Media Support for Hezbollah

We have another Rathergate on our hands, but this one happened before our eyes. Hezbollah successfully manipulated the media with pictures and a compelling story line. We all heard about the manipulated Reuters photos, but Hezbollah managed to execute a whole PR strategy. The blog EU Referendum has chronicled this. It is not only a misunderstanding. Many members of our trusted media were in on it.

Middle Eastern media was a willing participant in the deception. Their anti-Semitism is long standing and their bias comes as no surprise. But Hezbollah also effectively used Western press. It is increasingly clear that Western media is full of what we used to call fellow travelers.

Many members of West's chattering class are infected with an anti-American, anti-Israel bias. What they do is not a conspiracy, but it is a syndrome. Their story has villains and heroes; guess who they always are. Hezbollah can get away with the worst kinds of atrocities and the media tries to "understand." Hezbollah knows this and uses it. They take journalists around to staged events and everybody suspends disbelief.

This is nothing new. We heard Saddam Hussein’s propaganda every day on CNN. Remember Peter Arnett? He was just the tip of the iceberg. As CNN's Eason Jordan (the same one who had to resign after his attacks on the U.S. military) admitted, CNN shaded its reports to hide Saddam’s abuses abuses for many years all the while castigating the U.S. for any misstep.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but that should not include completely ignoring or even fabricating propaganda for the other side. Maybe anti-American people of the media should look into this standards thing too.

Posted by Jack at August 20, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #176573

it seems as if we expect truth from people even when they acknowlege that lying is alright under the circumstances. times i believe that people only hear what they want to hear rather than what they should be listening to. this seems to be especially true when it comes to the situation over in the ME.

Posted by: The Griper at August 20, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #176576

Remember we are talking about war. War has propaganda, by both sides. Your criticism of Hezbollah is valid, but shouldn’t end there.

Israel uses propaganda here as well. The Hasbara Project is an Isreali PR campaign targeting US public opinion. It is designed to keep US opinion towards Israeli favorable and maintain our support. They hire US PR firms and use PACS to influence our government and media. Meanwhile they can continue to comit atrocities against the Palestinians and we look the other way.

Another example is the US war in Iraq. Propaganda was used by the Bush Administration to get American support for the war. But a simple example is the term “coalition forces” when it is an American war and forces. Not allowing us to see the returning bodies of soliders killed in action.

It just shows how immoral war is.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at August 20, 2006 6:22 AM
Comment #176577

I genuinely don’t get the stand of the media nowadays. I can only conclude that they hate themselves. I fail to see what else allows them to so freely impose such a double standard, maintaining the moral equivelence of the accidental deaths of civilians and the deliberate murder of civilians by terrorists. I just wish they’d express their self-loathing in more healthy manner, such as suicide, instead of trying to drag us into the malaise.


I know this may surprise you, but the Coalition is not a lie nor is it a joke. I’ve seen Soldiers out here from many nations, a Brit works in my shop. I will say that it is disengenuous to overstate the coalition, but to completely disregard it is wrong as well.

Posted by: 1LT B at August 20, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #176578

1.) Holding one side to higher standards is natural, sometimes. However, to be fair a report should honestly include how much better the Offending party is generally/specifically than their adversary. Not doing so is misreporting / lying / misleading / …

Purposely hurting the US-Side while giving a pass to larger offenses our Adversary should be considered all this, plus Treason (alas, too often our mainstream media seems to consider Treason against America to be an Honor).

I believe those who are Intellectually Honest should shun those who are liars, misleaders, or traitors in proportion to their offence, and call them what they are … EVEN IF THEY BELONG TO YOUR OWN POLITICAL PARTY.

2.) Re Israel, I suspect their side gets far more breaks by US major media than their adversaries do.

3.) Word Power 101 (it is only a word, but…):
BTW the Middle Eastern press may be Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israeli, but I don’t think they are Anti-Semitic. All those whom the Israelis are fighting are presumably 100% Semites. However, many (most?) Jews/Israelis are partially or completely of European, African, East Asian, or other non-Semitic descent. So while those siding with Germans against Jews are anti-semitic, those siding with Israelis against Palestinians or Hezbollah are also anti-semitic. I suggest dropping the term ‘Semite’ rather than using it confusingly or incorrectly.

BTW II, while on the subject, maybe don’t call white people ‘Anglo’. Honky, White-Devil and Ghost are all linguistically correct (if not politically) – but Anglo is simply wrong as it means ‘English’ (similar to calling all East Asians ‘Vietnamese’).

Posted by: Brian at August 20, 2006 6:41 AM
Comment #176580


Um, what was your big discovery here? I see a blog entry alleging that Hezbollah manipulated a real event to make it more photogenic. Well, no sh%t. They’re terrorists. Did you expect them to be more ethical in regard to public relations than in regard to human life?

It is not like our own government subscribes to some sort of cinema verite view of public relations, that is, simply showing literal reality without manipulating it. I don’t need to get into the hidden coffins, the “Mission Accomplished” sign that was allegedly created by the sailors by actually wasn’t, etc. Nothing staged or artificial about Bush standing on a pile of rubble with a hardhat, right?

It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 20, 2006 7:10 AM
Comment #176581

I have been involved with “Mid-east studies” for over 30 years and have been “on the ground” for 25 and I have never heard of The Hasbara Project. When I looked it up I only saw non-Jewish and anti-Israeli reference. Where does it fit? Ah! yes the great zionest conspericy - the Prodocals - the Jewish corruption of everything to enclude Physics (Einstien proposals are called “Jewish science”.
Atrocities every where. How can you live in a world so filled with negitives? Did you live in Israel (Palestine) when Arafat and his mifia controled the Muslims with fear? Did you stay there and discover his millions he hid away, as did his kronies while demanding youth to smash everything and trash their cities? Did you live there when they refused to provide basic services to their people because they might have to “pay” the Israelis? (Did you know that electricity is produced by coal imported to Askalon and Hifia for generation. If you don’t pay the grid bills - you lose power. Or must we feel sorry for them and sponser their lives?)
Then you move on to Bush - Bush has limited power. Look to congress and the Courts they too play a role, especially congress.
The policy of not seeing the bodies is a good one, one that exists throughout a civilized society. It is called respect. It is called consideration. Never mind denying the corupted media another area to do what they do. We should not feed gore. When one gets a study diet of it one wants more and greater gore - not peace.

Posted by: Kuzriel at August 20, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #176582

My Name Is Roger:

We believe what we want to believe!

We hear what we want to hear!

If someone reports something bad about the side you support… you don’t believe it, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE!

If someone reports something good about the side you support… you believe it, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE!

We believe what we want to believe.

We hear waht we want to hear.


Posted by: ROGER at August 20, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #176583


I know Jerserguy wrote “bodies”, but I think he meant the coffins. There is nothing gorey about a coffin. It is simply a powerful visual symbol of the fact that somebody died.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 20, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #176585


From one of your links…

CNN’s Anderson Cooper told his viewers that Hezbollah also cued ambulances when to whiz by for video news cameras. “One by one, they’ve been told to turn on their sirens and zoom off so that all the photographers here can get shots of ambulances rushing off to treat civilians,” Cooper reported. “These ambulances aren’t responding to any new bombings. The sirens are strictly for effect.” Other news organizations were videotaped by CNN as they recorded the Hezbollah-choreographed scene.

You mentioned CNN earlier. They are the whistle-blowers now.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 20, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #176587

Journalism students choose their career because they want to change the world. Most universities lean far left. Is that the explanation?
We just have to be more saavy about the way we ingest the news. We have a lot more media out there to choose from. So, stop watching CNN until their ratings drop and they become fair. Newspapers are part of the old media. I doubt they will change. They are relics.
Libs are libs, though, and even Streisand will not defend Israel. Recent WMDs found in Iraq have barely been reported. The UNs corruption is glossed over. Dems are defended while Reps are scrutinized. The print and TV media are biased, but there are other ways to get your news.

Posted by: JoeRWC at August 20, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #176591

I don’t know. The worst I can see here is a little media grandstanding. I don’t see a lot of firm evidence for fraud here.

The Right has increasingly blamed the media for its misfortunes. They scapegoat them for the bad publicity that comes with their public screwups, rather than face up to the fact that the media would have little to report if they did their jobs better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #176595

Yep it’s them there evil media at it again. Where did we learn about these evil do-ers? Oh, from the media. oops sorry.

Posted by: gergle at August 20, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #176596

It use to be a picture was worth a thousand words. Now with computers everything can be changed to fit the needs.
Both side are using and changing what they want the public to see so that public opinion will be swayed towards their view. Hezbollah does it, Isarel does it, even the US Government does it.
Control the news, control the people.

Posted by: KT at August 20, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #176597

Jersey Guy

I expect those involved in the fighting to try to manipulate the media. Hezbollah did a good job of this. It is just that I expect our media to at least try to not to be pawns. They have no trouble finding fault with us.


That is just silly. We use the word anti-semetic in a very specific way. If we want to go back to the original source of all words, we will have to use our language in very different ways.


See above. I expect the participant to spin. The media should not be quite so cooperative. I believe they apply a double standard. They apply a strict standard to the U.S. and its allies, while cutting lots of slack to our adversaries.

The current example is less telling than CNN’s cooperation with Saddam in the past.

It is reporting on a boxing match and reporting only the punches of one side, or more correctly reporting the punches of one man as victories and that of the others as destructive agression.

BTW - I am glad Anderson Cooper did the right thing. Most of the American journalist have the right motivation. But they often fall for the template.

BTW 2 - I do not mind templates. I like them if they are accurate, favor my side or (best case) both.


Not fraud except for the doctored Reuters picture, but manipulation.

This is one area where blogs are useful. That is how we found out about the forged documents in Rathergate and it might also help us expose other types of propaganda. We don’t need to think of it in grandious terms. It just is a fact checking mechanism.

Posted by: Jack at August 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #176601

Jack, I have to ask. Are you wearing your neutral observer (to the extent any of us can be neutral) or your partisan hat? My initial reaction was to collect information on a pro-Israeli bias in our media. There is much evidence of that. And then in that process, I began to identify material abou the pro-Right media and its slant, in general. But I realized that it would just devolve into tit-for-tat. What use is that? It just polarizes.

I am a bit shocked to find that, for once, I agree wholeheartedly with ROGER, but perhaps not for the reason he thinks.

I would love a discussion on how the media reports news. All of us, before assuming one thing or another, should research the issue, and not merely select evidence that supports one side or another. As with most things, it just ain’t that simple.

Posted by: Trent at August 20, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #176604
The media should not be quite so cooperative. I believe they apply a double standard. They apply a strict standard to the U.S. and its allies, while cutting lots of slack to our adversaries.

This is a generalization that is maybe 30% true.
In some sense it is appropriate to be more critical of the US because we are democracy and it is particularly destructive when our government deceives us.

In Iraq, there no question that the public has soured on the war and the media has gone along with it. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The media was pro-war early on, but soured on it when it became obvious that we were losing. (Yeah, I know we “won every battle”, for all the good that did.)

The Arab-Israel conflict is really in a class of its own in terms of perceived media bias. Each side seems to be genuinely convinced that the US media is 100% on the other side. It is probably impossible to make a report on this subject without being accused of bias. Even if you just put a map of Israel on the screen you would probably get complaints from each side alleging bias.

I agree that the media should not cooperate with Hezbollah staging, but the flip side is that we probably have the most pro-Israel media in the world. Some argue there is more dissent in the Israeli media on this topic than in our media!

So if our media is too “sympathetic” to Israel’s enemies, everybody else’s media must be crazily, rabidly anti-Israel in comparison.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 20, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #176608

Shortly after 9/11 an Arab prince came to New York city offering $10 million in aid. He told Guiliani that perhaps now the Americans would learn to respect Islam. Rudy politely asked this man to leave the United States immediately and take his money with him.

Hezbollah has one goal, to kill all Jews. They aren’t interested in any kind of peaceful arrangement. I consider them murdering rapacious racist thugs, and that’s because I take them at their word.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone can see the war as anything but a triumph. Hezbollah is crippled. The future threat can be managed, and all of that was done without getting ensnared in an Iraq-like quagmire. We’ll see how it goes, but so good so far. I hardly think of this as “over”. The next decade or so will show how effectively the civilized world can neutralize terrorist funding and operations.

Posted by: Max at August 20, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #176609

Your understanding of the term Semite is typical of someone who attained the level of psudohistorian. Semitism is a bus word created to demonstrate one’s level of Jew Hatred. Today it is “I have nothing against the Jews, Its those dammned Israelies or Zionist”
Jews have lived in many lands and have many charteristics of the “host” nationals. To apply Semitism to Arabs is also faulty. Waves of conquest from the East and north have happened. The last pre-modern wave was the Mamaluks from western Turkey who left the Otoman Empire in its wake. There are “black-skinned muslims” who were slaves up until the 1930’s in the Arab states. There are Oriental muslims (Malaysia for example).
As to believe what we want to believe. Nice armchair generalship from leftist ideology of no absolutes, no guidelines on behaviour or morality.

Posted by: Kuzriel at August 20, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #176610


As an aside, I read the CNN link where you mention that they “shaded” the truth and so forth. Did you read the article? The journalist was pointing out that they couldn’t report the stories for fear of Saddam’s reprisal against their people in Iraq. It has nothing to do with your so-called “liberal media” bias.

“Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard —— awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.”

So either you’re ignorant (and given your positions, though well-stated, I suspect you are) or deliberately deceitful (which given your apparent affiliations would be no surprise, either). Do you think FOX would have made those reports? Come to think of it, perhaps they would have, given who was at risk.

There’s stuff like this all over the world, where the media is compromised by violent regimes. Here, reporters just get battered and heckled until they are forced to resign. That is, unless you run a gay escort site.

Posted by: DavidL at August 20, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #176611

Many people are familiar with William Randolph Hearst’s famous line to one of his reporters, “You provide the pictures, I’ll provide the war.”

When a media outlet and their reporters can no longer report objectively on what is happening in front of them, when they become part of the story, or even worse, create the story, as opposed to just reporting the facts, then they become irrelevant and untrustworthy.

That is the position in which the mainstream media finds itself today. They have made a conscious decision to support the views of one side or another and therefore skew the news in their side’s favor.

That is why so many people question the media’s motives and, yes, their loyalty and patriotism.

For nine years, I was a reporter for a small town newspaper (circulation of about 35,000) and it was often difficult, sometimes painful, to just report the facts, especially when the subject matter was one in which I held very passionate views.

But that was my job: Report the facts and let the reader make their own decision. When I could no longer maintain that objectivity, I left journalism.

For some of us, principle is still more important than fame and/or money. Unfortunately, Hearst’s ghost still haunts America’s media board rooms.

Posted by: ulysses at August 20, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #176614

Re the use anti-Semite.

If someone said you were an anti-Semite, would the first thing that leaps to mind be that you disliked Arabs?


I can understand the pressure, but maybe we should recognize that dictators are able to control our media too. That leads to an unbalanced point of view, since journalists concentrate on our relatively minor infractions and fail to report on the really big ones done elsewhere. After many years of this, a lot of people seem to believe in the rhetoric (although not in their hearts) that the U.S. is as oppressive (or worse) than some of these dictatorships.

In the case of Peter Arnett (those of us not too ignorant are familiar with it) he was just being opportunistic AND cooperating actively.

Posted by: Jack at August 20, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #176616


What Pro-right media?


An organization with integrity would not be there if the only way to stay is by sending out stories that are not true. Like Mike Wallace’s interview with Ahminawackjob. If the answer to why don’t you ask tougher questions is “because they will get mad and end the interview” that would be a better insight then asking softball questions and then going on another show and saying what a nice guy he is and he doesn’t really hate the Jews.

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #176617

Some how the old boring ideas come out from people. Religion is a powerful tool of identification and control. I am called a Jew because some anti-semetic SOB desided for me that that would be my tag, my religation. I do not call my self a Jew, although I practice the religion the west calls “Judaism”. I do not call it this because it means “Jews Philosophy”. I call it the path of strieghtness, in thought and deeds.
It is pertty much the same when you western minded people name Arabs. Arabs are Muslims in religion, all Muslims are not Arabs. Infact all Arabs are not Muslim - Take the Druies and those who practice Christianity. The word Arab has come to mean “sand Nigger” in some minds. There I’ve used the forbidden “N” word. Not in the true definition but as a low life from the desert. The Jews have traditionally become a bit higher in the hatred vocabullary - “at least they’re white”, the person who said that did not know about Etheopia or Yeman.
Then there is they guy who points out that we do not personally know our “enemy” and he does not know us. I would remind that person “knowing” is not a condition of killing some one. Neither is believing in a “type”.
The fact that Arabs and Jews are fighting over a piece of land has nothing to do with religion or way of life. It has everything to do with perception that a piece of land was stole from its legitimate owners. Claiming land and envy of someone you percieve as better off than you are is a typical reason for starting a war - Hitler did it.
Let me put it this way, a current Canadian example, New Caladonia. The Goverment of Canada claims and sells land to settlers, land they know belonged to the Aboriginals. They have a government’s mentality that all the land in its domain belongs to it, ignoring any older or newer claims. Morally wrong. Compensation should go to owners, but destruction of property is also immoral.
I could go on showing that the Land known as Israel was legitimatly brought. But who cares to hear truth.
As to Our Muslim friends, peace be upon them, They must step into a new world - not forced. They asked for the help of the western nations, good. We gave it in the spirit of Capatialism and Democrocy - even a bit Christian. But there are those who resent it and those are the enemy!!!

Posted by: kuzriel at August 20, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #176618

Re dealing with dictators and framing problems

This is always a challenge of framing when the dealing with dictators who control information and will use deadly force to keep their image. Should a journalist report at all if he knows that anything he writes is by definition untrue (at least by omission) and manipulated.

These are all interesting ethical dilemas. Sort of like the recent revealation by Gunter Grass that he was in the SS. There really is no real easy answer.

I recall during the Gulf War seeing the same English speaking woman (always with different hairs styles) claiming to be recently bombed out of her home on dozens of occasions. Journalists must have recognized her too, but the let her talk each time.

If you read about the pictures from Lebanon, you see a miracle of resurrection. There is a picture of a guy dead and later that same guy cleaning up rubble. Hallelujah. No wonder Hezbollah is so popular with some people. They can raise the dead.

Posted by: Jack at August 20, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #176622

To use:

CNN shaded its reports to hide Saddam’s abuses abuses for many years…

To perpetuate the liberal media bias canard, when the link describes nothing of the sort is dishonest.

And within the context of an article about how your ideological foes hide and massage evidence to further their anti-American goals, perhaps you too, should hold yourself “…to a higher standard…” rather than manipulating the evidence to support your dogma.

Posted by: Bob Hope at August 20, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #176628


I didn’t bring up the liberal media cannard.

The link describes CNN not reporting on Saddam’s abuses over the course of many years. Jordan gives a logical explaination (they were afraid of retaliation). That does bring up the ethical question and should make us question the balance.

I didn’t say the dishonesty was the result of anyone being liberal. Anyone reporting in such a situation would be subject to the manipulation.

Journalists faced similar challenges reporting from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Some did a good job; others spread propaganda. Think of Walter Duranty and the NYT’s shameful whitewashing of Stalin’s murders. In this case, it might have been better not to report at all rather than cooperate in producing propaganda and hiding the deaths of millions.

Journalists hid Saddam’s attrocities because they wanted to stay and report. In the case of Hezbollah it was a little more craven.

Posted by: Jack at August 20, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #176631
Journalists hid Saddam’s attrocities because they wanted to stay and report.

I don’t think that quite matches what Jordan said. They didn’t report certain atrocities because they didn’t want their sources and employees to be the next atrocity.

I don’t think telling Saddam “We’ll close our bureau if you promise not to kill Omar” would have worked, and would have been craven to boot.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 20, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #176632

Jack, you fail to note the role of journalists vs. op-ed writers. Journalists are supposed to report what newsmakers say, do, etc. Op-ed writers spin it to win over public opinion for one side or the other.

I have no problem with journalists reporting Hezbollah’s side of the story and Israel’s side. That is important for us to know what is going on. I would not have understood that the intelligence and sophistication of Hezbollah had it not been for the accurate reporting of what Hezbollah representatives have said and are doing to rebuild Lebanon. Hezbollah was brilliant in taking this tact of funneling Iranian money into rebuilding Israeli destruction in Lebanon. They have secured Lebanese support for themselves within the borders of Lebanon. Strategically it was brilliant.

Now, why is this important to note? Precisely because it denotes that the Hezbollah enemy is not a band of terrorists caught up in a fevered and irrational religious jihad. Hezbollah is a very sophisticated enemy who understands the media, the internet, and the people of Lebanon to the extent that they can use them for their own purposes. It says, they are adaptable, wily, and Israel is faced with a PR problem of major proportions in Lebanon and surrounding nations. It says, Israel cannot win this fight with military might, anymore than the U.S. can win in Iraq militarily.

Thanks to journalists, we should be realizing that our enemy, Hezbollah is NOT perceived as the enemy of the Lebanese nor millions of other Muslims in the Middle East. Thanks to journalists, we now know that Israel is losing the battle to win hearts and minds, and the war cannot be won without winning the hearts and minds of the people in Lebanon, Palestine, and surrounding areas.

Israel and the U.S. must see the facts for what they are, and without journalists reporting what is said and done on both sides, the facts are easily distorted or misshapen by prejudices and wishes for outcomes or another kind. And when the facts are distorted and misshapen, strategy and tactics are the first casualties which will lead to greater human casualties.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 20, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #176637

Woody Mena’s post (the 4th response to this article) is a classic liberal post.

He analogizes Reuters, an “independent” and “trusted” news agency admitting staged photos thrusted to the front of their news boradcasts/webcasts are the same as Bush going to Ground Zero and telling the men working there, the people who lost friends, women, and children there, that he’s going on the offense and he’s going to pursue the perpetrators.

Standard but somehow still amazing ugly anti-American vitriol from the Left!!!

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 20, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #176640


Your response and tone are reasonable, but your article ended with a prescription for the “anti-American people of the media”, am I supposed to believe now that there are right-wingers to which this epithet applies?

I think the right has been stunningly successful in draping itself in the flag and ensuring that the words “anti-American” and “liberal” are seldom more than a breath apart.

In my opinion it is clear that the “fellow travellers” you speak of, are not the likes of Fox, Coulter, O’Reilly et al, but are in fact CNN, Reuters and the BBC… In other words the biased liberal media, only this time with the added fresh garnish that their bias stems from a lack of introspection as opposed to calculation.

It’s a canny tactic though, constantly undermine the credability of the dissenters so as to enable your people to resolve the contradiction between what you tell them and what the “reported” evidence indicates.

Posted by: Bob Hope at August 20, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #176647

Bob Hope

You are comparing Fox, Coulter, O’Reilly et al to the BBC, CNN & Reuters. That’s mixing apples and oranges. Fox is the only news organization in the first list.

This is the usual response from the left when the question of media bias arises. Coulter, O’Reilly et al (I assume you mean the likes of Limbaugh & Hannity) are not news outlets. They like Air America make no claim of being a non-bias media outlet. Most people on the right would have no problem with people like Chris Matthews, Mike Wallace or Dan Rather, if they did not try to come off as an impartial journalist.

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #176648


Anti-American vitriol? Where?

I think you are missing my point. The analogy I was making was between Hezbollah trying to sell their story about a tragedy and Bush trying to sell a certain story about a different tragedy. Now, I happen to believe that we are far more in the right than Hezbollah is, but that doesn’t mean I can’t step back a bit and notice common techniques.

Bush wasn’t just talking to the people on the scene, he was also talking to the people at home. There was a definite element of theatre. That doesn’t make him terrible or evil, it just makes him a shrewd politician.

It was wrong for Reuters to manipulate the photos. I have no argument there.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 20, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #176649

Many members of our trusted media were in on it.

Trusted? By who? Hezbollah and other terrorist maybe, but not by any thinking American.
I believe that both sides of any story should be reported. But the Media for years hasn’t done that. They only report the side they’re on. And that’s usually the opposite side that the United States is on. They seem to make it policy to oppose anything that the U.S. does and support anything that anyone does that hurts the U.S.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 20, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #176650


There is a big difference between faked and staged photos, like the ones with fake dead people and stuffed animals placed in pictures, and a photo-op.

Posted by: keith at August 20, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #176651

Reuters did not doctor that picture, and neither did Hezbollah, though the freelance photographer who made it appear there was more smoke than there was from an Israeli missile may have been sympathetic to them. Then again, he may have just been trying to get more money for the picture. I am no fan of Hezbollah and do think they manipulate the media; I just don’t think the photo in question is a good example. Hezbollah is totally evil and it’s no surprise they lie, lie, lie.

What has been so disappointing and hurtful, however, is Bush’s coopting of terrorist tactics to win the war. Torturing, televising town hall forums stocked with people sympathetic to his views, airing commercials as news without labelling them, these are the kinds of things we expect from terrorists, and I always thought we held ourselves to better standards than that. I think Republicans and Democrats alike can recognize that as wrong.

It helps terrorists convince others there is no difference between us and them. It makes me feel ashamed. Frankly, there’s been a lot of things this administration has done that I simply never thought would happen in this country.

Posted by: Max at August 20, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #176654


What has been so disappointing and hurtful, however, is Bush’s coopting of terrorist tactics to win the war. Torturing, televising town hall forums stocked with people sympathetic to his views, airing commercials as news without labelling them, these are the kinds of things we expect from terrorists, and I always thought we held ourselves to better standards than that. I think Republicans and Democrats alike can recognize that as wrong.

Huh. Toture, I guess you mean Abu Ghraib. What Townhall and commercials

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #176655

People, it seems that you just don’t get it. Hizbullah is an organisation that arose from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon back in the early 80’s. To the Lebanese, and by extension to many arabs across the mid east, Hiz is a resistance movement which finally drove the Israelis out of Lebanon in 2000. Despite propaganda attempts to paint them as puppets of Syria or Iran, they are in fact organically a Lebanese phenomenon. That they receive support from those countries does not make them puppets.

Furthermore, Hizbullah had great support from the Lebanese Shia community before the recent war, and now they have even wider support from across all of the Lebanese communities. Now if you feel you need to describe Hizbullah as terrorists, then go right ahead. To many Lebanese and Arabs, and to people around the world, they are a proud resistance movement against Israeli manipulation in Lebanon. They have also shown not only great courage in fighting a hugely more powerful adversary, but great tactical skill and military discipline, and indeed created much embarrassment for the IDF. In doing so, they have raised their prestige greatly. Bear in mind that Israel has invaded Lebanon several times, and they have taken Lebanese captive and held them for years, without trial. In doing so they did not just launch a cross border raid and withdraw, they actually occupied the greater part of the country, destroying much of it. This story is not a simple one of good guys and bad guys. You need to develop a little sophistication to reach a greater understanding of complex issues. Black and white and good guys and bad guys may be diverting amusement from Hollywood, but real life is not a cowboys and injuns movie nor a da da da da da da da da da da da da with the 6th cavalary riding to save the day before the closing credits. As long as enough Americans are not prepared to challenge what they hear about their countrys engagements abroad, vested interests will continually attempt to manipulate them. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at August 20, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #176656

There’s a term for what Bush often does: astroturfing. It’s artificial grassroots organizations, founded for the express purpose of giving Bush’s policies the character of mass movements.

The history of Bush’s Loyalty Oaths, exclusion of liberals or Democrats from campaign events, his use of paid punditry and the airing of commercials presented as news casts and dissociated from the government are well documented.

Fact is, Bush does not want to have to deal with dissent. His advisers do not trust him to be able to think on his feet in explaining what he believes.

As for Abu Ghraib, If you saw American Soldiers stripped, sexually abused, threatened with dogs and whatnot, what would be your reaction? Some on the Right hand us this Frat House B.S., without considering that the ordeal that a pledge goes through is voluntary. Even then, it can be excessively cruel by society’s standards.

The right has rationalized things few Americans would allow to happen to their own people, to their neighbors and loved ones. We set the standards by which we can come down hard on the immorality of our enemies. If they can equate their behavior with ours their cruelty is more likely to go unchecked, and our efforts to curtail their behavior are more likely to fail.

As for impartial journalism, I believe it is folly to believe that answering a perceived, implicit political bias with an explicit, openly flaunted bias is any path to the truth. Like the proverbial scorpion on the swimmers back who asks for a ride, we would be fools to expect these open advocates to tell us the truth when we ask the tough questions about what those they advocate for are really doing. They’re going to sting us on that time and again, and those who depend on them for their information are going to be kept blissfully ignorant and complacent until the problems become too severe to hide.

The Mainstream media, at least, is supposed to be more balanced, and can be pressured into that, or even invited by competitive drives. After all, weren’t those so-called liberal media outlets quick to jump on the forgery scandal? Didn’t the media clean house? Didn’t rather get forced to step down, more or less?

The Right-wing media is nowhere near so willing to police itself. When called on conservative bias, they give the balance excuse. Well, excuse me if I want my balance all in one story, and naturally set by the conditions of the story. Balance in journalism is not artificial weighting of the coverage to prevent offense or to let one side or the other spin without a basis in fact. The point of balance in journalism is you let people know there is a dispute at hand, but also whose points are better supported by the facts.

Much of the percieved bias in the MSM is the unwillingness of the news organizations to let the Republican spin go by without critical analysis. This, though is crucial if reporters are to do their jobs. They cannot merely let pretty words on any side go without proper analysis. The Republicans, though, want to bypass critical analysis for various reasons. Their success in recent years in doing so has been double-edged. It has brought them great political success, but at the cost of keeping them in the dark about the depths of corruption and incompetence in their ranks.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #176657

Actually it is pretty much a story of good guys and bad guys.

Musolini made the trains run on time, that didn’t make him any less a thug.

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #176659

Paul in Euroland

You keep throwing out these accusations that Israel just decide to invade a peace loving neighbor. How about this?

By June 1982, when the IDF went into Lebanon, the PLO had made life in northern Israel intolerable, by its repeated shelling of Israeli towns.

A force of some 15-18,000 PLO members was encamped in scores of locations in Lebanon. About 5,000-6,000 were foreign mercenaries, coming from such countries as Libya, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Chad and Mozambique. Israel discovered enough light arms and other weapons in Lebanon to equip five brigades. The PLO had an arsenal that included mortars, Katyusha rockets, and an extensive anti-aircraft network. The PLO also brought hundreds of T-34 tanks into the area. Syria, which permitted Lebanon to become a haven for the PLO and other terrorist groups, brought surface-to-air missiles into that country, creating yet another danger for Israel.

Israeli strikes and commando raids had been unable to stem the growth of this PLO army. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the terrorists.

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #176660

It should go without saying that news media shouldn’t doctor photos beyond what is required. (I know on the face of it that sounds startling, but lots of techniques are just standard to get usuable photos … cropping, burning, dodging, etc. That’s old school; I assume there are legitimate digital techniques as well). News media are always in danger of being manipulated by their sources. There is a reason public relations is such a huge business.

I think in focusing on a few photos, though, we are missing the larger point. First, ask yourself. Did these photos change your understanding of events in Lebanon? Do we deny that hundreds have been killed, that buildings were destroyed? Of course not. So, yes, condemn the media for being manipulated, and in the case of actual significant manipulation, condemn those that are responsible.

The right believes the media is anti-Israel. But the rest of the world thinks our news coverage is pro-Israel. I watch TV news and find sensationalism, of all sorts. Reporting on Lebanese deaths is where the action is because that is where most of the deaths are. And when you are at a scene with dead people, it is only human nature to be moved. The scale of the dislocation in Lebanon is immense. Whenever we watch TV news, we need to be aware of the nature of the beast. Remember the embedded reporters during the invasion? How cool it was, how rah-rah it was? Of course that reporting seemed sympathetic because we were there, virtually speaking, with the troops. Was it the truth? Yes, one tiny tiny sliver of it.

Anyone who relies on TV news for an adequate picture of a complex thing is not going to get a complex picture. The media includes TV, web vidieos, magazines, journals, books, etc., etc.

Posted by: Trent at August 20, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #176661


Pretty words. But again you throw out words like Right-wing media. Who are you talking about?

The problem with the MSM is that when you are so far to the left you forget where the center is.

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #176662
They have also shown not only great courage in fighting a hugely more powerful adversary, but great tactical skill and military discipline, and indeed created much embarrassment for the IDF.

Paul in Euroland,

You mean by shooting missiles into Israeli civilian areas and by planting their own missiles unders schools and other public institutions? Btw everyone, this is Paul who believes he has evidence Israel attacked the US and then the US covered it up. What part of Europe are you from Paul?

Posted by: Max at August 20, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #176664

Paul in Euro…

The middle east has been a region in conflict since before recorded history, so saying that Hizbullah is only responding to Israeli incursions of twenty years ago is facile nonsense. The present war started because your “proud resistance movement” crossed the border into Israel, killing several troops and kidnapping others, and then initiated rocket attacks into Israel. At that time Israel was not in Lebanon. Israel was not massing on the border to attack Lebanon. Israel did not threaten the existence of Lebanon. Israel did not espouse a policy of killing all Lebanese.

Your “proud resistance movement” does not represent the government of Lebanon or any other state. Their members were trained in Syria and Iran, are funded by Syria and Iran. Your “proud resistance movement” are the aggressors, and have cleverly manipulated both events and “news” reports.

Yes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And buster, I’m keeping one eye on you now.

Posted by: lobowolfe at August 20, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #176666

By the way Paul, how much of the money your buddies are giving to the Lebanese people is as phoney as monopoly money.

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #176667

This should make all you adherents to the left-wing media myth happy.

Posted by: Trent at August 20, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #176668


What should?

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #176670

Max, I’m from Ireland, a country with a certain knowledge and experience of “Terrorism”, and its causes. As to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, why don’t you check out the accounts of the USS Liberty survivors;

These men were US servicemen going about their countrys business. Now, you can if you wish, say that are just anti semites, or perhaps even self hating Jews, but I have to ask myself, how many Americans, most of whom seem to have great respect for those who serve in the military, will dismiss the honest reports of those who served abord Liberty. Of course there were many officers of State who also rejected claims that the attack on the Liberty was an innocent mistake. For example former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral James Moorer, and also Dean Rusk, former Secretary of State. Thats without mentioning senior officers of the CIA, NSA, NSC and Presidential advisers Clark Clifford, Joseph Califano and Lucius Battle. See also;

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at August 20, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #176671


You are comparing Fox, Coulter, O’Reilly et al to the BBC, CNN & Reuters. That’s mixing apples and oranges…

I didn’t compare them.

I merely implied that they were all members of the media. This was done to elucidate the point that, despite his protestations to the contrary, when Jack talks about “anti-American people of the media” he is talking about media people (or organizations)with a perceived liberal bias.

Posted by: Bob Hope at August 20, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #176672


I guess it’s just one big conspiracy.

The tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, has provoked a great deal of controversy and longstanding anger among surviving members of the crew. Though residual anger and suspicions remain, the incident was the subject of ten U.S. investigations and three more by Israel. In the American case, the full weight of the U.S. government was behind the investigations, which had access to all the relevant information. Though some accusations have been made suggesting the reports sough to hide facts or protect Israel, no credible evidence for these charges has been produced. Moreover, if the investigatory bodies had a bias, it was far more likely to be against Israel. Here is a summary of the investigations and their conclusions:

Investigation Date Conclusion U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined “findings of fact,” bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Clifford Report July 18, 1967 No premeditation, but “inexcusable failures” by Israeli forces constituing “gross negligence.”

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications “foulup” and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.
National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.
House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.

Israeli Investigations

Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made “neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an “innocent error.”

Posted by: Keith at August 20, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #176674

One big conspiracy Keith? Well as I wasn’t there, I wouldn’t know. But the survivors were. And they are pretty unanimous in their view. Their vessel was scoped many times in close overflights by the IAF, long before the attacks commenced. I do know what I believe. But there as none so blind as those who will not see.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at August 20, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #176680

Here we go agfain with myth making. The ship was were it was not suppose to be and in the fog of war - a clehe’ I know, but the truth. Further if it were a “friendly” would not there be a broadcast to that effect. Sorry. Just like British soliders were killed in the early days of Iraq - Blue on blue - friendly fire. And restitution was paid.

Posted by: kuzriel at August 20, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #176681

It is hard to deny, sometimes, that the media is tough on Bush. Here’s today’s story alleging that Blair feels betrayed by Bush over Middle East issues. And conservative pundit Joe Scarborough asks whether Bush is an idiot. With so many of the faithful disgusted with Bush’s handling of foreign policy, some conservative “think tanks” may be operating with >a href=””>skeleton crews.

Posted by: Trent at August 20, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #176682

Jack, well put. As always, the point is missed. I expect “journalists” to report what happens, not to take part in embelishment of the story, giving it their own slant or the ignoring of obvious discrepencies in what they are being presented. Kind of makes you think that most of these folks should find a job, eh?

Posted by: scolex at August 20, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #176688

What I see here is a lot of people defending the bias of certain media outlets while criticizing the bias of others. The fact of the matter is this: ALL the media outlets I have found are biased in one way or another. You can watch the same story unfold on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, rueters, any number of new sources about a farmer watering his field and by the end of the broadcast you’d be confused about what crops he was growing. one might say corn, the other cattle, depending on whether they liked the beef industry better.

Stop making it a partisan issue, lots of media outlets lean left, actually very far left. Others lean pretty far right. I’m not saying it is right, but you have to pay attention to all of the outlets and decide for yourself, sort out what they all have in common and base your opinions on that.
btw, I get my news from all over the place and like it or not, most media outlets lean alot more left than right, this coming from an independant.

Posted by: Sheldon at August 20, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #176690

I found the coverage a bit one sided. Most of the news on the major stations that I watched only talked about how badly the Lebonese people were being treated. Very little if anything on the coverage of the missles attacking Isreal. I believe that the wide majority of our press and media are anti semetic ( and I do mean against Jews and not as some inturperate against Jews & Arabs - No, anti simitism is only against Jews).

I do not know what the pro-Arab and Anti-Isreal media is all about. All I do know is, that, Hesbulla started it, and Isreal doesnt have to live surrounded by hatred and threats. I also feel that if Hesbulla had done that to our country, we should, still be fighting.

Just in my own personal opinion, Isreal should have taken all of Lebonon out, if they would not take care of Hezbulla, as they promised to do, 6 years ago. (But Lebonon will not, and that is why Isreal should still be fighting).

Posted by: PlayNice at August 21, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #176691

Paul in Euroland,

The IRA’s goal (they said) was autonomy. Hezbollah’s goal is to kill Jews. There’s a difference.

Not that I am a big fan of the IRA. The Irish people I knew regarded them as an Irish mafia. They would go around making collections at local bars and such. The English people I knew wanted the country to stand on its own two feet, but felt they had to give aid and support it for as long as necessary.

Posted by: Max at August 21, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #176701

Where is this liberal media?

I haven’t seen any major media outlet in the USA asking Israel to allow the return of the refugees to Palestine to establish a lasting peace.

I haven’t seen any editorials asking the US to reduce its military budget and spend the money on economic development, healthcare, infrastructure.

I haven’t seen any editorials asking the US to stop selling cluster bombs to Israel, jets to Saudi Arabia, and all the other military hardware we sell around the world.

When I see Fox, CBS, NBC, NY Times, TIME, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal etc. start to question the efficacy of $500 billion military budget, or question the right of Israel to refuse the return of Palestinian refugees, or question the use of war to resolve globabl issues, then and only then can you say the media is liberal.

And don’t quote me shit from Harpers, The Nation, Mother Jones or some other weak, hardly read liberal rag. Find me a quote in the Wall Street Journal, USA TODAY, TIME and/or major media outlet that is “liberal”.

Posted by: Acetracy at August 21, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #176704

Acetracy, yes, well said. We’re at a stage of fairly rigid ideological conformity. Any slight deviation from the norm is painted as extreme.

Posted by: Trent at August 21, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #176705


Please explain what you mean by “taking all of Lebanon out.” Should Israel just have used the nuclear option?

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #176706


You mean change the rules of the Lebanese Senate so that a simple majority can bring a judicial nominee up to vote?

Oh, THAT nuclear option. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 21, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #176738


Which “Palestinian” refugees? The only people that left Israel at the time of the mandate were those that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem told to leave or they would kill them.

Posted by: Keith at August 21, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #176819

Sounds like a real whine here.
The enemy is using the media against us.
What part of Duh! doesn’t the GOP understand.

And wait a minute, with the GOP being big oils friends, and usch experts at oil management, what is the GOP doing to help clean up the massive Lebanon oil spill spreading across the Mediterranian Sea?

Posted by: Joe at August 21, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #176824

Bob Hope,

When you say “credability of dissenters”, you are referring to the news media as “dissenters”, which is an admission the rather than unbiased journalists, they are, in fact, biased advocates for their position, be it: anti-Iraq war, anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-American, pro-terrorists, or whatever.

It would nice to see some real journalists who give more facts and less editorial opinion; and some investigative journalist who pursue the truth about muslim terrorists as they do against Bush.

But alas, what we get are journalists attacking America and sympathizing with muslim terrorists.


Posted by: Jimmy at August 21, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #176885


The term Semite was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to the Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn’s “Repertorium”, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his “Einleitung in das Alte Testament” (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. In his “Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde”, pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII)

The word “Semitic” is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21), or more precisely from the Greek form of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite. The negative form of the adjective, anti-Semitic, is almost always used as a misnomer to mean “anti-Jewish” specifically.

The concept of a “Semitic” peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. Those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their forefather Shem. Enemies were often said to be descendants of his cursed brother Ham. In Genesis 10:21-31 Shem is described as the father of Aram, Asshur, and others: the Biblical ancestors of the Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc., all of whose languages are closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named Semitic by linguists. However, the Canaanites and Amorites also spoke a language belonging to this family, and are therefore also termed Semitic in linguistics despite being described in Genesis as sons of Ham (See Sons of Noah). Shem is also described in Genesis as the father of the Elamites and the descendants of Lud, whose languages were not Semitic.

The Proto-Semitic peoples, ancestors of the Semites in the Middle East before the break-up of the hypothesized original proto-Semitic language into various modern Semitic languages, are thought to have been originally from either the Arabian Peninsula (particularly around Yemen) or the Ethiopian Highlands, but its homeland is still much debated and uncertain.


Posted by: Jeff at August 21, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #176896

Anyone who said that the people in Gitmo are innocent victims read this AP article. How much do ya want to bet the same stuff was and still is going on in Abu Ghraib as well.


Posted by: Jeff at August 21, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #176902


ok I will say this, I Fully support the state of Israel in its war, Israel is an allie of the US and we should protect and aid them in any way we can. that being said.

The attack on the Liberty was fully intentional.. How do I know? my father was there. He was posted on a mine sweeper 20mi away. the Liberty was a Listening Ship. we were monitoring what israel was dong and they didn’t want us snooping in on the attack they were about to launch on a city after we told them to hold back. There intent was only to cripple the ship. tragically several service men died and the ship was nearly sank.


Posted by: Jeff at August 21, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #176912

Yeah, Jeff, prisoners don’t like being prisoners. That surprise you?

Posted by: Trent at August 21, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #176957


Please explain what you mean by taking all of Lebanon out. Should Israel just have used the nuclear option?

Posted by: mark at August 21, 2006 07:50 AM

No, I mean that Isreal should have honored its origional statement. (Just as our President should have honored his statment about Osama Bin Lauden). Isreal promised to disarm Hezbulla. It has not. Isreal should not leave until it has accomplished its word.

I just simply do not believe that you should start a war unless you are fully prepared to finish it. The only way to wage a war in a city is to surround the perimeter, then go, house to house, block by block and inch by inch if necessary, and get rid of the problem, one on one. Then through careful screening, let back-in “civilians”.

(After an agreement with that government that future military attacks against your country (Isreal), will not be tollerated, and if such attacks were to happen in the future, that the result of which, would be all out war. So, if Lebonon wanted to exhist, as a country, they would have ample encouragement to stop military attacks on other countries, within their boarders, by their own army or by any other force within their country).

Thus, Isreal failed in Lebonon, we failed in Afganistan, and this is ultimately why we are doomed to fail in Iraq, also. You can not change terrorism, the threat from terrorism, and still leave the people who support it, behind.

Or, nuclear weapon, (which ever is easier?)

Posted by: PlayNice at August 22, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #176996


Last time I checked, people in our prisons didn’t throw cups full of feces, urine, vomit and sperm on the state and federal guards.

this vial sub-culture of so called islam are little more then brain washed animals bent on destroying anything that dose not fit their twisted idology, be they American, christen, hebrew, or even other Islamic people


Posted by: Jeff at August 22, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #176999

Jeff, Gitmo is a huge issue. For now, I’ll merely say that we shouldn’t use the actions of some prisoners to justify characterizing all prisoners. The fact is, without fair trials, we don’t know how many were enemy combatants, how many were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or how many are terrorists.

Posted by: Trent at August 22, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #177011

Yes, but fortunately we have the brilliant G. W. Bush as prez-eye-dint. His keen insights will make sure that the Middle East doesn’t become victim to those media-favored Hizbullah tare-wrists. I’m so glad Jesus told him to be prez-eye-dint.

Jack, just keep blathering and maybe things will get better. Ya think?

Posted by: mental wimp at August 22, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #177061


When you say “credability of dissenters”, you are referring to the news media as “dissenters”, which is an admission the rather than unbiased journalists in fact, biased advocates for their position…anti-Bush, anti-American

No, I make no such admission, but you do make my point for me.

From what you’ve said, if the news media reports something that contradicts (as in dissents) from the official Bush account of events, they are in your opinion “anti-Bush”, “anti-American”, which therefore allows you to discount such media reports as lacking credability due to bias.

So for example, if a media outlet were to report that Iraqi insurgent attacks are up, Iraq is on the brink of partition or the war in Iraq is generally going badly, while the administration says that things are going ok, you can resolve this discrepancy by telling yourself that such a media outlet is telling us this because they are,

…in fact, biased advocates for their position, be it: anti-Iraq war, anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-American, pro-terrorists, or whatever…

…journalists attacking America and sympathizing with muslim terrorists.

And certainly not because they may actually be reporting something close to the true picture.

This is because, it’s presumably preferable for some to believe that America’s growing problems in the Middle East are the hateful construct of terrorist lovin’ journalists as opposed to an incompetent administration’s grossy negligent policies…

How did we find ourselves in the position where the act of reporting a story that contradicted the administrations version of events could be considered by some to be anti-American?

Posted by: Bob Hope at August 23, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #177072


Maybe sometime you can write an article about media ownership.

Posted by: Trent at August 23, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #177108


“Last time I checked, people in our prisons didn’t throw cups full of feces, urine, vomit and sperm on the state and federal guards.”

When did you last check? These things happen frequently. In CA alone, 7 guards are attacked every day. I saw a report not too long ago about an inmate making a dart gun out of rolled up newspaper and tape, then shooting a guard with it.

So tell me again how we are so much more civilized than the “animals” who happen to happen to belong to a different people-run, and people-organized religion?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 23, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #239265

Let not forget ABC News Peter Jennings. All other news station would report killings made against Israelli Citizens,but Mr. Jennings would never report it. However as soon as Israel Responded, then he would report but not state it was a retaliation.

Posted by: Ralph at November 26, 2007 1:25 PM
Post a comment