Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
And when you watch the trailer below, note that's original documentary footage of Jim Morrison, not an actor's portrayal. As LAT notes:
The images in question, it turns out, were culled from outtakes of Morrison's self-financed 1969 film, "HWY: An American Pastoral." And according to Tom DiCillo, the writer and director of "When You're Strange," potential doubters wouldn't be the first to question the authenticity of the reel.
"We were showing it at Sundance and a distributor disgustedly stormed out of a screening," DiCillo recounted. "I ran down the street to ask why he'd left and the distributor replied, 'I can't believe you'd use an actor in this movie.' I laughed and told him that I'd never do such a thing." The proof, in fact, is in the mere existence of "When You're Strange." To gain use of the music, DiCillo had to appease the three remaining members of the notoriously fractious band, as well as Morrison's estate.
The film's narrated by Johnny Depp. Apparently a lot of legal infighting continues to this day, but get this, from drummer John Densmore:
"Watching the old footage reminds me of this crazy dream I had years ago. There's something magic there," Densmore said. "Maybe it's because it doesn't have any old geezers jabbering about their past. It's Johnny Depp taking you on a road movie with the Doors. You're going to live it, sit on the drum stool, and take the ride. It's got Vietnam, the assassinations, the events that affected us all. Artists don't exist in a vacuum. It's everything that happened before the tragedy. We all know the tragedy."
Okay, it's time to update my coverage on the WikiLeaks story. I especially want to emphasize some context that might otherwise get overlooked as developments continue. As I first reported, Julian Assange is a convicted computer hacker and communist activist. His agenda is nothing short of a worldwide delegitimation and destabilization program of the U.S. and its allies. And because he's being feted as a hero across the leftist-media-industrial complex, the naked truth of the actual events in Baghdad 2007 are getting shrouded in a fog of anti-American propaganda.
David Schlesinger, the editor in chief of Reuters, declined to run a story by one of his own reporters containing claims that the 2007 killings of two Reuters staffers in Baghdad by U.S. troops may have been war crimes.
Reuters staffers Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were killed by U.S. helicopter gunships in Baghdad in 2007. Video of the attack, which shows the journalists standing next to unidentified armed men on a Baghdad street and records the destruction of a van attempting to retrieve a wounded Chmagh, was published this week by Wikileaks.
The video has launched a debate about the legality of the attack, which also wounded two children (you can read our take here). Yesterday, Reuters' deputy Brussels bureau chief Luke Baker filed a muscular story repeating allegations from several human rights and international law experts that the killings may have constituted war crimes. But Reuters chief David Schlesinger, a tipster says, spiked the story because "it needed more comment from the Pentagon and U.S. lawyers." It never ran, but you can read it in full below.
Gawker has published a number of badly one-side stories on WikiLeaks. John Cook is the author of the one above, as well as a previous report on Tuesday, "Wikileaks Video Demonstrates Conclusively That Innocent People Get Killed in Wars." Cook's reporting is riddled with feigned objectivity (even generating a backlash against Gawker in the comments), but he's in fact just another leftist media-enabler attempting to renew the case for prosecutions against former Bush administration officials and former and current military personnel.
In response, I sent Cook an e-mail Tuesday, titled "WikiLeaks: Why Gunships Were Called In ...":
Sir:
You write:
"It's not discernible from the video what immediately preceded the slayings or why the gunships were called in, but according to a contemporaneous New York Times account, the military claimed that U.S. troops in the area called in air support after encountering small arms fire during a raid."
You should update ...
Gunships were called in for backup for the ground operation against insurgents. Even Reuters' own photos show ground contingents standing by:
And it's safe to say that it's not just Gawker that's actively suppressing available information disproving the war crimes meme. Indeed, it's quite frightening how extensive is the WikLeaks/communist/media alliance. Huffington Post is also running the "Reuters spiked story" report, and the Washington Post features yet another fawning MSM entry on convict Julian Assange, "The Man Behind Wikileaks." And yesterday's New York Times ran a completely lame piece on milblogs covering the story, but refused to link to bloggers who've debunked the WikiLeaks scam. See, "Reaction on Military Blogs to the WikiLeaks Video." The hardline World Can't Wait is cross-posting report's from London's left-leaning Guardian, "Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians." And the communist Smirking Chimp clearinghouse is running updates, "The F Word: Impossible to Ignore Wikileaks Tape."
The families of two Reuters news agency employees killed in a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad on Thursday demanded justice, telling AFP the Americans responsible should stand trial.
Graphic video footage of the shooting, which left several other people dead and wounded two children, was published on the Internet by WikiLeaks, a website that discloses information obtained from whistleblowers.
"The truth came out and the whole world saw. The American pilot should be judged by international justice and we want compensation because the act left orphans," said Safa Chmagh, whose brother Saeed Chmagh, a Reuters driver, died.
"He (the pilot) killed unarmed innocent people, among them a photographer whose camera was very visible. On top of that when they evacuated the wounded they opened fire again," said Safa, whose brother was 44 when killed.
The "unarmed" meme has been entirely discredited, in the Pentagon's own internal investigation, and by Doug Ross and Rusty Shackleford, among others. And because of this, the left continues to suppress conflicting information while constantly moving the goalposts. Selective editing is just the beginning. Communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! segment today pushed the "civilian murders" meme, and continued with the charge of war crimes. See, "EXCLUSIVE: One Day After 2007 Attack, Witnesses Describe US Killings of Iraqi Civilians." (This entry was cross-posted to communist filmaker Michael Moore's website as well.
Note how this disinformation then enters into a feedback loop, whereby WikiLeaks incorporates it and disseminates even more falsehoods and allegations:
And this Al Jazeera broadcast from a few days ago gives you a really good sense of what leftists are hoping to achieve. I can't thank Bill Roggio enough for all his reporting, but Glenn Greenwald and the others outflank him. Notice especially at about 22:00 minutes, where Greenwald makes the case that WikiLeaks is the new Abu Ghraib:
Fortunately, we've had a significant pushback among conservative bloggers, although the rebuttals need to gain more traction in the press.
These reports are a much-welcomed corrective to the WikiLeaks/communist/media propaganda machine, but it's not enough at this point. We'll see more stories claiming that U.S. forces attacked "civilians" (Roggio notes that the "rescue" van was patrolling all morning in nearby Baghdad streets while U.S. forces engaged insurgents), and the focus will be increasingly on the children who were wounded.
It'd be a grave miscarriage for U.S. military personnel, who meticulously observed ROE, to be charged with violating rules of war; and it'd be an even greater injustice to truth and common decency should this communist propaganda campaign gain even more domestic and international legitimacy than it already has.
A recent study of Britain's bloody withdrawal from Kabul in 1842 concluded that the first cause of that disaster was the reluctance of junior officers to tell their superiors the truth about the dire situation the British forces found themselves in. I know from my own discussions with diplomats and commanders in the field that such "happy talk" is no longer the order of the day. Getting Afghanistan right means getting down to ground truth. These are the facts as I see them:
• The Afghan people are tired of thirty years of war. They have been traumatized by the fighting and the denial of basic rights and opportunities. The majority of them hate, for good reason, the brutality of the Taliban. But sometimes they see them as their only protection from other brutal powerbrokers or warlords.
• The Afghan government led by Hamid Karzai faces competing demands from its own people, from powerful criminal and commercial interests, and from the international community. But it lacks the capacity to govern. The concerns about its credibility run deeper than last fall's elections, which were marred by widespread corruption and fraud. They also relate to the very structure of the political system.
• The Afghan insurgency is a broad but shallow coalition, with shifting relationships, geographical bases, and tactics. The Taliban is led by members of the former Talib regime under Mullah Omar, who has been based in Pakistan's border areas. A variety of other factions are also operating, including the Haqqani network, Hizb-e-Islami, and a range of smaller groups. These groups all trade on the uncertainties of the people and the weaknesses of the state.
• The Taliban are still despised—one recent poll suggests that only 6 percent of Afghans want them back in power. But they do now have organized cadres that enjoy some limited support—in the south, east, and north—and are able to mount operations in Kabul and elsewhere.
• Having fled Afghanistan, al- Qaeda's senior leadership is now also hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas. A significant number of its leaders have been killed or arrested. Despite the historical ties between al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban, their relationship is predominantly tactical and local. Yet al-Qaeda retains the capacity—including through its affiliates in other countries, such as Yemen—to plan and carry out deadly attacks around the world.
• There has been a significant change in Pakistan in the last eighteen months under President Asif Ali Zardari's democratic government. The reality and threat of domestic terrorism has brought new purpose to civilian and military leadership, and new consensus between leaders and the Pakistani electorate. It is now realistic to talk about complementary pressure on the insurgencies on both sides of the border.
The Afghan and international strategy over the last eight years has been to focus on building up the key functions of the state and delivering better lives for the Afghan people. Despite many setbacks, there is a real record of achievement here, continuing today. The return of five million refugees in recent years is perhaps the greatest sign of the growing confidence of Afghans in their safety and security, and an important indicator of our own progress in protecting them. Still, polling shows that Afghans regard the lack of security as one of the biggest problems; last year more Afghan civilians were killed in insurgent attacks than ever ....
The achievements of the last eight years would not have been possible were it not for the tireless efforts and unstinting bravery of our troops. Without them, the insurgency would have overwhelmed the Afghan government and probably overrun Kabul. Our development work would have ground to a halt. And al-Qaeda would have seized more space to plan its terrorist atrocities.
The work ahead—on each of these fronts—is both clear and pressing. The additional troops that the United States, Britain, and others are deploying are vital if progress is to be made. Britain's commitment and determination will endure until we have achieved our shared objective—an Afghanistan that must not again be used as a basis for international terrorism.
If Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak, who sold his Obamacare vote and his pro-life principles for a cheap piece of paper, thinks voters in Michigan are willing to forgive and forget, he’s sadly mistaken.
The Tea Party Express is rolling through the state — and organizers expect record numbers ...
A record-low percentage of U.S. voters -- 28% -- say most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected. The previous low was 29% in October 1992.
The trend for previous midterm elections reveals that the 28% re-elect figure puts the sitting majority party in a danger zone. In the two recent midterm elections in which the congressional balance of power changed (1994 and 2006), the percentage of voters saying most members deserved to be re-elected fell below 40%, as it does today. By contrast, in 1998 and 2002, when the existing Republican majority was maintained, 55% or better held this view.
Additionally, 65% of registered voters -- the highest in Gallup history, and by far the highest in any recent midterm year -- now say most members of Congress do not deserve re-election.
This strong rebuke of congressional incumbents comes from a March 26-28 USA Today/Gallup survey. The same poll finds 49% of voters, a near-record low, saying their own member of Congress deserves to be re-elected. This marks only the second time since Gallup began asking this question in 1992 that the figure has dipped below 50%, and the first on the doorstep of a midterm election.
Look, I give the racemongering lefties a hard time, but this is inexcusable: "'Jail Playground’ at NYC Public Housing Property." It's Bed-Stuy, but no child and no family in America should have to deal with such degrading stupidity:
There is no kind, gentle, diplomatic way to describe the offense against a community by this ‘Jail Playground’ on a New York City Housing Authority property, located at Tompkins Houses (Park Avenue between Tompkins and Throop) in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, where Black and Latino children live and play. (Disproportionately, Black and Latinos enter the criminal justice system. Encouraging young Black and Latino children to first play in Jail until they may actually get to jail or prison is playing loosey-goosey with their young, impressionable psyche and something no community should stand for or be subjected to).
As the White House pushes for cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a weapon to help fill the gap: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.
U.S. military officials say the intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Prompt Global Strike weapons, are a necessary new form of deterrence against terrorist networks and other adversaries. As envisioned, the conventional missiles would give the White House a fresh military option to consider in a crisis that would not result in a radioactive mushroom cloud.
The Prompt Global Strike program, which the Pentagon has been developing for several years, is already raising hackles in Moscow, where Russian officials predict it could trigger a nonnuclear arms race and complicate President Obama's long-term vision of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. U.S. military officials are also struggling to solve a separate major obstacle: the risk that Russia or China could mistake the launch of a conventional Prompt Global Strike missile for a nuclear one.
"World states will hardly accept a situation in which nuclear weapons disappear, but weapons that are no less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain members of the international community," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters Tuesday in Moscow.
The White House says that development of Prompt Global Strike is not affected by the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are scheduled to sign Thursday in Prague. Analysts say, however, that any conventional ballistic missiles would count the same as nuclear ones under the treaty, which places new limits on each country's stockpile.
At first "non-nuclear deterrence" sounded kinda impotent, but perhaps I was mistaken.
A tip sets the plan in motion — a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.
When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles. At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.
If Pentagon strategists get their way, there will be no place on the planet to hide from such an assault. The plan is part of a program — in slow development since the 1990s, and now quickly coalescing in military circles — called Prompt Global Strike. It will begin with modified Tridents. But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."
The question is whether such an attack can be deployed without triggering World War III: Those tungsten-armed Tridents look, and fly, exactly like the deadliest weapons in the American nuclear arsenal.
I haven't seen these in a while. I've been moderating comments periodically, and this particular commenter is not new, although the focus is not so much the regular "neocon hatred" as generalized racism and anti-Semitism. Ugly to know, but it's out there ...
From the comments at my post WikiLeaks Update: How the Leftist Media Massacres Truth and Helps America's Enemies":
Anonymous said...
Dark skinned savage, it's not surprising that your inate [sic] law of the jungle sees nothing wrong in the video.
The race that inhabits Saudi Arabia and Yemen is the same race as Donald Douglas, a race of strange semitic grudges and sadistic posturing. Donald Douglas is genetic jihadism, the same biological impulses that drive an Arab (basically an ancient mix of black and white) to jihad drives Donald Douglas' ideology, an ideology that is foreign and disgusting in the eyes of anyone of European stock in tune with his own true blood based culture.
The demonic cuban Donald Douglas does not believe in Iraqi's right to bare arms to defend themselves against a foreign aggressor, this ideology is more in line with the Iraqis themselves, stable Arab society is based on authoritarian control. Where is your defense of Iraqi gun rights Donald?
His politics is genetically, inescapable authoritarianism, look at the governments of his racial equals! Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba...
Apparently, this is an atrocity speaks to white blood.
Notice that the Cubanoid Donald Douglas justifies such acts in the name of "wrong place wrong time", the same excuse that someone Saddam would use while rounding up a dissident and his neighbors for execution. Donald Douglas is racially on the same page as the Arab tyrants, Arab authoritarianism runs through his veins because authoritarianism is the only way dark skinned people such as himself get a stable society.
Whites however, are uniquely genetically endowed with the stability for limited government.
The Jew-S military are not sky gods who decide who lives and who dies, "our will is law". That is semitic spearchuckerism.
You look dark and jewish as hell in your avatar, let your picture be a beacon call to deluted whites who still support the GOP, this is your party.
April 7, 2010 3:41 PM
This prick's been trolling the comments for years, always anonymous, and in fact he was banned previously when I used Haloscan. Future comments of this sort will be deleted, naturally, although I'm leaving them unmoderated for the moment, I'd appreciated if regular readers could flag these for me. My e-mail's at the Blogger profile in the sidebar.
P.S. These views are not that far from the ideological positions of folks like Mike Tuggle or Daniel Larison. Same hatred, same ideology.
Ben Smith has the announcement, "McDonnell Apologizes" (via Memeorandum). But the best commentary I've read on this is Paul's at Powerline, "The wrong proclamation in Virginia." The problem for me is not so much the damage the controversy might cause the GOP, but the damage to McDonnell himself. That guy was like gold last November. His handling of this episode, diplomatically, one hopes, will go a long way toward preserving his credibility as a national contender. That said, the left won't let go of this, for it's a classic card -- deployed remorselesslyagainst the GOP (even though slavery and segregation were institutions of the Democratic Party) -- that they can slap down endlessly in their recriminations over race. It's frankly all they've got:
If you believe that if we still had segregation we wouldn't "have had all these problems," this is the movement for you. If you believe that your president is a Muslim sleeper agent, this is the movement for you. If you honor a flag raised explicitly to destroy this country then this is the movement for you. If you flirt with secession, even now, then this movement is for you. If you are a "Real American" with no demonstrable interest in "Real America" then, by God, this movement of alchemists and creationists, of anti-science and hair tonic, is for you.
Of all the ideological alignments I've come across, the left-libertarian is by far the strangest. If you look around at some of the websites, like What Really Happened, these folks can't stand Israel, which ends up putting them right along with the cadres of International ANSWER - and they claim to be about constitutional principles and freedom? Sheesh, they're pumping upthe WikiLeaks story at the website. It's hard to understand, but these folks aren't patriots, for all their talk. Here's an essay at The Militant Libertarian from Karen Quinn-Tostado, "Freedom Lovers Unite! National Strike – Tax Free 15." Lots of links there, and check especially Tax Holiday!
I have no doubt Whitman's got the primary wrapped up, but now she's ahead of Democrat Jerry Brown as well. If this Chamber of Commerce advertisement is any clue, it's gonna be a rough road ahead for "Governor Moonbeam":
Protests in Kyrgyzstan today were massive and frenzied. By the end of day, some reports said they had brought down the government of a crucially important U.S. ally.
The United States maintains an air base in Kyrgyzstan that is a key supply point for the war in nearby Afghanistan. President Obama's support for the now-ousted government long has angered the opposition.
This morning, when thousands of opposition protestors attacked the president of Kyrgyzstan's office, police used live ammunition to repel them. Hospitals filled quickly with the dead and wounded.
"Security forces were shooting with submachine guns," said one wounded protester being carried away in a stretcher. "Why are they shooting at the people?"
Protesters were armed as well, and they injured and killed several police officers. Some protestors even commandeered police vehicles.
"There will be blood for blood," a protestor vowed.
Tensions have been growing in Kyrgyzstan over what opposition supporters called increasingly repressive government policies. Arrests of opposition leaders overnight -- plus a 200 percent increase in utility prices -- sparked a violent backlash.
By this afternoon, the opposition had taken over television stations and began demanding that President Kurmanbek Bakiyev step down. He reportedly fled the capital in his jet tonight.
Kyrgyzstan, a mountainous country of five million people in Central Asia, is one of the poorest former Soviet republics, and has long been plagued by corruption and political division.
The United States has a "transit center" located at Manas International Airport in Kyrgyzstan, about 19 miles northwest of the capital of Bishkek. It is a major hub for the transit of personnel and equipment into Afghanistan. There are about 1,100 U.S., French and Spanish personnel located at the facility, with the overwhelming majority of them being American.
American flights to Kyrgyzstan have been rerouted.
Socialism always seems to have a marketing advantage over capitalism. This is not surprising, because socialism is a deeply romantic notion: a dangerously seductive dream of prosperity as a function of justice, where the wise redistribute the profits of the wicked to care for the needy. Socialism’s promises are so alluring that questions about its poor performance are dismissed as rude. It is a childish philosophy, and like any errant child, it receives a limitless supply of forgiveness and second chances.
Capitalism rarely enjoys such wonderful advertising. To the academic, it seems vulgar, while the politician flatters his constituents by promising they can rise above crass materialism… by placing material concerns in the hands of politicians. In truth, capitalism is the chisel free people use to carve their dreams from the stone of history. Without it, we are “free” only to beg for the bounty of the State, and complain when it fails to deliver. Freedom is only a theory, when it lacks a practical means of expression. Freedom of speech without property leaves us doodling in the sand, instead of carving our will into stone.
We should be more forceful in declaring our love for capitalism. It should be a mature love, born of respect for its power and virtue, not a starry-eyed romance. For example, we should be thankful that capitalism is merciless. That might seem like a strange thing to celebrate, but it’s the reason we haven’t been subsidizing buggy-whip and vacuum tube production for decades. Left to its own devices, the free market doesn’t waste energy propping up the production of unwanted goods for sentimental reasons… or because the manufacturers of those goods are politically powerful enough to extract subsidies from the public.
We should also be grateful that capitalism is heartless. Sentimentality is expensive, especially when other people are taxed to pay for it. The lawful governance of a vast nation requires cold logic, and iron obedience to Constitutional discipline. The unsustainable programs bleeding us into fiscal ruin were sold to voters with emotional appeals. The architects of the entitlement state do not use children as props because they want you to think carefully about their proposals.
Emotion is a terrible basis for allocating resources. The essential tool for addressing disaster and poverty is wealth, which is created by transactions between citizens. Money is the tool that makes our time valuable to one another. A rich nation can afford to provide for the unfortunate, and develop goods that make everyone’s life better. The “heartless” efficiency of capitalism is the best way to coordinate our skills and resources, producing the fountain of value that nourishes us all.
Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.
Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.
"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.
McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.
I thought this might be an interesting post for you– a behind-the-scenes piece about the Tea Party and how the stereotypes don’t tell the full story. Let me know if you need anything else!
During the health care debate last month, opponents shouted racial slurs at civil rights icon Georgia Rep. John Lewis and one person spit on Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. The incidents made national headlines, and they provided Tea Party opponents with fodder to question the movement.
But here's what you don't often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African-Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper.
Last week, I saw all of this during a five-city Western swing as the Tea Party Express national tour made its way across the country. CNN was along for the ride, and I was charged with planning CNN's coverage for five stops in two states: St. George, Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah; and Grand Junction and Denver, Colorado.
The piece notes that there were some signs black might find offensive, but the writer, Shannon Travis is black, so his voice is reassuring in this conclusion:
... it's important that with a newsworthy, growing phenomenon like the Tea Party movement, viewers and readers fully understand what they see and what they don't.
Proof-positive that once a movement gets large enough, it becomes harder for people ignore the truth, and kudos to Shannon Travis for this honest report — not that Keith Olbermann will bother to read it because it goes against his pre-deranged notions.
More at Memeorandum. And Michelle's got the clip from last year of former CNN hack Susan Roesgen.
In just two separate blog posts, Doug and Rusty have put the left's media-industrial-complext to brutal shame, they've exposed for all to see the alliance between America's MSM and the enemies of freedom across the globe.
My biggest problem with this whole story is that it's a story at all. It took me no more than two minutes of watching Wiki Leak's video to realize that not only was their nothing to the accusations, but also that the video did exactly the opposite of what the Left Wing conspiracy theorists over at Wiki Leak claimed it did: fully exonerated those involved, proved that the investigation into the matter was spot on, and that there was no "cover up" as they alleged.
Seriously, this whole thing didn't even deserve a "debunking" story. The evidence that the US soldiers acted well within the rules of engagement and that Reuters stringers were embedded with enemy combatants is that overwhelming.
But we have to debunk, because with the exception of Fox News I've yet to yet a MSM report that's genuinely critical of WikiLeaks' jihad against America and our military in Iraq. See Fox News, the single source pushing back, "Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video":
WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video "Collateral Murder," and said the killings represented "another day at the office" for the U.S. Army.
The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a "continuation of hostile activity." The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.
WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.
The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.
All I can say is DAMN! It's about time someone's shifting the MSM meme. (And RTWT at the link.)
And I'm surprised at this, but in an otherwise fawning report, "Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory," the far-left Mother Jones dishes some pretty damaging dirt. Apparently Julian Assange lists bigshot names as members of WikiLeaks' "advisory board," but then Noam Chomsky, who's cited as a member, says he's never heard of the joint. And then there's this:
Digital security expert Ben Laurie laughs when I ask why he's named on the site. "WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it," he says. "I don't know who runs it. One of the things I've tried to avoid is knowing what's going on there, because that's probably safest for all concerned" ....
John Young, founder of the pioneering whistleblower site, Cryptome.org, is skeptical. Assange reverently describes Cryptome as WikiLeaks' "spiritual godfather." But Young claims he was conned into registering the WikiLeaks domain when Assange's team first launched (the site is no longer under his name). He fought back by leaking his correspondence with WikiLeaks. "WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote to Assange's list, hinting that the new site was a CIA data mining operation. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy."
Amazing that a far-left journal of opinion provides more balance than a typical report at the New York Times, although they could have gone a lot further by linking Jawa Report and others who're uncovering the scam. Still, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' founder, left an angry comment at the thread there:
I am Julian Assange, and the subject of this article, which is full of errors and was not shown to me, even in part, prior to publication.
The article is full of extremely irritating tabloid insinuations of the type that might be expected from a poor quality magazine which is unsurprising, since the content is recycled from an old article that even Wired refused to publish.
My interview with the author was 12 months ago. I have not spoken to him since.
There plenty of gutter journalism insituations [sic], some examples:
1. The article very irritatingly goes for the "fear" angle, but contains not a single example of any of our publications causing harm related to their content. Not a single example! The whole thesis is pure invention. There is a reason no example was given. No one knows of any case where this has occurred and we have a 4 year publishing record.
2. The article, despite the insituations [sic], does not mention a single example of us ever having released a misattributed document. There is a reason no example was given. It has, as far as can be determined, never happened. Compare our record unblemished record to, say, the New York Times.
3. The article outrageously tries to insinuate that the tragic death of two very public human rights lawyers in Nairobi is related to some failing of WikiLeaks. The insinuation deplorable and it is false. The men were not confidential sources. They were public sources and very brave ones at that.
4. The article states that I believe all leaks are good. I have never stated this. The claim is an idiotic and false.
There are many others, but Mother Jones can do its own damn research.
The media's toally enabling WikiLeaks' domestic and global propaganda efforts. Below, the first video shows hack Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responding to questions on the non-murders and non-cover up, and second is Al Jazeera's video showing family members of the Reuters journalists, where one of the sons pledges to "take up the camera" in his father's name (and thus embed with terrorists).
I don't normally attack CNN as the "Communist News Network," but this time the epithet sticks. See, "Video Shows Deaths of Two Reuters Journalists in Iraq in 2007." The story went live at Noon today, but there's no mention of the fact-checking by right-bloggers such as Jawa Report. And note this passsage:
The U.S. investigation into the attack found that the helicopter gunship's crew mistook the journalists' cameras for weapons while seeking out insurgents who had been firing at American troops in the area. The fliers estimated they killed 12 to 15 Iraqis in the attack.
This is falsely reported. The insurgents were armed, which was seen clearly at Jawa Report and in the Pentagon's own internal intelligence memo as well. That document includes pictures from one of the Reuters photographers, which shows a U.S. Army humvee just down the road from the battle scene. Leftists claimed no on-the-ground contingents were in close vicinity, and left-wing media reports have refused to correct the initial disinformation:
Since all evidence shows the ROE were observed, the left plans to trump up war crimes on the basis of the attack on the rescue van (and this second strike was also completely within the ROE, as reported here earlier), and the alleged cover-up by the military. WikiLeaks posted this tweet today:
The killing of innocents is the collateral damage that is inevitable in war, and what makes a war of choice rather than necessity that much more immoral. That this was a war of choice creates even greater responsibility on the U.S. to be honest in how it conducts that war, and honest with the American people who are sending their sons and daughters to fight it.
There's also the practical fact that cover-ups are almost always far more damaging than the event they are meant to hide. In this case, because two of the innocents killed were connected with a media organization, it was inevitable that the truth would come out. But it's compounded when it sustains the myth that war is not hell and that the U.S. doesn't conduct war that way ....
Nothing about this war was done right by the Bush administration, from making the choice to go to war against a country that did not pose a threat to us, to creating a vast fabric of lies to justify that choice, to deciding to torture to back up those lies. These were dangerous, immoral, and extremely damaging decisions. That damage can't be undone, but it can be mitigated. The only way to do it, though, is with sunlight, even if that means looking backward.
The "looking backward" remark is a rebuke to President Obama, who pledged his administration to looking forward when pressed with demands for indictments of former Bush administration officials.
And scheduled for tomorrow's New York Times is this breathless report, which pooh-poohs evidence of armed insurgents with the Reuters photographers, "Iraq Video Brings Notice to a Web Site." The newspaper's screencap shows the targets taking fire, not the images of RPG toting combatants:
About two dozen women took a walk down Congress Street topless Saturday, attracting a large crowd as they tried to preach that partial female nudity is not worthy of attracting a crowd.
The point of the march was that a topless woman out in public should attract no more attention than a man walking around without a shirt on, said Ty MacDowell, 20, of Westbrook, who organized Saturday's event and promoted it on Facebook.
But as the event got under way in Longfellow Square, the marchers were soon outnumbered by scores of onlookers -- mostly young men eagerly snapping away with cameras and cell phones.
MacDowell said she was surprised by the turnout of those interested less in challenging societal convention than in seeing partially undressed women.
"I'm amazed," she said, and "enraged (at) the fact that there's a wall of men watching."
MacDowell said she understood that for women, going topless in public "is not socially acceptable yet, and obviously there's going to be a reaction to something that breaks the norm."
But, she said, the picture-taking was particularly upsetting.
Hey, wait a second? This lady's mad people looked? But she wanted people to look, and then turns around and says "that's upsetting"?
Also, interestingly, I heard back from radical feminist Charli Carpenter yesterday in my post on Alaina Podmorow, although post-colonialist Laura Sjoberg, riddled by her own preposition placement problems, snarked nevertheless:
... Charli Carpenter and I are, of course, not the same person, intellectually or personally; and that the 13-year-old kid American Power quotes could teach the blogger a fair amount about polite, respectful critique and perhaps even grammar).
Umm, I did kinda conflate Charli and Professor Sjoberg together, although while my blog-side manner may have been lacking, my grammar, well ... not so much.
EXIT QUESTION: Will Professor Sjoberg loosen up in response, or will our dowdy dumpling do a grammar-check once more?
RELATED: Are conservative women hotter than radical feminists? Robert Stacy McCain's on the case, "Stormy Daniels, GOP Porn Star."
What goes through an astronaut’s head when things go wrong, and he is floating in space 350 miles above the Earth?
Six days into a mission last May to repair and rehabilitate the Hubble Space Telescope, Michael J. Massimino, an astronaut, robotics expert and honorary New York City fireman, was getting ready to rip a handrail off the side of the fabled telescope.
Beneath the handrail, behind a panel secured by 111 tiny screws, was a broken spectrograph needing electronic repair to go back to its job, which included inspecting faraway planets. Dr. Massimino had trained for years to do this on-orbit “brain surgery,” but first, having stripped a crucial bolt, he would have to resort to brute force.
Dr. Massimino’s thoughts, he recalled recently over lunch in New York, flew back to his boyhood and the day his Uncle Frank couldn’t get the oil filter off his car. At one point, his father ran across the street, came back with a giant screwdriver, and punched it through the filter to get leverage to pry it off. After yanking, and cursing, “Finally he got the thing to budge,” Dr. Massimino said. “That’s what I was thinking when I was yanking on the handle on the Hubble.”
He has been reliving that moment in talks and interviews for the last year. Now, the whole world can as well.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
