Dr Utopia Is Right About One Thing

You should read the Huffington-Puffington Post.

That way, you'll truly understand how twisted and evil the extreme left media outlets really are.

SEIU and Media Matters Lied? I'm SHOCKED!!!

Hit job: What Media Matters and the SEIU got wrong about Fortune’s Nina Easton

Last week, Nina Easton, the Washington editor of Fortune, wrote a column about the SEIU and National People's Action. The two progressive [Marxist] groups had sent roughly 500 protesters to Easton's Chevy Chase neighborhood on May 16th to picket the front yard of Bank of America's Greg Baer. Easton had just put her 2-year-old son down for a nap, and stepped outside to ask the protesters to quiet down. They didn't. Easton wrote a column. And now she's become the target of the SEIU and Media Matters for America.

Why? Because Easton, by "refusing" to disclose her husband's relationship with Bank
of America, was misleading her audience at Fortune, and the viewers of FOX News, where she commented on the protest. The only problem? There is no relationship between Easton's husband and Bank of America.

According to SEIU blogger John Vandeventer, “one Google search” reveals that Easton’s ”husband is Russell Schriefer, Republican strategist and consultant to several big corporate interest groups. In fact, her husband’s client list includes the Business Roundtable, a special interest group that counts Bank of America and other Wall Street banks among its members.” Media Matters’ Brian Frederick reprinted the same intel, citing Vandeventer. Both writers suggested that Easton had committed journalistic malpractice by not revealing her husband’s business doings.

But according to a source close to the family, both writers are wrong. Yes, Russell Schriefer worked with the Business Roundtable–once, during the 90s. And yes, he’s worked for the Chamber of Commerce, but not since 2006. Currently, his firm “primarily does media for Republican senate, governor and presidential candidates”–not Bank of America.

Read more:

Journalistic malpractice??? Thats rich!!!!

The Face of Courage

From Michelle's site this morning. I just found this:

I have never before written to express a political opinion in my life. I was skeptical but very interested in McCain’s VP pick. I hoped she would turn out to be the real thing and not just knee-jerk expression of gender politics.
I have two special needs children, (boys 4 and 2), and a 2-month-old daughter. I’m a lawyer and my wife is a doctor. This morning we watched Fox News’ recap of Palin’s speech as my wife breast-fed the baby and I fed the boys.
My wife has been appalled at the depths too which the reporters have sunk and the so-called women’s rights advocates who have attacked Palin’s choices.
I was struck by Palin’s Courage. I don’t say that lightly.
Here’s what happened: the media attacked a postpartum mother of a DS kid, who also has an unwed teen daughter who is pregnant. Thye attacked her at her weakest in her most vulnerable spot. They tried to humiliate, shame, and intimidate her before she ever took the podium. Palin looked like they never laid a glove on her. Wow. I think the message she sends is “don’t be afraid.”
Don’t be afraid of the media attack machine that has all but called you and your family every name in the book.
Don’t be afraid to face down the challenges that life throws you: Dr. tells you that your baby has DS. Don’t be afraid. When you have a kid with special needs you WILL meet a better class of people - the parents of those special needs kids for one - and the people - therapists, teachers, doctors - who devote their lives/carriers to help those kids. Oh by the way - what’s the bonus that comes with your special needs kid?
Lifelong unconditional love. So your kid isn’t going to be perfect. Okay, whose kid is?
Don’t be afraid to be a woman with kids and go to work every day.
Don’t be afraid to be a soccer mom and run for mayor with ZERO support against an incumbent to try and make your town better.
Don’t be afraid to succeed - don’t stop at your town improve your state. Run for Governor and win.
Teenage daughter gets pregnant. What to do now? Erase the mistake? Hide? Get out of politics? Or teach your kids the toughest but most important lesson of all: that decisions have consequences. If you make a bad decision, you don’t run away from it. You face it. You face it. Not alone, but with your family standing right next to you. What do you want to teach your kids: the easy way out or moral courage? You teach your kids what real courage is by example. (My God, her father must be a very proud man today.)
Michelle, tell your kids that’s what courage looks like. Michelle, you tell America that this is what courage looks like. Between McCain and Palin, these may be the two toughest people we have ever nominated.
I donated to McCain today. For the first time.

Marcus Lutrell: Telling it straight

Marcus Lutrell, former Navy SEAL, whose book, Lone Survivor, tells his story and that of his fallen brothers in Afganistan, speaking at the NRA convention in May.

We need to thank God that there are men like this, protecting our country.


h/t Eyeblast TV

Lazy Media Gets It Wrong

July 21, 2008:

American troops in Afghanistan are not happy with how a July 13th battle with the Taliban was reported. In that action, some 200 Taliban attacked a U.S. "base" and killed or wounded more than half the 50 or so U.S. and Afghan troops found there. Actual U.S. casualties were nine dead and fifteen wounded (including walking wounded).
U.S. troops were irked that, once again, the mass media got lazy and didn't bother to report the action accurately. For one thing, there was no "base". What the Taliban attacked was a temporary parking area for vehicles used to conduct patrols of the area. These are set up regularly, and have been used for years. These are secure areas, but basically a parking lot surrounded by barbed wire and several sandbagged observation posts.
This one was set a few days before the attack, and was due to be taken down soon, as the patrol activity moved to another area. Such defensive precautions are taken any time U.S. troops stop for more than a few hours. That's a tactic pioneered by the Romans over two thousand years ago. In this case, it paid off. The Taliban infiltrated several hundred fighters into a nearby village, and opened fire from homes, businesses and a mosque. The U.S. and Afghan troops called in air support and kept fighting until the Taliban fled, taking most of their dead and wounded with them.

The troops are angry because, while the Taliban got lucky (such attacks are rare), the enemy did not succeed in taking the U.S. position, and fled the battlefield after suffering heavier casualties. The U.S. troops are much better shots, and know they killed far more of the Taliban. Moreover, they saw smart bombs and missiles hitting buildings that Taliban were firing from. From long experience, they know that people inside bombed buildings rarely survive the explosion. Finally, the troops involved were from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and paratroopers do not like anyone implying they were beaten at anything.

Especially because, in this case, they weren't.

I have met members of Chosen Company 2-503. Drank beer with them; broke bread with them. They deserve better than this. They would not "abandon" anything, and they will fight to the last man if that is what it took. The 173DABN has a storied history. They are the best of the best. I have a friend who was on Guam when this unit was reformed in 1963. He regaled us with stories of troopers, "temporarily assigned" to the stockade, who would jump a 12 foot fence and laugh at the guards. He recounted an incident of one trooper who refused to report a broken ankle because he would have missed a jump. "I'll land on my good foot" is what was reported to have been said.
These men are "b-b-b-b-bad to the bone" in a GOOD WAY. Dedicated, insanely patriotic and loyal.

The Media Still Lies When It Suits Their Agenda

Ignore The Media: Al-Maliki Did Not Embrace Obama's Withdrawal Plan
Patrick Casey
It's an established fact that the drive-by media is supporting Barack Obama's candidacy this election cycle (just ask previous media fave Hillary Clinton). But in the last few weeks, as Obama attempts to redefine himself before the voting masses begin to pay attention in September, the media has gone from being merely biased to advancing false propaganda on behalf of the Obama campaign.
The latest incident has to do with the apparently fictional article published in yesterday's Der Spiegel magazine in Germany: Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans. The piece, released to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq, purported to 'quote' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying that he supported Barack Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months after Obama assumes office. In addition, al-Maliki was 'quoted' as saying that he "apparently" opposed John McCain's "open ended" Iraq policy. The article goes on to claim that al-Maliki complained about President Bush's reluctance to agree to a withdrawal timeline, and also points out that the comments allegedly said by al-Maliki come immediately after the two countries released a statement Friday agreeing on a "general time-horizon" for removing troops from Iraq - thus suggesting that even the Bush Administration has seen the error of its ways and is beginning to see the world through Obama's majestic eyes.
As soon as the Der Spiegel article hit our shores, it was the top news story on all the news outlets. This morning, predictably, reports on the article made it onto the front pages of newspapers around the country: New York Times - Maliki Backs Obama's Troop Withdrawal Plan, Chicago Tribune - Maliki backs Obama troop pullout plan, Los Angeles Times - Iraq President Maliki embraces Obama withdrawal plan. Notice anything similar about the headlines, although all of the articles are by different reporters?
Then something remarkable happened. The Iraqi government came out Sunday morning, after the Sunday newspapers were printed and delivered, and issued a statement of their own announcing that the Der Spiegel article and its allegations about statements made by the Iraqi Prime Minister were false. Not that it matters much - in general, American news consumers remember the first, original news accounts, especially those concerning a story as topical as this. Unless readers are intimately involved in the subject matter, most such news consumers aren't even aware of subsequent corrections to a false story, unless the media gives those corrections as wide a play as the original report. With something like this, where the original story was so obviously beneficial to Barack Obama, this entire affair will probably vanish by Monday morning.
This incident is virtually a duplicate of another that happened a little more than a week ago, after the drive-by media breathlessly reported that the Iraqi Prime Minister was demanding that any bilateral security agreement between Iraq and the United States include a firm date for withdrawal: NPR - Al-Maliki Demands Timetable For Iraq Withdrawal. The only problem with that story was that it was false, as well. The BBC's Baghdad bureau reported that when they listened to their recording of what al-Maliki actually said, they discovered that he never mentioned withdrawal at all - and that all subsequent reports in the Western media were based on a "mistranslation".
The drive-by media in the United States didn't think that such a mistake on their part was worth a correction - they just ignored the new development from the BBC calling their original reporting (and methods of verification) into question. The equation for the drive-by media was simple. Original story = benefit for Obama. Correction = benefit for McCain (and President Bush). Therefore, no widespread dispersal of a correction is warranted.
Even though the domestic media didn't correct their accounts on the al-Maliki withdrawal mistranslation, as the primary correction of the story was put out by the liberal BBC, I'm certain that American journalists were well aware of it. With that in mind, I'm stunned that the US media wasn't more careful about going with yesterday's reports of the de facto endorsement of Obama (or at least of his plans) by the Iraqi Prime Minister. Two simple and basic facts should have given the media ample reason to pause - first, that there was a translation error less than two weeks earlier, and second, the fact that Der Spiegel, a virulently anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War publication, didn't link to or provide either a transcript of the interview with al-Maliki or - taking into consideration how the original "mistranslation" was discovered - a recording of the interview. At the very least, other media outlets should have verified the substance of the report with the Iraqi Prime Minister or his office before going with the story at the top of the news. The media, however, saw this story as a perfect accompaniment to Barack Obama's Middle East Victory Tour - so they went with it before checking it out, again.
It appears as if another reliably liberal media outlet, CNN, was the first to report on the problems with the Der Spiegel article: Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan. Ironically, that should lend credibility to the correction, since Obama supporters and the left will not be able to claim that this latest "mistranslation" incident is another right-wing plot by Fox News:
A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months...But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.
Surprisingly, CNN does not acknowledge that this is the second serious problem with a mistranslation of remarks made by the Iraqi Prime Minister appearing in the Western media over the past few weeks. But as both mistranslations obviously benefited Barack Obama and his campaign, perhaps CNN doesn't really want to point that out at this time.
For the record, here is an excerpt from the official statement from the White House, released jointly by Iraq and the United States on Friday, concerning points in the bilateral security agreement between the countries that have already been settled:
In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.
In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces.
This transition and the subsequent reduction in U.S. forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the President and the Prime Minister in January 2007.
Pay careful attention to the highlighted sentence above. The drive-by media also attempted to claim (before the Der Spiegel story hit the wires yesterday) that since Friday's official White House statement included the words "time horizon", it meant that President Bush had flip-flopped on his long-term position on troop withdrawals from Iraq. Obviously, the subsequent line destroys that line of reasoning by the media. The position of both President Bush and Senator John McCain has remained the same throughout this entire war. Reduction of our troop presence, including that of combat troops, is predicated on the improving security situation on the ground. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agrees with that, no matter what propaganda the media distributes suggesting otherwise.
In fact, we've always had "time horizons" in Iraq - we just completed one involving thedrawdown of the surge forces that was originally planned and shown to Congress (in an easy-to-read slide format!) by General Petraeus back on September 11th, 2007. We were able to complete that drawdown within the "time horizon" plan from ten months ago because the security conditions on the ground created by our new strategy - a strategy promoted by President Bush and Senator McCain but opposed by Senator Obama - permitted it. If the security situation hadn't improved, the drawdown would not have been completed as planned, as it just was.
The media should be ashamed of itself. They won't be.