Mark, it took me 2 seconds to find a Washington Post story that reports these soldiers were beheaded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

Do you have the entire email for us to read?

Beheaded and tortured, I should say.

Beheaded and tortured, I should say.

You hit the nail on the head, Mark. You can deconstruct any particular article and it may appear completely factual and neutral. But if you step back and look at what stories are flogged to within an inch of their lives, that's where it becomes crystal clear how biased the media really is.

Mark,

Why are you drawing equivalence between the actions of US troops and the actions of insurgents/ terrorists? You speak as if these are just two political parties, Democrats and Republicans, deserving of the exact same treatment. This is absolutely ridiculous and offensive to me as an American. Of course American actions are held to a higher standard, we have the most honorable and professional fighting force on the face of the planet! Of course the atrocities of terrorists are not highlighted, they are pretty common, are they not? As you say nearly every day, these insurgents are evil. Evil actions then are not surprising or very newsworthy.

Frankly, I'm glad our troops are held to a high standard of conduct. (One which the vast majority of our troops meet or exceed.) I'm also quite appalled that you would so cavalierly dismiss this standard in service of your political party. Party before country truly is disgusting.

Mark

That's nothing, check this out. The Republican candidate gets his money from "special interest groups" but the democrat gets his from "outside groups." That actually had me laughing out loud.

Found it at Newsbusters

Beheaded and brutally tortured you should have said. I think Barbara Ledeen should fire that intern on the spot. It probably was a spoof-intern, intent on making Barbara ridiculous, and it worked.

cj, I can see how funny that is. "outside groups" are "special interest groups" by another name. If you can't see the spin here you have to be intentionally blind to it. LOL

And of course, Haditha isn't only the massacre of 24 Iraqis, including 11 women and children. It's also a cover-up story. And a reference point for the three ongoing investigations.

"It isn't a matter of not wanting bad news to be published - but it is a matter of the bad news being endlessly highlighted, while news which might make Americans feel good about our war effort, or outraged at enemy action, is downplayed." --MN

Gee Mark, maybe the nation is feeling bad about the war not because the WaPo prints news about the razing of a city or the possible war-crimes of our soldiers, but because it was a bad idea from square-one, and after 3 years of daily death and destruction we have said, "Enough!"

If you wish to believe that it's all a big media conspiracy, then maybe you and Mrs. Clinton should get together for some brainstorming sessions on exactly where the conspiracy exists, is it the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" or the "Vast left-wing conspiracy" LOL

Just for kicks, I did a key word search for "Menchaca" on the "conservative" Washington Times site and the "liberal" Washington Post site. Here are the results:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/archive/index.htm?cof=GALT%3A385A6B%3BDIV%3A5F5F5F%3BVLC%3A5F5F5F%3BALC%3A385A6B%3BLC%3A385A6B%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%3BFORID%3A11%3B&sitesearch=www.washingtontimes.com&client=pub-9012993659965611&channel=&domains=www.washingtontimes.com&q=Menchaca&sa.x=6&sa.y=7

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=Menchaca&

"It isn't a matter of not wanting bad news to be published - but it is a matter of the bad news being endlessly highlighted, while news which might make Americans feel good about our war effort, or outraged at enemy action, is downplayed."

Mark,
Did you ever think that it may not be going so well in Iraq and that there isn't alot of good news to report? Yes, they had elections, which is great. Yes, they are forming a government, which is great. All of which has been reported over and over again. Just yesterday the Iraqi PM stated that Iraq is on the verge of civil war and if drastic measures are not taken the country will fall. There are alot of news articles highlighting our triumphs that make me feel proud to be an American. Making us feel 'good' about the war effort is not objective reporting. That would be biased.

Should we downplay the fact that a few american soldiers commited atrocities? As steve said, we are held to higher standards so it needs to be reported and no it shouldn't be downplayed.

Mark, since Tom is computer challenged is there any way you can fix his link? Just because he can't figure out how to create the link in the content of his comment shouldn't mean he should be able to get away with screwing up the board.

CJ

Being computer challenged myself, I also, would like to know how to create a link in the content of my comments. Would you be so kind as to enlighten us illerates? Thank you so much.

William van Oranje, just because the military does not immediately inform the MSM of an alleged massacre does not make it a "cover up." I believe the military was already investigating the tragedy. The military has no obligation to immediately inform the MSM of everything that is going on. It does have an obligation to investigate incidences, if you will, and prosecute if their has been a war crime committed. It would be a cover up if the military tried to sweep it under the rug as if it had not happened. They where not seeping this under the rug.

KttR,

The military initally bought into the story. It took an investigation by TIME for them to readdress the issue. When a platoon of soldiers claims that the death of 24 people was, what it was not (IED vs. bullet to the head of a woman and child in praying positions) then I believe that fits the term "cover-up" about as much as it possibly can.

"The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq completed a review Friday of an investigation into a possible cover-up of the alleged Marine killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in the western town of Haditha."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13758518/

"A simple US military statement hinted at the bloody chain of events which the attack started - though subsequent scrutiny showed it to be far from the truth.

It said: "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha.

"Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5033648.stm

The left-wing media is certainly biased. So is this blog, like it or not.

Last week you posted the new jobs that have been created, I think 121,000 in the last quarter. Your bias was that, although you mentioned that the unemployment rate is today lower than the past four decades' average (which is to your advantage), you did not mention that the unemployment rate (percentage of people unemployed) remains unchanged. You left that data out.

Mark, is this the entire email or letter you received from Leeden?

I'd like to know if it's you or her who's being dishonest.

Again Mark, don't blame the media. Blame the corporate world that owns most of the major news outlets. They are only interested in satisfying their shareholders, and frankly bad news sells a whole lot better than good news.

When this country, en masse, finds all war distasteful and immoral, perhaps we can begin to print "feel good" news about our Peace efforts. For that to happen the Left needs to become the driving force in America. Peace

Maybe if we didn't CREATE so much bad news in Iraq, there wouldn't be so much to report....
..... maybe ?

Ash, could you please stop lying? Just once tell the truth? To prove your lie here is the chart for the past year for the New York Times stock. As you can see, far left wing Sultzberger could care less about his shareholders.

For all you intellectually challenged liberals here is a link on how to provide said link in your comments.

Ash, did you know that the Chairman of Disney (which owns ABC) is former moonbat senator democrat George Mitchell? Man, where do these intellectually vacant kooks come from?

CJ,

First off, ALL newspapers are losing market share to new media, such as Blogs and online-news sites.

NBC/GE: Bob Wright; Republican
FOX: Roger Ailes; uber-Republican; Scientologist
WaPo: Donald E. Graham; Republican
CNN/Time Warner: Richard Parsons; Republican
CBS/Viacom: Sumner Redstone; "Democrat who supports Bush"

i would ask you to also check out the Board members of all these media companies, and see that a VAST majority of them are also Republicans and Republican-Boosters. The simple fact is that big business is ALWAYS republican, because it is the Pachys who favor less taxes on corporate america.

CJ: What Third Eye Open said.

Although things can be much worse at privately owned newspapers like the Santa Barbara Press News. A new owner, the extremely wealthy Wendy McCaw, despite no journalistic backgroud began micro managing the newsroom. A full scale walkout ensued, and the community has lost experienced professionals that know the community.

Santa Barbara Press News

BTW CJ, thanks for the link to hypertext. I am so humbled by your intellect. It takes a real giant to cut and paste.

TEO,

The alleged incident at Haditha may or may not be true - but the brutal torture and murder of our two soldiers is definitely true. The question being asked, since you seem unwilling to figure it out on your own, is why does the MSM flog to death a thus-far unsubstantiated allegation against our troops, while barely reporting on a brutal murder of our troops?

I'm trying to be generous here - there are a lot of ways I could describe what your willful blindness on this amounts to, but I refrain...

Mark, man bites dog is not news. Dog bites man is.

As was eluded to, we hold our soldiers to the highest standards in the world (and it is a very tough job). Americans are not supposed to act in the way those at Haditha are accussed of, or those who have been charged with the rape of a girl and murder of her family (among other charges against military personel in Iraq).

That being said, there is still a lot of coverage on what was done to these the two US soldiers.

If you look at the link to the washington post search I did, you'll see MANY stories on the killing, torture and beheading of those two soldiers, including at least 1 before the date that she said there was none.

Basically, the premise of this post is false.

"Mark, man bites dog is not news. Dog bites man is."

Uh, i mean the other way around.

Third eye open, obviously you have no clue to who the CEO of GE is. It's democrat Jeffrey Immelt. Oh, and Donald E Graham is a far left wing democrat following in his mothers moonbat footsteps. Lying doesn't do you any good

Tom,

There are 149 hits about Haditha in the WaPo, 7 about our murdered soldiers...this isn't just "man bites dog" reporting, this is clear evidence of massive anti-American bias in news reporting - and even if it were "man bites dog", it isn't every day of the week that US troops are captured and then tortured and murdered...shouldn't there be, oh, 30 or so stories in the WaPo about the incident?

You're desperately twisting 'round here trying to find no bias where there is clear bias...why don't you just drop it and admit that I'm right on this one?

Just came across a column from the Providence newspaper. It pretty well argues against your conspiracy theories Mark:

one could say that Bush owes his continued occupancy of the White House to the Gray Lady of American journalism. Above and beyond Judith Miller's and Howell Raines's front-page amplifications of administration lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, The Times's timely self-censorship proved essential to Bush's re-election campaign. Had the "paper of record" recorded the existence of the National Security Agency's warrantless (and unconstitutional) wiretapping program before the 2004 election -- instead of sitting on the story for more than a year -- we could very well be debating President John Kerry's equivocations on Iraq, rather than President Bush's incessant blather about staying the course.

First of all Mark, Haditha has been a "story" longer, has MUCH more controversy surrounding it, has three seperate investigations (which means there will be more new information to report on) and is just larger scale inherently (involves civilians, women and children and more victims). All this in addition to the fact that it is US troops accused of misconduct, which is reflects on every citizen in this nation, as well as effects our efforts in Iraq. It's simply a bigger story.

That's not to say the other story isn't. And it HAS been thoroughly reported on by the Washington Post. The letter you cite is simply WRONG. Either you were duped or are being dishonest here.

Also, did you look at the search of the Washington Times site vs. the Washington Post site? Looks to me like there's a CONSERVATIVE media biased.

Your argument in this thread is laughable.

"7 about our murdered soldiers..."

Try 34 in three weeks. I love it when guys who consistantly bash the media are so wrong on basic facts that take 2 seconds to check out.

CJ said: "Ash, did you know that the Chairman of Disney (which owns ABC) is former moonbat senator democrat George Mitchell? Man, where do these intellectually vacant kooks come from?"

That's kind of old news, don't you think? Mitchell's toast. But if it comes as any consolation, I have no idea what Jack Pepper's affiliations are. And while this may be to you the epitomy of heresy to you, you know what? I don't care, as long as he's competent.

Wouldn't it be nice if competence counted more than ideology?

"Somewhere over the rainbow..." LOL!!

I said: "And while this may be to you the epitomy of heresy to you..."

I suppose I should point out that I have appointed myself the Departmental Chairman of the Department of the Redundancy Department of my new political party.

I said: "And while this may be to you the epitomy of heresy to you..."

I suppose I should point out that I have appointed myself the Departmental Chairman of the Department of the Redundancy Department of my new political party.

Man, if this shows up twice it will be SOOO hysterical.

THREE TIMES!! YAY!!

CJ,

Sorry, I stand corrected, Bob Wright is the Vice Chairman and an executive officer of GE, he is the head of NBC Universal, which is the news division, It doesn't change the fact that Immelt is a Republican aswell.

Donald Graham may have had a liberal mother, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans, Reagan's son is a flaming lefty, so that pretty much shoots your theory of lib-by-association/birth in the foot, now doesn't it? Secondly, this "far left-wing democrat" as you say, is throwing parties at the '04 Republican National Convention and runs the WaPo, which by no means has a liberal editorial stance [Novak, Krauthammer, Will] and don't forget that Hiatt, the uber-conservative Editorial page editor, reports directly to Graham.

Mark,

Because selacious stories sell newspapers (please don't act surprised about this).

Could it also be that the American public knows that men sent off to war may be killed, or worse; And when we are talking about the pride of the American military possibly going on a killing rampage out of retribution, that strikes a morbid fascination in all humans?

Was it a partisan act of the MSM to report so heavily on 'Black Hawk Down'? Was it a partisan move to make a movie out of it and then release it immediately after 9/11?

Media outlets report what the people want to read, just as TV producers make shows that people want to see; And in both of these instances the idea of a world super-power's army possibly murdering a couple dozen innocent people is more shocking than the brutal deaths of men who are made to die. Ask Murdoch why COPS and "When large, scary animals attack unsuspecting tourists" sold so well for him for 20 years...we (America) are a bunch of sick little puppies, what can I say?

So lets see. When 1/100th of 1 percent of our troops (about 50 out of the 500,000 who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan) act outside of the standards of conduct for the United States Armed Forces it makes front page news on every newspaper, is the subject of the morning talk shows for months, and the blame is placed on the President and the SecDec. But when the other 99.99% perform admirably, ther is little or no mention in the MSM.

When an isolated event occurs that might involve mis-conduct by US person, there are countless stories throughout the MSM. But when 100% of those we are fighting in Iraq commit war crimes, daily acts of murder and torture, bomb Iraqi Police Stations, and basically act like the scum they are, there is no wide-spread comdemnation by the MSM, the left, or Muslims. Instead, the left places the blame for "inciting" the terrorists to commit IED attacks, suicide bombings, beheadings, and murder on our presence in Iraq.

When will you liberals come out in favor of spreading freedom throughout the world? I thought that was one of your guiding principles. Why don't you condemn the actions of the terrorists? Why do you continually blame the US for the actions of the murdering terrorist scum?

The terrorists in Iraq are not "freedom fighters", as you liberals have claimed. The US and other Coalition forces are there fighting and dying for the average Iraqi's freedom. The terrorists are not "insurgents". The terrorists are doing everything they can to stop the spread of freedom and democracy. They do not have the good of the Iraqi people in mind. They are fighting to return to the days of Saddam. And you liberals are helping them by not condemning them and by condemning the Bush Administration.

Sure, if it bleeds, it leads. But how many of the bombings, murders, and beheadings have occurred because the terrorists know that it will be the lead story on the 6:00 news? They could have just as easily simply murdered the two US service members. But they didn't, they beheaded them, after they had tortured them. And we don't mean depriving them of sleep, playing loud music, or subjecting them to agressive questioning. We mean real torture: cutting off fingers and toes, applying electrodes where electrodes shouldn't be placed, breaking bones, etc. They did this because they knew it would provide additional fuel for the anti-war (or rather anti-freedom in Iraq), anti-American, anti-Bush liberals and the MSM. And they were right. You have been useful idiots for the terrorists once again.

Don't you think that if the MSM was honest and didn't have an agenda (that of either ending the War on Terror, or bringing down the President, or both) and told both sides of the Iraqi story, we would see a different timeline of events in Iraq? If the MSM told the world about the 1000's of projects that have been completed, the hundreds of school that have been built or re-built, the hospitals that have been built or re-built, the infrastructure that has been built or re-built, the 100's of thousands of children that have been vacinated, the newspapers, radio and TV stations, and magazines that are flourshing, and everything else positive that is happening in Iraq on a daily basis, don't you think that would help convince the terrorists that they are fighting a losing battle?

You want US forces out of Iraq? Then you should have showed your support for the War on Terror in general, and specifically the war in Iraq, and we would have finished the job by now. It is your anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush rantings and ravings that have prolonged the War on Terror.

Why does the MSM and the left think that they have to be opposed to the Administration? Why can't the MSM work with the Administration to help with the War on Terror? Why can't liberals help with the War on Terror? And pulling out before the job of preparing the Iraqi government and people to stand on its own is done, is not helping with the War on Terror.

If you were to go back to 2000 and look at the Middle East and compare it to now, you would be amazed (I know, there is still a long way to do, but significant progress has been made). You would see:

In 2000 the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. They were an active supporter of world-wide terrorism. The population was being suppressed. Women were all wearing burkas, under the threat of death. Now, there is a democratically elected government in Afghanistan. The Taliban is no longer supporting terrorism in a meaningful way. Women and girls are attending schools, working, and serving as elected officials.

In 2000, Saddam was murdering 30,000 Iraqis each year. People were being fed alive to dogs and into plastic shredders. He was in material breach of the Cease-Fire and UN Resolutions. He was harboring, training, and financing world-wide terrorism. He was skimming billions off the UN Oil-for-Food program. His forces were firing, almost daily, and US and UK aircraft patroling the No-Fly zones. Now, Iraq is no longer a supporter of terrorism. The Iraqi government will not be providing WMD to terrorists. Three democratic elections have been held. A new constitution has been created and voted upon.

In 2000, Libya was persuing WMD. Now, they have dis-avowed WMD and have allowed UN inspectors in to certify the destruction of their old WMD programs.

In 2000, Pakistan and India were both flexing their nuclear muscles. Pakistan was also a supporter of terrorism. Now, the Pakistanis and Indians no longer are threatening each other with nuclear destruction and Pakistan is a ally on the War on Terror. Other Middle East nations are moving slowly towards providing greater freedoms to their peoples.

In 2000, Al-Qaeda cells were operating through out the world, unchecked. Now, over 75% of Al-Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. Thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured. Terrorist cells have been disrupted, broken up, or captured throughout the world. Terrorist plans have been discovered and attacks have been prevented (no thanks to the NYT).

Why have all these things happened? Was it because the liberals have been pushing a foreign policy to spread freedom and liberty throughout the world? Was it because the liberals have thrown down the gauntlet and have taken the fight to the terrorists, rather than have the terrorists attack us again and again? Was it because of the liberal policy to wait until after a horrific suicide attack and then conduct a criminal investigation to determine who planned and conducted the attack (hint: It was probably the Islamist-Fascists whose body parts you found)?Was it because the liberals have been attacking the Bush Administration daily with false, fabricated, and phony accusations? Was it because the MSM has worked hand in hand with the Administration to showcase the successes in fighting the War on Terror? Was it because the liberals believe that appeasment is a viable foreign policy (it worked great with Hitler)? Was it because the liberals belive that the US is the root cause of everything evil in the world and if we would just try to understand those who have vowed to kill us, they might change their mind? Was it because the NYT and the rest of the MSM realized that we were in the midst of a Global War on Terror and classified government programs to track terrorist communications and financial transactions should not be broadcast the the world?

Enquiring minds want to know.

"Liberalism and it's corrupt message is why millions have turned away from the mainstream media. Fallows' worst fear, with an implicit reference to Nazi Germany, is that a public estranged from the press is also disengaged from the intitutions and newsmakers that journalists cover and will understandably look inside the system for both information and leadership, whether to a Rush Limbaugh or a Ross Perot or worse, might have already happened. Given what is controlling the minds of the population now, could turning off Brokaw and company in favor of Limbaugh, be such a bad idea now?

.........and liberals to this day continue the onslaught to this day of attacks against Rush!!

.........and many more examples of how liberalism distorts the TRUTH!!

...........i,e.

The Media's treatment of abortion can serve as an illustration of the lack of balance in major media today. In his book, The Press and Abortion, 1838-1988, Marvin Olasky argued that aggressive news coverage of the abortion industry combined with crusading anti-abortion editorials, contributed strengthening of abortion laws throughout the United States in the 1870's. Abortion opponents have grave concerns that media support for abortion rights will make it nearly impossible to reaffirm those laws once again. Part of the problem is that the dominant media has treated all pro-lifers alike, lumping the few extrimests who have killed together with the millions of peaceful and prayerful witnesses to the evils of abortion. They have never attempted to understand the grass opposition to abortion, patently dismissing it as the futile excercise of religious fanatics!!

The abortion issue demonstrates the liberal bias of the mainstream media. The abortion lobby's allies in the gay rights and environmental movements all have received strong and consistent
support from the media in fostering their left-wing agendas on the benighted American public. Had the press been more honest and curious about these issues, the country would not be in the social and intellectual disorder it now finds itself. The press has historically been the guardian of the truth. Attracted to the enlightened agenda of liberalism and the fame attendent it, journalists has sold out the integrity of their profession. Today, too many of them are no more than the sorrid promoters of a twisted and outdated ideology that threatens to bring the walls of American civilization tumbling down like a MODERN JERRICO!!!!!

NO GROUP!!! is more vulnerable and unprotected than the unborn!!!!!"

Jeremiah

“When 1/100th of 1 percent of our troops (about 50 out of the 500,000 who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan) act outside of the standards of conduct for the United States Armed Forces it makes front page news on every newspaper, is the subject of the morning talk shows for months, and the blame is placed on the President and the SecDec”

--That there are men willing to risk years in prison, rather than fight what they see as an illegal war, is the PRECISE reason they are sought after by the media. What you want seems to be the media to scorn these guys for their decision to follow their morals.

“When an isolated event occurs that might involve mis-conduct by US person, there are countless stories throughout the MSM. But when 100% of those we are fighting in Iraq commit war crimes, daily acts of murder and torture, bomb Iraqi Police Stations, and basically act like the scum they are, there is no wide-spread comdemnation by the MSM, the left, or Muslims.”

--When an occupying force engages in sadistic fun with naked pyramids, or the possible vengeance killing of 2 dozen people, those facts tend not to be overlooked by the “civil society” they are wrought from. Do you expect every story about a car-bombing or senseless sectarian violence to be ended with: “The editor’s furiously condemn the actions mentioned”?

“When will you liberals come out in favor of spreading freedom throughout the world?”

--When has pre-emptive war been synonymous with “spreading freedom”?

“Sure, if it bleeds, it leads. But how many of the bombings, murders, and beheadings have occurred because the terrorists know that it will be the lead story on the 6:00 news?”

--I don’t know, can you gaze into your magical crystal ball and tell me? How many terrorist acts have been committed in East Africa even though they don’t get so much as a shrug from western media?

“If the MSM told the world about the 1000's of projects that have been completed, the hundreds of school that have been built or re-built, the hospitals that have been built or re-built, the infrastructure that has been built or re-built, the 100's of thousands of children that have been vacinated, the newspapers, radio and TV stations, and magazines that are flourshing, and everything else positive that is happening in Iraq on a daily basis, don't you think that would help convince the terrorists that they are fighting a losing battle?”

--First off, if these guys are willing to strap a bomb to their chest, what makes you think they give two craps about whether “Pinch” is printing feel-good stories about a water treatment plant opening, or 30,000 new blackboards? Maybe if we stop reporting on gang-murders they will see the light, and stop all the shenanigans.

Secondly, the only way to stop the violence, and not create more pissed of locals is to get the locals themselves to point out the foreign fighters. But right now they are just a little busy trying not to get kidnapped and killed by the other religious sect or the militia-infiltrated police, or the almost daily ‘whoops’ killings by freaked-out American soldiers; I mean it’s kinda hard to trust the guys who are just as liable to shoot you for getting within 500 ft. of a convoy, as they are to stop a murder spree by teenage gunmen.

“You want US forces out of Iraq? Then you should have showed your support for the War on Terror in general, and specifically the war in Iraq, and we would have finished the job by now. It is your anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush rantings and ravings that have prolonged the War on Terror.”

--Funny, I thought it was the influx of foreign fighters, and the degeneration of the society into civil war that was keeping us there; funny how stuff like that slips the mind.

“Why does the MSM and the left think that they have to be opposed to the Administration? Why can't the MSM work with the Administration to help with the War on Terror? Why can't liberals help with the War on Terror?”

--Last I checked, the media was supposed to keep the government in check, not subdue the masses when the locals get pissed-off about a protracted, open-ended engagement costing a half a trillion dollars and our respect on the world stage.

“Women were all wearing burkas, under the threat of death. Now, there is a democratically elected government in Afghanistan. The Taliban is no longer supporting terrorism in a meaningful way. Women and girls are attending schools, working, and serving as elected officials.”

--We have put them on the back burner, the Taliban is regrouping, the country now has democratically elected warlords, and women are still being beaten and killed for not wearing their burkas and attempting to go to school, and the women in the government are threatened constantly.

“In 2000, Saddam was murdering 30,000 Iraqis each year. People were being fed alive to dogs and into plastic shredders. He was in material breach of the Cease-Fire and UN Resolutions. He was harboring, training, and financing world-wide terrorism. He was skimming billions off the UN Oil-for-Food program. His forces were firing, almost daily, and US and UK aircraft patroling the No-Fly zones. Now, Iraq is no longer a supporter of terrorism. The Iraqi government will not be providing WMD to terrorists. Three democratic elections have been held. A new constitution has been created and voted upon.”

--Funny how there is more terrorists in Iraq today than in 2000. Good job

“Pakistan was also a supporter of terrorism.”

--Have we forgotten that the western border provinces are still a major way-point and safe-haven for terrorists, because of the lack of control Musharaf has over the warlords there? How about the fact that our buddy is one of them un-democratically elected generals who has his focus set on a lifetime appointment. I guess we can live with the lesser of two evils, right?

“In 2000, Al-Qaeda cells were operating through out the world, unchecked. Now, over 75% of Al-Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. Thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured. Terrorist cells have been disrupted, broken up, or captured throughout the world. Terrorist plans have been discovered and attacks have been prevented”

--You would think this would slow them down, but terrorism is up four-fold since 2000. There must have been a sale on suicide belts.

Why has the world seen a glut of terrorism since our invasion of Iraq? Was it because this administration feels it is ok to invade nations at its own pleasure? Is it because this administration feels that enforcing democracy by any means necessary is how to win hearts and minds? Is it because we have alienated the moderate muslim/arab so much that their other option just doesn’t seem that bad in comparison? Is it because we constantly call the rest of the world ‘spineless’ and appeasers? Is it because we have had our hands in the affairs of the ME, and have allowed the ascension of these tyrants, and subsequent de-humanization of their people? Is it the constantly morphing reasons for our invasion?

Inquiring minds, indeed, want to know.

Ash,

Had the NY Times leaked the NSA's signals intelligence program before the election, President Bush would have just won with a larger marjority.

Tom,

Is that 34 in WaPo, or 34 all together? And even if 34 in WaPo, that pales by more than a factor of 4 vis a vis the bogus Haditha story.

TEO,

Haditha is only controversial on the anti-American left side of the aisle...those of us who don't walk around with hate-Bush blinders on see it for what it is: a phonied up story served up by enemy propagandists and swallowed eagerly by dimwits on the left.

This is your MSM. This is your MSM with a side of hard left liberal bias. Any questions?

34 in the Washington Post. The Washington Times (in which this Ledeen woman has been published) had 1.

Mark, is this the entire email or letter you were sent? If you, you've been misled. Specifically here:

"When I put in a search for the names of the 2 soldiers plus the word "torture" nothing came up. The last of the 7 was published on 6/28/06."

As I said before, it took me about 2 seconds to find this:

"Caldwell declined to describe the condition of the soldiers' bodies, saying it would be "inappropriate until I know what the families were told." He said it was clear that the soldiers had died of wounds suffered in captivity, rather than at the site of the attack on the checkpoint, but that the cause of death could not be immediately determined.

According to residents of Yusufiya and a relative of one of the victims, the soldiers were beheaded. An Iraqi official said they had been brutally tortured before their death, but provided no further details."

I suppose now you're going to criticize the Times for reporting they were tortured before the army knew what the families were told, eh?

Mark,

you mean it's only not controversial to the small sect of the American public who are beyond reality. On the other hand, the other 99% of the people in the world who are aware of it seem to think otherwise. I would reccomend you take off whatever blinders you currently have on, and read some international papers.

"That there are men willing to risk years in prison, rather than fight what they see as an illegal war, is the PRECISE reason they are sought after by the media."

That's completely out of left field. I was talking about the Abu Ghraib and Haditha incidents.

"When has pre-emptive war been synonymous with “spreading freedom”?"

When 50,000,000 people have been freed from tyrany and are now being given the chance to decide their future. But you are blind to this.

"I don’t know, can you gaze into your magical crystal ball and tell me? How many terrorist acts have been committed in East Africa even though they don’t get so much as a shrug from western media?"

No, I can't. I asked you. And what difference does the situation in East Africa have to do with the situation in Iraq?

"First off, if these guys are willing to strap a bomb to their chest, what makes you think they give two craps about whether “Pinch” is printing feel-good stories about a water treatment plant opening, or 30,000 new blackboards?"

It isn't the suicide bomber who is playing the MSM and the liberals as fools, it is the terrorist leaders. They are the ones who care the "Pinch" will emphasize the terrorist attacks and downplay the progress that is being made. They are the ones who are counting on "Pinch" and his accomplices in the MSM to try to undermine the War on Terror.

"Secondly, the only way to stop the violence, and not create more pissed of locals is to get the locals themselves to point out the foreign fighters."

Which is happening on a daily basis. Try talking to someone who had been there, rather than getting your talking points from DU or Kos.

"or the almost daily ‘whoops’ killings by freaked-out American soldiers"

So we have a couple of incidents and now the killings are "almost daily". Nice projection.

"Funny, I thought it was the influx of foreign fighters, and the degeneration of the society into civil war that was keeping us there; funny how stuff like that slips the mind."

My point is that there would not have been an influx of foreign fighters if the world and the liberals were united behind the President in the War on Terror. Disagree all you want about domestic issues, but when it comes to our national security and fighting a movement that has vowed to convert, subjugate, or kill all infidels, if were were united, terrorism would fail. The left is the one causing the division, not the right or the President.

"We have put them on the back burner, the Taliban is regrouping, the country now has democratically elected warlords, and women are still being beaten and killed for not wearing their burkas and attempting to go to school, and the women in the government are threatened constantly."

With 22,000 troops still in Afghanistan actively pursuing terrorists, I would hardly call that "on the back burner". So there society isn't perfect. Yet. It only took us seven years to get a Constitution.

"Funny how there is more terrorists in Iraq today than in 2000. Good job"

Thank you. We've lured them to a central location so we can kill or capture them. Better to fight them in their backyard than ours.

"terrorism is up four-fold since 2000"

Is this another of your facts pulled out of your fourth point of contact? Cite please.

I'll answer your list of questions once you have answered mine. Once again, you have reverted, true to form, to your standard ploy: dodge the questions by any means possible.

"Thank you. We've lured them to a central location so we can kill or capture them. Better to fight them in their backyard than ours."

Uh, isn't the standard line 'we're there to give freedom to the iraqi people?

How bout this for the next Iraqi poll:

Are you for or against being used as a giant piece of flypaper for terrorists? Better your country than the America, right?

TS,

We are there to give freedom to the Iraqi people. But when the terrorists came in in an attempt to stop the spread of freedom, we took the opportunity to kill or capture as many of them as we can.

How bout this for the next Iraqi poll:

"Would you rather live under the Saddam regime where 30,000 of you will be tortured or murdered each year. Or live in a free Iraq where you can determine your own destiny.

Now it make take a few more year to get to the point that the terrorist will give up on stopping the spread of freedom, but that won't deter us.

Why is it that every liberal that posts here and elsewhere is so opposed to allowing the Iraqis the chance to enjoy freedom and liberty? Is it becuase you had nothing to do with the decision to free Iraq from Saddam, even though President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998? Is it because it looks like Iraq will succeed in becoming a democracy, and you thought it couldn't happen? Is it because you were wrong and you refuse to swallow your pride and admit the path taken by President Bush was right? Why is it?

TS,

We are there to give freedom to the Iraqi people. But when the terrorists came in in an attempt to stop the spread of freedom, we took the opportunity to kill or capture as many of them as we can.

How bout this for the next Iraqi poll:

"Would you rather live under the Saddam regime where 30,000 of you will be tortured or murdered each year. Or live in a free Iraq where you can determine your own destiny.

Now it make take a few more year to get to the point that the terrorist will give up on stopping the spread of freedom, but that won't deter us.

Why is it that every liberal that posts here and elsewhere is so opposed to allowing the Iraqis the chance to enjoy freedom and liberty? Is it because you had nothing to do with the decision to free Iraq from Saddam, even though President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998? Is it because it looks like Iraq will succeed in becoming a democracy, and you thought it couldn't happen? Is it because you were wrong and you refuse to swallow your pride and admit the path taken by President Bush was right? Why is it?

A-10,

"When 50,000,000 people have been freed from tyrany and are now being given the chance to decide their future. But you are blind to this."

--So we no longer need to worry about silly llittle things like sovereignty, just as long as the end justifies the means...I think Hitler would agree with you.

"No, I can't. I asked you. And what difference does the situation in East Africa have to do with the situation in Iraq?

--If you don't know what the intentions and motivators of terrorists are, then how could you have made such a stupid statement?
The point about East Africa is that there are huge amounts of terrorists attacks there, yet we don't hear about them, so that kinda blows up your theory about AQ doing what they do to get on the 6pm news.

"It isn't the suicide bomber who is playing the MSM and the liberals as fools, it is the terrorist leaders. They are the ones who care the "Pinch" will emphasize the terrorist attacks and downplay the progress that is being made. They are the ones who are counting on "Pinch" and his accomplices in the MSM to try to undermine the War on Terror."

--Your assertion was that if the cannon fodder knew about all the wonderful rebuilding we were doing that they wouldn't be blowing themselves up. What proof do you have of this? It seems to be in direct contention with the reality of the world, which is that crazy people can convince other people to do just about anything. In Afghanistan during the 70's, the Russians controlled ALL the media outlets, yet people still flocked there to fight them.

"Which is happening on a daily basis. Try talking to someone who had been there, rather than getting your talking points from DU or Kos."

--I stand corrected, it would have been better to say that the locals should be turning over the locals who are stoking the fires. The point is still relevant that the average citizen is scared to even turn a sour glare towards someone who might be in a militia, for fear of retribution.

"So we have a couple of incidents and now the killings are "almost daily". Nice projection."

--Are you blind? There are signs on EVERY American vehicle that states they will not hesitate to shoot if you get too close to their vehicles. Since 2003, there has been over 11,000 claims against the military for wrongful deaths that didn't occur due to combat situations.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA13Ak01.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/3474948.html

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/1139

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_060806S.shtml

--there are just a couple.

"My point is that there would not have been an influx of foreign fighters if the world and the liberals were united behind the President in the War on Terror. Disagree all you want about domestic issues, but when it comes to our national security and fighting a movement that has vowed to convert, subjugate, or kill all infidels, if were were united, terrorism would fail. The left is the one causing the division, not the right or the President."

--Can you show me where the mere act of a united country caused a guerilla insurgency to fail, or an entire fascist ideal to fail? Was the world united against Hitler enough to stop him, what about France in Vietnam, Britain in Malaysia or Northern Ireland? You're pretending that if they saw a united America that somehow that would convince them that it isn't worth the fight, that is conjecture at best.

"With 22,000 troops still in Afghanistan actively pursuing terrorists, I would hardly call that "on the back burner". So there society isn't perfect. Yet. It only took us seven years to get a Constitution."

--We could have actually had 150,000 troops there to secure the peace, root out the warlords, and protect the border, while sending a strong message to pakistan, instead we left them a skelaton crew which is not up to the job of protecting anything but Kabul...we have an isolated government which can barely function outside its walls, while the rest of the nation slips back into sectarian roles, class divisions, mysogiony, poppy cultivation, and harboring of tribe connected taliban remnants. Yes. Far from perfect.

"Thank you. We've lured them to a central location so we can kill or capture them. Better to fight them in their backyard than ours."

--So helping them to recruit new members is a win for you?

"Is this another of your facts pulled out of your fourth point of contact? Cite please."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7643286/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

--Feel free to watch the constant rise in the number of attacks since our invasion, and feel free to do your own searching regarding 2000-2003, the numbers speak for themselves.
I didn't answer your questions, because they are rhetorical at best, I didn't expect you to answer mine for the same reason, sorry to dissapoint.

Ashenine quotes a lefty rag's lies about an Administration program to .....prove something?

He was evidently very impressed by this:
" Had the "paper of record" recorded the existence of the National Security Agency's warrantless (and unconstitutional) wiretapping program..."

Yeah, except there was not one single wiretap, not one. The issue of constitutionality is one established by the Supreme Court of the United States, not by some podunk local "news"paper.

In other words, as usual, the neorads "research" their lies by looking up what other neorads have said.

Just as in every other neorad rant, the facts don't agree with the fever swamp hallucinations of the Left.

While there are some arguments about the constitutionality of the INTERCEPTS of INTERNATIONAL telephone calls which terminate within our borders (not wiretaps, not domestic spying) there is absolutely NO established court ruling saying that they are unconstitutional. There is more law on the side of the constutionality than on the other. The anti side is mostly personal opinion, while the constitutional side is based on court rulings going back decades.

The Constitution does not cover international or foreign surveillance. Funniest thing, but the Founding Fathers wrote their contstitution for OUR country.

And they realized that sometime in the future a president might be faced with situations they simply could not predict, so they went on to give him the authority to make some decisions on his own. Even some very liberal constitutional scholars have agreed that this is one of those situations.

One thing I have noticed is that you mouth-breathers have not come up with a way to actually GET a warrant on an previously unknown telephone number, which is assigned to a cell phone which will be used once and then discarded. How would YOU do that, Ash?

So given that absolute physical impossiblity, but faced with the absolute need to monitor terrorist communications, the Administration first consulted many legal authorities, and then set up a process in which INTERNATIONAL calls from terrorists which ended at phones present in the United States could be monitored, but then the content would have to be submitted to an oversight court for review. Then THIS plan was submitted to many Senators, who approved it.

Further, the use of such information would be strictly limited. It could not, for example, be used to arrest someone for stealing a car, or explosives. It could only be used to prevent that car from transporting those explosives to a place where they would be used as a car bomb to kill people.

But one wing of the Left lies and lies and lies, calling this "unconstitutional" and "illegal" and "wiretapping" and "domestic spying" and another wing of the Left demands OVERSIGHT. Oversight of what? Of whom? Of the court that is already providing oversight? As I have asked, who selects the overseers? Who oversees them? Who decides how many layers of oversight are necesary? Do you then agree to abide by the decisions of the overseers, or do you demand new overseers when they don't support your positions?

You are all so silly.

"I didn't answer your questions, because they are rhetorical at best, I didn't expect you to answer mine for the same reason, sorry to dissapoint."

Actually, I was looking for answers from you. I am not, however, dissapointed. I expected you to dodge answering any serious questions.