Michelle Malkin » The human rights outrage in Iran…and a challenge to Rosie O’Donnell and her ilk Update: The NYTimes backs away

The human rights outrage in Iran…and a challenge to Rosie O’Donnell and her ilk Update: The NYTimes backs away

By Michelle Malkin • June 25, 2007 11:16 AM

Updated and bumped

Originally posted June 24, 2007 @ 06:30am

Today I am joining blogs Gateway Pundit, Ali Eteraz, and Iran Focus in reprinting the latest batch of Iranian repression photos being distributed by the regime’s state-run FARS News agency and ISNA. The innocent young men in the photos were beaten, humiliated, and arrested for wearing Western clothing and hairstyles. It is in the public interest to spread these photos far and wide. The images should be seared onto the global conscience:

Masked Muslim moral police force a man wearing clothes deemed un-Islamic to suck on a plastic container Iranians use to wash their bottoms.

Bloodied, beaten, then taken away.

Whipped for wearing a soccer shirt.

Behead all those who wear their hair too long.

Another public beating.

The Iranian morality police arrest the infidel after forcing him to drink from the toilet watering cans hanging around his neck.

Another head busted open in the name of Allah.

Question: Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?

Answer: Fat chance.

Question: What do leftist apologists for the Iranian regime have to say about the brutal, appalling, and escalating crackdown on human rights? Yeah, you, Rosie.

Answer: Nothing.

Question: Will the same moral cowards who sat silently while Mohammad Khatami, former President of Iran, advocated executing gays during a Harvard lecture stand up now against this barbarism?

Answer: Of course not.

The latest wave of repression has been going on for months. No one, not even Khatami himself, has been spared scrutiny. Now, the New York Times finally ~~(a rare note of thanks and praise to them)~~ reports* ( see update below):

Young men wearing T-shirts deemed too tight or haircuts seen as too Western have been paraded bleeding through Tehran’s streets by uniformed police officers who force them to suck on plastic jerrycans, a toilet item Iranians use to wash their bottoms. In case anyone misses the point, it is the official news agency Fars distributing the pictures of what it calls “riffraff.” Far bloodier photographs are circulating on blogs and on the Internet.

The country’s police chief boasted that 150,000 people — a number far larger than usual — were detained in the annual spring sweep against any clothing considered not Islamic. More than 30 women’s rights advocates were arrested in one day in March, according to Human Rights Watch, five of whom have since been sentenced to prison terms of up to four years. They were charged with endangering national security for organizing an Internet campaign to collect more than a million signatures supporting the removal of all laws that discriminate against women.

Eight student leaders at Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, the site of one of the few public protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad, disappeared into Evin Prison starting in early May. Student newspapers had published articles suggesting that no humans were infallible, including the Prophet Muhammad and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The National Security Council sent a stern three-page warning to all the country’s newspaper editors detailing banned topics, including the rise in gasoline prices or other economic woes like possible new international sanctions, negotiations with the United States over the future of Iraq, civil society movements and the Iranian-American arrests.

So what does Amnesty International USA have to say about the Iranian human rights debacle on its homepage today? Nothing. Instead, the site promotes two campaigns for Darfur and a lead story about the campaign to secure habeas corpus rights for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay:

A challenge to Rosie and Amnesty International USA members and America’s progressive left (I know there are a few on the story, but they are far between): How about taking a day off from Bush-bashing and America-blaming to raise your voices against the mullahcracy’s brutal human rights abuses?

How about posting the FARS/ISNA photos on your blogs and calling attention to the innocent Iranian men being bloodied to a pulp for the crime of embracing Western dress?

Or how about spreading the word about the work of Nazanin Afshin Jam on behalf of Iranian minors sentenced by sharia courts to death for defending themselves against rape or for crimes against “chastity?”

Or how about joining the campaign to stop public stonings?

Or how about embedding these videos so that the cries of Iranian women and girls don’t go unheard:

Here. Let me put this in haiku form so even left-wing poet laureate Rosie O’Donnell can understand:

Stifling of dissent
Massive crackdown on freedom
Blame mullahs, not Bush.

***

Ali Eterez notes in comments that Human Rights Watch has done a good job covering the crackdown. Yes. As I noted, there are a few. But not nearly enough.

And to answer commenter John: No. This is not about calling for war. It’s about confronting reality, exposing the threat of sharia, and calling out libs who pay lip service to human rights only when America is accused of violating them.

The Corner’s Iran news round-up is here.

Previous MSM coverage here and here.

***

Update: The NYTimes has curiously removed its lead photo and removed the paragraphs I quoted. In an “editor’s note,” the paper says:

A front-page article yesterday described a crackdown in Iran that has included the jailing of three Iranian-Americans, repression or intimidation of nongovernment organizations pressing for broader legal rights, warnings to newspaper editors against articles on banned topics, arrests of advocates for women’s rights and of student leaders, and the detention of 150,000 people for wearing clothing considered not Islamic.

The headline over the article said that Iran was cracking down on dissent and “parading examples” in the streets, and one paragraph in the article also said that young men detained for wearing tight T-shirts or western-style haircuts had been “paraded bleeding through Tehran’s streets by uniformed police officers.” The Times caption on an official Iranian news agency photograph that ran with the article said that it showed a police officer punishing a young man in public for wearing un-Islamic clothing by forcing him to suck on a plastic container normally used for intimate hygiene, a punishment the article also asserted was for that offense.

But the man in the photograph, according to widespread Iranian news reports, was one of more than 100 people arrested recently on charges of being part of a gang that had committed rapes, robberies, forgeries and other crimes. The caption published on the Web site of the news agency, Fars, had said only that the man was being punished as part of a roundup of “thugs” in a Tehran neighborhood.

The current repression has made reporting in Iran difficult. In this case, The Times relied on an interview with a researcher for a nongovernment agency that no longer operates within Iran who said the photograph was evidence of a more visible police role in public crackdowns on what the authorities consider immoral behavior. The reporter then wrongly interpreted what the researcher said as applying to a crackdown on dress, and incorporated the erroneous interpretation into the body of the article, without giving any indication of the source for it.

These errors could have been avoided with more rigorous editing. The article should not have said that young men had been paraded through the streets for wearing un-Islamic dress, and the headline over it should not have said that dissenters were being paraded as part of the crackdown.

So now they will take the word of the repressive Iranian regime and its state-run “news reports” over dissident groups and citizen reports. Here is what Iran Focus reported last month when it published some of the FARS/ISNA photos:

Iran’s State Security Forces (SSF) are clamping down on youths across the country.

Residents in Tehran say that bogus charges are being used as justification for the arrest of political activists and those perceived to be potential threats to the security of the clerical establishment.

One Tehran resident reached by telephone told Iran Focus that thousands of youths had been arrested on “phoney charges” such as non-conformance to the Islamic Republic’s strict dress code or even drug trafficking. “Maybe less than one percent of those arrested have actually done something illegal. The rest are being picked up at random for socialising in public or looking at the security forces in a certain manner”, the resident said on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

Kamangir reports that the crimes included drugs, alcohol, and selling satellite dishes.

After looking at the photos, watching the videos embedded here of women being dragged off the streets for un-Islamic dress, and re-reading the past coverage of the ongoing crackdown, I’ll let you decide which interpretation is more accurate.

Posted in: Iran

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (139)

trackbacks (47)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:15 pm, Gabe said:

What can we do about it? Certainly not even THINK about another war in that region….

Why not? We have the best military in the world. It’s better than Iran with nuclear weapons.

But back to the topic - nobody is surprised by this violence in Iran, perhaps that’s why it isn’t reported in the MSM.

Doubtful. Most likely it is because it is not politically to Democrats’ advantage to show why the War on Terror is important (the brutality in the photos shows what we are up against). It’s better for the MSM to attempt to sway viewers against the War on Terror, so they definitely don’t want to show any human rights abuses by our enemies.
#102

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:16 pm, purplepeep said:

Mikey cried-
“Purple, why are you and conservatives so obsessed with the views of Rosie O?”

(LOL, more avoidance from Mikey.)
When you see me on Rosie’s blog, feel free to ask that question. But just don’t hold your breath waiting for me to appear there; trolling and evasion may be your lot in life, but it’s not everyone else’s.

OTOH, I’ll let others speculate on the nature of your obvious obsession with Ms Malkin. I find the paranoia part kinda amusing, myself. But I digress….

If you should develop basic reading and comprehension skills, as we’ve suggested, you’ll be able to read and understand that Michelle and others are asking liberal celebs and bloggers to join in and speak up for the victims of Iran’s brutalism.

Michelle has even provided links and videos to help you comprehend that, Mikey. It’s truly not all that complicated; work with the concept for awhile.

Now, the only question for you is the who & when re: the liberal bloggers and celeb activists you’ll be asking to join in Michelle’s and the others call tto stand for human rights in Iran. Who’s on that list?
#103

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:16 pm, feralcat said:

“MikeB” - “Second, I am not hijacking this blog”

If so, then certainly not for lack of trying for sure, as you have gone off on just about everything under the sun trying to avoid the subject at hand.

BTW, with that last post of yours, going off on Rosie O and Paris Hilton tangents now, I think that you may have just lost the last of whatever credibility you might once have had.

So sad.
#104

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:26 pm, AjaxOfSalamis said:

I suppose toilet paper is too advanced a concept for the one-mighty Persian Empire.
#105

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:27 pm, purplepeep said:

sausage sez -
“Little point having a comments system if everyone agrees”

You support Iran’s torture of it’s citizens, the MSM’s virtual blackout of it and the refusal of liberal celebs/bloggers to denounce it?

Actually, I’d be worried if everyone did not agree on the need to roundly denounce Iran’s brutality, sausage.
#106

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:27 pm, AjaxOfSalamis said:

Once-mighty Persian Empire, that is.
#107

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:40 pm, USpace said:

Great coverage here; the Mullahs are disgusting pigs. Rosie and her Leftie hypocrites will never condemn this so long as the correct people are doing so.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
create religious police

bust women for showing skin
men for not having beards
.
#108

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:41 pm, sausage said:

Purplepeep: You support Iran’s torture of it’s citizens

Oh dear…

Gabe: Why not? We have the best military in the world. It’s better than Iran with nuclear weapons.

Yeah, because we all know how well things are going in Iraq. What makes you think Iran would be any better?
#109

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:52 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Mikey B,

Your question,

“First, Purple, why are you and conservatives so obsessed with the views of Rosie O? Don’t worry, you can give your opinions to Paris Hilton to get out of jail.

Second, I am not hijacking this blog, don’t you Conservatives get tired of the same lies and cant you hear, like “We’ll be greeted as liberators in Iraq.”

Would make more sense if it was condensed into a rhetorical question cum declarative statement. thusly:

“Don’t you get tired of the same lies of Rosie O?”

If you don’t get it, Mikey, let me spell it out for you in English that even you will understand:

There is a left wing media, they dominate by lies and half-truths and filling their offices and their airwaves with like-minded voices and people and try to close the door on opposing viewpoints (funny how the fairness doctorine is being brought out about radio, not about network television). Unlike Fox News that always trots out loud and passionate defenders of your side of the political fence, there are few and sometimes no opposing viewpoints allowed in the mainstream, where only liberals need apply. So when Rosie goes and shoots her big, fat loud mouth off to 20 million housewives who may rarely if ever follow the political discourse closely, she is inclinded to sway people into believing horrendously irresponsible untruths (and if you think that loud and obnoxious Rosie and Joy ganging up on generally meek Hasselback was what you would call “fair and balanced” you clearly have a world view in which only your viewpoint needs to be supported.

So, you see, to fair minded people, Rosie’s behavior has pi*sed people off, get it? The reason the left wants people to stop paying attention to her now is that online without her makeup and the nice lights she looks like an angry, disheveled lunatic and so that suddenly isn’t good for you guys. Hence this mournful refrain of “oh why not leave her alone” now that she’s ugly as opposed to “everyone should hear her point of view” which is where you guys were for the last year when she was comparitively (note the qualifer) glamorous - and consequently more persuasive .

And tell me, Mikey, what do you have to say about the fact that the Presidential candidates on your side of the fence are scared absolutely to their core at the thought of debating on Fox News? Oh, the try to act superior, but they run away - from Fox news cameras, references and any mention of a debate on that network, and running isn’t superior, running is scared out of your wits. The largest news network going with by far the biggest audiences and these politicians don’t want the national - indeed worldwide - exposure? Your side is scared Mikey. Scared scared scared.

Instead of posting here hoping for fair and balanced treatment, why don’t you lobby the democratic candidates to debate on Fox News? If you were truly interested in spending your time in a way which yielded a fair and balanced conversation that mattered, your time would be better spent doing that.
#110

On June 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Sausage,

“Little point having a comments system if everyone agrees”

Thats often referred to as a consensus.

I had you for breakfast this morning, Sausage. But then in the world of common sense ideas, conservatives eat liberals for breakfast every morning.
#111

On June 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pm, purplepeep said:

sausage said:
Purplepeep: You support Iran’s torture of it’s citizens

Oh dear…

I posed a question not a statement, sausage. And it’s not a tough question for most people, at that.

Another question for you: Do agree that everyone should denounce Iran’s horrific human rights abuses as documented here by Michelle Malkin?
#112

On June 24th, 2007 at 11:21 pm, purplepeep said:

Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Sausage,

“Little point having a comments system if everyone agrees”

“Thats often referred to as a consensus.”

Heh, MrCC.

Who wudda thought agreement on the incredibly obvious - that Iran’s sick abuse of it’s people is wrong - would be deemed by anyone as something terrible?

It’s not like Michelle wrote about Coke v. Pepsi or song of the year here!
#113

On June 24th, 2007 at 11:36 pm, purplepeep said:

in the world of common sense ideas, conservatives eat liberals for breakfast every morning.

I’m not politically affiliated, MrCC, but that is a correct assessment. I think the reason that is so is due the liberals arguing emotionally v. others arguing using facts & common sense.

What’s sad is what has happened to the Democrats and liberals in particular.

The term “Liberal” has worked overtime to earn such a bad reputation that even liberals run away from the label. As you know, that was not the case even as late as the early 60s when we had a President - John Kennedy - whom would be persona non gratis to today’s liberals.
#114

On June 24th, 2007 at 11:46 pm, jim thiem said:

As usual, MM, you are right on in your in-depth analysis, not only of the subject itself, but the reactions and lack thereof among the MSM and their leftist sympathizers. Half our country seems asleep on the real dangers lurking behind our political correctness.
#115

On June 24th, 2007 at 11:56 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Sausage,

I think PurplePeeps remarks were perfectly understandible in context, which leads one to believe you’re one of those guys who claims one or no party affiliation online and them plays head games to stir up the pot.

“What’s sad is what has happened to the Democrats and liberals in particular.”

Cry me a river, Sausage. What is a thousand times sadder and more immediately pressing is what their illogical thinking, driven en mass via the mainstream media, is doing to our country. Take care of that problem first and then you can get reflective if you want.

Don’t let ‘em make you crazy, PurplePeep. They are malicious by nature. It’s all they know how to do.

I see Mikey has no intention of answer the questions put to ‘em. Kinda like liberals going on Fox News.
#116

On June 25th, 2007 at 12:13 am, purplepeep said:

“What’s sad is what has happened to the Democrats and liberals in particular.”

Actually, that was my line, MrCC. lol

There used to be Democrats who stood up for America back in the day.

e.g. JFK was willing to do whatever it took to stop Soviet missiles in Cuba. Contrast that to Carter who gave Iran to a group of animalistic terrorists as just one example of how badly and quickly that party went to seed.

It’s good to have healthy political parties, though right now both the major parties would be well served by a Doc who makes housecalls. (I’m probably one of the few who remembers when Drs. used to make housecalls,lol)
#117

On June 25th, 2007 at 12:22 am, anathema said:

The linked NYT article has been edited with a completely different focus.
#118

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:09 am, feralcat said:

Follow up to one of MikeB’s many off on a tangents:

“Mr. Gore enlisted in the Army on Aug. 7, 1969, reporting to Fort Dix, N.J. He was based at Fort Rucker, Ala., working as an information specialist. For a reason neither he nor the military can explain, Mr. Gore would remain at Fort Rucker for a lengthy period awaiting orders.” “When they finally came, he would spend less than five months in Vietnam, arriving on Jan. 8, 1971, to write newspaper and magazine articles. He was discharged on May 24, 1971.” (The Washington Times National Weekly Edition Nov. 28 - Dec. 4, 1994)”

I for one am profoundly underwhelmed by Al Gore’s RVN “service”.
#119

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:14 am, feralcat said:

P.S. Army enlistments were for 36 months back then, so it looks like Gore also managed to get out of the Army more than 14 months early serving less time than a 24 month draftee.

I am even more than profoundly underwhelmed.
#120

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:17 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Anathama is right - the emphasis appears now to be on the wider, international/political aspects and slightly less on the human rights abuses.

Since Michelle is a force to be reckoned with X 10 on the political scene - and they listen to her, albiet from the trenches, so to speak, and rightfully so - it would surprise me not one bit if they changed the emphasis with a clumsily-worded editor’s explaination to take the wind out of sails of Michelle’s challenge to the left - these people really do play games. Nevertheless, that’s a win by default for Michelle, and it seems to me that there is easily enough left of the story that Michelle’s challenge should remain intact.

*Whisper to the NY Slimes: nice try, guys. Better luck next time, you prejudiced fools.*
#121

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:19 am, feralcat said:

P.S. 2

But at least Gore did not write himself up for and go around his CO to get his phony medals and his phony Purple Hearts like Kerry did, so I will have to give him that much anyway.
#122

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:26 am, feralcat said:

Cats rule, dogs drool!!!
#123

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:27 am, hadsil said:

There’s an error. Liberals do take a day off now and then from bashing Bush and America. They spend that free time condeming Israel.
#124

On June 25th, 2007 at 3:53 am, rjjago said:

Does anyone else find it ironic that the very police that are beating their countrymen for dressing too western have the word “Police” writen on their uniforms in English?
#125

On June 25th, 2007 at 7:48 am, Jarhead said:

I just have two words for Rosie and her friends. Google it!
#126

On June 25th, 2007 at 8:54 am, MikeB said:

First, to paraphrase Dan Quayle, I wear all your Conservative contempt like a badge of honor.

Second, I watched the View once in my life (sorry folks, I have to work during weekday mornings) and that was before Rosie was on the show. On the other hand, the problem with you conservatives, is you like to lump all what you call “liberals” together. No Democratic politician or liberal commentator or any member of the MSM I’m aware of ever made some of the wild comments Rosie made. I am sure all of you would not want to be judged by the things say Ann Coulter says. Having said that Elizabeth Hasslebeck (from what I’ve seen on You Tube) is a moron. She makes Sean Hannity appear intellegent by comparison. She mindlessly supports our Iraq policy, such that even Rosie’s nemesis Donald Trump took Rosie’s side against Elizabeth.

Third the alleged “left wing” MSM like the NY Times and the Washington Post(remember Judy Miller), blindly supported the buildup to war in Iraq. The NY Times and WaPo were also very critical of Bill Clinton when he was in office (how soon they forget).

However, you conservatives seem to forget the role of a free press in a democracy. That is, to be a voice of accountablity to those in power. Bush happens to be in power now. When a Democrat wins the next election (which is inevitable) they will question him or her. We all know Fox spends less time then the other networks on Iraq, but somehow it manages wall to wall coverage of missing blonde teens, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, etc. All those very important topics.

Finally, I think the Dems were wrong to not debate on Fox and I thought Fox did an excellent job during the Republican debate.
#127

On June 25th, 2007 at 11:05 am, Melvin_Udall said:

The NYT questions the Bush Administration at every turn but laps up the government talking points from Iran? While I do understand the need for transparency in government this is clearly open hypocrisy to put it kindly. It will never cease to amaze me how the NYT retains any credibility whatsoever.
#128

On June 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pm, purplepeep said:

Mikey sobs:
“I wear all your Conservative contempt like a badge of honor.”

Mikey, the apolitical observation of your total cluelessness and functional illiteracy is probably something you really don’t wanna make your “bragging point”.

Again, good luck if you should decide to address your problem re: reading comprehension. To be fair, your problem may be due to ADD so it may not be totally your fault. Not getting help for it would be your fault though, Mikey.
#129

On June 25th, 2007 at 3:15 pm, AlohaGuy said:

MikeB, I believe the questions from MM were:
“Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?” and “Will the same moral cowards who sat silently while Mohammad Khatami, former President of Iran, advocated executing gays during a Harvard lecture stand up now against this barbarism?”
The answers are “no” apparently.
If you are against this sort of repression - which I don’t doubt - what have you done about it? A letter to the NY Times? To Amnesty International? No, you’re here calling Hasselbeck (check your spelling of her name) a moron…
PS - before you get lost on another tangent (do they have standardized tests for that?) MM has spoken against abuses at Abu Ghraib.
#130

On June 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Mikey The B,

You know, you propbably think you’re driving conservatives nuts here with lots of LOLs and smiley-devil faces (you are not just not new, you aren’t even original)sent to you lib friends, but you and your ilk do us a service in many ways, not the least of which is you help to sharpen our own debating skills. Not by much since your arguements are pretty pathetic, but I, for one, always welcome the practice.

You: “However, you conservatives seem to forget the role of a free press in a democracy.”

We do not, and we know it isn’t to present everything from a left-leaning bias. Get you world view together.

“That is, to be a voice of accountablity to those in power.”

Where was your outrage during the Clinton administration?

“Bush happens to be in power now. When a Democrat wins the next election (which is inevitable) they will question him or her.”

This would be laughable if it wasn’t quite so absurd. Pelosia dna Reid are in powerm and the MSM doesn’t question their back-door amnesty deals, their flip-flopping and their unconscionable nepotism. You seem to think if you simply say things that everyone will nod their heads and go along - typical of a leftie used to the good old days of three networks and three networks only. Your proclomations are absurd, and show your need to go if in crazy directions to try to maintain a debate, so shallow are the “facts” to defend your political point of view.

“We all know Fox spends less time then the other networks on Iraq, but somehow it manages wall to wall coverage of missing blonde teens, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, etc. All those very important topics.”

Actually, for comparisons’ sake, those stories really are more important than showing the constant iraqi-on-iraqi violence. At least Hilton and Smith stories don’t create an unfair and prejudiced view of the war in iraq by telling only the negative side of it.

It’s called quality, not quantity.

I will agree that Fox News should show more Iraqi coverage, however. The stories that tell of the better life that everyone is living there with the exception of little Bagdad are stories that need to be told. You should write to the networks, CNN ad the NY Times and demand that they report the good as well as the bad.

“Finally, I think the Dems were wrong to not debate on Fox and I thought Fox did an excellent job during the Republican debate.”

Great. So call and write to everyone you know and e-mail and post on message boards and demand that the Democrats debate on Fox, and make your discontent on this matter known loudy and often. I’ll be counting the times that you do. Will you also admit, by the way, that they’re avoiding Fox because they’re scared out of their wits to be in a forum that isn’t left-leaning, and dmand that they show the same courage Republicans did when they debated on the far-left CNN?
#131

On June 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pm, CC said:

We shouldn’t be afraid of the thugs who are doing the bloody beatings of these young people. After all, they are “mothers and fathers” according to the O’Donnell woman. Parents from hell, more like.
#132

On June 25th, 2007 at 5:59 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

I think you are all missing the point. Is is all the fault of the “radical right”

/sarc off
#133

On June 25th, 2007 at 6:02 pm, MikeB said:

For the record, I never heard MM’s condemnation of Abu Ghraib, please post it for the record.

Second, I don’t understand why if I agree with some of the things stated by MM or any of you, then I have an obligation to write, email, telephone, telegraph, fax, send smoke signals, etc. every media outlet and say so. I have a 16 month year old daughter who takes up most of my spare time.

Third, contrary to what’s posted here and what Bill O’Reilly says, the other networks don’t just show footage of carnage. They provide context. Fox doesn’t want to show the war because we’re losing and that doesn’t fit in with FNC’s agenda and worldview.

And, for the record, I never do smiley faces or LOL or any other “IM symbols.”
#134

On June 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pm, Rick Moran said:

Third, contrary to what’s posted here and what Bill O’Reilly says, the other networks don’t just show footage of carnage. They provide context.

Depends what you mean by “context.” If you mean balancing scenes of mayhem in Baghdad with scenes of the cooperation and success (both political and military) we are having in Anbar, I’d love to know what network you’re watching.

Iraq has become a body count story for the media - and that includes Fox. The issues are too complex to fit into the 1 and a half minute or 2 minutes stories most outlets devote to Iraq. The press can’t cover the story due to the danger to western reporters if they show their faces outside the Green Zone. But they also won’t cover Iraq because it simply takes too long to tell the whole story.

This has been self evident for more than 4 years. “Context” is the last thing any network wants to show or is capable of showing.
#135

On June 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm, AlohaGuy said:

For the record, I never heard MM’s condemnation of Abu Ghraib, please post it for the record.

OK…a link and a couple of quotes.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin051204.asp

“Can we focus for a moment on the unsung Americans in the military who make this nation proud? They and their peers are the ones most endangered by the reckless soldiers and contractors, negligent commanders, exploitative media, and grandstanding politicans who are responsible for creating and deepening the Abu Ghraib morass.”

“For the sake of all good Americans, President Bush, punish the wrongdoers, reward the right-doers, and get the knuckleheads at home and abroad to knock it off.”
#136

On June 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Now, back to the topic, Serious human rights abuses in Iran, which are ignored by most MSM. My question to you basically was, if this is a concern for you, wouldn’t you want the MSM to show it? And if they are not, would you ask them why not? Your answer seems to be no. In which case I think you are not very concerned, but you come here to criticise those who are concerned…
#137

On June 26th, 2007 at 6:31 am, MikeB said:

I don’t know how long these strings last, but okay:

Rick, I agree with you on one thing: All network news sucks. If you want the best coverage, go to The News Hour on PBS. It is not biased, in depth, and celebrity driven. I don’t know if MM can handle it.

Moving on…I see no one out there is going to disagree that Elizabeth H and Sean Hannity are both dumb as posts. Good, we’re making progress.

Aloha Guy quoting MM’s alleged “condemnation” of Abu Ghraib:

Can we focus for a moment on the unsung Americans in the military who make this nation proud? They and their peers are the ones most endangered by the reckless soldiers and contractors, negligent commanders, exploitative media, and grandstanding politicans who are responsible for creating and deepening the Abu Ghraib morass.”

“For the sake of all good Americans, President Bush, punish the wrongdoers, reward the right-doers, and get the knuckleheads at home and abroad to knock it off.”

She’s not exactly up in arms about it. And what those “bad guys” (and it was also women, MM) did was more than being “knuckleheads” as their court marshal sentences demonstrate.

But, thanks MM for reminding us that not all troops are bad. Is that why we have to have Italian cops when we make Mafia movies to show that not all Italians are criminals?

(Spoiler alert, don’t read further because I don’t want to be accused of “hijacking this string)

MM condemns Michael Moore (another MM) much more than she does criminal troops when he points to the reality that other countries (using all statistical measures) have better per capita health care than the US, that gun violence in the US is a big problem, etc. MM just hates inconvenient truths. (Let’s take a few examples: Mass. with gay marriage has the lowest divorce rate in the US (what happened to the threat to marriage); If religion makes people moral, why is it that Western Europe and Japan (the majority of whose populations are nonbelievers) have much lower crime rates, divorce rates, delinquency rates than we do; I could go on)).

Okay, boys, if you’re still on this string fire away…
#138

On June 26th, 2007 at 11:28 am, coniston said:

Dear Mike B,
I too am very late to this thread. I feel that MM’s condemnation of AG was responsive to the need. After all, by the time that it surfaced in the MSM months later, the second Army investigation was underway and it was apparent to many that the idiots/subpar soldiers were well on their way to being punished. BTW they were MP’s not Intelligence officers. Torture? No. Humilitation? yes. But on the level of bad fraternity hazing. Think about Nick Berg having his head sawed off slowly for some perspective. If you will read the Army report (miller I think was the guy) you will find that there was very serious incompetence at the prison - over crowding, putting political prisoners with criminals, not doing roll calls, perimeter violations, bad staffing, and lack of discipline which should be laid at the feet of the commanding officer at the prison. The MSM overlooked that as the CO was a woman. It was evenutally cleaned up, but not becasue of the MSM coverage. Please give the reference for the stats about Western Europe and Japan being majority non-believers - church attendance is low but that does not mean that they are atheists. But they both have 1.2 - 1.4 population reproduction rates (in homogeneous Japan which does not allow immigration, the population is actually declining) which I think may reflect their attitude on how good their lives are. BTW London, where I live, has had a soaring crime rate for the past 10 years and is more dangerous than NYC. France has at least 750 no go areas where the police will not enter. Sorry for brief answer but have to work….
#139

On June 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am, bshears said:

A terrorist might wear a mask, part of their thing, being underground in democratic societies which are, by-and-large, hostile to wonton murder. But I don’t get why these goofs, supposed agents of the ‘legitimate’ government, feel like they need to do their God’s work in disguise. Same with the ‘elected’ Hamas barbarians. What are they ashamed of?