[4/26/06]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor - found in the ebag from Accuracy In Media] 12:02 am [permalink]
Give Back the Tainted Prizes; Urges Resignation of Post Pulitzer Winner Accuracy in Media is calling on the Washington Post and New York Times to return the Pulitzer Prizes they recently won for stories about the war on terrorism. AIM is also urging that Post Pulitzer winner Dana Priest resign from the paper for misleading the public about her "sources."

Priest's main source for her prize-winning story on CIA "secret prisons" has been exposed as a John Kerry supporter in the agency and former Clinton aide who contributed financially to the Kerry presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That source, CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy, was fired after she acknowledged illegally leaking classified information to Priest and other journalists.

As noted by AIM editor Cliff Kincaid in his column on the scandal, posted on the AIM website, Priest had publicly denied that her sources for the story included critics of the Bush Administration from within the CIA.

What's more, the Priest story has never been confirmed and the evidence indicates that the main essence of her story – that the CIA operated "secret prisons" abroad – is false.

Kincaid says the Pulitzer Prize given to the New York Times for the story about the NSA monitoring the international communications of al-Qaeda operatives here and abroad should be returned as well. He says the story was twisted in such a way as to suggest that ordinary Americans were at risk because of an illegal "domestic spying" program. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, he notes. The story, Kincaid suspects, was also based on CIA and other sources that were determined to undermine the foreign policy of the Bush Administration.

[4/25/06]

[Mediacrity] 12:01 am [permalink]
Recognizing Good News I see that Honestreporting on Sunday agreed with my assessment concerning the recent, historically unprecedented New York Times and Washington Post editorials on Hamas.

As I've said before, it's important to recognize the occasional good news coming out of these two horribly biased news outlets. However, while we are celebrating, it is important to undertstand why this is happening. It is not because the Times and Post have suddenly seen Hamas for it is. It is because

Hamas is too stupid and ham-handed to know better.

If Hamas were to start mouthing "moderate" platitudes in the Arafat manner, the media and particularly the Times will eagerly revive the long-discredited "myth of Palestinian moderation."

Count on it.[go to Mediacrity blog]

[4/24/06]

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, tOR contributor] 12:01am [permalink]
America's Rude Islamists Steven Emerson reports on the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS) rally yesterday at the Israeli consulate in New York, celebrating the bombing in Tel Aviv on April 18, killing nine. The event featured such slogans as:

Israeli Zionists What do you say? The real Holocaust is on its way

The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way!

Israel won't last long… Indeed, Allah will repeat the Holocaust right on the soil of Israel

No wonder they call you sons of apes and pigs because that's what you are.

May the FBI burn in Hell
CIA burn in Hell
Mossad burn in Hell
Homeland Security burn in hell!!

Islam will dominate the world

This is potentially an important event, for until now, American Islamists have mostly been polite, pretending to be loyal, forging alliances, working the system. This approach sometimes wins them an earful from their more impatient colleagues (I noted one such missive at "Cut the Apologetics, a Muslima Advises CAIR"), but rarely and obscurely so.

The rally yesterday could mark a turning point, when U.S.-based Islamists begin to divide into two, the polite and the rude, those trying to curry favor and those not caring at all what non-Muslims think.

Were that they case, one could see this development as positive, in that it facilitates Americans' understanding the true nature of Islamism; or negative, in that it shows the burgeoning confidence of Islamists, who no longer think they must work within the system. I am inclined to see it the latter way.

[4/20/06]

[Mediacrity] 12:01 am [permalink]
The Hamas P.R. Miracle Continues The New York Times today delivered a lead editorial attacking Hamas. A perfectly good editorial -- one that underlines the point I've made in the past, which is that the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian government is a great thing from a propaganda standpoint.

As a matter of fact, I think that this perfectly reasonable (I'm amazed to find myself using that word) editorial contained a definite note of frustration. The Times, remember, is blatantly pro-Palestinian. So Hamas's endorsement of Monday's suicide bombing was not, in the view of the Times, simply immoral. It was "dimwitted."

It was almost as if the Times was saying, "Come on Hamas! Give us something to work with." Hamas won't play the hypocritical game, first begun by Yassir Arafat, of condemning terrorism while sponsoring it at the same time. These guys endorse terrorism while sponsoring it at the same time. Hey, that's honest! You got to give them credit for that.

You could see the agony over at the primary Palestinian terrorist mouthpiece in this country, the Electronic Intifada. There, of course, the bombing in Tel Aviv was a nonevent, and the lead article was (I must pause while I reach for my handkerchief), "Hamas is Being Forced to Collapse." Oh no!

EI reported that "the newly elected Palestinian government led by Hamas has already started to show an impressive level of pragmatism, however, Israel and the U.S. seem to not be interested."

Now, in the past, pap like this would ordinarily be found in the editorial pages of the New York Times and other newspapers. Today, you had to turn to EI to find the usual justifications and excuses for Palestinian terrorism. Even an obligatory op-ed in the Times on the Israel lobby was half-hearted and pro forma.

Even the odious BBC gnashed its teeth and reported that "Hamas's refusal to condemn the Tel Aviv bombing will have only reinforced the view of many in the West that the new Palestinian government must be treated as a pariah."

Oh, and whatever one might think of Ehud Olmert's reaction -- I tend to agree that it was inadequate -- you have to admit that, again from a strictly P.R. perspective, it was brilliant. No strong Israeli reaction to cloud the image of a Hamas government endorsing terrorism. The Israeli government, by pausing, let that image sink in.

So, onward, Hamas, with your "honesty is the best policy" policy. Say what's on your mind, guys. Don't be shy. And keep up the good work.

[4/19/06]

[Jim Kouri - columnist] - 12:05 am [permalink]
The Real Story: News Media Fall in Love with Generals Well, this was quite a week. Most notably, it was the week of the news media's newfound love for generals. Suddenly, the Washington press corps is lap-dancing for these warmongering men who command troops to go into battle and kill, destroy and annihilate.

And if you believe that, then you've been snookered by the left-wing press once again.

The mainstream news media have about as much love and admiration for our military's top commanders as they have for President George W. Bush and members of his administration. Unless, of course, the generals don't much care for Bush or his Defense Secretary. And what a bonanza! They've got six retired generals to blast away at Bush through his Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.

Yes, folks -- count 'em -- six retired generals, some of whom led troops in Iraq, have spoken out against Rumsfeld in recent days, accusing him of arrogance, ignoring his field commanders, and micro-management. Usually the guy who's lower on the Totem poll perceives the folks above him or her as arrogant, so that's just an opinion voiced by most disgruntled employees. Ignoring his field commanders may be a good thing or a bad thing, so it depends on which side of the desk you're sitting. Micro-management? Have they forgotten the old adage? "War is too important to be left to the generals." Can you believe it? The left-wingers in the press actually want generals to have autonomy during a war.

It's not about what these has-been generals are saying. It's about the fact that they are saying it against Secretary Don Rumsfeld. The media love it because Rumsfeld makes them look like the Bozos they truly are during his press conferences. He's the alpha-man and they are the ladies and girlie-men of the press. Feminists and effeminate men have always despised real, tough men. They even have pejoratives to describe them: Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, Rednecks, etc. So if a former general makes negative statements about someone the elite media already hate, they will jump on the story like vultures.

When the New York Times tells me General Zini said Rumsfeld should resign, my reaction is, "So what? Who cares? Is my favorite movie "Patton" on the tube?"

The nation is being divided over this war and these blowhard former military leaders have nothing helpful to contribute to the situation. Let's be clear, we are talking about six former generals. Only six. For every one of them, I'll bet the farm the news media could locate 10 who would praise Rumsfeld. That is, if the news media really wanted to be unbiased.

I'm not saying he deserves praise, I'm merely pointing out that the media breathlessly reporting every syllable these retired men utter is worthless. It won't end the war. It won't create a viable Iraqi government. It won't help to bring our troops home. This is the epitome of arrogance: to believe one's words are powerful enough to bring about change without any further effort or action. Actually, I have more respect for the lefties who protest and march every chance they get. At least they're actually doing something. Here's another old adage: "Talk is cheap."

Sure, General Zini's soundbites will help General Zini sell books. But that's about all. Unless if the leftist media's goal in recording those soundbites is to further undermine the war effort. What better way to undermine a war than to turn the commanders and soldiers against their leader? It worked at the beginning of the Russian Revolution when the soldiers fighting the German during World War I turned on their top commanding officers and beat them to death with their rifle butts.

Am I defending President Bush and his minions? No. Not anymore. Bush lost me when he called the Minuteman Project vigilantes. He angered me when he talked about amnesty for lawbreakers from Mexico. And I turned my back on him when he became a full-fledged big-government liberal. I am not defending President Bush.

What gets my goat is watching and listening to six windbags who said nothing when it would have counted for something; who said nothing until they retired from the military -- pension and perks secured in their wrinkled hands. Besides, anyone who knows anything about the military knows it's not the generals who win wars, it's the colonels and top non-coms who deliver victories. Unless those generals are George Patton, "Chesty" Puller, and some other great leaders. Hear that Gen. Batiste? And Patton spoke out while he was still in uniform. It got him in hotwater with Eisenhower, but he had the courage to speak his mind.

[4/18/06]

[Mediacrity] 12:01 am [permalink]
Palestinian Terrorist 'Victims' in the Times Readers of the New York Times were treated weekend to what was (almost) a miracle! The Times ran on the front page an article on the victims of Palestinian terrorism. Imagine that. An article in the Times from the point of view of the victims, discussing their efforts to get redress. Not a single word excusing or "explaining" or justifying their acts.

A nice piece -- and, perhaps not coincidentally, a product of the metropolitan staff and not the notoriously anti-Israel foreign desk. However, the Times showed us elsewhere in the paper where its true feelings lie. The real victims are, of course, Palestinian terrorists!

The Times's loathsome Jerusalem bureau churned out a snotty little piece by John Kifner, a foreign desk oldtimer who used to work in the bureau years ago and is, apparently, working hard to re-establish his pan-Arab credentials.

In this piece, the world was turned back on its head again, with Palestinian murders now the "victims" of those heinous Israelis:

[4/17/06]

[Mac Johnson columnist] 12:09 am [permalink]
May 1 Is Conservative Shopping Day! As you no doubt know, illegal aliens and their handlers plan to hold their next Senate intimidation rallies on May 1, better known as the Marxist holiday of “May Day.” The May Day campaign will consist of yet more anti-law-enforcement marches and a nationwide “boycott” of shopping. The aim of the boycott is to demonstrate the purchasing power of the 11 million immigration criminals demanding amnesty. The boycott will also include a general strike by immigration criminals, who are being encouraged to skip work that day. Now it appears that illegal aliens are here to just skip the jobs that no American is willing to skip.

If the boycott and strike are successful, this means that May 1 will be A DAY WITHOUT ILLEGAL ALIENS! Lines will be shorter. Clerks will all speak English. Businesses that have been honest enough to hire legal residents will be poised to finally enjoy a competitive advantage! It will be morning again in America. Every actual American should make a point to get out and support those businesses and counteract the criminal boycott movement.

Spend like a congressman! Spend like George W. Bush! Heck, spend like Teddy Kennedy on a junket to a distillers’ convention. Spend in freedom and order in a mall or Wal-Mart near you. I hereby declare May 1 to be a national holiday -- Conservative Shopping Day.

Show the doubters that a day without illegal aliens is not a crisis, it’s just a good start. And spread the word. Forward this notice or send out your own. Let it be shouted, in clear unaccented English, from every mountaintop and blog: SPEND, GRINGOS, SPEND!

Lastly, be sure to make note of which businesses can still function on a day without illegal aliens, so that you can patronize them everyday for a long time. Let’s turn the day without illegal aliens into an everyday thing.

TO THE WAL-MART, COMRADES!

[4/14/06]

[Selwyn Duke - columnist] 12:02 am [permalink]
Bleeding America As you know, immigration has long been a huge sleeper issue and is now bubbling to the surface of American political discourse. However, as usual, the mainstream media is on the wrong side of the debate and suppresses the truth about our immigration woes as it carries water for the illegal immigration lobby. So, in an effort to provide a forum in which good Americans can present the facts on the ground, make contact with each other, discuss solutions and make proposals for activism, I have created a message board solely dedicated to the immigration threat confronting us. Its URL is: www.BleedingAmerica.com.

I would appreciate it if you would consider disseminating this information. We need to fight this fight with every fiber of our being.

By the way, the board is new and, assuming the response is adequate, I intend to alter it over time for the purposes of improving its appearance and increasing its impact.

Let's try to stop the bleeding, at BleedingAmerica.com. Participation is free, freedom is not!

[4/13/06]

[Matt Peterson - Claremont Institute] 12:03 am [permalink]
The Ryn/Claremont Debate Dr. Claes Ryn [Catholic University] says that Leo Strauss, Harry Jaffa, and Jaffa’s students are responsible for setting the intellectual stage for some conservatives to 1) embrace big government and 2) call for the universal exportation by force of a radical notion of democracy. In a previous post I simply pointed out that if Dr. Ryn is correct it is odd that Harry Jaffa and his students argue for limited constitutional government and against a radical notion of democracy and its universal exportation by force. Readers are free to decide the significance of these facts for themselves.

[4/12/06]

It is especially notable that yesterday, the day which Muslims throughout the world celebrate the birthday of the Prophet Mohamed, is the date when Iran's President selected to announce the entry of Iran into the "International Nuclear Power Club'.

Coming on the heels of the "Blessed Prophet" war games, where Iran showed off its new weapons, including a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads, it is obvious that the selection of the date is intentional.

Iran has announced that it has crossed the threshold into the nuclear zone because it is now able to enrich its own uranium. True, enriched uranium can be used for peaceful purposes. But despite verbal claims from Iran's leaders that its intent is to not develop nuclear weapons, their actions and their words in Farsi indicate otherwise.

Iran has a long and rich history; western civilization owes much to early Persian history.

But Iran has not demonstrated to the world community that it has the maturity to handle such a power. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons makes about as much since as giving a 15 year old boy a Ferrari as his first car. Sure, he wants it. But there's a very high probability that he will wreck the car, and with a car that powerful, it's likely that someone is going to die.

During the ceremony when Iran's President announced that the enrichment milestone had been met, there were dancers on stage celebrating the announcement. The dancers performed beautifully, but according to state-run news agency IRNA in their hands they held vials of low grade uranium in their hands.

While the radiation danger was almost certainly negligible, the symbolism was clear.

Nuclear power is not a toy. Radiation is nothing to play with.

A nuclear Iran is frightening. Almost certainly today, in the capitals of Europe and the United States, a frantic discussion was getting underway about what to do in the wake of this latest announcement. Certainly there will be hawks calling for an attack on Iran, to defang its nuclear capability.

I can think of one very good reason for the US and Israel not to attack Iran at this time.

Iran wants us to attack them.

The last people who should be dictating the actions of the US government are the rulers of Iran.