Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, July 26, 2003

Wow. Deanna Wrenn is a local West Virginia reporter who wrote a piece for Reuters on Jessica Lynch's return home.

The problem is that the Reuters dispatch was not what Wrenn had written. Reuters took Wrenn's piece and completely changed it to reflect their deep anti-American views.

The media simply can't be trusted. I take that back. The media outlets who try to convince us that they are completely impartial are the most dangerous because they tell us that they are unbiased. We are told that we can trust them to present the news without any slant. Then when we find out differently we wonder how many other stories have been likewise twisted and spun to fit an outfit's agenda.

First we had the Eason Jordan revelations that CNN ignored stories and reported pure Iraqi propoganda to keep it's Baghdad office. Then we had The New York Times and it's Jayson Blair scandal where we found out that Blair had completely fabricated stories. Then it was the BBC where we found out that Andrew Gilligan had elevated David Kelly to a "senior intelligence official." Now Reuters has been caught in a serious deception whereby they asked a reporter for a story then completely rewrote it with her byline still attached.

The media is out of control, but there is nothing we can do to force them to be ethical and honest. We just have to be aware that what we read may or may not be true. How sad is that?

The 9/11 report is out and the biggest news is that a 28 page chapter on possible Saudi involvement has been deleted. I have to agree with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) when he says, ""I just don't understand the administration here. There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis."

If the Bush administration has such a conspiratorial relationship with the Saudi royal family as many on the left insist, then why aren't the Democrats pounding this latest coverup? Apart from a few words from Dick Gephardt and Charles Schumer there is nothing being said. Actually, this could be bigger for the Democrats than the 16 words in the SOTUA, but so far we're hearing nothing. This is very curious.

Friday, July 25, 2003

It appears that the economy "is showing fresh signs of snapping out of its funk..."

That New York Times report and this Investors Business Daily report indicate that the economy has turned the corner:

"The sun is breaking through at last,'' said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Friday's report "adds to the mounting evidence that the manufacturing recovery, which stalled last August, is on the rebound,'' he said."

Events are coming together in what could spell disaster for the Democratic party in next years elections. If the stars line up just right, as they now appear to be doing, the Democrats could suffer a big defeat next November. Of course that's a long way off and anything could happen, but it appears that President Bush's economic stimulus is beginning to have an effect. If things continue to go well in Iraq then this could be a landslide victory with the Republicans gaining seats in the House and Senate. It could be ugly for the Democrats.

Mark Steyn has a great piece in The Telegraph:

"Good evening. Reports that the former Italian leader Benito Mussolini is "dead" and "hanging" "upside down" at a petrol station were received with scepticism in Rome today. Our "reporter" - whoops, scrub the inverted commas round "reporter", the scare-quotes key on the typewriter's jammed again. Anyway our reporter Andrew "Gilligan" is "on" the scene "in" Milan. Andrew...

Andrew Gilligan: I'm leaning on a lamp post at the corner of the street in case a certain little duce swings by, and I don't see any dead dictators, John. But then the Allies have a history of making these premature announcements...

He's just above your head, Andrew. I know you don't like to do wide shots, but, if the camera pulls back, I think you'll find that's definitely a finger tickling the back of your ear...

AG: Well, there you are. He's not hanging from a petrol station, is he? He's hanging from a rope attached to a girder on the forecourt of a petrol station. We've become all too familiar with the Allies playing fast and loose with the facts.

Yes, indeed, Andrew. And contradictory reports that he was hanging from a lamp-post have led some observers to question the accuracy of the intelligence on which the "liberation" of Milan went ahead.

AG: That's very true, John. Senior figures in Downing Street are said to have demanded the whole story be "sexed up" by inserting a glamorous mistress, preferably knickerless. Hang on, I've been plunged into total darkness. Must be another power failure caused by inept Allied administration.

I think that's a skirt that's just fallen over your head."


If this is true then the case against Kobe Bryant just took a very dramatic turn.

The article says that Bryant's accuser bragged about the alleged assault:

"The young woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape bragged about the alleged assault at a party last week - and gave a graphic description of the NBA star's anatomy, partygoers said.

Steve Evancho told NBC News that he was surprised when the 19-year-old woman showed up at his house party on July 15 - three days before prosecutors slapped Bryant with sex assault charges.

"She was bragging about the whole thing," Evancho said, adding that the woman seemed "happy. She was having fun."

She even answered a question about the 6-foot-7 L.A. Lakers star's manhood, five people at the party told NBC.

"She answered with a gesture and a description," said NBC correspondent Michelle Hofland. "They couldn't believe it."

This is not the behavior of a woman who has been sexually assaulted.

Wednesday, July 23, 2003

This BBC report (via Opinion Journal) from 2001 says that Saddam actually tested a nuclear bomb in 1989. Here's the last line from the report:

"The tragedy is that the warnings of defectors like Leone have come to nothing. And that Iraq is now emerging as a nuclear power, causing the threat to peace to be far more real than ever before."

I'm not saying this is real because the BBC has been discredited, but it does go to show how that, as late as 2001, even the BBC saw the threat that Saddam posed.

It's amazing how the left forgets reports like these when it becomes inconvenient.

My letter to Bill O'Reilly:


Have you read this? Free Republic

I read things like this all the time. Why do you only report the gloom and doom from Iraq? I know, I know you did a piece yesterday that congratulated Bush's success in killing Uday and Qusay, but if that hadn't happened you would have been harping on the disaster and the quagmire (as you in the media see it) that has become Iraq and Bush's falling poll numbers. You are feeding those poll numbers because you don't report the successes with the same zeal that you report the bad.

I read about good news from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the bad. I read weblogs that have emails from soldiers and articles from journalists who are reporting that most media outlets are intentionally lying to the American people whether out of some ideological bent or because they simply hate President Bush or America.

Please, CNN is trying to create a mess, a Tet Offensive if you will, that will lead to America's inability to defend itself in the future should we be attacked while someone other than President Bush is in office.

If I had no other source of news except CNN and most of the time Fox News, I would think that things are going horribly wrong in Iraq. But, as the above linked to letter indicates, I'm being seriously mislead because the media is doing a poor job.

Everyone else is being graded; the troops, the administration, and the intelligence services, but the media are not accountable at all. I give the media, including my favorite network and show (Fox News Channel and The O'Reilly Factor, respectively) a grade of D- for your reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CNN and BBC are working to make us prostrate before the U.N. and leftists who simply hate America by attempting to set a standard that says:

"We, the media, have decided that America must prove to Europe beyond reasonable and unreasonable doubt that America is under attack. After we've approved, and after winning the war with Nerf Missiles, America must establish whatever government we tell them to under our timeframe. America must respond immediately to every demand by every zealot with bowed heads and on bended knee. America must also use the Salvation Army, under U.N., NGO, French, and German control, as the occupation force. Of course, America must finance this and provide the majority of the manpower necessary to turn Iraq into a socialist (or communist, we haven't decided yet) utopia. We will add to these demands as we see fit"

Please O'Reilly. The standard for the future is being set. Either you show the world what's really happening or the world will think Iraq is a massive disaster. Right now, you and the others in the media are portraying Iraq as a disaster.

Thank you for your time.

Sean Roper

Tuesday, July 22, 2003

Via Andrew Sullivan a letter from a soldier in Iraq:

"The six U.K. cops were killed in a small Shiite town by the ex-cops they were re-habbing.
> According to a Royal Marine colonel I talked to, the town now has about twenty permanent vacancies in its police force.
> Mick, he's a big potato eater from Belfast named Huggins and knows how to handle terrorists after twenty years fighting with the IRA. He sends his regards and says he'd love to have you here. Thinks you'd make a great police chief, even though the cops would be more frightened of you than the local hoods (then he laughed)
> I heard one doofus on MSNBC the other night talk about how "nearly 60" GIs have been killed since 01 May. The truth is that 21 GIs have been killed in combat, mostly from ambush, from 01 May through 30 June, Another 29 have been killed by accidents or other causes (two drowned while swimming in the Tigris).
> The [MSNBC turd] is the same jerk who reported on the air that "dozens of GIs" were badly burned when two RPGs hit a truck belonging to an Engineer Battalion that was parked by a construction site. The truck was hit and burned, three GIs received minor injuries (including the driver who burnt his hand) and three warriors of Allah were promptly sent to enjoy their 72 slave girls in Paradise. Hell of a way to get laid.
> A mosque in that shithole Fallujah blew up this morning while the local
> imam, a creep named Fahlil (who was one of the biggest local loudmouths that frequently appeared on CNN) was helping a Syrian Hamas member teach eight teenagers how to make belt bombs. Right away the local Feyhadeen propaganda group started wailing that the Americans hit it with a TOW missile (If they had there wouldn't have been any mosque left!) and the usual suspects took to the streets for CNN and BBC. One fool was dragging around a piece of tin with blood on it, claiming it was part of the missile.
> The cameras rolled and the idiot started repeating his story, then one of my guys asked him in Arabic where he had left the rag he usually wore around his face that made him look like a girl. He was a local leader of the Feyhadeen. We took the clown in custody and were asked rather indignantly by the twit from BBC if we were trying to shut up "the poor man who had seen his mosque and friends blown up." I told the airy-fairy who the raghead was and if he knew Arabic (which he obviously didn't) he'd know he was a Palestinian. I suggested we take him down to the local jail and we'd lock him and his cameraman in a cell with the "poor man" and they could interview him until we took him to headquarters. They declined the invitation.
> Guess what played on the Bullshit Broadcasting System that evening? Did the
> Americans blow up a mosque? See the poor man who is still in a state of shock over losing his mosque and relatives? Yep. Our friend the
> Palestinian.
> Our search and destroy missions are largely at night, free of reporters and
> generally terrifying to those brave warriors of Allah. The only thing that frightens them more is hearing the word "Gitmo". The word is out that a trip to Guantanimo Bay is not a Caribbean vacation and they usually start squealing like the little mice they are, when an interrogator mentions "Gitmo". No wonder the International Red Cross, the National Council of Churches and the French keep protesting about the place. They know it has proven to be very effective in keeping several hundred real fanatical psychopaths in check and very frankly would rather see them cut loose to go kill some more GIs or innocent Americans, just to make W. look bad."

Read the whole thing. I trust this more than I do the BBC or CNN.

Uday and Qusay Hussein are dead. Leftists all over the world are mourning the loss of these two poor victims of U.S. imperial aggression.

Wow. Could it be true? Fox News is saying "that it seems that there is a likelyhood that Uday and Qusay were killed in a gunfight in Mosul today."

It's unconfirmed and we all know how these sort of wild rumors have flown the past few months, but Fox News is reporting it.

Al-Jazeera and CNN are reporting something similar. We'll know shortly if we got them or not.

Here's the Fox News story.

I have nothing to add to this Best of the Web entry (scroll down to The Left's Tortured Logic) in the Opinion Journal. It speaks for itself:

"This is the place where in the 1990s Hanna was hung from a rod and beaten with a special stick when she called out for Jesus or the Virgin Mary. This is where she and other female prisoners were dragged outside and tied to a dead tree trunk, nicknamed "Walid" by the guards, and raped in the shadow of palm trees. This is the place where electric shock was applied to Hanna's vagina. And this is where in February 2001 someone put a bullet in her husband's head and handed his corpse through the steel gate like a piece of butcher's meat."

As Adam Wolfson points out in National Review Online, liberal Democrats have to torture logic in order to justify their indifference to the torture of Iraqis like Jumana Hanna:

In the 1990s, liberal Democrats joined the international Left in support of the idea of "humanitarian war." Having watched international organizations and the liberal democracies stand idly by as genocide was wrought in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, liberals rallied behind the notion of using the armed forces of nation-states not to further the national interests of particular states--the classical understanding of the uses of state power--but for humanitarian, altruistic ends.

Now those same Democrats are complaining that the national-security justifications for liberating Iraq were phony. They're wrong, of course, but if they actually believe what they're saying, they should be all the more supportive of the war. "By their own political principles, the less threat Iraq posed to the United States, the more reason there was to wage humanitarian war," notes Wolfson. "So, just who is deceiving whom?"

Sunday, July 20, 2003

President Bush is marginalizing the NAACP in much the same way he's marginalizing Yasser Arafat.

When the NAACP held it's convention last week President Bush was nowhere to be found and now it's being reported that Bush will speak to the National Urban League convention.

Bush's strategy seems to be to force the NAACP to be more inclusive and tolerant of other (conservative) ideas or face further marginalization. If the NAACP refuses to change and continues in it's attack dog intolerance to any thought other than the prescribed Democratic line then they will be further marginalized by Republicans. In other words, the NAACP is withering. It's dying a slow death because it's a highly intolerant and closed minded organization. It's a dinosaur. It refuses to allow conservative ideas and President Bush is right to distance himself from the hatefilled rhetoric that comes from that organization.

I've said this before and I'm saying it again: The biggest problem the black community faces is the lack of political diversity. You cannot be a Republican and be in the NAACP. You can't be a Republican and be in the Congressional Black Caucus. All those organizations want to hear are the same old tired ideas they repeat to each other every day at every meeting: more money and more government control.

The NAACP has grown stagnant because it refuses to grow. It's become a secondary consideration for Republicans. Why should they care what the NAACP thinks when we all know that the NAACP is not going to even consider what we have to say. They have closed their minds and it's pointless to even try to discuss things with them. They don't want to hear what anyone has to say. The issues aren't open to debate. They want more money, preferences based on skin color, and governmental control and regulation. As long as you believe that, you are welcome to speak to the NAACP. If not, get the f*** out.