Surprise! New York Time’s Kidnapped Journalist A Moron Who Cost A Soldier And Friend Their Lives–UPDATED
Thursday, September 10th, 2009The paper of record will probably not report the flaming ignorance of their own reporter, Stephen Farrell, but the British press is less inclined to cover for him. Remember the NYT reporter who got abducted and subsequently rescued? Remember how good the NYT was with keeping that secret, you know a secret that mattered when lives were at stake?
A soldier lost his life to save this, what’s the Van Jones word?, that’s right, a**hole. Here’s what happened:
Afghan police and intelligence officers repeatedly warned journalists including Mr Farrell that it was too dangerous to go to the site. Kunduz is a notorious Taliban northern stronghold and was one of the last holdouts of the regime when it was toppled in 2001.
While Mr Farrell, who was kidnapped in iraq five years ago, and Mr Munadi were interviewing Afghans near the site of the bombing an elderly man warned them to leave as the Taliban were on their way.
But they stayed and shortly afterwards gunshots rang out and they were taken into captivity. Mr Munadi was working as a freelance during a break from his university studies in Germany.
The dramatic rescue operation came in the early hours of Wednesday when a troop of Special Boat Service commandos supported by a company from the Special Forces Support Group left an American base in US helicopters. But the young British soldier died in the battle to the distress of his commanders.One senior Army source said: “When you look at the number of warnings this person had it makes you really wonder whether he was worth rescuing, whether it was worth the cost of a soldier’s life. In the future special forces might think twice in a similar situation.”
Another military source said: “This reporter went to this area against the advice of the Afghan police. So thanks very much Stephen Farrell, your irresponsible act has led to the death of one of our boys.”
Was his life saving? No. He knew the risks in his job. No doubt, his friends and family members are relieved to have him back in one piece. But there are other people, a British soldier, his interpreter, a woman and a child now dead because he ignored the advice of those who knew better.
And the New York Times? The paper couldn’t be bother with Van Jones or John Edwards, or, most of all, their own idiot reporter.
UPDATED:
The reporter a Brit, tells his story. He concludes:
It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life.
There were some celebrations among the mainly British soldiers on the aircraft home, which soon fell silent. It later emerged that one of the rescue party was also dead, mortally wounded during the raid. His blood-soaked helmet was in front of me throughout the flight. I thanked everyone who was still alive to thank. It wasn’t, and never will be, enough.
The soldier’s name. What is his name? At this point, the reporter’s “ordeal” means little. The man who died for him does.
If NYT … WSJ, CNN, Fox, assorted freelancers, the lot of them … stopped taking risks, we would have very little information about what happens in bad places. I don’t believe that most of them do it lightly, though I’ve known a few who do it irresponsibly and have been lucky they didn’t end up in this situation. A lot of them now have considerable time incountry, experience with these issues, and receive professional training and advice. A lot of them have also died, been injured, or spent time in captivity. It often comes down to judgment calls about what level of risk to take. Here’s an easy call to make in the aftermath: It looks like Farrell made a bad one. Harder to say about the military, which also had the option of standing off and exercised its own judgment in the moment.
I guess what makes me so angry is the way the newspapers so easily trash the very same who would save their sorry hides. The military is treated with contempt by the Western media. As a citizen (recognizing that all parties involved were British), I don’t feel inclined using vast resources and potentially putting solider in harms way for a risk-taking fool who works for an organization working in opposition to their own country’s interests.
The newspapers have no trouble putting soldiers in harms way with irresponsible reporting–remember the flushed Koran? How many false stories have put American and allied soldiers at risk? And now, a soldier’s family must live with the idea that their son, brother, father died for an agent who often indirectly colluded with the enemy.
I’m upset at the gross injustice in this. Over at Jawa, the reporter is described as a “self-indulgent asshole”. That’s being kind.
White House Pentagon Profiling Reporters
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Well, it doesn’t look like the Pentagon was telling journalists what to write, they just did ops research on the journalists to chart and graph what they write and predict future favorable/unfavorable behavior.
I’ve had mixed feelings about embedding reporters. However, with Al Qaeda and the Taliban as enemies, getting reporting would be nigh to impossible because they like killing reporters [Daniel Pearl]. So, it seemed like a possible necessity.
Anyway, the White House has “profiled reporters” too, I’d guess. No one more masterfully manipulates them individually and collectively than Barack Obama. So, he’s either got an internal computer deciding who to call on when, or he’s got an Axelrod with a bulging file filled with research on individual reporters–who to use for which story, when to allow a certain person to ask a question, etc. Nothing is left to chance with these people.
Only Helen Thomas has had the sense thus far to see how she’s been managed and manipulated, but she has a very long history to draw upon.
As to the Pentagon. It would seem to me, that doing background checks on reporters would seem wise. And then, one thing leads to another. As long as reporters weren’t told, at gunpoint, what to write, it seems like no big deal. Besides, reporters are independent-minded and above these sorts of head games, right? These are the people, who with straight faces, claim to be objective. So any sort of influence by the military would be negligible, right?
I mean, they’re not influenced by President Obama.
Inglourious Bastards Basterds–UPDATED
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009
Inglourious Bastards might be Quentin Tarantino’s best movie so far. As expected, it’s full of gruesome violence, gratuitous splattering blood, and revenge fantasies. For the subject, it’s all to the good: Nazis die.
Tarantino has some messages for everyone though and they aren’t politically correct. First the trailer. Here are some of the lessons from the movie:
1. Enhanced Interrogation works: The reason William Wallace from Braveheart fame was so remarkable was because he didn’t break. Nearly everyone, eventually breaks. When one gets a bad guy to spill the beans, good guys get saved. It ain’t pretty. But sleep deprivation, psychological discomfort, and in Tarantino’s case, a public head bashing are very effective means of extracting information.
2. There are bad guys. Now, in this politically correct world, only the Nazis may be used as bad guys. Don’t mention the barbary of Native Americans or current slave traders, or Hugo Chavez. Hell, don’t mention the barbaric acts of actual barbarians–the Barbary pirates. These days, the only acceptable bad guy is of German extraction. Anyone who is labeled “bad” is labeled Hitlerian. For fun though, when you go see the movie, just put an Islamist in the place of the Nazi. Every time. Just imagine a freedom hating terrorist biting it hard. It’s profoundly satisfying. If Tarantino were really that edgy, he’d have chosen a more relevant bad guy, but in these times, naming evil is passé.
The movie wins points artistically. The dialogue amusing. Among the blood, guts and nonsense, the story pushes forward with anxiety-producing anticipation.
What made me love the movie most, though, didn’t occur on the screen. The packed theater that made my vengeance-loving heart glad.
So, Americans still hate villains. Americans still want evil doers to pay. After years of mushy, morally ambivalent tripe like Crash, a movie comes out that’s pure good and evil. Well, not so pure. Because war isn’t pure. It’s messy, bad things happen, good people die and sometimes the best soldiers are just this side of normal. Righteous vengeance though, is satisfying. People want evil, innocent-killing psychos to pay–preferably with their lives.
Primal? Uncivilized? It’s pretty to think so. More like, normal people recognize that tolerating evil encourages evil. You know, like the Iranians who repeatedly raped a young boy who defied the Iranian leadership during the protests. That evil.
So, while I’m still waiting for Quentin Tarantino to show some real courage and portray the monstrosity that is Islamofascism–the psychotic Muslim element who carry around Mein Kempf for moral encouragement–I’ll take what I can get. And right now, a movie where the bad guys get incinerated is profoundly satisfying.
It’s nice to see the good guys win. It’s nice to see the bad guys suffer and die. I’m hoping that Inglourious Bastards starts a trend. Now, to choose a more timely enemy.
P.S. Brad Pitt is hot. And the way he says “Nazis” makes me smile. I’m saying it that way from now on. Nat-zees.
P.P.S. This is why I feel no shame about vengeance fantasies. There is no death painful enough to balance the inhumanity of what some evil bastards will do in the name of their despicable cause.
The moral equivalence crowd can shove their sanctimony up their collective ass. There are people right now who loved seeing Americans die in the World Trade Center. They relished it and still do. The Lockerbie bomber, Al Qaeda, the Taliban all glory in their death cult. No reasoning, no gentleness will change their black souls. Just as Nazis felt justified in their abject cruelty, so do the Islamofascists who carry out their modern mission of freedom killing violence.
The only solution? Kill the killers.
After reading Rachel’s post, I’m going to screw up my courage and go visit the site of the Twin Towers. Even though just typing this post makes me angry enough to cry at the injustice, I will see it. And when I go to Germany, I’ll do that heinous visit, too.
There is a reason America continues to fight this pesky foe. It’s us or them. Let it be them.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Actual, real live Inglourious Basterds courtesy Winston Churchill. I love him even more:
Some were in the Brigade – a unit set up by Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1944, made up of more than 6,000 volunteers. He said: “It seems to me indeed appropriate that a special unit of the race which has suffered indescribable treatment from the Nazis should be represented in a distinct formation among the forces gathered for their final overthrow”.
The following year, the Brigade was in the front line for the Allies’ final push against the Nazi menace and worked with the rest of the British Army in the immediate aftermath of the war.
Official orders dictated that any Nazis captured should be interrogated, not executed. But the revenge squads within Brigade ranks had other ideas.
Go read the whole thing to get an idea of how the Nazi hunters exacted justice.
By the way, to the liberals out there: Was World War II a revenge fantasy? Because technically, the European theater wasn’t “our” war. I mean Germans didn’t attack us. And that war cost a lot of money. And hell, we still have troops stationed in Europe. I mean, it’s like totally a waste, ya know?
I do not regret that America took the war to the terrorist murderers. A sense of moral outrage should determine foreign policy. Barack Obama’s bland indifference to the people of Iran is telling. Should we go to war there? That can be disputed. But what cannot be disputed is that Iran is a totalitarian, fascist regime that wants to exterminate a whole race of people. IT IS EVIL. To not be affronted by their disgusting philosophy and actions is to show indifference to innocent, freedom-loving people.
The left resisted efforts to get involved in WWII. They didn’t want to see the atrocities of Japan, Germany and Italy, especially, because it didn’t fit their never ending selfish narrative.
Either freedom or tyranny is on the march. It is never static. And freedom must be bought or lost.
UPDATED:
The U.S. declared war on Japan December 8, 1941 in direct response to being attacked. Revenge? The next day, Germany declared war on the U.S. FDR offered monetary support to the British, stepping away from neutrality before this. However, one could argue that going to Europe was taking the fight to the enemy. Perhaps America should have simply played defense. It was not as though Germans were storming Manhattan en masse.
Also, for the “brown people” straw man argument: By defending the Iranian people against their psycho tyrant, I’m suggesting defending “brown people”. What did the war in Iraq become, if not a defense of brown people against Saddam Hussein and his sons and minions? What was the war against Iraq to begin with but a defense of the brown people in Kuwait?
Good grief. There’s evil people of every color. That racism card, though, that trumps everything.
UPDATED AGAIN:
In praise of the Bear Jew:
An old friend just attended the wedding of Eli Lake’s younger brother. I wrote my friend:
Do me a favor, really. Shake Eli’s hand and say thanks to the “Bear Jew” from another Brooklyn Jew, me. He did it Brooklyn style, the way I grew up. Some may have f**ked with me, but none came away unhurt, and never did again.
My old friend sent me this email:
Bruce,
I read your email to Eli and his parents- they all loved it and
that led to the handshake pictured here.
Also, I wrote a follow-up review of Inglourious Basterds here.
Axelrod: Latest In Obama’s Culture of Corruption
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009Have you read Michelle Malkin’s book yet? If not, you should. And, in case you missed it, listen to my podcast interview with Michelle about her #1 New York Times best-selling book.
David Axelrod has long history, intertwined with Michelle Obama, of corrupt dealings through his consulting. Now, he’s handling those dirty dealings from the White House. Michelle says:
Hey, Bobby Gibbs: Tell us again. Who’s funded by the evil health care industry? And who’s motives should you be questioning now? According to Bloomberg, AKPD continues to work with Axelrod “on ’strategy and research’ for the Democratic National Committee.” Why no full disclosure until now? Why didn’t Axelrod recuse himself from his Obamcare lobbying TV appearances given the strong, interest-conflicted odor emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania?
There will be more of this and the press will continue to demonstrate a breath-taking lack of curiosity. Curiosity and questioning motives only works on Republicans, it seems.
Elites, Pseudo-Intellectualism, & Language
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009Wow, Washington, D.C. is filled with preening, sanctimonious a-holes. Drunk on their own intellectualism and stunned into self-reflective absorption, the only thing that matters to this collective Narcissus is vainglory. This assessment includes conservatives and Republicans, by the way.
I read Andy McCarthy’s dissent from the National Review Online editorial about Sarah Palin and “death panels” and thought: they still don’t get it. “They” being the Conservative Intelligentsia which includes Think Tank leaders, Congressmen and Senators, etc. First, here’s what Andy concluded:
I think Palin was right to argue her point aggressively. Largely because she did, a horrible provision is now out of this still horrible Obamacare proposal. To the contrary, if the argument had been made the way the editors counsel this morning, “end-of-life counseling” would still be in the bill. We might have impressed the Beltway with the high tone of our discourse and the suppleness of our reasoning, but we’d have lost the public. I respectfully dissent.
Well, Andy is being far more respectful than I feel at this point.
You know, you can be intelligent, possess intellectual subtlety and a Webster-esque vocabulary, and still be ignorant and unwise. Conversely, just because a person speaks plainly and uses common language does not mean the person is stupid.
The smartest guy I have ever met attended Chiropractic college with me. He was a genius. He has a photographic and audio memory, but more than that, he can integrate the information in a meaningful way. And most impressive, he could teach what he knew simply without ever making the student feel stupid. He was my peer and a friend and he’d tutor a group of us (he was a semester ahead) from time to time. He was patient, never condescending and spoke plainly.
Who likes being treated like an idiot? No one. And yet, the Left and Liberals in general, speak to the American people like they’re morons. The absolute worst is Al Gore. The most insulting thing is the guy ain’t that smart and he comes across as a doltish buffoon and still has the nerve to lecture stupid Americans. It’s annoying.
And so, rather than engage Sarah Palin on the merits, even the editors at the National Review get lost in what they consider hyperbole. Elites hate hyperbole (except when they’re employing it to chastise the masses into using fluorescent lighting). The form-police ignore the substance because the messenger doesn’t have an air of hauteur and the Ivy league parchment required to engage in the “conversation”.
Oh blech.
Intellectualism is not on trial here. Pseudo-intellectuals who discredit valid opinions because they find the form bothersome is on trial. Also, the inability to write or talk plainly is on trial here.
Chief Justice John Roberts possesses a few admirable traits: He has a towering intellect. He has humility. He has grace. His opinions are straight-forward and written plainly. He makes his opinions understandable. This all demonstrates his intelligence rather than diminishing it. It also demonstrates empathy. He could, easily, write using complex language and arcane vocabulary, but that would serve only to aggrandize himself at the expense of the understanding of those with whom he communicates.
Too many in Washington, D.C. desire to sound smart over being smart. So laws and bills are convoluted, pages long, and complex. Editorials are snark-filled, eviscerating vanity [hello Maureen Dowd].
And through this wordy haze, the substance is lost.
The American people are not stupid rubes who need to be guided to enlightenment by their betters. The American people do recognize that there are experts in diverse fields in the government and media. They want those experts to speak plainly and argue the substance understandably. This is not too much to ask.
I hear D.C. insiders sniff about populist impulses. Their fears are laughable. These very same insiders condescend to those whom they ostensibly serve, treating them like no more than dull-witted peasants. This is a Republic not a constitutional monarchy. The representatives actually are supposed to represent people not command them. If there are populist embers burning, the insiders should spend some more time doing what they love: looking in the mirror. Any populist impulses are a reaction to obnoxious elites, not the other way around.
So, Congressmen and the press react in horror at American outrage. Why is everyone so angry? Well, this question just demonstrates dull-wittedness. How long would you, Mr. Smartypants Inside-the-Beltway person like someone to call you stupid overtly or imply it through your arts (Hollywood’s dystopian representation of American culture), your opinions and your laws? Yeah, you’d be pissed off, too, to use the common vernacular.
Enough, already. Americans deserve better than this from their leaders. By being too smart by half, the insiders end up sounding all stupid. Perhaps a return to more straight-forward actions, simpler language and respect for the voter will mend the relationship that is broken. It’s going to take a while, though. And it’s probably going to take new leaders who aren’t so far removed from those whom they serve.
#Righton Interview: Ed Morrissey of Hotair Interviewed Me At Right Online
Monday, August 17th, 2009Here’s the link. Ed Morrissey and I have a great time together. I look forward to when he comes on my show.
Network Executives Get No Pity
Monday, August 3rd, 2009Losing $40 million to host the Obama gab-fests? Turning into a big propaganda arm for the Leftist government? Selling your soul and your credibility to be pals with your ideological hero? Poor, poor television networks.
If the major networks go over the economic edge because their lips are forever locked on the President’s butt, may they all go down in a ball of flames together. That network executives said yes for fear of being out of favor with this administration speaks volumes about not only the President’s tactics but about their own ideological bent.
Like I said way back, he conducts press conferences like he’s daring any reporter to ask a tough question. They will comply or they will be cut off. He holds the power and the reporters better acknowledge it by obsequious behavior….or else. There is always a threat inferred or implied when dealing with Barack Obama.
In short, spare me the crocodile tears. The networks essentially told President Bush to Eff Off for eight years and coverage was anything but fair–it was nearly always hostile. Ironically, President Bush respected the networks’ profit needs. And now, Obama acts, surprise!, entitled to network time whenever he wants it. And the networks do not deny him. They dare not–as if they want deny him anyway. They desire to please the master, so they comply, willingly.
I’m Tired Of The Birther Nonsense But The MSM & Left Can’t Get Enough Of It
Friday, July 31st, 2009Why are so many in the media touting a stupid Kos poll*? Could it be…..Journolist?
*Hint: It’s not the Right leaning media promoting this theory. Oh wait, I remember, try to discredit critics of your policies by painting the opposition with the “crazy” brush.
If Bush Had An Economy This Horrible Would He Get This Headline?–UPDATED
Friday, July 31st, 2009From the New York Times, this headline: “U.S. Economy Shrank Less Than Expected in Quarter”.
Here is the content of the article: Things are so much better than expected, blah, blah, blah. Economists agree, blah, blah, blah. Advisers close to President Obama are cautiously optimistic blah, blah, blah, and tout the government policies, blah, blah, blah.
There, now you don’t have to read it.
Oh, and here is a sample of the headline, if the President’s name was George W. Bush: U.S. Depression II Continues As Economy Shrank Again In Last Quarter.
I suggest you come up with your own.
UPDATED: Woo Hoo!
Why The Press Loves The Birther Issue–UPDATED
Monday, July 27th, 2009The Birther issue serves one important purpose: if the whole of the Right can be painted as conspiratorial nutters, then the Left doesn’t have to defend or explain very unpopular policies like Cap-n-Trade, Card Check and Health Care.
It is, in short, a diversion. When you got no game, play dirty. That’s the Left’s mantra and so far, it’s worked because the press colludes with Democrats and their agents.
Mind you, unlike the seriously deranged nutjobs on the Left who felt like 9/11 was an inside job, aka Truthers, the “birthers” issue seems more easily resolved. Although, as my co-blogger here at Right Wing News noted on the podcast the other day, actual facts tend to not dissuade conspiracy theorists.
Anyway, I see this as one more trumped up way to divert attention from the true nonsense in Washington, D.C.–horribly unpopular policy. Since the criticism of the policies can’t be discredited, the only solution is to try to discredit the critics.
UPDATED:
Funny how many nuts, with many on the Left, went on about how Bush planned 9/11 and cooperated with either the Saudis or Israel depending on your source, was never big news.
