Target Centermass

Category: “Our” Media

  • Pager-forced Link Dump

    I have been owned by the oncall pager, but here’s some reading for y’all.

    ‘This is our Belgian kamikaze’

    Belgians were trying to come to terms Thursday with the news that a working class woman from an industrial southern city had turned from a “nice” shop assistant into a suicide bomber who blew herself up in Iraq.

    “This is our Belgian kamikaze killed in Iraq,” headlined the newspaper La Derniere Heure on Thursday over a picture of a thoroughly normal-looking, smiling girl looking into the camera.

    When her mother, Liliane Degauque, saw police coming to her doorstep on Wednesday, she immediately knew what it was about. The evening before, she had heard the reports there had been a terrorist attack on Nov. 9 by a Belgian woman.

    “When I saw the first pictures, I said to myself, ‘it is my girl.’ For three weeks already I tried to contact her by telephone but I got the answering machine,” she told the RTBF network on Thursday.

    Authorities on Thursday formally arrested 5 of the 14 suspects they detained in dawn raids the day before and charged them with involvement in a terrorist network that sent volunteers to Iraq, including Degauque’s daughter Muriel, who died at 38.

    Nine were released. Those placed under arrest were a Tunisian and four Belgians, three of whom had foreign roots.

    “This action shows how international terrorism tries to set up networks in western European nations, recruit for terror attacks in conflict areas and look for funds to finance terrorism,” said Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.

    In her younger years, Muriel lived a conventional life in the Charleroi area. Media reports said she finished high school before taking on several jobs, including selling bread in a bakery. “She was so nice,” said her mother. The picture in the paper dated from that time.

    She told media, however, that her daughter could easily be influenced.

    Muriel changed first when she married an Algerian man and later one with Moroccan roots. She was increasingly drawn into fundamentalist religion.

    “It is the first time that we see that a Western woman, a Belgian, marries a radical Muslim, and is converted up to the point of becoming a jihad fighter,” said federal police director Glenn Audenaert.

    Belgium. France. The Netherlands. All have been served notice of the Islamist danger in their midst. None yet have taken their individual national wake-up calls seriously enough yet. This is not just a condemnation of these three countries but also of all around them. After all, to paraphrase Otto von Bismarck, any fool can learn from his own mistakes, but it is preferable to learn from the mistakes of others, as well.

    Ramadi Insurgents Flaunt Threat

    Armed fighters claiming allegiance to Abu Musab Zarqawi took to the streets of a western Iraqi provincial capital Thursday in a fleeting show aimed at intimidating Iraqi Sunni Arab leaders taking part in dialogue with U.S. Marines in a stronghold of the insurgency, provincial officials, residents and other witnesses said.

    The scene — lean figures, many in masks and dark tracksuits lugging shoulder-mounted rocket launchers or wielding AK-47 assault rifles — reinforced what the U.S. military has acknowledged is the strong insurgent presence in the Euphrates River cities and towns of Anbar province, an overwhelmingly Sunni area near the Syrian border. The appearance of the fighters dismayed many of the residents of Ramadi, the war-blighted provincial capital.

    […]

    The armed fighters on the streets left statements in the name of Zarqawi’s group, saying their show of force was in response to negotiations between the “Sunni midgets and the stooges of the occupation forces.” The statements contained pledges to kill each Sunni leader participating.

    The U.S. military, which maintains Marine bases and thousands of troops on the outskirts of Ramadi, denied the accounts of unrest, saying that the city was largely calm Thursday and that insurgents were manipulating the news media. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse,” Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a spokesman for the 2nd Marine Division, said in an e-mail to news organizations.

    Witnesses in Ramadi said they saw some of the armed fighters instruct a journalist for an Arabic-language news outlet to report that Zarqawi’s group, al Qaeda in Iraq, had taken over the entire city. The Arabic outlet by late Thursday was reporting only that the fighters had held some streets of the city center — a description of events in line with the eyewitness accounts and reports from other news organizations. News directors for the organization did not respond to requests for comment. The news organization is not being identified for security reasons.

    This is about as clear evidence as you can have that there are two wars being conducted — on the battlefield and in the media. The terrorists know this and, unfortunately for them, showed themselves to be truly crippled if little stunts like their assaulting and briefly holding a couple of city blocks comprise their current hope to pull of a Tet offensive-type media success.

    Germany: No ransom for Iraq kidnappers

    German leaders said Thursday they still have had no contact with the kidnappers of a German woman seized in Iraq and Chancellor Angela Merkel said considering paying a ransom was “not up for discussion” at this time.

    Susanne Osthoff and her Iraqi driver were taken last Friday, and were pictured in a videotape blindfolded on a floor, with militants – one armed with a rocket propelled grenade – standing beside them.

    The militants are reportedly demanding that Germany cease its dealings with Iraq’s government or they will kill the hostages. Germany was an ardent opponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has refused to send troops there, but has been training Iraqi soldiers and police outside the country.

    Merkel indicated in a speech Wednesday that Germany will not change its Iraq policy, stressing that the country “will not let ourselves be blackmailed” over Osthoff’s abduction.

    On Thursday, Merkel told reporters that the government was “doing all its can to save her life and that of her companion.”

    Asked if Germany would consider paying a ransom, Merkel said that was “not up for discussion at all now.”

    “At the moment it is about very elementary questions … First of all, we are interested in finding out how to make contact” with the kidnappers, Merkel said.

    Well, that’s not actually a very strong stance. Hopefully, Merkel will prove to have more of a spine than to cave in to terror and help finance future bloodshed for short-term political gain. You know, like the Philippines. Or allegedly the Italians and French.

    Finally, two blog must-reads:

    The Telegraph’s Nose Just Grew Ten Feet

    Should we hold newspapers accountable for exagerating or just lying? No, I do not mean legally, but as consumers we do drive their paychecks to print out blatent lies and mischaracterizations. Take for instance the following article in The Telegraph [headlined US ‘paid journalists to lie about war’]

    […]

    As a member of the free press, that is unless George Soros has purchased The Telegraph, the rag should know how the same press they operate under works. Apparently they do not. First things first though in this abysmal piece of journalism. Even though The Telegraph cites the Los Angeles Times for breaking the story, no where in the LA Times piece is there any information regarding the United States “paid journalists to lie about war” as stated in the title. I urge everyone to read the original LA Times piece to verify.

    Read it all. This story is growing and needs to be seen for its absurdity as early as possible.

    Picturing Polls, Red vs. Blue

    Here are recent (already outdated) poll numbers put into picture form of President George W. Bush’s approval ratings as seen on numerous Leftist websites.

    Not a good show for Chimpy-Bushitler, that is for sure!

    Too bad their data is no longer accurate. The current and respected Rasmussen Report has his approval rating back to 46%.

    These earlier polls do make you assume that if “W” is having such a hard time, then surely his democratic opponents are reaping the benefits. Right?

    But, looking at Congressional Democratic approval ratings you get this…

    Go see Gateway Pundit’s collection of red-blue maps. Interesting and unheralded, though not surprising.

  • The War Hangs in the Balance

    By that, I don’t mean on the battlefield, where we have nothing but achievement and progress, both unheralded and under-reported. Unfortunately, once again the danger of defeat lies in the political arena. The only way to lose is to choose to lose (it helps to be blinded from success). Some are cool with that. Some have done so in the past.

    Here are three columns that look at how we are currently on the knife’s edge, victorious in every way in the field and yet pulled towards defeat at home (hat tip for all to Power Line).

    First, Ralph Peters wants the reader to think about that very thing the critics of the Iraq war want to sweep under the carpet — the consequences of defeat, which is how an early withdrawal would be trumpeted by our radical Islamist enemies.

    How to Lose a War

    QUIT. It’s that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

    Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can’t win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That’s precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we’ve made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

    […]

    The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

    There’s plenty I don’t like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they’ll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country’s future security for a few House seats.

    Surrender is never a winning strategy.

    Yes, we’ve been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what’s at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

    What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they’re going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they’ll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

    I’ve never wanted to cut-and-paste and entire column like this one. I’ve previously expressed my long–standing respect for Mr. Peters, but he’s dead on the money here — one side is fighting a war and fighting for our troops; for the other, it’s sheer politics and gestures for the troops.

    Second, a history lesson for those rallying around Democrat and erstwhile hawk Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania about the effects of premature withdrawal and the undercutting of an ally.

    Defeated by Defeatism: Why Jack Murtha is wrong

    But if the United States were to take Murtha’s advice, the outcome would be precisely the opposite of what he desires. He only needs to recall what happened in Vietnam.

    After 1968, the situation in Vietnam was very similar to the one that prevails in Iraq today. Trends were moving in the right direction for the Americans and South Vietnamese. The United States had changed its strategy after Tet 1968, scoring significant military successes against the North Vietnamese while advancing “Vietnamization.” These successes helped stabilize the political and economic situation in South Vietnam, solidifying the attachment of the rural population to the South Vietnamese government and resulting in the establishment of the conditions necessary for South Vietnam’s survival as a viable political entity.

    The new strategy was vindicated during the 1972 Easter Offensive. This was the biggest offensive push of the war, greater in magnitude than either the 1968 Tet offensive or the final assault of 1975. While the U.S. provided massive air and naval support and while there were inevitable failures on the part of some South Vietnamese units, all in all, the South Vietnamese fought well. Then, having blunted the communist thrust, they recaptured territory that had been lost to Hanoi. So effective was the combination of the South Vietnamese army’s performance during the Easter Offensive, an enhanced counterinsurgency effort, and LINEBACKER II — the so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 later that year — that the British counterinsurgency expert, Sir Robert Thompson concluded US-ARVN forces “had won the war. It was over.”

    But as Bob Sorley has observed, while the war in Vietnam “was being won on the ground… it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress.

    If one does away with the unfortunately popular mythology of U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, one could see that there are actually very few similarities. After Tet and the accompanying decimation of the Viet Cong, we were not facing a true insurgency threat; rather, the bulk of the rest of the war was carried by outside regulars, the North Vietnamese Army. Second, the enemy’s efforts then were strongly and rather openly supported, supplied and fortified by our formidable rival superpower, the Soviet Union. That is not the case in Iraq. The true parallels are that it’s an engagement that can be won, is in the process of being won, and domestic forces are working to keep it from being won.

    The third piece takes a look at the effect of the current and unfortunate political games upon our boots on the ground, those supposedly so heartily supported by the anti-war movement.

    Military fears critics will hurt morale

    Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington’s political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.

    Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.

    The commanders also worry about the public’s declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

    “They say morale is very high,” said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. “But they relate comments from troops asking, ‘What the heck is going on back here’ and why America isn’t seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them.”

    This one falls equally upon those politically cutblocking the efforts today and the media, which has spent the entire war focusing upon the burning building and ignoring the opening school. Progress has been shunted for bloody headlines, and generations of blood may be the result.

    The war and the world our children and grandchildren will inherit hang in the balance.

  • En Fuego: Eric’s Grumbles

    Having made my position our media repeatedly clear, I’ll let Eric hammer on them for their current sins of omission.

    First, he tags them with a left hook for some blatant amnesia about Clinton-era concerns about Iraq:

    For more than two years now we have continuously had it pounded into our heads that there was no real linkage between al-Qaeda and Iraq, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that Osama bin Laden detested secular Iraq and would never work with them. What you may not know, even though it is in the 9/11 Commission’s report, is that Richard Clarke, the top counter-terrorism official in the later years of the Clinton Administration, didn’t agree with that point of view. And that there is reasonable evidence to support Clarke’s point of view.

    Read it. Then Eric throws a right cross at poll-number coverage:

    So, why isn’t the media, generally, telling the story that has existed at least since August? Yes, the President’s poll numbers are low, but so is the entire mainstream political structure. Now, why do you suppose the media isn’t pointing that out every time they run a story on the poll numbers? The fact is, people are disgusted with everybody in Washington. But, interestingly, they aren’t as disgusted with the President as the Congress and the political parties. That, of course, doesn’t fit the meme being pushed by certain quarters.

    Go let Eric grumble at ya.

  • A Must-Read 2

    A week ago, I tried to steer y’all toward this insightful essay by Vodkapundit‘s Stephen Green on the decisive role the media will play in maintaining or defeating our efforts against expansionsionist radical Islam. I still heartily recommend the piece, though I cannot say it leaves one exacty in the whistling-cheerful-tunes mode.

    Steven Den Beste, formerly of USS Clueless and one of my inspirations to begin blogging, has posted a follow-on piece to Mr. Green’s essay over at Red State.org. In it, he agrees that the decisive arm of our global battle is the media, but that is also a double-edged sword for the terrorists.

    But for the terrorists and Islamists, there’s a distinct drawback in this kind of war: headline fatigue. Even given that the western press tends to be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to western governments in the war, an ongoing campaign of car bombings in Iraq eventually becomes boring and gets consigned to the rear pages of the newspaper.

    That means that the terrorists have to come up with increasingly spectacular escapades in order to maintain the attention of the western press. A couple of years ago the new innovation was video decapitations, but eventually the novelty wore off.

    But the other side of the coin of headline fatigue is revulsion. Increasingly spectacular escapades become increasingly vile atrocities. They get the headlines, alright, but repel more people than they attract.

    Go. Read. It’s a bit tighter in scope than the Martini Guy’s, and a bit more hopeful as well, but all in all an essential companion piece. Together, they make a solid one-two combination from two of the best in the blogging business.

  • War on Terror Update, 14 NOV 05

    Jordanians turning against terrorism

    Less than a week ago – before suicide bombers killed 57 people at Amman hotels – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was seen by many Jordanians as a homegrown holy warrior battling U.S. troops in occupied Iraq.

    After the bombings, claimed by al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq, thousands of Jordanians took to the streets throughout the kingdom, shouting: “Burn in hell, al-Zarqawi.”

    “All Jordanians – even fanatic Muslims – are changing their minds (toward Islamic extremist attacks) because of what they saw happen to innocent people” in Amman, said Ibrahim Hreish, a jeweler in the Jordanian capital.

    In Jordan, a close U.S. ally heralded in the West for its moderation, there has been strong support for militant attacks against what Islamist and independent newspapers described as legitimate targets – Israeli soldiers or U.S. troops in Iraq.

    […]

    But amid a spiraling of violence in neighboring Iraq and numerous foiled terror plots here in Jordan before Wednesday’s strikes, views toward terrorism have started to change.

    Most of those killed in the triple hotel bombings were Arabs and Muslims – and the targets included a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding reception.

    TV talk shows and newspaper columnists have been focussing on the suicide attacks and whether Muslims should condone them in part or total.

    “There has (long) been empathy among Jordanians for insurgent strikes against military targets in Iraq, particularly against U.S. forces,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, a researcher who has conducted surveys on domestic attitudes toward suicide bombings.

    “I believe we will now begin to see a change in how the country’s press reports events in Iraq, such as suicide bombings and in public attitudes,” he said.

    Jordanians, along with the rest of the world, need to realize that the Islamists terrorists have already sorted humanity into two classifications: in one category, those who will help them destroy and then reign in a bloody and fascist fury of extremist Islam; in the other, potential victims. It’s that simple for the radical Islamists. It should be that simple for us.

    No escape from al-Qaeda for Jordan

    Jordan is one of the United States’ staunchest allies in the region, and it is also the “new” Iraq’s closest Arab ally, having done more than any other Arab state to help facilitate Iraq’s transition in the post-Saddam Hussein era.

    This and the global “war on terror” have left Jordan in a precarious position, highlighted by last week’s bombing of three hotels in Amman, the capital, in which nearly 60 people died.

    Such generous use of quotation marks. The “article” goes on to “detail” Jordan’s efforts so far against the Islamist threat and to “question” the Jordanian mindset.

    U.S. Widens Offensive In Far Western Iraq

    The U.S. military broadened its offensive in western Iraq on Monday, launching a major attack on insurgent positions in the town of Ubaydi near the Syrian border and killing about 50 insurgents in precision airstrikes and house-to-house street fighting, according to news reports and the U.S. military.

    U.S. and Iraqi troops reportedly faced stiff resistance from machine-gun and small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

    […]

    “This is a fight all the way through the city,” said Col. Stephen Davis, commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team 2, describing the fighting, according to CNN, which had a producer embedded with U.S. troops. Davis said that his forces were encountering “significant resistance” and that they had found three buildings wired with explosives and numerous roadside bombs and car bombs. U.S. officials said about two dozen insurgents had been captured.

    “Insurgent fighters have been battling with Iraqi and Coalition Forces since the operation began at dawn,” a military statement said. “A suspected car bomb placed in the advance of Iraqi Forces was engaged with a round from an M1A1 tank. The blast from the tank initiated a secondary explosion powerful enough to throw the car onto the roof of a nearby building.”

    Happy hunting, troops, and best wishes.

    By the way, it must have been fun to have been in that gunner’s seat, squeeze the cadillacs, and then put a round into a bomb-laden car and watch the fireworks through the thermals. Most of you folks wouldn’t understand the feeling of staring into a scope, firing a 120mm and having the awesome machinery rock and roll about a foot to the left of your head as your powerful effort screams destructively exactly where you wish to put it. Eric could tell you more about it.

    Blair Says a Troop Cut in Iraq Is a ‘Possibility’ Next Year

    British officials have begun to talk, however gingerly, about withdrawing their troops from Iraq.

    On Monday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was “entirely reasonable” to “talk about the possibility” that the troops could begin leaving by the end of next year. The discussion, he added, “has got to be always conditioned by the fact that we withdraw when the job is done.”

    His comments came a day after the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, said in a television interview that Iraqi soldiers could replace British troops in southern Iraq by the end of 2006. “We don’t want British forces forever in Iraq,” Mr. Talabani said on ITV1. “Within one year, I think at the end of 2006, Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British forces in the south.”

    Let’s not be so hasty. Please see the next story.

    Iraq wants pull-out even later

    Talks on the withdrawal of United States-led foreign troops from Iraq can begin at the end of next year, said Iraq’s president on Monday.

    President Jalal Talabani, in Austria to attend a three-day conference on Islam, gave no timetable for the full pull-out of troops, but said Britain probably could start a “step by step” exit in 2007.

    […]

    On Friday, Iraqi deputy prime minister Ahmad Chalabi said US troops could begin leaving in significant numbers some time next year.

    But US President George W Bush has refused to set a timetable, saying that would play into the hands of insurgents.

    See my thoughts on exit strategies and time tables here. In short, they bring a short-term political gain with the danger of an actual loss in true national goals. No war effort has ever been successfully carried out with the foolishness of an exit strategy or a timetable for withdrawal. Oh yeah, exactly when are we leaving Bosnia?

    To counter Iraq war critics, Bush quotes Democrats

    U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday sought to counter Democratic critics of the Iraq war by turning their own past words of warning about Saddam Hussein against them.

    “Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war — but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people,” Bush said in a campaign-style speech accusing Democrats of playing politics with the issue and trying to rewrite the past.

    He spoke to U.S. troops in an air base hangar in Alaska, a refueling spot for Air Force One carrying him on a week-long Asia trip that Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said would be long on conversations about top priorities but not likely to include any breakthrough agreements on simmering trade issues.

    […]

    He quoted statements made in 2001 and 2002 by three Senate Democrats, though he did not quote them by name.

    While I may not agree with the decision for the prez to come out swinging (mildly) on Veterans Day, the swinging had to be done sooner rather than later. The Democrats have played nothing but obstruction on every domestic effort put forth by the administration — and make no mistake, the administration and the Republicans have been the only ones trying to move anything forward — but also have viciously savaged the administration over the prelude to the Iraqi campaign, falsely twisting the Scooter Libby indictments as a statement againt pre-invasion intelligence manipulation and utilizing an all-too-willing and gullible press to curtail public support for our military efforts.

    Did I say Bush had to start fighting back sooner rather than later? I meant that it is well past time that the public hear more of the duplicity of those who have been oh-so-freakin’-publicly undermining our efforts, hoping to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in the Viet Nam mode, only for their personal and party gain at the expense of the possible future security of our republic.

  • A Must-Read

    Simply that, a must-read essay, courtesy Stephen Green, the VodkaPundit. If you want to know why I have started an “Our” Media category (which still needs older entries added) here at Target Centermass, Mr. Green sums it up better than I could:

    So what does matter? What is the postmodern arm of decision?

    Previously, I wrote that in order to win the Terror War, we must “prove the enemy ideology to be ineffective,” just as we did in the Cold War. In that conflict, we did so in three ways: by fighting where we had to while maintaining our freedoms, but most importantly by out-growing the Communist economies. I argued that similar methods would win the Terror War. We’d have to fight, we’d have to maintain our freedoms, but the primary key to victory in the Current Mess is taking the initiative.

    What I didn’t see then – but what I do see today – is what “taking the initiative” really means.

    It means, fighting a media war. It means, turning the enemy’s one great strength into our own. Broadcast words, sounds, and images are the arm of decision in today’s world.

    And if that assessment is correct, then we’re losing this war and badly.

    Go. Read it. Seriously.

  • News Link Dump, 3 NOV 05

    Okay, I’m busy packing for a weekend journey to “scenic” Lubbock, Texas, to watch my Aggies square off on the gridiron against my fiancee’s Tech Red Raiders. I’m not expecting a good game, but it has become an annual trip for us, be it Lubbock or dear ol’ College Station.

    And now the news and views.

    The good news from Iraq is not fit to print

    No question: If you think that defeating Islamofascism, extending liberty, and transforming the Middle East are important, it’s safe to say you saw the ratification of the new constitution as the Iraqi news story of the week [emphasis in original].

    But that isn’t how the mainstream media saw it.

    Consider The Washington Post. On the morning after the results of the Iraqi referendum were announced, the Post’s front page was dominated by a photograph, stretched across four columns, of three daughters at the funeral of their father, Lieutenant Colonel Leon James II, who had died from injuries suffered during a Sept. 26 bombing in Baghdad. Two accompanying stories, both above the fold, were headlined ”Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq” and ”Bigger, Stronger, Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of US Deaths.” A nearby graphic — ”The Toll” — divided the 2,000 deaths by type of military service — active duty, National Guard, and Reserves.

    I’ve said it before and, unfortunately, I’m quite certain I’ll have to say it again — our media’s handling of this war absolutely disgusts me. Oh, I’m not just talking about the Iraqi theater, though that has certainly been the lowlight of their performance, but also their coverage dating back to the opening of the Afghan campaign (a theater now seemingly all but forgotten in their eyes). I’ll again quote Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff, who blogged the following:

    Have you ever read a history of war that focused almost entirely on casualty figures (with an occasional torture story and grieving parent thrown in), to the exclusion of any real discussion of tactics, operations, and actual battles? I haven’t. But that’s what our self-proclaimed “rough drafters” of history are serving up with respect to Iraq.

    It’s almost become a cliche, but I honestly feel we could not have successfully prosecuted World War II with today’s media.

    Chertoff says US wants to “gain control” of borders

    President George W. Bush’s domestic security chief vowed on Wednesday to “gain control” of U.S. borders, prompting ridicule from immigration control activists who have taken the matter into their own hands.

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the administration aims to improve ways to keep illegal migrants out and to deport those already in the United States.

    “Simply stated, our goal is to gain control of our borders,” Chertoff said in a speech organized by the Houston Forum, a nonprofit educational group.

    “I define control to mean that we will have an extremely high probability of detecting, responding to and interdicting illegal crossings of our borders.”

    I’ll wait until I actually see something of substance. Our borders have been far too freakin’ porous for far, far too long.

    Crisis as Paris burns for another night

    France’s government was under mounting pressure yesterday to regain control of the situation around Paris as youths opened fire on police and set 300 cars ablaze in overnight rioting in what is now a week of serious disorder.

    Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister, held a series of crisis meetings yesterday amid increasing criticism of the government for its failure to control the escalating violence which began last Thursday in the northern suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois after two teenagers of North African origin were electrocuted in an electricity sub-station. The violence has since spread to at least 20 impoverished suburbs around the capital.

    I expect this matter to calm soon. That said, I don’t expect the actual problem to go away. This story is an excellent example of why: note the subdued description of the rioters and the troublesome neighborhoods. It isn’t until the 21st of 24 paragraphs until one can find the only mention of the religion involved. Of course, I’m talking about Islam.

    Al-Qaida Claims Downing of U.S. Helicopter

    Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed Thursday it shot down a U.S. attack helicopter that crashed, killing two Marines, and a U.S. general said witnesses saw the aircraft take ground fire and break up in the air.

    The AH-1W Super Cobra crashed Wednesday near Ramadi during daylong fighting in the insurgent stronghold 70 miles west of Baghdad. In addition to the two crewmen, an American lieutenant died when a bomb exploded as he was rushing to the crash site.

    Another U.S. soldier died Thursday in a roadside bombing northeast of Baghdad, the military said.

    My best wishes to the families of the troops involved.

    A nuclear surge to follow Iran’s diplomatic purge

    Iran announced yesterday that it was removing 40 ambassadors from their posts abroad and indicated a further hardening of the regime’s policies by preparing a new phase in its nuclear programme.

    A day after The Times revealed that senior envoys were being purged from Iran’s diplomatic service, Manoucher Mottaki, the Foreign Minister, told the parliament in Tehran that “the missions of more than 40 ambassadors and heads of Iranian diplomatic missions abroad will expire” by March 20. He described the drastic changes, affecting nearly half of Iran’s foreign posts, as normal and insisted that many envoys were close to retirement.

    His assurances failed to silence critics, both in Iran and abroad, who insisted that key envoys were being dismissed because they were moderates closely identified with the reformist policies of previous administrations.

    As Iran shifts back towards the hard line in its efforts to thrust itself into the leadership of the Islamic world, they run the risk of solidifying opposition other than the U.S. and Israel. After seeing trouble within their own borders and hearing the all-too-familiar threats, threats that ring out in an echo of the 1930s, some eyes in continental Europe seem to be opening to a growing danger.

    Assassination probe finds a trail of suspects

    It reads like a spy novel, laying out an elaborate web of phone calls, surveillance and even a fake assassin intended to throw investigators off the trail.

    The United Nations report on the Feb. 14 assassination of former Leba-nese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri details months of plotting by top Syrian and Lebanese security officials.

    The report, which was released Oct. 20, implicates about a dozen men who are now the focus of the U.N. investigation.

    In the coming weeks, the fate of these men could provoke a showdown between Syria and the international community. Armed with the chilling 54-page report, the United States, France and Britain lobbied for a U.N. resolution that threatened Syria with sanctions unless it cooperates fully with the U.N. probe.

    The resolution, which was unanimously approved by the Security Council on Monday, requires Syria to detain any Syrian official or civilian deemed by U.N. investigators as a suspect in Hariri’s killing.

    This story could be dangerous. Still, it could also be grab-the-popcorn entertaining as Syria finds itself suddenly struggling like a fish on a hook.

  • Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah

    No, not alleged lies by the Bush administration, but a look at an actual liar — Joe Wilson, early hero of the anti-war movement and husband to allegedly outted spy Plame … Valerie Plame.

    Plamegate’s real liar

    Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, “about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.” The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn’t work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.

    Okay, so Wilson is known to be a proven liar, obviously acting with motive. How is the media handling the story? Well, here’s a look at a typical example.

    Joe Wilson’s 60 Minutes

    There is, perhaps, no better illustration of how entrenched this misleading storyline has become than this past Sunday’s episode of 60 Minutes. In a segment fronted by correspondent Ed Bradley, a host of Wilsonian memes were broadcast without even the slightest bit of skepticism.

    The segment began with a misleading question: “Would someone in the government go that far, leak her [Valerie Plame’s] name to the press, in retaliation for her husband’s public criticism of the war in Iraq?” But, Wilson was not merely “criticizing” the war in Iraq, a democratic right that should be protected, as this opening question implied. His “critique” was pure fantasy, a tale woven around his own classified trip to Africa.

    As has been shown countless times, no substantive part of Wilson’s story was true. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Report made this clear in July 2004 (see, for example, here and here.) To hear 60 Minutes tell it, you would never even know that this report existed. The Senate Intelligence Report was not mentioned and Bradley did not ask Wilson a single question about his bogus charges. Instead, for the umpteenth time, Wilson was allowed an unchallenged opportunity to tell his version of events.

    By ignoring the numerous deficiencies in Wilson’s account, Bradley ignored one of the more salient questions in this story: Why was a CIA officer, Wilson’s wife, complicit in his lies? The Senate Intelligence Report makes it clear that Valerie Plame orchestrated Wilson’s trip to Africa and attended at least part of his CIA debriefing. She was, therefore, most certainly in a position to know that her husband’s accusations were false.

    Both are good reads, though they may leave one feeling quite disgusted. Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit has compiled a timeline of the controversy, chock full o’ supporting links: What CNN Won’t Tell You About the CIA Leak Case.

  • Senate Dems: Hissy Fit on a National Stage

    First, there’s this story, essentially a delaying rear-guard action against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

    Democrats push to delay Alito hearings

    Senate Democrats pushed on Tuesday for a 2006 date for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, challenging President Bush’s call for confirmation by year’s end.

    “There’s no way you can do an honest hearing by the end of December, or a fair hearing,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    In a jab at the White House and the Senate Republican leadership, Leahy said he and the panel’s chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter could likely agree on a date for confirmation hearings if left to themselves.

    Specter, R-Pa., was noncommittal on timing for hearings for Alito, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “This is a swing vote on the Supreme Court…. I don’t know enough yet to say whether it’s realistic by the end of the year,” he said.

    […]

    Conservatives in and out of the Senate have greeted Alito’s nomination warmly, many saying they hoped he would move the court to the right if confirmed for O’Connor’s seat.

    Liberals, pointing to rulings on abortion, gun control, the death penalty and other issues, have already raised the threat of a filibuster, an attempt to deny Alito a yes-or-no vote by the Senate. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate, and while confirmation requires a simple majority, it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

    Republicans have responded to the threat by saying they would seek a vote to abolish the filibuster in cases of Supreme Court and federal appeals court nominations.

    A showdown over that issue was narrowly averted last spring when seven lawmakers from each party brokered a compromise. But already, two of the seven Republicans involved in that compromise – Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – have indicated they would side with their leadership this time. That suggests Democrats would lose a showdown if it went that far.

    Actually, compared to their other major Senate maneuver of the day, I find this development fairly mild, just a postponing of what currently seems a strong likelihood. I would actually welcome an opportunity for the over-threatened judicial filibuster to be broken, but I don’t think the Dem leadership wants to sacrifice that hole card on a losing hand. Rather, I suspect they would settle for drawing out the confirmation, hoping for an unforeseen development while denying the president and his nominee as easy a process as Chief Justice John Roberts experienced. It’s not an action for the betterment of the republic, but instead one to prevent the leader of that republic’s executive branch from scoring any easy political points.

    Now, on to the despicable.

    Democrats force Senate into rare closed session

    Democrats forced the Senate into a rare secret session Tuesday to demand that the Republican majority further investigate the Bush administration’s handling of intelligence related to the war in Iraq.

    The surprise maneuver, exploiting last week’s indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff in the CIA leak case, caught Republicans flatfooted and shifted attention back to the increasingly unpopular war and away from President Bush’s day-old Supreme Court nomination.

    After a testy showdown that lasted more than two hours behind closed doors, Senate Republicans agreed to restart an inquiry into the administration’s use of intelligence.

    Still, furious Republicans called the move a “stunt” and a “scare tactic” designed to score partisan political points.

    At issue was a long-standing promise by intelligence committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to broaden the panel’s investigation into how intelligence was used to go to war. The committee concluded last year that the intelligence was erroneous, but Democrats wanted the inquiry to determine whether it had been intentionally misused to justify the war.

    Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada renewed his call Tuesday for that portion of the investigation, invoking Friday’s indictment of Cheney’s aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on charges that he lied to a grand jury about his role in leaking classified information about a war critic’s wife.

    “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared challenge its actions,” Reid said, moments before springing the secret session.

    I’d like to point out at this time that Friday’s indictments [covered here] in absolutely no way whatso-freakin’-ever supported any stance that the administration massaged data. The indictments point not toward any criminal behaviour preceding or during the time of the supposed leak, but rather possible crimes during the investigation. That the Dems are trying to expand this into a dark cloud over our entire pre-war process is almost as disgusting as the media’s willingness to not question their spew.

    A visibly angry Bill Frist, the Senate’s normally unflappable Republican leader, immediately lashed back, noting that most previous closed sessions have been called by joint agreement of both party leaders. What especially annoyed Frist was that Reid acted without consulting him.

    “This is an affront to me personally,” said Frist, of Tennessee. “It’s an affront to our leadership. It’s an affront to the United States of America. And it is wrong.”

    Under Senate rules, the Senate can go into closed session at the request of one senator, provided another senator seconds the motion. Since 1929, when the Senate first allowed treaties and nominations to be discussed in public, the Senate has held 53 secret sessions, most involving discussion of classified materials. Six of the most recent closed sessions occurred during the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

    The Democrats’ move had clear political motivations. The war in Iraq is driving down President Bush’s approval ratings and putting Republicans on the defensive. Democrats tried Friday and throughout the weekend to link the Libby indictment to Bush’s overall war policy.

    But Bush changed the subject Monday by nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The nomination thrilled conservatives, angered liberals and turned public attention away from Iraq. Senate Democrats pulled it back Tuesday.

    Frist has every right to be angry, not only at his Democrat colleagues but also at himself. How many times must he be caught off-guard, expecting today’s Dems to play by established decorum instead of seeking newer lows to which they can stoop for political gain over national good?

    Ace at Ace of Spades shares the anger and is ready for an equal response.

    It’s time for a political advertisement knitting together Clinton’s, Gore’s, Hillary!’s, Rockefeller’s, Kerry’s, etc.’s various statements over the years warning against Saddam’s bio, chem, and nuclear programs.

    And f***ing blitz it. I’m sick of this. And I’m angry at the stupid fucking GOP for not doing its f***ing job and ridiculing these people the way they should be ridiculed.

    Unsurprisingly, Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters looks at the matter a little more calmly.

    This shows the emptiness of Democrats, both in head and heart. As Bill Frist said afterwards, the minority party proves it has nothing to contribute except cheap political stunts. They know that the Fitzgerald investigation came up with next to nothing on the Plame leak — because it didn’t constitute a crime under US statute. Despite having a prosecutor independent of the Bush administration run wild for almost two years and exceed the original boundaries of his mandate, the only indictment he could muster was one in which a very stupid and probably criminal act by a single person could be verified — and that just had to do with the investigation and grand jury itself, not with the Plame leak.

    Reid says that the Wilson/Plame brouhaha proves that the Bush administration lied about the war. This was practically the entire Democratic Party platform last year — and it lost them the White House and four seats in the Senate. One would think that going back to the well a year later would be stupid beyond belief, but apparently Reid forgot about that big poll taken last November. He also forgot about this bipartisan report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which outlines exactly how Wilson’s report in fact bolstered the case that Iraq still wanted to get material for nuclear weapons — and that Wilson had lied about it in leaks to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and then in his own editorial and book.

    Please see the Captain’s post for the supporting links to which he referred.

    What are my thoughts? The Dems are using mere illusion and misdirection, smoke and mirrors, to make political hay of something that isn’t really there. They have cast aside precedent of senatorial behaviour in favor of undermining the president, cheaply used revisionism to cast a pall upon our arguments for opening the Iraqi theater, and made common use of exaggeration and outright falsehood to politically cripple our international efforts for possible cheap domestic gain. Should they succeed, score an assist to the mainstream media, who have seemingly been quite content to carry the water and Dem talking points, when unbiased reporting would have presented the American people with the truth behind the Dem stunts, gotchas and lies.

    All this while we have troops on the ground in Iraq. Facing what should be our true enemies.

    No amount of Pepto could deal with this torrent of bile.

  • U.S. Uses ‘Iron Fist’ in Iraq

    The U.S. is conducting an offensive against the terrorists in Iraq. I find Canada’s Globe and Mail coverage of the effort to be amazingly negative in story and poor in detail, even for our supposed allies to the north.

    A U.S. offensive aimed at al-Qaeda in Iraq insurgents in western Iraq entered its third day Monday, with air strikes in a town on the banks of the Euphrates River, witnesses said. At least 36 militants have died since the fighting began, officials said.

    No serious U.S. casualties have been reported in the “Iron Fist” offensive by 1,000 Marines, soldiers and sailors near the Syrian border.

    Well, so far, so bland. That must stop. So, too, must actual reporting of the offensive, as the story turns now towards negative news elsewhere in Iraq. Hey, the alleged point of the story got over sixty words — time to shift to unrelated gloom-and-doom.

    In Baghdad, Iraq’s oil minister narrowly survived an assassination attempt when a roadside bomb blasted his seven-car convoy, killing three of his escorts, officials said.

    Elsewhere, roadside bombs and fighting between insurgents and Iraqi forces on Monday wounded at least seven Iraqis in Ramadi, a militant stronghold west of the capital, police and hospital officials said.

    Insurgents wearing black hoods were seen carrying machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades in the city’s streets, and Iraqi civilians gathered around two burning Iraqi army pickup trucks. Some of the civilians celebrated the destruction by carrying Iraqi military helmets and a uniform that appeared to have been pulled from the burning Iraqi vehicles.

    In the northern city of Mosul, a drive-by shooting killed Nafi’a Aziz, a female member of Ninevah’s provincial council, and her son, said police spokesman Brig. Saeed Ahmed. Mr. Aziz was in charge of the council’s human rights committee and a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the party of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

    The offensive and street fighting come less than two weeks before the national referendum on a new Iraqi constitution. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other groups in the Sunni-led insurgency have killed at least 207 people over the past eight days in a bid to wreck the vote.

    On Sunday, Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed to have taken two U.S. Marines captive during the fighting and threatened to kill them within 24 hours unless all female Sunni detainees are released from U.S. and Iraqi prisons in the country. The U.S. military said the claim appeared false but that it was conducting checks “to verify that all Marines are accounted for.”

    Well, that should be enough to quash any optimism about the offensive. Let’s actually return to that offensive, shall we?

    The offensive in western Iraq by 1,000 Marines, soldiers and sailors began early Saturday in the village of Sadah and has since spread to Karabilah and Rumana, two nearby towns on the banks of the Euphrates River. On Monday, witnesses told The Associated Press that helicopter attacks on Rumana were sending up clouds of black smoke.

    No casualties were immediately reported in Monday’s fighting by the witnesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for their own safety, or by the U.S. military command center in Baghdad.

    The military says al-Qaeda in Iraq, the country’s most feared insurgent group, has turned the area near Iraq’s border into a “sanctuary” and a way-station for foreign fighters entering from Syria.

    In Karabilah, Marines clashed with insurgents who opened fire from a building on Sunday in a firefight that killed eight militants, the military said.

    Most of the militants appeared to have slipped out of Sadah before the force moved in, and hundreds of the village’s residents fled into Syria ahead of the assault.

    There was “virtually no opposition” in Sadah, the Marine commander in western Anbar province, Col. Stephen W. Davis said.

    At least 28 militants were killed in fighting Sunday, Davis said, bringing the two-day toll among insurgents to 36. There have been no serious U.S. casualties in the operation, he said.

    Okay, the American offensive appears to be going well, time to cast a pall on that.

    On Monday, a CNN journalist embedded with Marines in eastern Karabilah filed video showing the attack. About 20 Iraqi civilians fled the fighting, and the wounded included an Iraqi mother, father and their child, who were bleeding after being hit by flying pieces of concrete.

    Oh holy crap! Civilians in a combat zone were injured by flying bits of building! Oh the humanity! Damn, but large portions of Canada really need wake up, crawl out from under the blanket of protection their southerly neighbors have afforded them for apparently far too long, and actually come face-to-face with a real threat. I doubt their grandfathers on D-Day fretted overly much about bystanders being stung by inadvertant debris.

    The rest of the story ignores the offensive and returns to the negative stories covered earlier. It’s almost like the author wants the reader to know a successful operation is underway, but doesn’t want that news to bring any good vibes. On the other hand, for balance’s sake, the article does wrap up with a slightly positive tidbit, again unrelated to the offensive.

    Elsewhere, Shiite militiamen released the recently kidnapped brother of Iraq’s interior minister, the freed man, Abdul-Jabbar Jabr said.

    Well, there, that’s fair coverage of a friend’s successful venture, wouldn’t you say?

    Meanwhile, Chad over at In the Bullpen has a rather speculative story that al Queda in Iraq may be considering bailing on, well, Iraq as a base of operations. Continued offensives like those barely covered above would certainly play a role in such a maneuver. Chad goes on to ponder about possible new sites for the terrorist base of operations.

    Where would they move? The Sinai is the first place I’d look for any reemergence, but there’s also Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa to consider.

    As I’ve noted before, the U.S. military is already planning for such a relocation.