Palestinian Reaction to Suicide Bombing in Amman

Interesting snippet this morning at the end of an MJS article attributed to Knight Ridder/AP/Washington Post on the recent terrorist attack in Amman, Jordan...

Palestinians mourn: In the Palestinian village of Silet Al Thaher in the West Bank, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by one of the suicide bombers in Jordan -- the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack. (emphasis mine)

"Oh my God, oh my God. Is is possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.

Similar thoughts were heard over and over in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday, as Palestinians expressed outrage over attacks aimed at civilians. (emphasis mine, again).

Indeed.

Palestinians have been targeting Israeli civilians for years, using suicide bombers. It will be interesting to see if this event has any power to change their hearts, now that they have experienced the tragedy of senseless, cowardly attacks on innocent civilians. Note that the bereaved aunt is upset because Arabs and Muslims are killing each other. It would be interesting to know whether this particular family was a supporter of terrorist attacks on Israel.

Opinions on Alito

So much to blog....so little time. I was in Boston this week on business and unable to blog. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published my editorial on the Dems reaction to Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito.

They also published a great piece by Ann Althouse. In fact, if you aren't familiar with Ann, check out her blog at http://althouse.blogspot.com.

She writes good stuff.

Do we care what Prince Charles thinks?

Someone forgot to tell Prince Charles that the U.S. is no longer a colony in the British Empire.

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11. The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.<

From The Telegraph.

Too confrontational? Intolerant? What would be the appropriate level of "tolerance" in response to the horrors of 9/11? The murders at Beslan? The genocide in Darfur? The beheadings of innocent, unarmed civilians?

As far as I know, the American president never declared war against Islam, just against Islamo-fascist terrorism. If we were truly intolerant of Islam, why wouldn't we have banned Islam in Iraq? Why do we provide copies of the Koran and broadcast prayer times for the prisoners in Gitmo? Why don't we ban all Muslims from entering into the United States?

What specifically, does His Royal Highness think that the U.S. should do differently? (not that we care, but my curiosity is getting the better of me).

I think the non-Muslim world would find the 'merits of Islam' more evident if the mainstream Muslim world would become confrontational over the acts of the lunatic fringe. But their silence is deafening.

This excerpt from an article in the Telegraph by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, is compelling.

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

Read the whole thing.

Anyway, it will be fascinating to see what the bonnie Prince advises. I don’t think most Americans really care.

Problems at the CIA

If you are not a regular Powerline reader already, check out "My Favorite Democrat, Part 21" for an excellent synopsis written in plain English on the fishy business surrounding Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

Scott summarizes a Wall Street Journal article (subscribers only) from Victoria Toensing that contrasts the behavior of the CIA in the Wilson/Plame situation with their standard operating procedures and policies.

Either the CIA is woefully inept or they were clearly up to dirty tricks. Read it and draw your own conclusion. Our country needs a strong competent apolitical CIA, now in these days of international terrorism more than ever. Too bad we don't have a Congress who is more interested in getting to the bottom of this than of trying to destroy the White House.

It's Not Easy Being Green....

Just in time for Halloween, the New York Times pubishes this photo of Samuel Alito, Bush's new SCOTUS pick. (From Confederate Yankee).











...and everyone is complaining because Bush picked a WHITE male.

If you haven't already, check out Michelle Malkin for altered pix of Condi and some great posts on the subliminal messaging of photojournalism.

It Depends On What Your Definition of "Corruption" Is

Can you believe all of the liberal media hysteria over the indictments of Scooter Libby? Cries of "corruption", "smear campaigns", "outing a CIA covert agent" abound, even though there is absolutely no evidence that anything of the kind actually occurred!

Seems these folks have very short memories. Remember the Clinton administration? Now, there was a 'culture of corruption'. John at The Citizen's Journal has done a great job of providing a synopsis of the Clinton legacy as chronicled by The Progressive Review.

Check out the whole thing, but here are a few of the highlights.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates**
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

It goes on (and on, and on).

Remember the preachiness of the media during the Clinton era? The villification of Kenneth Starr? The vast right-wing conspiracy?

And they say that elephants have short memories.

More on Libby

Here is another excellent article by Stephen F. Hayes on the Libby indictments. Here is what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has to say about the relevance of the charges to the media assertions that this is all about the justification for the Iraq war

Fitzgerald was asked directly about the connection between the indictment and the Iraq war during his press conference Friday.

Question: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.
Does this indictment do that?

Fitzgerald: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Watch for continuing swirls of hype around this story, completely obfuscating the actual facts.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

MSM Glee Over Libby Indictment

Breathless piece from Knight Ridder today about the Scooter Libby indictments. The conclusions they are drawing from the indictments can only be attributable to:

1. Their seething disappointment over the prosecutor's failure to indict Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or George Bush.
2. Their utter inability to actually read and understand the Libby indictments.
3. Their fervid hope that the American people will believe ANYTHING, as long as it is repeated often enough and loudly enough from the MSM.

The prosecution's case against White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby pulls back the curtain on the Bush administration's efforts to silence its critics and challenges its rationale for war with Iraq.

Huh? But wait, there's more...

The five-count indictment raises new questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney had any role in revealing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. A Libby trial almost certainly would delve into internal White House deliberations that could provide more embarrassment for Bush, who'd promised to bring a new ethical climate to Washington.

Bush's name doesn't appear anywhere in the 22-page indictment, but his reputation is inextricably linked to the case. Even beyond the alleged criminal wrongdoing, the indictment offers an unflattering portrait of a White House with little tolerance for dissent and a no-holds-barred attitude toward its critics.

From the New York Times:

Over a seven-week period in the spring of 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney's suite in the Old Executive Office Building appears to have served as the nerve center of an effort to gather and spread word about Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, a C.I.A. operative.

Okay, stop, now. I am laughing. "....to gather and spread word" about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Gather and spread word? Now THERE's an indictable offense!

But the indictment alleges that Mr. Cheney himself and others in the office took part in discussions about the origins of a trip by Mr. Wilson to Niger in 2002; about the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson; and whether the information could be shared with reporters, in the period before it was made public in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.

The indictment identifies the other officials only by their titles, but it clearly asserts that others involved in the discussion included David Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel; John Hannah, deputy national security adviser; and Catherine Martin, then Mr. Cheney's press secretary.

Well, yeah. In May 2003, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times had reported that Cheney was the one who sent Wilson to Iraq. Do you think it is sinister that Cheney's reaction was to meet with his advisors to find out who REALLY sent Wilson? And learning that it was his wife, who worked for the CIA, do you think it bizarre that he would have conferred with his legal counsel to determine whether or not the information could be released?

Gee, what would YOU have done in his shoes?

What would the New York Times or Knight Ridder do if someone erroneously reported that THEY had initiated the investigation?

If you really want to separate the facts of the indictment from the breathless MSM tizzy, read the indictment yourself here.

Now, do you think this is an expose of nefarious dealings from the Bush administration to "silence its critics"? Are you scratching your head, wondering what indictment the Knight Ridder and NY Times guys read?

After reading the indictment, it appears to me that Scooter Libby is guilty of two things:

1. Lying to the media, which, according to my limited knowledge of the law, is not a crime. If we are going to make lying TO the media a crime, then we'd better make lying FROM the media a crime as well.

2. Forgetting about specifically which conversations he may have had with whom. And goodness, if THIS is a crime, most of the US population would be in jail. (And then who would be paying taxes to keep our government working doing valuable service by indicting our officials for minor infractions?)

It is very interesting that, although Fitzgerald did not bring the more serious indictments of 'outing' Valerie Plame, the MSM is acting as though he did. Maybe they had their articles all ready to run, in eager anticipation of a more serious indictment and just didn't have the heart to do a re-write.

For more on the MSM/anti-war crowd's spin on the Libby indictments as proof that there was some sort of cover-up involved in the war with Iraq, read Stephen F. Hayes' article here.


Since the left is losing the "Iraq as quagmire" argument in the face of democratic progress and free elections, they need to drag out the old "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" argument.

Heroes of the American Left

I am thinking about writing a children's book, entitled "Heroes of the American Left". It will be a tribute to today's darlings of the media who deserve admiration for their patriotism, integrity, leadership and vision for America.

Here is my table of contents so far:

Michael Moore
George Soros
Cindy Sheehan
Al Franken
Joe Wilson
Richard Clarke
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Louis Farrakhan
Al Gore

Just picturing future generations of parents sharing these inspiring stories with their progency makes my heart warm.

Please nominate your favorite candidates in my comments field. This may grow into a 10-volume set.

Update: Oops. I forgot George Galloway!

Wisconsin Taxpayers Overwhelmingly Support TABOR

According to a recent poll by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Wisconsin residents are strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment to limit spending increases in state and local government to the rate of inflation.

This support cuts across party lines, ideologies, race and geography.

Wisconsinites favor TABOR by more than a 2:1 majority (62% in favor, 27% opposed, 12% undecided). TABOR is supported by 56% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, 76% of Republicans and even 46% of Liberals.

And here's why....another recent poll by WPRI shows that most Wisconsin residents feel that elected representatives do not represent taxpayer interests.

Only 6% of residents polled in Wisconsin believe that their elected officials represent the interests of the electorate. Wow. That is amazing. Think of all of the hoopla made over Bush's low approval ratings. Well, even at his current all-time low of 39% approval, he beats the heck out of our own representatives!

41% think that elected officials represent special interest groups and 47% feel that elected officials are more interested in promoting their own agendas.

In addition, 46% of those polled felt that in the last ten years, ethics of members of Wisconsin State Government have gotten worse. To quote the report, "The widespread feeling that the institutions in Madison were deteriorating ethically produced the highest negative numbers we have seen in our polling back to 1991."

The overwhelming landslide vote tonight for Daniel Vrakas in Waukesha County demonstrates the frustration of Wisconsin taxpayers with the 'pass the buck' attitude of state and local officials who think that playing the economic shell game will somehow continue to bamboozle the electorate.

We've tried electing people who pledged to reduce spending. We have a governor who thinks we are stupid enough to believe that a reduction in how much he INCREASES spending is a 'tax freeze'. We have clearly given our elected officials every opportunity to bring state and local spending in line with our ability to pay. But, they can't help themselves....they are out of control.

If someone has a control problem, the best thing you can do for them is to enforce limits on their behavior--and keep them out of situations where they could lose control. So, you don't let a gambling addict loose in Vegas, and you don't leave a chocoholic alone in the Godiva store. If your husband or wife goes beserk with the credit cards, you cut them up. When your elected officials can't stop spending, you put them on a budget. A budget with teeth. A budget called TABOR.

I think the reason that we no longer trust our elected officials is that they can't seem to resist the 'siren call' of spend-spend-spend. We, like Odysseus, need to 'tie them to the mast' of TABOR to keep them from driving the ship into the rocks.

After giving them decades to deal responsibly with the budget, Wisconsin residents have decided that 'enough is enough'. And it is about time. Maybe if they can prove that they have the ability to spend OUR money wisely, we can trust them again. But until then, we need to cut up the credit cards.

Let's Start Calling it Like it Is....

Great column by Mark Steyn on the reluctance of the mainstream media to name the true enemies we are fighting in the war on terror.

From Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''

"Insurgents," eh?

From Agence France Presse:
"Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Militants," you say?

From the Scotsman:
"Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ."
"Rebel forces,'' huh?

(My comment: Good grief! Weren't the GOOD guys in 'Star Wars' the Rebel Forces?)

From Toronto's Globe & Mail:
"Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference:

''Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter.

I really don't understand the reluctance of the media to describe who these people are and why they are hell-bent on our destruction. If it were a group of Christians out blowing things up, you can be sure that their religious affiliation would be in every headline. If I had a nickel for every time a liberal mentions the Crusades in conversations about the brutality done in the name of religion, I could retire.

Continue to watch this in the media---over time, I predict that the euphemisms will continue until it appears that the terrorists are merely innocents victims of Western interference, fighting for their rights and freedoms against the Great Satan.

Photo IDs Required for Just About Everything But Voting

Shopping at Menard's over the weekend, my husband presented a $4 instant rebate coupon he had received in the mail. The cashier asked him for a photo ID in order to process the rebate.

I was in Blockbuster last week and I forgot my Blockbuster card. The checkout guy asked me to show a photo ID to rent a movie.

I stopped at the Red Cross Blood Drive at my church on Sunday. They asked me for my photo ID in order to give blood.

The librarian asked me for my photo ID a few weeks ago when I went to check out a book and realized that I had forgotten my library card.

Do you see a pattern developing here?

What is wrong with a country where you have to show a photo ID to get a $4 rebate, rent a movie, donate blood and check out a book, but not to vote?

NOW they are babies....

Jonah Goldberg makes a brilliant point about all of the liberal brouhaha over William Bennett's infamous remarks that no one else seems to have noticed....

Democrats and many liberals have been trying to distort what Bennett said. Former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe: "The point he was trying to make, I guess, he said, you know, if you were to go out there and kill the black babies, the crime would go down." Ted Kennedy and a predictably long list of others have called him a racist. Radio host Ed Schultz said: Bennett is "out there advocating the murder of all black babies."

There are too many ways in which this anti-Bennett backlash is cheap and tawdry to discuss here. (Though I should note that a considerable minority of liberal writers who loathe Bennett refuse to participate in the witchhunt.)

My first objection is more of a delicious irony. Notice how so many righteously offended liberals keep referring to fetuses as people. In the New York Times, Bob Herbert proclaims that Bennett considers "exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool." Schultz and McAuliffe say Bennett wants to exterminate "babies."

Funny, I thought the bedrock faith of pro-abortion liberals is that fetuses aren't babies. Isn't it interesting how this lynchpin of liberal morality evaporates the moment an opportunity to call Bennett a racist presents itself? Talk about utilitarianism. (emphases mine)

So, now liberals are horrified at the thought of killing babies? That's a new one.

"Fake, But Accurate" - the Continuing MSM Saga

Stephen Spruiell, on his Media Blog (via National Review Online) posts this interesting quote from Heath Allen, a reporter from NBC's New Orleans affiliate. Heath was being asked about the inaccuracies and exaggerations by the MSM in post-Katrina New Orleans.

I don’t think the media overplays. I don’t think the media exaggerates. Maybe the people on the ground were exaggerating because, hey, they wanted help, they needed help and they weren’t getting it. Perhaps they would say anything they could say. Maybe they would say the first thing that came to mind to try and get help. But if the photojournalist, if that photographer is there to capture it, who’s doing the overplaying? You’re certainly gonna take that person and you’re gonna tell that story because that’s the story of the need, of the person that camera is on. And I don’t think that’s over-exaggerating in the least…It’s the responsibility of the photojournalist to capture that and put it on television because those people at that point needed help no matter what was true, what was false, what was exaggerated.

(emphasis mine).

Hold the phone. So the new level of accuracy in journalism is that it doesn't matter what is true or false, what is exaggerated...as long as the end goal is helping people?

Well, depending upon your definition of 'helping people', this could be a dangerous philosophy. And how is Joe Citizen to know if the reports we are reading, hearing, seeing are accurate, fake, or 'fake but accurate'? How do we know if it is real or staged?

And, as Hugh Hewitt points out in his radio interview of Heath Allen (via Radioblogger), if they get it SO wrong this close to home, what is the hope of them having any chance of accuracy in somewhere far away.....say, like....Iraq for instance?

We had all the resources of the American media combined in New Orleans. Everything they had, they threw at it. With the help of locals like you and national networks, print, media, radio, everything, not one outlet could get inside the convention center or the Superdome to do accurate reporting. What's that tell us about the trustworthyness of American media, when it's far away from home in a war zone like Iraq. Isn't that in fact an obvious admission that not only can they not do the job in New Orleans, we can't expect them to do the job of accurate reporting in a war zone like Iraq.

Scary thought. And if they are motivated by 'helping us' understand the 'reality' behind the progress of the war as THEY see it (think quagmire), what hope is there of receiving accurate information from the mainstream media on Iraq? Or anything else, for that matter?

What the heck are they teaching in journalism school these days?

Seeing is not necessarily Believing

Marvin Gaye, in his sixties hit "Heard it Through the Grapevine" sang....

"People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear..."

In the recent reporting on Hurricane Katrina and the Anti-America (oops, I meant Anti-War) movement, I think believing half would be generous...

Take a look at this photo essay from the protest march in San Francisco last Saturday.












Here's a shot similar to the one published by the San Francisco Chronicle.

As you will see in the essay, there was a lot more going on at the actual scene than The Chronicle depicted.

This is another striking example of media bias. Not only do they select what we read about the event, they selectively shape what we see....and images are very powerful.

Days later, no one sees or cares about any measly 'correction' that may be run on a back page somewhere.

How do we begin to hold the media accountable and responsible for some semblance of integrity? And if we can't (or won't), what will happen when we lose all trust of the Fourth Estate?

The Latest Oxymoron....'Investigative Reporting'

Mayor Nagin is in the wrong job. He should be in Hollywood. Witness his Oscar-winning performance in this video of the Oprah Winfrey interview. (hat tip: Gateway Pundit)

Only problem? Most of what he said was categorically untrue. And since he was there on the ground from the beginning (as he humbly reminds us), he has no excuse. He is either a liar or incompetent.

He claims that people were in the Superdome (where HE sent them, by the way) watching hoodlums kill and rape each other. Only problem? That didn't happen. (And, by the way, if it had happened, it was his responsibility as mayor to stop it.)

This man is a piece of work. And Oprah is falling all over him--instead of asking any serious questions, like, say, "How do you know that people are being killed?" Or the tougher one, "Well, you're the Mayor, what are you doing about it?"

Okay, so we don't expect 'tough reporting' from Oprah. But, now that the hysteria is over, it turns out that there are a lot of things that were reported that just were not true.

Powerline calls for a Congressional Investigation to ask the mainstream media some tough questions--questions they should be asking themselves, in order to restore any shred of credibility that they may still possess.

It's time for some accountability here. The conventional wisdom is that no one performed particularly well in the aftermath of Katrina--not local, state or federal authorities, and not considerable numbers of private citizens. But it now appears clear that the worst performance of all was turned in by the mainstream media. Congress should promptly investigate, and try to get to the bottom of the following questions:

* How did so many false rumors come to be reported as fact?
* Do news outlets have any procedures in place to avoid this kind of mis-reporting? If so, why did their procedures fail so miserably?
* To what extent were the false rumors honest mistakes, and to what extent were they deliberate fabrications?
* To the extent that the false reports were deliberate, did the press pass them on through sheer negligence, or did some reporters participate in deliberate fabrication?
* Did the widespread breakdown in accurate reporting stem only from a failure to follow proper journalistic standards, or did it also reflect a deliberate effort to damage the Bush administration by passing on unconfirmed rumors as fact?
* In deciding what stories to report, did the news media consider the likelihood that passing on false rumors would damage the rescue effort?

It is vitally important to get to the bottom of these questions, so that future natural disasters are not similarly mis-reported.

Check out great stuff at Michelle Malkin on this topic.

I nominate the term 'investigative reporting' as the newest oxymoron.

UPDATE: Read Jonah Goldberg's post on this topic.

Cindy Sheehan and the 'New' Media

In the 'old' media, we would only be exposed to this type of reporting from the Associated Press about the 'Anti-War' protest this weekend in Washington, D.C.

But, in the new media, we can read this excellent analysis by Jeff Goldstein.

In the 'old' media, the press could deftly edit Cindy Sheehan's speech to highlight a few coherent statements (a real editing challenge, when dealing with Cindy).

In the 'new' media, we can hear and see Cindy's unedited remarks (posted by The Political Teen). Here are some excerpts from her brief remarks at the rally.

"We have to do our jobs as Americans. … We’ll be the checks and balances on this out of control criminal government. This government that condones torture."

This out of control criminal government that condones torture? Trust me, Cindy, if this government were criminal and out of control, you would not be parading around the square, criticizing them at the top of your lungs. If I'm not mistaken, I'm sure the protest organizers had to get a 'parade' permit from the 'criminal out of control government' to allow them to hold their protest. Criminal out of control governments do not allow people to hold protest rallies criticizing them and their policies. They torture and kill those people to shut them up and to intimidate anyone else from following suit.

And, since her son was a volunteer (a fact that no one seems to want to remind her), then I guess he was part of the criminal out of control government who condones torture. Is she saying that her son was a criminal? Out of control? A torturer?

She goes on...(you really need to watch the video, so you can hear her tone of voice here. She makes the Howard Dean screech speech sound like a symphony. Since I couldn't find a transcript, I had to play it over and over to capture her exact remarks. Gives a new meaning to the word 'torture'.)

"We don’t torture, we’re human beings. We don’t torture other human beings. We have to reclaim our humanity."

If someone can explain to me what she is talking about, I would appreciate it. "We don't torture, we're human beings?" Who is she suggesting DOES torture? Aliens?

"We have to show the world that Americans don’t torture and its not okay for anybody to torture another human being."

Yes, well, Cindy, I think that is exactly one of the things we showed the world by removing Saddam Hussein, one of the world's most evil dictators. Saddam, his sons and his followers institutionalized torture to keep his people under his control. Saddam led a criminal, out of control government (just in case you needed one for comparison to OUR criminal, out of control government). How did we show the world that we don't torture and its not okay for anybody to torture? We removed him. He is in jail and his sons are dead.

That lesson was not lost on Moammar Qaddafi, who suddenly became very anxious to cooperate with Bush and Blair. Note that he did not make his overtures to the U.N.

But, Cindy, please tell us, what are Americans to do in the face of criminal out of control goverments who kill, torture and abuse their citizens?

"Americans don’t invade countries and occupy other countries pre-emptively that are no threat to our country. And it's not okay for other countries to do that, either."

Actually, this time I agree with Cindy. We DON'T invade countries that are no threat to our country. That's why we are in Iraq and are not in, say, Cuba.

According to Cindy, we don't torture and we don't condone torture, but we sure as heck are not going to do anything about it when another country does so (unless it is a country like, say, Israel). I know! We'll send Cindy Sheehan over there to tell them that it's not okay for them to do it EITHER. That'll stop 'em in their tracks.

The very best part about the 'new 'media is that it preserves the testimony of people like Cindy Sheehan. We can hear her words from her own lips and evaluate her credibility for ourselves, not from some glamorized, edited version from the media.



UPDATE: I can't believe it. Thank you to Katherine M. Skiba of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for proving my point. After finishing this original post, I picked up the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and read the Katherine Skiba piece on the Anti-War rally. I could not have manufactured a better illustration of my point. Let me share with you what Ms. Skiba decided to report about Cindy's speech:

NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE VIDEO YET, STOP AND DO IT NOW BEFORE YOU READ ON....see if you are as struck as I was about the 'tone' depicted by Skiba's article vs. the reality of the video.

"Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey, was killed in Iraq last year, was the event's leading lady. Her vigil at President Bush's ranch may be over, but her celebrity in Washington seemed only to grow."

Gosh, Katherine, could you gush just a little bit more? I don't think we all got it.

"'We're not going home till every last one of our troops are home,' the California woman told an exultant crowd Saturday, the first of three days of planned protests.

'We mean business, George Bush,' she said. 'We're going to Congress and we're going to ask them "How many more of other people's children are you willing to sacrifice?'"

So...did Cindy say this? Yes. But, as you can see for yourself, she also said a lot of other things, none of which Katherine thought worth reporting. I wonder why not? Perhaps because that didn't support her view of Cindy as the event's 'leading lady'.

I swear, Cindy Sheehan could advocate eating small children for breakfast, but those who rely on the old media would never know.

Katherine does not limit her glowing prose to Cindy. She describes the crowd as...

"...a colorful sea of humanity: college students and lawyers, nuns and veterans, federal workers and farm wives."

To see what today's college students, lawyers, nuns, veterans, federal workers and farm wives look like, check out the photoblogs from Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette

Hmmmm, do you think the protester carrying the "Convict and Castrate Cheney" sign is a nun or a farm wife? The guy with the "F*** the War" t-shirt a veteran...or a federal worker (probably not a nun, but in today's world....who knows???)?

This is one more example of why people are turning to the blogosphere for their news. (And it's free!)

UPDATE 2: Just found this link to the MJS article. Check it out for yourself.

The new slogan for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.... "We report. We decide."

Who'da Thought????

In today's MJS (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)....

After a surge during the first half of summer, killings in Milwaukee slowed over the past month, giving activists, police and others hope that their efforts to stem violence are paying off.

The start of school, cooler weather and other factors are being cited for the slowdown.

Wait a minute....these people are killing each other because they're hot? And have too much time on their hands?

Jeepers. We have spent millions of dollars on jobs programs, crime-prevention, and the War on Poverty. Are you telling me all we needed to do was to hold school year-round and buy some air-conditioners?

Thoughts on Rita vs. Katrina

In his press conference yesterday, President Bush was asked about the differences between how the government responded to Katrina and how it is now responding to Hurricane Rita. (Note: you will see this theme very quickly cropping up in the mainstream media. Witness a front-page headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This time, U.S. is quicker to act". But more about that later).

His response? He told the reporter that one of the major differences was that, this time, the order to evacuate was given and people were taking it seriously.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Although I consider myself fairly risk averse, I tend to ignore warnings. The last time there was a tornado warning and we were advised to seek shelter, my husband and I ignored it.

However, we called my son, who was babysitting at the time and advised him to take the kids downstairs for safety. We did nothing. In fact, had our son been home along with us, we probably still would have done nothing.

We were spurred to action by the sense of responsibility for someone ELSE's children.

I think, like me, most people can’t imagine that the worst could possibly happen to them. We’ve all been warned about so many things that we are becoming fear-immune. Constantly alerted to a new ‘crisis’ every minute by the media (cable news is one of the worst offenders)— catastrophes caused by global warming, brain cancer caused by our cell phones, death by terrorist attack—we start tuning them out.

The problem is that these catastrophes rarely happen, and when they do, they affect a relatively small number of people. Truth be told, we all are much more likely to die of natural causes than to be killed in a disaster, man-made or otherwise.

Unfortunately, in the case of Katrina, the ineptness of Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco sent the wrong message to their citizens--especially those most in need of guidance--the poor and the elderly. They reinforced the jaded skepticism of New Orleans residents who have survived multiple storm warnings in the past and thought they could ride this one out.

Regardless of the facts, the media will pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' the failures of the federal government and make it appear as though they (the media) are responsible for the change in behavior from the feds. From the AP this morning...

Stung by the relentless criticism of their faltering response to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials raced Wednesday to prepare for the devastation that Hurricane Rita could inflict on the Texas coast.

While the federal government is being somewhat more pro-active in preparing for Rita, it is ridiculous to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks that it has completely re-engineered its approach to disasters. Especially while everyone is still up to their eyeballs in the aftermath of Katrina..

The AP story never mentions one other important difference. The Mayor of Galveston and the Governor of Texas are not sending out mixed, ambiguous messages to their citizens. They are not ignoring their own disaster plans. They are not directing people to a facility that they know they cannot secure. They are clearly telling people to evacuate and making arrangements for people who need help.

While it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, it is interesting to note one other difference. The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana are Democrats. The local Texan authorities happen to be Republicans.

I don't know about you, but I know which way I would vote in the next local elections if I lived in the Hurricane zone.

Don't hold your breath waiting to see THAT analysis in the mainstream media.

The President Nails It

In his press conference today, President Bush was asked about the differences between how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina and how it is now responding to Hurricane Rita. (Note: you will see this theme very quickly cropping up in the MSM. Witness a front-page headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This time, U.S. is quicker to act". But more about that later).

His response? He told the reporter that one of the major differences was that, this time, the order to evacuate was given and people were taking it seriously.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I don't know if I am unique, but I consider myself fairly risk averse. Even so, the last time there was a tornado warning and we were advised to seek shelter, my husband and I ignored it. However, we called my son, who was babysitting at the time and advised him to take the kids downstairs for safety. But we did nothing. In fact, had our son been home along with us, we probably still would have done nothing. But we were spurred to action by the responsibility our son had for someone ELSE's children.

In fact, I believe that most people refuse to think that the worst could possibly happen to them. We have been warned about so many things that I think we are becoming fear-immune. We are constantly threatened and warned of new crises every minute. If we don't die of a catastrophe caused by global warming, we will suffer brain cancer from our cell phones, heart disease caused by our diets, or killed in a terrorist attack. The problem? These things rarely happen, when they do, they affect a relatively small number of people and we all are much more likely to be killed in a car accident or die from smoking than to perish as a result of disaster.


The MSM, eager for our attention, screams warnings of doom. We were told that Hurricane Katrina would kill tens of thousands of people and render New Orleans uninhabitable due to toxic soup for years to come. So the combination of natural human inclination to think that nothing will happen to us and the constant dire predications that fail to materialize leave us skeptical and less likely to take reasonable precautions.

So, just like in the story of Chicken Little, we begin to ignore the warnings that "the sky is falling" until it is too late.

Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco's ineptness, indecisiveness and reluctance to call in help from federal authorities only added to the skepticism and sent the wrong message to their citizens--especially those most in need of guidance--the poor and the elderly.

But the media will pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' the failures of the federal government and make it appear as though they (the media) are responsible for the change in behavior from the feds. From the AP this morning...

Stung by the relentless criticism of their faltering response to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials raced Wednesday to prepare for the devastation that Hurricane Rita could inflict on the Texas coast.

So, yes, the federal government is being somewhat more pro-active in preparing for Rita. But not drastically so. It is ridiculous to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks, (and while
STILL up to their eyeballs in the aftermath of Katrina) the federal government has completely changed its practices and approach to disasters, or that the firing of Michael Brown turned FEMA around overnight.

The AP story never mentions one other important difference. The Mayor of Galveston and the Governor of Texas are not sending out mixed, ambiguous messages to their citizens. They are not ignoring their own disaster plans. They are not directing people to a facility that they know they cannot secure. They are clearly telling people to evacuate and making arrangements for people with no transportation to get out of the area.

And, while it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, it is interesting to note one other difference. The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana are Democrats. The local Texan authorities happen to be Republicans.

I don't know about you, but although I do not live in a geography affected by tropical storms, I know which way I would vote in the next local elections if I lived in the Hurricane zone.

Don't hold your breath waiting to see THAT analysis in the mainstream media.