Thanks to Powerline for pointing us to this,
The Sun created this map, which shows some of the principal acts of Islamic terror, beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The map is by no means complete; among other things, it doesn’t include any of the terrorist attacks in Israel.
The Sun:
More than 4,000 people have died as Islamic terrorism has spread across the world over the last decade. Here we highlight some of the worst atrocities.
Liberals are nevertheless convinced that this latest attack must be due to the war in Iraq. No word yet on the others.
Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice (via Instapundit) responds to Kos and others on the left now assailing the flypaper theory,
It’s highly doubtful that if the U.S. wasn’t now in Iraq that Osama bin Laden would today be out of his mass-murderer day job, standing behind a counter, wearing a bright cap, asking: “Do you want fries with that?”
He has tons of other great links.
When?
Sunday evening, 9pm EST. Matt will be on for the entire hour with us!
Where?
Stream the show live at WRKO, Boston talk leader . Call us with questions for Matt from Blackfive toll free at 877-469-4322.
Why?
Matt’s blog Blackfive was voted the #1 military blog in 2004 by the Weblog Awards. He is a soldier, paratrooper and a blogger.
Back in WWII, soldiers wrote letters home. Today many of them communicate in real-time with all of us through the power of the Internet. The reason I am so confident of what we are doing in Iraq in particular, and the war on terror in general, is because of what I have read on milblogs like Blackfive.
Please do yourself a favor and check out Matt’s blog and the others Milblogs listed in our links to the right of this page. In my opinion, it is a matter of national security.
How can that be?
Because the perspective that you get from Milblogs is 180% different from the coverage you get on TV or in your daily paper. It is hard to blame the public for doubting what we are doing in Iraq when all they hear, see and read is negativism in the media. They get even worse from the Democrat Party. No solutions, no alternative vision, just slander, quips and defeatism.
If the domestic insurgents in this country are able to sour public opinion to the point that we have to withdraw, and lose, in Iraq, well then we have handed a huge victory to the sub-human savages. That is what the liberals want to happen. To them, a defeat of George W. Bush is more important than a victory for the United States. These are difficult times. We face a devious and brutal enemy. And we also have to fight Al Qaeda.
Milblogs will open your eyes to the real situation on the ground in Iraq, to the progress in the governmental process and reconstruction. Don’t be fooled by the Dems and their co-consiprators in the press. Educate yourself, arm yourself with information that is available to you. Please, read milblogs to get their fresh perspective. Don’t form opinions based on half the story. The stakes are too high. Oh yeah, and don’t forget to tune in on Sunday evening!
Hugh Hewitt on The Rise of Milblogs
AS THE WAR enters a phase where most of the fighting is far removed from the networks’ cameras, it gets harder and harder to find reliable news on the conflict’s many fronts.
Unless you read the milblogs, that is. “Milblogs” is short for “military blogs”–online journals run by active duty military or reservists who have returned to civilian life for the time being. These first person accounts of the world and the nation through the eyes of front-line troops are changing the nature not just of the blogosphere but of American reporting.
The ability of the civilian world to access the news and views of the military directly is a sea-change in media. At the conclusion of his wonderful 1998 book, Making the Corps, Washington Post writer Thomas Ricks worried aloud about the increasing distance between the civilian and military worlds, and the divergence in the values of both. Part of that problem was that the world of the warrior was increasingly remote from ordinary Americans who don’t have much contact with the military.
MILBLOGS ARE CHANGING THAT CONDITION.
The New York Times ran this humiliating correction today,
The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, “Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,” nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a “surprise tour of Iraq.” That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.
Michael Barone send an email to Instapundit,
I have one or two unanswered questions about the New York Times opinion
editor adding two sentences to Phil Carter’s opinion article.(1) Is the editor still working at the Times?
(2) If so, why?Adding these sentences is totally irresponsible journalism. It is particularly offensive when it attributes these sentences to Carter who seems, from my reading of his work, to be very thoughtful and creative. If the current editors of the New York Times want to convince us that they’re trying to run a fair newspaper, they could make some progress toward that goal by firing the editor responsible. I worked on the editorial page at the Washington Post under Meg Greenfield. She also edited the opinion pages. I have a fairly good idea of what she would have thought of this. But perhaps Gail Collins has different standards.
Instapundit adds,
I’ve never had an editor try to do anything like that to one of my pieces, but I’ve gotten emails from other people who’ve had similar experiences. My advice to editors who want to publish their own ideas under another name: Get a blog!
Bill Quick at Daily Pundit,
The only thing you need to decipher this bit of self-aggrandizing code masquerading as a “correction” is to ask yourself, “An editor added these statements in quotes? Why? And they were supposed to be “removed” before the piece was printed? Why add the false quotes in the first place, then?
The answer is obvious: The NYT is institutionally biased toward the antiwar, anti-Bush left, and that bias is expressed even by its editors, who add lies to what they print for no other reason than to move their biased leftish agenda forward.
I think it is time to ask this of the paper of record,
Has it actually gotten worse under editor Bill Keller?
Did you ever think in your wildest dreams that you would harken back to the balanced coverage of the Howell Raines era?
Good grief!
A week or so ago Patterico busted the LA Times for sloppy reporting on the influence of Sandra Day O’Connor in 5-4 decisions,
L.A. Times Needs a New Fact-Checker for Those Editorials
Todayâ??s L.A. Times editorial on Justice Oâ??Connor opens with this statement: One fact sums up Justice Sandra Day Oâ??Connorâ??s pivotal role on the Supreme Court and the enormity of her resignation â?? she alone was in the majority of every one of the courtâ??s 13 5-4 decisions this last term.
Wow. Thatâ??s really impressive. Except for one small problem . . . there were 24 5-4 decisions this Term, not 13 â?? and Justice Oâ??Connor was in the minority in quite a few of those cases.
Today, the Times responded to Patterico by issuing a correction,
Retiring justice â?? An editorial Saturday on Justice Sandra Day Oâ??Connor said the
Supreme Court in its last session had 13 5-4 decisions and that Oâ??Connor had
been in the majority on all of them. The number of 5-4 decisions during the
courtâ??s 2004-2005 session exceeded 13 (the number is up to 24, counting 5-3
decisions with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist not voting, and other
vagaries). Oâ??Connor sided with the minority in a number of these 5-4
splits. To read her dissenting opinions in two such cases, involving
eminent domain and the constitutionality of executing minors, go to http://www.latimes.com/oconnor.
Just the latest example of the pajama wearing, great unwashed among us (sorry Patterico) busting the professionals.
Blackfive, our guest on Pundit Review Radio this weekend, has posted an update on injured military blogger Captain Chuck Ziegenfuss, who was wounded in Iraq.
Yesterday Chuck’s wife posted some messages from Chuck, and – they had an interesting visitor.
“You can talk about our President, his politics, and his family, but you can never talk about his character. I met him face-to-face today and I will protect him as well as I protect my own.”
Chuck’s wife gives us the rest of the details,
Yes, we met President Bush today. He is an AMAZING man! As human as we all are… and genuinely cares about the American people. I will not go into detail about what we talked about, that will be up to Chuck. Let’s just say it was a day we will never forget. If you do not support Bush, that is your choice… please do not post your opinions (if they are negative) on this blog. I do not want a political debate. My husband met his Commander in Chief – and the honor was all ours.
That is awe inspiring. It’s a good thing this country has a lot more men like Chuck Ziegenfuss than Ted Kennedy and his ilk. Those damn domestic insurgents, shame on them for what they are trying to do. And all because of their white hot hatred of President Bush. They don’t give a damn about the mission, only the politics of it.
Thank you Chuck Ziegenfuss and God speed in your recovery.
Byron York on The Corner,
From an article in today’s New York Times about Valerie Plame, the CIA operative at the center of the Plamegate affair and husband of Bush antagonist and former ambassador Joseph Wilson:
She has guarded her privacy, with rare exceptions. She posed with her husband for a Vanity Fair photographer, wearing sunglasses and with a scarf over her blond hair. She drafted an op-ed article to correct what she felt were distortions of her and her husband’s actions, but the C.I.A. would not authorize its publication, saying it would ”affect the agency’s ability to perform its mission.”
Those were the only two examples given of Plame’s rare exceptions to guarding her privacy. Perhaps the Times has not seen the July 2005 issue of Vanity Fair, which contains, in its “Vanities” section, this photograph. According to Vanity Fair, the photo was taken at the magazine’s annual dinner for the Tribeca Film Festival, and Plame’s and Wilson’s fellow guests included Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others. Plame’s and Wilson’s photo appears below a shot of David Bowie and Sean “P. Diddy” Combs. The Times also cites friends who say the privacy-protecting Plame and ambassador Wilson “have had a low-key social life.”
So what do we chalk this one up to? Sloppy reporting, agenda driven news, a culture of liberalism in the newsroom, lazy editors? What about all those layers of protection that seperate the professionals from the pajaahadeen? I think the new media at least knows how to use Google.
Remember Joe Wilson? How could you forget him when he won’t go away? He was a key player in the recent mock impeachment hearing held by John Conyers. Excuse me, Chairman Connors,
Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him “Mr. Chairman.” He liked that so much that he started calling himself “the chairman” and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as “unanimous consent” and “without objection so ordered.” The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.
Wilson’s the guy who claimed Bush was fixing intel when it was he who was lying,
Of ‘Lies’ and WMD
The Senate vindicates President Bush and exposes Joe Wilson as a partisan fraud.
Monday, July 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a President. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.
“The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.”
In fact, the report shows that one of the first allegations of false intelligence was itself a distortion: Mr. Bush’s allegedly misleading claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had been seeking uranium ore from Africa. The Senate report notes that Presidential accuser and former CIA consultant Joe Wilson returned from his trip to Africa with no information that cast serious doubt on such a claim; and that, contrary to Mr. Wilson’s public claims, his wife (a CIA employee) was involved in helping arrange his mission.
None of this matters of course, Democrats embrace him as a cult hero even to this day. Nice try today by the Times to boost his street cred among the looney left. Too bad you were made to look so foolish…so quickly.
The guys at Real Clear Politics have set up a SCOTUS page for news and commentary. It is the place to go for MSM coverage of the debate. New media resources include The Volokh Conspiracy, Supreme Court Nomination Blog
Take The Professor Bainbridge SCOTUS QUIZ,
Which of the following statements about the Supreme Court confirmation process was made by a Republican Senator and which was made by a Democrat Senator?
- “All questions are legitimate,” ______, said in an interview. “What is your view on Roe v. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage? They are going to try to get away with the idea that we’re not going to know their views. But that’s not going to work this time.”
- â??You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court.â?Â
Hugh Hewitt on hot stove SCOTUS scuttlerbutt,
A caller suggested Bush nominate Hillary, thus taking her out of the 2008 game. How could she turn it down and show her face in liberal salons? Perhaps paired with Estrada in a deal that Estrada goes first, then all filibustered nominees, and then Hillary. It will never happen, but that’s hot stove SCOTUS at its best.
Michael Barone on the politics,
The political effect? No great help for either party. My own hunch is that the Democrats’ posture of frenzied opposition won’t get them where they want to go. But I’m not sure whether a battle over yesterday’s issues helps Republicans, either.