Archive for Media Bias

Justice for Scooter

I wasn’t on Scooter Libby’s jury, so I can’t say for certain that he was railroaded.

But Judith Miller can:

In “The Story: A Reporter’s Journey,” which hit book store shelves Tuesday, April 7, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller revealed in the final chapter that she now believes that she was induced by then-Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to give false testimony in the 2007 trial of I. “Lewis” Scooter Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Given that Fitzgerald’s three-and-a-half year-long investigation and prosecution of Libby riveted the nation’s capital and generated vast news coverage implying, when not outright declaring, that the Bush administration lied the nation into war, one might think that recantation of testimony by a pivotal prosecution witness would command attention and excite controversy.

Miller’s assertions, which I wrote about last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, are fascinating—and important. In a more extensive online-only essay, I reexamined the entire trial and concluded that Fitzgerald’s theory of the case was fundamentally flawed and that his unscrupulous conduct was not limited to withholding exculpatory evidence from Miller and the defense; I believe it extended to other prosecution witnesses as well.

To remind you, Libby was convicted in 2007 of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice. But his real crimes, to the bloodhound press, were serving Dick Cheney and being nicknamed Scooter. My impression of the case, if that’s the right word for something so flimsy and inconsequential, was that Libby’s sole error was in answering questions from memory. If he had said, “I don’t remember” (“recall” is also good), he would have made no false statements, committed no perjury, obstructed no justice.

Libby was the small fish, a minnow swimming among tiger sharks. The real quarry was Cheney himself, and even George Bush. And just as his trial was a mockery of justice, so was the greater crime, the so-called “outing” of CIA operative Valerie Plame in revenge for her husband, Joe Wilson’s critical op-ed in the New York Times. Except that Plame was no operative in any meaningful sense, her employer no secret, and no one knew or barely cared who Joe Wilson was. Oh yes, if her outing was a crime at all, it was committed by Richard Armitage, who was never charged—even though the prosecution knew he had done so while they were charging Libby.

You can see why Cheney was so pi**ed that Bush only commuted the sentence, and didn’t grant Libby a full pardon.

And now this:

Although I had no illusions that my interest would be matched by the left-liberal media, I did expect that Miller’s claims about giving false testimony—and the consequent corruption of the jury verdict that found Libby guilty of obstruction of justice, making a false statement, and perjury—would spark at least a few days of debate. Perhaps I gave the establishment media too much credit.

What I did not expect was that Miller’s revelation—along with the new reporting she did on the flawed evidence against Libby and the damage inflicted on American national security by Fitzgerald’s prosecution—would be given the silent treatment by the left-liberal media, beginning with the New York Times and the Washington Post.

In connection to United States v. Libby, journalists failing to do their jobs is nothing new. And journalists doing the jobs of politicians is old hat.

The trial record provided ample reason to conclude that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that, as Fitzgerald’s indictment charged, Libby lied about snippets of telephone conversations with NBC’s Tim Russert, Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper, and Judy Miller. That the prosecution’s case was anything but airtight, however, would have been difficult to glean from the standard media coverage.

In fact, serious memory errors afflicted every prosecution witnesses. And the errors were consistently of a certain sort. The prosecution witnesses’ memories of conversations with Libby changed significantly, always to Libby’s detriment, as time passed—from initial FBI questioning in the fall of 2003, through grand jury testimony in 2004 and 2005, to the trial in 2007—and as they were increasingly subjected to questioning by Fitzgerald, who was named to head the investigation in December 2003, and his team.

Despite his sly insinuations, Fitzgerald provided not a speck of evidence that Vice President Cheney had orchestrated a smear campaign. Moreover, the Times editorial writers appeared to be as ignorant as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid of the high-level bipartisan investigations of 2004 and 2005, which found that that in making its case for war, the Bush administration relied in good faith on intelligence that was only discovered to have been faulty after the Iraq invasion.

A few journalists—outstanding among them Christopher Hitchens at Slate, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell—understood the incoherence of Fitzgerald’s case and the flimsiness of his evidence.

By acknowledging her mistaken testimony in the Libby trial, Judith Miller has given the left-liberal media an opportunity to correct the profoundly flawed account it promulgated of Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Scooter Libby. The early indications at the New York Times and the Washington Post are not heartening. We could use more journalists with the guts and the integrity that Miller has displayed in setting the record straight.

Don’t hold your breath. We entrust the press with the crucial role of digging for the truth in a swamp of lies and obfuscations. Indeed, there they stand with their shovels and spades, but instead of digging it up, they bury the truth alive.

Miller herself was drummed out of the journ0list corps for reporting that maybe, just maybe, Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. From the front page and exalted status, she was kicked to the curb of West 43rd Street. She had to turn in her press pass and secret decoder ring. (It’s still not clear she was wrong—and since when a reporter get canned for getting a story wrong? The Times would look like a shopping circular if that were strictly applied.)

We owe George Bush and Dick Cheney a debt of gratitude, not least for entrapping the press to reveal itself as a pack of gibbering hyenas. They feast on the carrion of dead reputations, and leave the unburied carcasses to the flies and maggots of rumor and gossip.

Judith Miller was right, and Scooter Libby was innocent. Good luck trying to find that narrative anywhere in the public mind.

Comments

A Fu**ing Embarrassment

The media have outdone themselves in self-emasculation:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s complete inaccessibility — and the media’s desperate desire to cover her every move — finally came to a head Tuesday, when MSNBC cameras caught a desperate gaggle of reporters chasing down her van as she arrived at an event.

MSNBC host Thomas Roberts seemed to enjoy giving a live commentary. “That guy in the orange pants is pretty quick. I’m looking at these people — wow! Orange pants, he’s really outnumbered now by all the people racing to the back.”

At least one respected member of the national media called out Clinton and the press alike for the “silliness.”

Not really, he didn’t. He just reacted to the absurdity of the Fourth Estate behaving like fourth graders at a Justin Bieber sighting. She drives right by them, treating them like the pissants they are, and they scurry in her exhaust wake to get a glimpse. Wretched worms.

By the way, this is the van she calls Scooby:

It has better armor than the Pope-Mobile. If Suge Knight had such a ride, he might still be in the pink (metaphorically speaking).

And to think the media minnows are missing the real story:

Although Hillary Clinton boasts a robust 3.6 million Twitter followers, not even a vast right-wing conspiracy would be able to interact with 2 million of them.

According to two popular online measuring tools, no more than 44 per cent of her Twitter fan base consists of real people who are active in using the social media platform.

And at least 15 per cent – more than 544,000 – are completely fake.

StatusPeople.com, the oldest publicly available Twitter-auditing tool, reports that 44 per cent of the former secretary of state’s followers are ‘good'; 15 per cent are ‘fake'; and 41 per cent are ‘inactive,’ meaning that they never tweet or reply to any tweets.

Social-media-Hillary is more than half fake. I have to admit that’s not as fake as I thought.

The new measurements will add to the Clinton presidential campaign’s embarrassment following news on Tuesday that a large number of her Facebook fans may represent ‘likes’ that were purchased rather than earned.

Vocativ reported that at least 7 per cent of them listed Baghdad, Iraq as their hometown, a larger number than any U.S. city.

That would represent more than 46,000 people.

While Clinton was America’s top diplomat, her State Department was buying Facebook ‘likes,’ according to an Associated Press report from last year.

‘In 2013, the State Department, which has more than 400,000 likes and was recently most popular in Cairo, said it would stop buying Facebook fans after its inspector general criticized the agency for spending $630,000 to boost the numbers,’ the wire service reported.

Scooby Doo, a semi-talking dog, was more real than this fake broad. Joan Rivers and all her plastic implants was more real. Barack Obama’s composite girlfriend was more real. Julia, his imaginary slave to government largesse, was more real.

And the media…don’t get me started.

Comments

Hey, Rolling Stone! Have I Got a Story for You!

This one’s real, with video footage to prove it, if that’s okay with you:

Officers have arrested two students on charges of what authorities are calling a Spring Break “gang rape” on a crowded beach in broad daylight, according to the Bay County Sheriff’s Office.

And officials expect more arrests in connection with the incident to follow.

During a press conference Friday, BCSO officials announced the arrests of Delonte’ Martistee, 22, and Ryan Austin Calhoun, 23, both students of Troy University in Alabama, on charges in connection with a sexual battery by multiple perpetrators that occurred between March 10-12.

The initial incident went unreported, though it occurred in the presence of hundreds of witnesses on a crowded beach in broad daylight, leaving officials concerned with how much crime has gone unreported or ignored by visitors during Spring Break.

Sheriff Frank McKeithen fumed as he likened the scene to “wild animals preying on a carcass laying in the woods” and called the video the “most disgusting, sickening thing” he has ever seen.

“This is happening in broad daylight with hundreds of people seeing and hearing what is happening, and they are more concerned about spilling their beer than somebody being raped,” McKeithen said. “… This is such a traumatizing event for this girl. No one should have to fear this would happen in Panama City Beach, but it does.”

It seems the poor girl was drugged, and didn’t know what happened to her. How different from many rape stories we’ve read lately where the rape or even the victim is fake, but the alleged perpetrator isn’t. Preferably, he’s a Republican. Who knows, maybe Delonte’ and Ryan are big Rand Paul supporters.

I realize that to Rolling Stone reporters and editors (not one of whom has lost his job over their journalistic train wreck), fake rapes tell us more than real rapes. But until the next hoax comes along, we’ll just have to muddle through with the real deal.

Comments

Don’t Accept the Narrative

Rand Paul is not my top choice for Republican nominee, but that’s not relevant. What is relevant is that Republicans cannot let the media set the terms of the race.

If Rand Paul is “prickly”, Savannah Guthrie is “pushy”:

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: You have had views in the past on foreign policy that are somewhat unorthodox, but you seem to have changed over the years. You once said Iran was not a threat, now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel; you now support it, at least for the time being. And you once offered to drastically cut…

SEN. RAND PAUL: No, before we go —

GUTHRIE: Well wait, wait, wait.

[CROSSTALK]

GUTHRIE: So I just wonder if you’ve mellowed out.

Has she asked President Obama if he’s “mellowed out” on gay marriage? Has his views “changed over the years” on whether you can keep your doctor? How mellow is Obama on closing Gitmo? Or the IRS scandal that he condemned one day and dismissed the next? Or on his authority to summarily change immigration law? Or on his Harry Reid-like lie that there were shovel-ready jobs when he knew there weren’t? Or on his flip-flop over lobbyists in the White House? Or his promise to take only public financing in the 2008 campaign?

And I for one would love to hear Ms. Guthrie ask the president if he’s mellowed out on ISIS, which he once described as the JV of terrorists.

And then I’d like her to ask of herself how she is in any position to query any Republican when she’s married to a veteran Democrat political operative.

Were I Rand Paul, my internal voice has me answering my critics thusly: “Ms. Guthrie is an experienced political reporter and certainly doesn’t need her male colleagues to rise to her defense, however chivalrous their motives. She asked tough questions, questions I wanted to answer, questions that demanded an answer. That said, if she feels I treated her disrespectfully, I apologize unreservedly. That was not, and never would be, my intention. But I will answer questions I am asked so as to be understood. Out of respect to the questioner, to the viewer, and to the American people.”

Choke on that, liberal media dogs.

Comments

It’s My Rape and I’ll Lie if I Want To

There are some stories so tawdry, so debased, even to follow them is to feel dirty. The Rolling Stone/UVA rape story is one among many. If I’m going to follow an invented rape story, give me a real woman, no matter how pale and pudgy she may be:

But there’s one thing we can’t ignore, no matter desperately we want to: the embrace of the lie:

“A Rape on Campus,” as the article was called, was really that clumsy, preposterous, and just plain bad. So, naturally, no one got fired.

No, seriously: No one got fired. Not even Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the now-disgraced writer behind the piece: According to a spokesperson for publisher Jann Wenner, she will continue to contribute to Rolling Stone. This is astounding. After such a phenomenal blow-up—and a story so sensational that many writers, including yours truly, smelled an obvious rat—why would the magazine keep her on board? What about reviewing some of her past stories, which are starting to look just as fishy as her explosive fraternity gang rape report?

The reason is a sad one: For some, the truth doesn’t matter. Jackie’s story, Wenner told Columbia, was “extremely strong, powerful, provocative. … I thought we had something really good there.”

Truth is irrelevant. Pace Al Gore, any truth is inconvenient if it doesn’t serve an agenda. As peddlers in the truth industry (as journalism was once thought to be), journalists are guilty of the crime of honest-icide. Some reporters pulled the trigger, others aided and abetted, still others drove the getaway car. They’re all guilty.

It’s the spoken and unspoken theme of every story we write.

Comments

The Very Best Video You Will Ever Watch

Honestly guys, this explains everything about the media and it is hilarious.

Isn’t that great?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Out of the Closet

Not gays, reporters.

And they’re not exactly bursting out of the (literal) closet in which they’ve been locked.

They’re asking for permission. Pretty please:

The White House Correspondents’ Association, the organization that represents hundreds of reporters who cover the presidency, is crafting an extensive list of press freedom rules that it wants the White House to adhere to — following an incident in which President Obama kept reporters out of a meeting with Mormon leaders.

“The principle of the full [White House press] pool is so important to us that we’re working to address it in a set of written practices we’d like this and future administrations to follow,” Association President Christi Parsons said in a statement to the Washington Examiner media desk. “We’ve been working on that document for almost a year now and will have more to say about it when we release it later this spring.”

Don’t rush into things, Scoop. Take your time.

On Thursday, the pool of reporters following President Obama to Salt Lake City, Utah, where he was meeting with leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were broken up and only photographers were allowed in to see the meeting.

Members of the Association complained to the White House that print reporters were not allowed into the meeting to write details about it. It was not, however, a formal complaint, which requires a vote by the Association board.

Oh no, nothing like that. This was more like a single stomp of a sockless, loafered foot.

Six years-plus into this most opaque administration ever, and after a year of careful deliberation. For a bunch of reporters, they sure seem unclear on the concept of news.

But it sounds like they won’t have Barack Obama to kick around anymore:

The lavish Honolulu “Magnum, P.I.” home may be the landing pad for President Barack Obama once he’s finished living in the White House, after the famous property was sold for $8.7 million in a mysterious deal involving one of the president’s prominent friends and a key donor.

The White House insists Obama isn’t a party in the deal for the beachfront property on the southeast coast of Oahu to a group called Waimanalo Paradise LLC, reports Fox affiliate KHON.

But a review of the deed and mortgage showed the buyer is a limited liability company, Waimanalo Paradise, which was formed just last month. The contact and mailing address for the company is Chicago attorney Seth Madorsky, a top Obama donor.

In addition, the papers were signed by Judy Grimanis, who is an executive assistant at a private capital firm in Chicago run by Obama friend and frequent golfing partner Marty Nesbitt. Grimanis’ name also popped up as that of a person who had worked for companies owned by Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.

Could be a coincidence. Coincidences.

But the neighbors know better:

Residents of Waimanalo, the area where the property is located, have mixed feelings about the rumors that the Obamas may be moving into their neighborhood in a few years, even though they are used to tourists coming to look at the famous house.

“We enjoy this. I don’t know if it will be the same. If it’s the same, it’s all good,” Waimanalo resident Uncle Nawai told KITV. However, he’s worried about the impact his possible new neighbor could have.

“He’s going to be protected by the Secret Service all the time, there will be all kinds of traffic woes,” said Nawai.

Waimanalo resident Lee Siegel said he and others are also wondering about the security situation that could surround the Obamas.

“People are wondering what the security situation will be like, and will they be stopped every time they come home,” he said.

Anyway, sneaky real estate dealings are how the Obamas roll:

Obama has done property deals with his friends and donors in the past. In 2005, after he was elected to the Senate, he bought a dollars 1.65m home in the Kenwood area of Chicago.

The wife of one of his prominent donors, Tony Rezko, bought an adjacent parcel of land on the same day – and sold a 10ft strip of the property to the Obamas.

One more clue:

Nesbitt has an official role in Obama’s presidential after-life, serving as chairman of the Barack Obama Foundation – which is due to pass judgment soon on the location of Obama’s presidential library.

I think we know where the Obama’s will be living. Here’s hoping they can’t do more damage than they already have.

Comments

When Bad Things Happen to Good Liberals

“Good liberals” clashes in the ear, but let it slide for now.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh:

Talk about a tale of two cable news networks. With its 53rd consecutive quarter total audience win, Fox News Channel saw a 10% primetime rise among adults 25-54 in first-quarter 2015 over last year. In fact, with 321,000 on average among the 25-54s in primetime, Fox News thrashed rivals CNN (187,000) and MSNBC (132,000) with more news demo viewers than the other two combined, according to Nielsen.

Contrast that to the fate of the NBCUniversal-owned MSNBC, which not only saw a 39% drop in the demo compared to Q1 2014 but its worst quarterly result in the category since Q2 2005. If that almost decade-old result wasn’t enough of a blow, and rising CNN’s fourth consecutive win over MSNBC in prime didn’t cut deep enough, take a look at the gutting the cabler newser’s nighttime offerings are suffering.

With just 145,000 viewers among the 25-54s on average over the December 29, 2014 – March 29, 2105 period, the once-proud flagship The Rachel Maddow Show hit an all-time quarter low with the worst result since its September 8, 2008 launch. Not only is Maddow down 46% in the demo, but her 9 PM show is also down 19% in total viewers. Fellow primetime show All In With Chris Hayes and Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell fell to their worst quarterly demo ratings since their respective 2013 and 2010 debuts. O’Donnell’s show also had its lowest total quarterly viewership results. And 7 PM’s Hardball With Chris Matthews had its lowest-rated quarter in the demo since 2Q 2005 with an average viewership of 126,000.

If your eyes glazed over with all the numbers, let me summarize. MSNBC as a network, and all its shows individually, have crashed. Even strapping young Richie Maddow has lost his legions of loyal teeny-boppers. Chris Matthews can barely pull more in the key demo than the population of Midland, TX.

You have to ask yourself why:

After appearing on Monday’s All In on MSNBC, the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson again ventured into hostile territory by joining the Tuesday edition of The Ed Show to discuss Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Needless to say, liberal host Ed Schultz did not take Anderson’s position and usage of facts very well.

At various points during the nearly eight-and-a-half-minute segment, Schultz cut Anderson’s microphone, accused him of not wanting to “have a civil conversation,” and declared those who share Anderson’s position on the Indiana law “need to be counseled up in a big way.”

“Re-education” the left-wing remedy when all else fails. Can’t wait to see this propaganda channel repurposed toward reality TV. You can keep the hosts, freaks that they are.

Comments

Cow or Fat Cow? A Quiz

Bad news: another Lena Dunham post.

Good news: there’s nothing about her sex life [shudder] in it:

Anti-Semitism has raised its ugly face [you can say that again! ed.] again Friday – this time, in a quiz published in the New Yorker.

The quiz, entitled “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend? A Quiz” was written by controversial Girls actress Lena Dunham.

In the article, Dunham – who is herself Jewish – makes a number of comparisons between Jewish men and her dog that are apparently meant to be humorous.

The questions play up a number of stereotypes about American Jewish men, including having asthma, being “cheap” (he leaves his wallet at home and never tips, she claims), and being “intimidated” by her father’s “Waspy” (i.e. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) demeanor.

Several of the “questions” are downright attacks on what she claims are Jewish culture.

“I feel that he is judgmental about the food I serve him. When I make something from scratch, he doesn’t want to eat it, but he also rejects most store-bought dinners,” read questions 8-10. “This is because he comes from a culture in which mothers focus every ounce of their attention on their offspring and don’t acknowledge their own need for independence as women. They are sucked dry by their children, who ultimately leave them as soon as they find suitable mates.”

“As a result of this dynamic, he expects to be waited on hand and foot by the women in his life, and anything less than that makes him whiny and distant,” she adds.

In another question, she quips, “he has hair all over his body, like most males who share his background.”

I should apologize. I don’t publish extended tracts from Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion here. But then, I do publish unhinged rants from Muslim clerics, and Ms. Dunham is right at home with them. I’d rather be called a descendant of apes and pigs than be described as cheap, whiny, or hairy by this extra-large exhibitionist.

Others comment:

Kveller author Jordana Horn penned a response Thursday, in an article titled “Lena Dunham Equated Jews to Dogs & That’s Not OK,” noting that statements like hers are a slippery slope into blatant anti-Semitism given a free pass in respectable press.

“To dehumanize people, one of the first steps is to call them non-people or animals,” she noted, adding that anti-Semites have been comparing Jews to dogs for hundreds of years. She also challenged readers to imagine what the response would be if the title was “Dog or Black Boyfriend?: A Quiz.”

Why must we always appeal to what-ifs in cases like this? Why isn’t it obvious already that it’s putrid?

As a free-speecher, I support lap-band Lena’s right to believe, say, write anything. And if the New Yorker sees fit to publish her hateful screeds, that is their Constitutionally-protected right. (Just as it was their right to reject every piece I ever sent to them, I add in full disclosure.) So as it is my right to ridicule her body type (not that I can hold a candle to her self-ridicule).

I just want to read more pieces in the New Yorker comparing African-Americans to simians, Asian-Americans to androids, gay people to ballerinas, and Muslim men to pigs. They’re missing an untapped market.

Hey, that sounds like out blog!

Comments

Thirstradamus Strikes Again

It’s almost getting boring being so right so often. Almost.

I’ve been telling you Betty Buckskin was getting in the race, and winning it. The Left would have it no other way.

This morning’s Boston Glob has three op-ed pieces and an editorial—four opinion pieces in all—on one subject: Lieawatha.

Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential race

Elizabeth Warren, run for the White House

If Elizabeth Warren does run, she would surprise skeptics

Warren would be a credible threat to Clinton in the primaries

And in case you still don’t get it:

What other writers have to say about whether Elizabeth Warren should run in 2016’s presidential race:

“What you’re feeling now is Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. The CDC is recommending elaborate precautions. Forget it. The only known cure is Elizabeth Warren.”
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

“Despite her repeated denials she is considering the possibility of running, [Warren] remains a threat, and not just because her denials always seem phrased only in the present tense.”
Glenn Thrush and Manu Raju, Politico Magazine

“[Warren’s] supporters have been remarkably successful in getting the Democratic establishment to pay attention to her ideas.”
David Ludwig, The Atlantic

“At the very least, [Hillary] Clinton is going to have to work for the nomination.”
pollster John Zogby in Forbes

With accompanying photos to match the paeans in the press.

How much do you think this paid political announcement ran? Wait, what? This is free press? The only thing free about it is the cost. Otherwise, it’s in slavish lockstep with the left wing of the Democrat Party.

Hillary’s blood is in the water, and the Democrat sharks are circling. Some point to Valerie Jarrett as the culprit, but if you look behind her diminutive form, there lurks a taller, bigger-eared galoot. But really it’s the Democrats themselves. They’d be “ready for Hillary” if she were the only item on the menu. But reheated hash loses its appeal next to the Blue State Special.

Comments

How Do We Know Netanyahu Won?

Read the media:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s outright rejection of a Palestinian state and his racist rant against Israeli Arab voters on Tuesday showed that he has forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis.

Mr. Netanyahu showed that he was desperate, and craven, enough to pull out all the stops. On Monday, he promised that if his Likud faction remained in power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, thus repudiating a position he had taken in 2009.

His behavior in the past six years — aggressively building Israeli homes on land that likely would be within the bounds of a Palestinian state and never engaging seriously in negotiations — has long convinced many people that he has no interest in a peace agreement. But his statement this week laid bare his duplicity, confirmed Palestinian suspicions and will make it even harder for him to repair his poisoned relations with President Obama, who has invested heavily in pushing a two-state solution.

Mr. Netanyahu added to the ugliness of the campaign when, during Tuesday’s voting, he said in a video on social media: “Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.” This outrageous appeal to hard-line voters implied that only he could save Israel from its enemies, including the country’s Arab citizens, who represent 20 percent of the population and have long been discriminated against. There were signs that Arab Israelis were turning out in somewhat higher numbers, apparently to vote for the Joint Arab List, a coalition of four small parties.

Mr. Netanyahu’s demagogy further incites the rage that has torn the country apart. There were other inflammatory moments in recent days. Mr. Netanyahu claimed that nefarious foreign sources were trying to overthrow him and also promised to build more settlements, which most of the world considers to be illegal. Earlier this month, he made a subversive speech before Congress to castigate the Obama administration for seeking a nuclear deal with Iran, but that seems to have done little to enhance his support in Israel.

In his desperation, Mr. Netanyahu resorted to fear-mongering and anti-Arab attacks while failing to address the issues that Israelis said they were most worried about, namely the high cost of housing and everyday living in Israel. Although the economy has grown, the country has experienced widening income disparities and is now one of the most unequal societies in the advanced world.

You don’t hear that sort of shrieking from the winning side. They lost, and they lost bad.

Here’s another couple of sore losers:

“Netanyahu has put out a YouTube video imploring his supporters to show up to the polls today, claiming that Palestinians — or Arabs as he called them — were being bused to the voting booths by left-leading organizations,” Tapper noted. “He was very criticized by people in the Israeli media for what they described as a racist appeal.”

“You’re absolutely right,” responded Amanpour. “And it wasn’t just the press; it was also the Arab-Israeli parliamentarians, those who made the [left-wing political party] Joint List, who were also incredibly upset about that YouTube appeal. I just spoke to one of them who said look, we have made an unprecedented coalition, we want to work unprecedentedly in the system for our rights and for, you know, Jewish rights.”

Do these journalists (journ0lists, as Buck O’Fama used to call them) have the presence of mind to note that these Arabs were subject to supposed racism as they were exercising their democratic right to vote? No one was stopping them; they succeeded in electing 13 MKs, third most of any party in the Knesset, to their so-called Joint List; show me an Arab country with even remotely similar liberties.

But as I say, the louder they squeal, the more you know Bibi won.

Wonderful. Lovely. Louder.

Comments (1)

The Best Terrorists Money Can Buy

The US provided financial support to Al Qaeda. Imagine what Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow would have said had they known what Bush was up to.

Not Bush?

Al Qaeda stockpiled weapons using covert CIA cash funneled to the murderous terrorist group by Afghan officials as part of a $5 million ransom for a hostage diplomat.

The U.S. intelligence agency remained clueless that some of its money went directly to the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Afghan officials redirected the money to Al Qaeda from the monthly bags of cash delivered surreptitiously to the Afghan presidential palace, the Times reported.

The payoff allowed a reeling Al Qaeda to retrench and rebuild its weapons stockpile after a series of U.S. drone strikes wiped out the group’s top echelon.

A top Al Qaeda official also offered at one point to send some of the cash directly to World Trade Center attack mastermind Osama Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden received letters from an Al Qaeda official which told him that the group got ‘a good amount of money this month,’ and was also offered some of the cash directly.

At the time of the spring 2010 ransom deal, the CIA was delivering as much as $1 million cash each month to officials in Afghanistan.

Those payments continued through 2014, according to the newspaper.

It’s true, dude. For about a year, until his untimely demise in May 2011, Osama bin Laden was on Obama’s CIA payroll.

A bitter pill indeed.

“God blessed us with a good amount of money this month,” Al Qaeda official Atiyah Abd al-Rahman wrote in a June 2010 letter to Bin Laden.

“We have also designated a fair amount (of money) to strengthen the organization militarily by stockpiling good weapons,” al-Rahman wrote in a letter shortly after the first $2 million ransom installment was paid.

Afghan diplomat Abdul Farahi was released in November 2010 after the full $5 million was paid.

Then what were we paying for all the way until 2014?

Don’t just gawp there like a gaffed fish. Somebody answer me!

Somebody else? Anybody else?

Maybe that’s that way it was, but not anymore.

The New York Times, to its credit, broke this story over the weekend (the dead of night in new terms). Will it survive into the new week? Will anyone touch it, pick it up and suckle it, nurture it to life and thriving?

[Shudder.]

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »