Archive for the ‘war’ Category

There are protests in the streets, police are clashing with protesters and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “Nuclear state” statement is as far as I’m concerned hot air.

The Guardian is liveblogging protest from Iran but nothing that is happening today changes the same equations that were on the table yesterday the day before or last month.

If protest doesn’t stop the government either Israel or ourselves will have to, otherwise the equations of the middle east are changed forever.

And yes this stinks but stinks or no that is where we are.

Hidden within the Clark Hoyt’s NYT public editor piece on if there is a conflict of interest in the Time’s middle east reporting since Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief of The Times, has a son in the Israeli military:

I asked David K. Shipler, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, what he would do. Shipler was The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief a generation ago and its chief diplomatic correspondent until he left the paper in 1988. He said foreign correspondents operate in far more nuanced circumstances than readers may realize. They may rely on translators and stringers with political ties or biases that have to be accounted for. They develop their own relationships that enrich their reporting, just as Bronner’s son’s military service could open a conduit for information that other reporters might not have. emphasis mine.

This is something that the MSM has not emphasized in the past, but blogs on the Right have. In the words of Ralph Peters at the time:

The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines.

To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other “boys” might lie and steal, our house-boy’s a faithful servant.

The result is that we’re being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what’s actually happening.

To hear the NYT finally (albeit accidentally) admit that there are biases involved in stringers is long overdue.

Oh and BTW. It is a conflict, but as long as it is disclosed to the reader then I don’t have a huge problem with it. If the reader knows the source for a potential bias they can adjust judge a piece accordingly. NOT disclosing the conflict would be a dishonorable breech of journalistic ethics and we all know how important that is to the NYT. HA!

Before he became Mr. Hyde Charles Johnson used to touch on the use and the biases of these stringers.

9:03 p.m. Breitbart introducing her CNN & MSNBC ignoring him

9:05 p.m. Calls out the vets and salutes them.

9:07 p.m. “CSPAN you might not be welcome at the Heathcare negotiations but you are welcome at the Tea Party convention.” ZING!

9:08 p.m. Gives a shout out to Scott Brown, in many ways he represents what this movement is all about. Talks about the Dems passing blame about the loss in Mass.

9:09 p.m. “They won’t blame their agenda and that’s what got them into this mess.”

9:10 p.m. Democrats own this. When you have supermajorites one would think that went without saying but nobody in the media seemed to want to say it. “If this can happen in Massachusetts it can happen anywhere.”

9:11 p.m. “Competitive primaries are democracy in action.” Shades of Mayor Wong. “May the best ideas win.”

9:13 p.m. “Don’t let any one leader define the movement.” I’m sure the media will laugh at that considering her speech. She calls the soul of the movement the American people.

Hasn’t she read Jacob Weisberg? The people are the problem

9:15 p.m “On Christmas day the system did not work.”

9:16 p.m. “There are questions we would like to have asked this terrorist before he lawyered up.” CNN and MSNBC made a big mistake broadcasting this. They will have to unspin this stuff to people who would not hear this straight.

9:18 p.m. “We need a commander-in-chief not a professor of law.” This is really gotta hurt.

9:20 p.m. Questions the administration lack of support for Iranian dissidents.

9:21 p.m. Gives president Obama credit for following advice of the generals, seems to be a bit hesitant in her speech at times.

9:22 p.m. Robert Stacy Smittyis live blogging too.

9:23 p.m. Take a lesson from JFK all your problems are not the fault of your predecessor. Ouch.

9:24 p.m. The bailouts have become a slush fund, asks were are the consequences for the bad choices of Wall Street, that is one thing that Obama might echo.

9:26 p.m. Borrowed printed up made up dollars, we can’t sustain the programs funded by them. “It’s tough to tell people no in tough times.”

9:27 p.m. “how’s that hopey changy thing working out for ya?” , hits Joe “nobody messes with Joe” Biden , “they held that transparency meeting behind closed doors.”

9:29 p.m. Mentions the phantom districts and the overruns. “The list of broken promises is long.”

9:31 p.m. Reminds us of the promise of having bills online 5 days before being voted on. “We are drowning in debt and many of us have had enough.” This has to be the first time a lot of the viewers on MSNBC have heard any of this stuff.

9:32 p.m. “We’re stealing opportunities from our children.”

9:34 p.m. Calls for lower taxes for small business, this part is republican boiler plate. “They need to get government out of the way.”

9:35 p.m. Take the reset button from Putin and give it to congress on healthcare. Talks about allowing insurance over state lines and tort reforms.

9:37 p.m. We need all of the above on energy, give Obama a shout out on Nuke power but wants more than words. Attacks Cap and “tax”.

9:38 p.m. How can we best serve?…I had the honor of the lifetime in 2008… they want us to keep on fighting…We don’t need a leader like we’re a bunch of sheep.”

9:39 p.m. Gives a shout out to Stupak, “When we can work together we will.”

9:41 p.m. “The constitution provides the best roadmap for the most perfect union.” That is a tee shirt.

9:42 p.m. Says we shouldn’t have to apologize for our troops who are a force for good. Heads just exploded at MSNBC. Calls for civility.

9:45 p.m. “There is nothing wrong with American that we can’t fix as Americans.”, “Government working for the people is what this movement is all about.”

Just over 40 minutes. Ed on MSNBC calls it an “interesting” speech, Bob Shrum calls her a “Merchant of hate with a smile.” It’s going to be hard to sell that to people who actually heard this.

Palin Q & A. Didn’t know that was coming.

Q: How do you see the future of the 3rd party movement? “The republican party would be smart to absorb as much of the movement as possible.” That’s what normally happens to 3rd parties.

Q: What do you want to see from candidates here? A: Limited gov. Mentions we won’t agree on everything but the basics are important.

Q: What are the top 3 things to be done when he have a conservative congress? A: “Reign in spending and develop our resources (Green heads exploding now), not being afraid to go back to our roots as a God fearing nation not being afraid of saying we don’t have all the answers as fallible men and women. (MSM & Allahpundit heads exploding again) Don’t be afraid to proclaim their alliance with their creator.

9:53 p.m. “Who cares what the lamestream media says about us!” That’s going to stick.

9:55 p.m. “It’s cool to see blue dog dems peeking in under the tent of the movement.” Says they will come out of the closet as believers in conservatism.

9:56 p.m. Q: What is the Palin plan? A: “Support those who understand the foundation of our country.”, and echo’s Reagan’s “We win, they lose.”

9:58 p.m. I don’t think she knows CNN & MSNBC are carrying this.

9:59 p.m. She will endorse and campaign for candidates during this election.

10:01 p.m. “Don’t fake it.”, it builds distrust. Avoid promises you will not keep. MSNBC cuts away. CNN stays with it misses something key about her speaking fee happy to give it back. MSNBC is in full attack mode with Neil Boratz as their counter voice but attacks her for speaking up for life, of course he does..

CNN is replaying it or at lest seems to be doing so.

I’ve teased supporters of this president in the past because he has been unwilling to address items such as “don’t ask don’t tell”, but I’ve never devoted a piece to my opinion on the subject so here goes…

My opinion on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a variation of Lincoln statement on slavery.

Our goal should be having the strongest most efficient military in the world. We need a military strong enough to reassure our friends and to give our foes pause. I am in favor of anything that supports that goal.

If we can meet this goal by officially allowing homosexuals to serve in the military openly, I would support it.

If we can do it by banning homosexuals from military service openly I would support it.

And if we could do it allowing homosexuals to serve openly in some capacity but not in others I would support that too.

Our enemies are trying to kill us, they are not going to wait to ask who we pick up in bars before they try. The most efficient military possible is in the interest of everyone of any race creed color or sexual orientation. My only interest when it comes to the military is its ability to fight and win.

I’m not a soldier, I will likely never be a soldier the people who can answer this will be our soldiers and those willing to serve. Not me.

I will say this to the two sides of the argument:

You might remember that according to Ken Burns Masterpiece The Civil War 85% of American Blacks in the north of military age served in the Union army. They understood what the war was about. Given the beliefs of Radical Islam, I think that Gay Americans would be highly motivated to serve to fight against a fundamentalist Islamic foe that wants them dead and would not be inclined to oppose it.

on the other hand…

We also have an all volunteer military, if the numbers of homosexual recruits are insufficient to make up for the number of straight recruits who would be unwilling to serve with them to the point where it hurts our ability to fight then the needs of the service have to be the priority.

What do you think and why?