:12 pm 112. Caroline:

Omaha1 – that was a wonderful post, My own feelings these days are heading towards “despair”. If I read that emotion in your post, it is entirely possible that I am simply projecting.

Nevertheless, I was just having a little fantasy Bush press conference in my head re the new Saddam in his underwear pics, trying to imagine what I would say in Bush’s place, and I was imagining this:

“The Unites States is a nation of 300 million people, mostly immigrants from the entire world. We are without a doubt the world’s greatest democracy. That means we have a free press and I’ve got news for you – I DO NOT CONTROL THE PRESS! That’s the price one pays for living in a democracy! Of course we will investigate this. That’s what people in democracies do. But I want to make it perfectly clear that pictures in a magazine do not constitute license for murder and mayhem!”

Well – you get the general idea of my fantasy here. And Oh geez – I would certainly forgive anyone for expressing pity that my fantasy life these days revolves around something like this!

May 20, 2005 - 6:32 pm 113. Carol_Herman:

Well, going from the Koran that wouldn’t flush; to the new picture of Saddam in his underpants, we’re leaving Newsweek, and seeing what’s going on in England’s THE SUN. (Followed by Drudge showing the picture of an undressed Saddam. Just an aside, but this guy sure listened to his mother!)

Ever remember being admonished for wearing ripped underpants as a kid? With a mom saying “and, if you’re in an accident, and you go to an emergency room, you want to be seen in rags like that?”) No? Never heard of this? Roger L. Simon is Jewish enough, and old enough, that he knows it was said to kids, though.

And, there ya got it. Former despot/dictator. Statue’s ripped off it’s pedestal. And, the guy’s in prison. Slim. Well hung. Is this an ad for Jockey’s or what?

Where’d it come from? How’d it get there? Somebody slip a camera into Saddam’s cell? His tailor, maybe?

We’re at war, I suppose. But I don’t think the Iraqis are thrilled with us. How are they gonna learn democracy? You gonna send them your kid’s civics books? (It’s a Lewis Black routine. In it, he says we go back a week later, and give them a test.)

Meanwhile, the women are still in their tablecloths, with only eye-slits showing. And, they’re dancing up and down, again with their “I hate America” street “happenings.”

Whose fault is this now? Nearly naked Saddam got “exposed” in THE SUN. (”THE SUN WILL COME OUT T’MARRA.” Well, actually it came out yesterday.) And, courtesy of the Net, the photo’s gone global.

Maybe? Homeland Security will have to come out with a new rating called SUN GLASSES. TO add to their color charts. And, we can be advised to wea sun glasses when we go to Internet sites?

I dunno the plans the White House has had after we got into Iraq, but it sure likes like a mess over there. Like someone failed to have a strategy in place? Just BULLY. And, no strategy?

While 18 senators have started the Nu-Ku-Lar ball rolling in the senate.

What was it Bush said way back in 2000? He’d never soil the Oval Office? Folks. I think he just did.

May 20, 2005 - 6:40 pm 114. Luther McLeod:

Well I didn’t inherit the stubbornness gene on both the X and Y sides for nothing.

Thanks Knuck for at least acknowledging my concerns. And thank you ed for your explanation.

But still… I have reread that graf several times today and may finally have nailed down why it bothered me.

The ‘media’ stars up against the wall would include most of my family, a number of friends and perhaps even myself prior to 9/11. Not because any of them are ’stars’ nor in the media. But because they think in the same demo/liberal/demented/mind cast in concrete way and are most assuredly members of the “Dementius Moonbatus” crowd.

And that is what it comes down to, isn’t it? Just how far would we have to take that particular, over the top, fantasy?

Will we be able to rent the ‘great wall’ for this exercise?

May 20, 2005 - 6:59 pm 115. Caroline:

Carol – you responded to one of my earlier posts and the reason I didn’t reply was – I didn’t know what the hell you were talking about!

What I got from your current post is – “well-hung” – yup – noticed that (maybe that should restore some lost Arab honor or something?) -

You ask – “Whose fault is this now?” – you tell me Carol. You seriously think this is Bush’s fault or something?

“It sure likes like a mess over there. Like someone failed to have a strategy in place? Just BULLY. And, no strategy?”

Just “BULLY”? Are you kidding or something?

“He’d never soil the Oval Office? Folks. I think he just did.”

What the f**k are you talking about Carol? You think Bush did this?

Despair. Here comes that feeling again.

May 20, 2005 - 7:06 pm 116. Luther McLeod:

“I dunno the plans the White House has had after we got into Iraq, but it sure likes like a mess over there. Like someone failed to have a strategy in place? Just BULLY. And, no strategy?”

Yes Carol, and mostly thanks to people like you. And you would have done it differently how? Oh, I know, you would have left SH in power, then the pics could have been of the ‘rape’ rooms. How so much more entertaining.

May 20, 2005 - 7:17 pm 117. Caroline:

Luther – It is entirely possible that Carol has never seen videos of limb amputations, beheadings, tongues getting cut off, people (I assume homosexuals) being forced to jump to their deaths off buildings and so on. I’ve seen every one of those videos. Of course there are no videos of acid baths, shredders and so on, but I have a too active imagination.

Anyhoo…speaking of my active imagination, these days it revolves around imagined Bush press conferences. Sad, I know. So back in my Walter Mitty world, I imagine…

“As the head of the free world, I want to make it clear that civil rights – the ability of people to go the polls and elect their own leaders – is critical to democracy. I think we’ve made alot of progress in that respect in the past few years. But democracy as I mean it – means much more than that. It means respect for minority rights. It means the certainty of holding re-elections after a stated period of time, so that people have the option to reconsider their choices every few years. It means a free press that can question the government in order to insure that propoganda doesn’t control the free flow of information. It means tolerance for apostasy and blasphemy, because freedom of conscience and expression is indispensable to real democracy. It means respect for women. It means…

Whoops.. sorry…I just woke up from a bizzare dream in which I imagined that… well.. never mind. You wouldn’t believe it anyway..

May 20, 2005 - 7:43 pm 118. Buddy Larsen:

Caroline, I believe it. It’s “the” dream…and this prez shares it, leads it, pushes it. The snarks and sneerers will certainly draw you a nice tubful of despair, tho, to be sure. And hold your towel for you while you drown in it.

May 20, 2005 - 7:52 pm 119. Luther McLeod:

Caroline

I like your ‘Walter Mitty’ dreams. Would that we could have a ‘truth teller’, warts and all. He/She would be the most popular president in history! Forgive me, but it would duplicate my three most important things in leadership. Be Honest, Be Fair, And communicate, communicate, communicate. The HFC plan!!

May 20, 2005 - 8:00 pm 120. Caroline:

Buddy – you’re a sweetheart. Come with me back to Kansas. I wanna go home.

May 20, 2005 - 8:02 pm 121. Caroline:

Luther: “Be Honest, Be Fair, And communicate,”

Well, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

(Why does the word ‘meatloaf’ come to mind?)

May 20, 2005 - 8:07 pm 122. Buddy Larsen:

I know, Caroline. Me too. Back to Kansas. I don’t wanna be Dorothy, tho–that’d be too weird.

May 20, 2005 - 8:09 pm 123. Luther McLeod:

Caroline

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I’m slow. Which one do you think I missed? Those are combat proven!

And, yes, wouldn’t we all like to be back in Kansas? Unlike Buddy, I may not even care if I’m Dorothy

May 20, 2005 - 8:29 pm 124. Rick Ballard:

“Unlike Buddy, I may not even care if I’m Dorothy”

Wonder if that’s anything like Dennis’ thing with Ethel Merman? Or was it Buddy Hackett?

May 20, 2005 - 8:37 pm 125. Luther McLeod:

Rick, LOL. If I’m in Kansas, who cares? , though Ethel and Buddy H. might be a stretch. Though I do see the link.

May 20, 2005 - 8:55 pm 126. Caroline:

Luther – Where Bush is concerned, the weak link in your ideal triumvirate is …Communication! That’s why I’m having my Walter Mitty fantasies of Bush press conferences!

P.S. – re going back to Kansas – and why that resonates several generations later? I’m no biblical scholar but I think it resonates cause of the parable of the Prodigal Son. Isn’t that parable about going home? I’ll get really weird here and speculate that the whole idea of “going home” is a metaphor for remembering where we came from in the first place.

May 20, 2005 - 9:05 pm 127. Buddy Larsen:

I can crack completely up on cue by remembering Buddy Hackett in that airplane with Mickey Rooney in “It’s a Mad Mad World”. Caroline, rent it, it’ll chase away dem blues!

May 20, 2005 - 9:05 pm 128. Luther McLeod:

Well Buddy, as a young man, that was one, if not the favorite of my movies. Though when viewed at a later age it had lost some of its pizazz.

I think the thing may be that those of us who grew up with WWII participates (whether civil or military) have a different ‘view” of the world. We were at risk. Western Civilization was at a risk. As it is now. I am always accused of being too serious, how could I be otherwise?

May 20, 2005 - 9:21 pm 129. Carol_Herman:

Well, Caroline, if NOT noticing that Saddam was well hung is supposed to me what?

Laura Bush had no trouble alluding to her husband, “Mr. Excitement,” that he masturbated male horses by mistake, when he first became a farmer. (Well, I guess there are some things they don’t teach you in Yale and Harvard.)

But someone, somehow, made that picture of Saddam possible. And, it wasn’t the photographer for Calvin Klein, either. How do things like that get set up?

And, is the test that the media should NOT print it? It seems to me that it brings a lot people to attention when they see it. (Is that too Freudian? Don’t know. Don’t own a flagpole.)

But I did notice that the picture got published in ENGLAND, first. Before it got to Drudge. (And, yeah. I saw it was headlined on the first page at the NY Post. Basically, New York’s more republican newspaper.)

Well, as we go heading into Memorial Day, there are events that sort’a look like “SHOW TIME.” The arabs have gone about as far as they can go. Whatever “strat-e-jerry” that the Bush people had in place, after Tommy Franks reached victory within three weeks of the Iraq invation; now has us at a point where we can’t seem to train Iraqis to defend themselves.

Then, on a domestic level, Bush ran in his with White House plans to change the rules in the senate; so his program can pass on 50 votes. Lots of plans! But on what “strat-e-jerry?” What if the plans are flawed?

Is this “end game?” REALLY? We can trust the whole Mideast just toodles towards democracy? As Bush “gives” the Palestinians their own terrorist state? Hama-Stan is also coming this summer. You expected that? And, it’s going to be successful?

Lot’s of luck. But if a spirit of cooperation would have been better to build, ultimately the fault won’t come to my house. But it will reside in Bush’s house.

BULLIES NEVER WIN.

May 20, 2005 - 10:51 pm 130. Luther McLeod:

Not true Carol, bullies often win. Usually because they confront those who are weaker in some way or another. Saddam was a perfect example, a weak man with willing killers.

Just how far would your ’spirit of cooperation’ have gone if you had been picked up off the street by Uday? Or, maybe you could have been a simple soccer player who failed to win. What would have been your fate? Maybe you were just the mother of a child who happened to make the wrong comment in front of the wrong person who’s instructor passed it up the chain to the one’s who would pay you a visit in the middle of the night.

Where ever you are from, you seem to sit fat and happy, ever able to criticize those who protect your freedom to say what you will. Because you will suffer no consequences from what you say. Unlike many in this world. Fey on you. You appeaser to evil. You apologist for terror.

May 20, 2005 - 11:17 pm 131. Buddy Larsen:

Word, Luther. But Carol, if you’re thinking about Saddam’s pic, you must be reminded that he supports his troops, and tho his future appears to point down, he may yet dangle his information before the courts. (*groan*)

May 20, 2005 - 11:42 pm 132. Luther McLeod:

Buddy, that was terrible. LOL

May 20, 2005 - 11:47 pm 133. Buddy Larsen:

yeh…sorry…trying to lighten up Darth Herman.

May 21, 2005 - 12:04 am 134. klrfz1:

Carol_Herman

You said “the Nixon administration was hip deep with Dirty-Tricks.”

Richard Nixon is dead. It’s time for you to let the man go. Please, please, please, MOVE ON Carol! You know how to do that don’t you?

May 21, 2005 - 4:48 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: