April 3, 2006


The front page of today's LA Times from Winds of Change.

Apparently, propaganda is to be used against us by our own press in this war, though they didn't even show honest images of FDR in WWII.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 3, 2006 4:44 PM

Perhaps we can find one of those cartoon mobs for rent?

Posted by: Jim Burke at April 3, 2006 4:56 PM

The healthy reaction is to steel the nerve to strike, to strike and to kill.

We did not surrender to the Rebs after the photographs from Antietam, nor to the Nips after those from Iwo.

You know, we really do need to talk about where we are going with all this. Construct an alternative universe scenario, sort of like that Prayers for the Assassin book. How much would those people like to cut and how far would they like to run.

A real Dolchstoss would have us "apologizing" for everything, paying "reparations," no doubt.
Israel, of course would be gone, and all our bases over there would be closed.

Is that what the people who publish photos like that intend?

As a practical matter, this country cannot afford the luxury of fighting a war without moral mobilization. It does't work: we tried it once, remember? If we want the people to back the war, and I mean the War of Reformation, not just the games being played in Iraq, we are going to have to start wearing our war face.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 3, 2006 5:54 PM


Yes, they think that we can control their behavior by changing our own. It's really just a form of elitist contempt for people.

Posted by: oj at April 3, 2006 5:59 PM

the left is an infection of the body politic, in this country and anywhere else they are allowed to have influence. sooner or later they will gain permanent control of the reigns of power if they are not expelled from the country en masse. it won't happen, but it should.

Posted by: toe at April 3, 2006 6:49 PM

At least they're not pretending to be something they aren't anymore.

Posted by: Pepys at April 3, 2006 8:00 PM

I wonder if the Times has run any of the more graphic Sept. 11 pictures anywhere in the paper on any of the four anniversaries of the attack.

Posted by: John` at April 3, 2006 8:58 PM

Between the left, the jews, the gays, and the black, i been thinking that maybe we should round em up in camps and systematically execute them before their diseases of influence infect the god-given progress of the body politic any more than they already have. Anyone else agree?

Posted by: Littlefoot at April 3, 2006 9:50 PM

85% of US soldiers are of the opinion that the war in Iraq is a direct retaliation for the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Apparently, the day has given some people the right to kill anyone who dwells in a country whose population is predominantly Islamic.

Posted by: Freddie at April 3, 2006 9:53 PM

Freddie: Source?

Posted by: David Cohen at April 3, 2006 10:14 PM

Littlefoot: Extermination camps are a tactic of the left. We're conservatives.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 3, 2006 10:14 PM

Perhaps the LATimes editors have been debating for 4+ years whether to run such a picture, and they finally rolled the dice.

Perhaps the editors are getting back at the blogosphere for those who questioned Jill Carroll.

Perhaps the Chicago Tribune has decided to hasten the death of the Times.

Perhaps the editors were upset because Rob Reiner had to resign last week, and Arnold appears to be rolling towards re-election.

Or perhaps they have decided to join the nutjob Islamists in a very public way. We'll know soon.

Posted by: ratbert at April 3, 2006 10:26 PM


Odd that if that's the right it conveyed we've instead liberated several of those countries instead, no?

Posted by: oj at April 3, 2006 11:52 PM

No extermination camps? Surely our bylaws include an exception for propagandists masquerading as Objective Journalists. No? Then we must hope that Dante reserved a special circle in Hell for them.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 12:00 AM

Even the concentration camps for the Nisei were a tool of the Left.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 12:05 AM

This is a very tame picture compared to the white phosphorus victims from the battle of Fallujah shown in the Italian documentary. (Or was that perhaps faked footage produced by leftists and wacko islamists, OJ?)

I hope this gentleman is recovering well. This is a reality of war from which far too many people in this country are insulated. Wounded soldiers (not romantic notions of "liberating" countries) is the reality of war. Would you prefer we hid wounded soldiers from the public, shunned them, and never spoke of them?

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:19 AM


Yes, the only reason to run pictures like this is to destroy the will to liberate those people. It serves evil.

Note that the LA Times doesn't run equally newsworthy photos of hostages being beheaded.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 12:23 AM

OJ, the reason to run a picture like that is to accurately portray the war (specifically) and world events in general. Are the citizens of this country not able to handle the truth?

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:27 AM

Pictures of beheadings and pictures of the white phophorus victims are much more graphic than this.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:29 AM

Wonder how often the LAT front page shows gory close-ups of police and citizens shot up by the local insurgents in La-La-Land?

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 12:31 AM


You ducked OJ's statement. Surely you know that if the battle of Fallujah had been televised live, approval for the war would have gone up by probably 25%. And seeing US Army troops and Marines getting shot would not have dented it.

We don't object to the photo of the soldier per se, but rather the motives of the media, who avoid showing anything that would hurt their political talking points (including the Mohammed cartoons, wouldn't you say?).

Would you object if the footage of Daniel Pearl's death were run on the evening news? If the murder of the male Italian reporter who courageously fought at the end was shown to all America?

Would you object if all the videotape of Saddam personally supervising torture and rape was shown?

Where do you draw the line?

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 4, 2006 12:38 AM

OJ, I can't keep up with your blog. (You are a prolific poster, and I have a job.)

Have you apologized for accusing Jill Carrol of staging her own kidnapping yet?

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:39 AM


It has nothing to do with truth, just playing on emotion.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 12:40 AM

Bill draws it in the sand. Just above his head.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 12:40 AM

Wounded soldiers (not romantic notions of "liberating" countries) is the reality of war.

Surely one is as real as the other. An odd habit of mind, to think that a photograph annihilates what the photographer chose not to put in his frame.

Posted by: joe shropshire at April 4, 2006 12:45 AM


She has an awful lot of questions to answer before anyone can say she wasn't complicit in what went on.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 12:45 AM

Jim, I didn't mean to duck, let me clarify. Of course the newspapers should have some level of sensitivity to graphic violence, and I think that the pictures of the beheadings are over the line. It's a difficult decision.

In the case of this soldier, the case for not showing the picture is not because of blood, it is because (it is argued) it would harm the war effort somehow. I don't think that is a reasonable basis for limiting the press in a democracy.

We have a policy under this administration that caskets of our soldiers are not allowed to be photographed. Just listing the names of dead soldiers was considered treasonous by right wing pundits. This kind of limitation on the press is not congruous with democracy.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:48 AM

That would seem to put the burden of proof on poor Jill, oj.

We can properly observe, however, that she did not choose the path of that I-talian fella who did the Nathan Hale bit.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 12:49 AM

But limiting the pictures of what the enemy does is?

If you want to make it a pissing contest of inflammatory photos we'll obviously win.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 12:52 AM

Dammit, Bill, the complaint is not that the LAT showcased the wounded warrior photo. It's that they ONLY showcase stories and visuals that evoke anti-war emotions.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 12:52 AM

oj, you think Jill Carrol has to answer to you? What does she owe you?

Actually that notion dovetails well with your insistence that we are somehow "liberating" Iraq. That concept is incredibly arrogant! By what authority are we destined to liberate other peoples and construct their societies by our guidelines?

I can understand engaging threats like the Taliban, but this idea that America has some authority to reshape the middle east according to our wishes is unvarnished arrogance.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:53 AM

If she were woman enough, Jill would answer to every Coalition asset deployed to obtain her safe release.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 12:56 AM


Maybe its really hard to capture in a photograph just how good war can be.

Seriously though, the enemy isn't the LA Times. The enemy is now the growing number of Iraqis who want to help evict us from their country.

I think Murtha was right (has it been a year already?) when he said we were enhancing the violence in Iraq rather than controlling or decreasing it.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 12:58 AM

Ghostcat, she said she was interviewed by the US military. You have no reason to believe she's been anything less than fully cooperative. (except, I suppose, for some of the things you've heard on this site)

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:02 AM


Deus lo volt. Of course it's arrogant, but it's right.

She owes us answers because she wasted the nations time and resources.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:04 AM

They want us out. We want to leave. It is unfolding approximately OK. Watch the next month or two very closely.

And, yeah, war is all hell. But it can indeed liberate. How's yer deutschsprach, dude?

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:05 AM


The burden of proof is on her.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:07 AM

Ghostcat, I think I've seen perhaps three stories since 2003 on the wounded veterans of this war. There have been over 17,000 wounded. I remember seeing at least that many stories on the recovery of the one miner that survived the Sago mine accident in West Virginia. If anything, the Times and other news organizations have been avoiding reporting this story.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:07 AM

Why on Jill, oj? (Seriously.)

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:09 AM


No they don't, but neither did welfare recipients want to get jobs. We need to leave so they assume responsibility for themselves.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:12 AM

Bill, here in Oregon there have been many stories (with pix) on dead and wounded troops. We have had many Oregon Guard casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there's been no comparable effort to evoke "kill-the-Islamacists" emotions. Quite the opposite. Unfair. Unbalanced.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:14 AM


Because her case is so similar to that of the Italian communist journalist and the German archaeologist woman who were likewise predictably released unharmed. It appears possible that one's politics determine one's fate, irrespective of whether they're actually complicit in the hostage-taking itself.


Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:16 AM

OJ, are you claiming some divine will has assigned America this task?

You know, the Son of Sam thought god was talking to him through his dog. I think he was correctly locked up.

Ghostcat, ich spreche keine Deutsche, but the parallels with WWII are a stretch at best. We can certainly agree to hope things get better.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:18 AM


Results 1 - 30 of about 683,000 English pages for hostage beheaded. (0.78 seconds)


Results 1 - 30 of about 16,800,000 English pages for iraq wounded american. (0.57 seconds)


Google is your friend.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:18 AM


Isn't your question: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

But it's the core of Americanism:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:20 AM

Ironically, oj, a growing number of Sunni's don't want us to leave, lest they reap the whirlwind! But most polling I've seen says the average Iraqi does not want to be occupied any longer than necessary. So, they agree with you ... at least in principle. Timing is everything.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:21 AM

Over 17K injured and approx. 53% return to duty in 72 hours.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 4, 2006 1:22 AM

Bill, Bill, Bill. Am not equating the GWOT with WWII. Merely suggesting that war can and sometimes does liberate. Antietam Creek and all that.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:25 AM

Ghost, where in OR are you? I'm moving to Portland in June. In Lansing, MI, and in New Orleans before that the news has been bending over backward to keep all their coverage on the war positive.

OJ, that's just pathetic to reference your own posts as if that somehow supports your case. Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true.

Ghost, I can save you some time, OJ links to this German article and two other sites that link to the same article. In the article an anonymous source says that he saw a whole bunch of cash in the clothes of the Italian hostage soon after she was released. Between that and OJ's notion of appropriate actions for a freed hostage are his case.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:26 AM


Yes, but if you show them going back it hardly helps the anti-war effort.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:27 AM


Why aren't you? What's the difference between liberating the Middle East and Central Europe/Eastern Asia?

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:27 AM

OJ, nothing in there says that we are supposed to dictate the government for the Iraqis. It says quite the opposite. "...it is their right, it is their duty..."

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:30 AM

OJ, I'm not talking about the information I can find on these topics. I'm talking about what is covered in the newspapers and MSM.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:32 AM


Not only did the German women apparently end up with some of the ransom but made a series of erratic public statements and returned to Iraq, infuriating the German people who'd bought her "freedom."

The Italian chick returned to Italy in triumph to lead anti-American marches.

When Ms Carroll was taken the profiles, particularly about her friendship with Marla Ruzcika who was involved with the anti-American group Code Pink made it sound like we should be similarly dubious about her case and we said to expect her to be freed unharmed.

She was, thus the questions.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:34 AM

oj -

So, Jill is in a category of individuals ... western females travelling to Iraq ... which includes several likely "traitors". Knowing nothing about her relevant personal views, I tend to resist thinking she is a fellow traveller in anything other than a literal sense.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:34 AM

Sandy, good point. I hadn't noticed that. I'm glad to see the number of seriously wounded is lower than I'd thought.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:35 AM



Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:35 AM


Has the LA Times run front page photos of the hostages who were actually killed?

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:36 AM

Bill -

In the Portland area. But you wouldn't like my neighborhood. Full of all sorts of law enforcement types. And military reservists. American flags everywhere.


I could make the case equating the Long War and WWII. But I wasn't. Not my point.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:39 AM


If that's the case it wouldn't be hard for her to clear the matter up.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:39 AM


You likely thought the number was higher from reading the samne type sites that sent you here.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 1:40 AM

OJ, the whole point is that the Iraqi people deserve self-determination. How can we give them self-determination? It is a logical contradiction. We've tried it before and failed. In WWII we were fighting on someone's behalf. In Bosnia, we were fighting on someone's behalf. In Iraq, we are there at no one's request and we are trying to tell them what kind of country to have. It's the opposite of self-determination.

And I'm glad to see you are saying that the German hostage "apparently" had some of the ransom money. A little more examination and I think you'll settle on "alledgedly" or maybe "was rumored to".

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:42 AM


I think she should clear the matter up. But for the Coalition assets who saved hers, not for you and me.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:42 AM


You just stepped in it.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 4, 2006 1:44 AM

Ghostcat, you misunderestimate me. I've got lots of family in the military and law enforcement. I've got no quarrel with them.

The reason I've got a problem with this war is that the soldiers (mostly reservists and national guard) are being used - spit up and chewed out. And although the rhetoric is great (all Freedom and Liberating) the only consistent thing I've seen is Halliburton and Bechtel making scratch. When we went in, Bush did everything he could to say Saddam and Al Qaeda and September 11th in the same sentance as many times as possible. Then it was the WMD's that Saddam most assuredly had and intended to use on us. Now it looks like we are only there to set up some puppet government from which we can launch the next attack on Iran or Syria.

It's a steaming pile, and I can't believe that so many are still buying this crap.

The National Guard should have been home and liberating people in New Orleans. That 300 Billion that's been channeled to Halliburton and all of Dick Cheney's hunting buddies should have been spent on border security and port security. And 2700+ families should be a lot happier than they are now.

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:53 AM

Stepped in something?

Posted by: Bill at April 4, 2006 1:56 AM

When reservists and national guardsmen sign up, what are they signing up for? Free college money? A weekend in the boondocks playing war? I think they are volunteering to go to war when our government says they are needed. If they illogically assume they won't go, that's no one's fault but their own. That's why it's volunteer.

And why would Bush talk about WMD if he knew it wasn't there and would be easily proven to not be there once we got in the country? I wonder how many American companies profitted from rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII. Surely it must have been a war to make some white guys rich, under your philosophy.

Posted by: sharon at April 4, 2006 2:16 AM

Boy, the Chomskybots are out in force today.

Posted by: Mike Morley at April 4, 2006 6:51 AM


We aren't characters in Starship Troopers.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 7:32 AM


That all makes to little sense to even bother trying to address point by point, but I'd point out that the Germans and Japanese didn't ask us to come help them self-determine in WWII while the Shi'ites and Kurds did rise up when we asked them to, it just took unti W reached office for us to respond.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 7:34 AM

Into two short paragraphs Bill manages to cram:

1. Duped American soldiers used as cannon fodder
2. Halliburton ($300 billion?)
3. Bush's supposed lies about a connection between Saddam, Al Qaeda and 9/11
4. New Orleans
5. WMDs
6. Iraq's "puppet government"
7. Dick Cheney
8. Dick Cheney's "hunting buddies" and
9. "Ports"

Gotta be some kind of record, and a genuine advance in Chombot technology.

Posted by: jgm at April 4, 2006 8:07 AM

Bill still hasn't responded to any question about the media showing pictures that would hurt the left.

He can't. They can't.

Bill, a few days ago, there was a long comment on this blog about Christine Hanson. Know who she was?

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 4, 2006 9:54 AM

he only consistent thing I've seen is Halliburton and Bechtel making scratch. When we went in, Bush did everything he could to say Saddam and Al Qaeda and September 11th in the same sentance as many times as possible.

Actually, that was the stepping in it. He's working on faith. Even more than OJ!!

Posted by: Twn at April 4, 2006 10:28 AM

It finally bot H to get some of those ill-gotten gains everyone keeps yammering on about.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 4, 2006 10:56 AM

Bill, if we dictated the government as you and others think we do, then how come none of them look like ours?

They'd certainly function better.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 4, 2006 11:01 AM

I'll only add that the policy not to allow photos of the coffins of dead soldiers is NOT a policy of "this administration," as Bill claims, but was put in place by the Clinton Administration, to deal with the bodies of the Bosnian fighting. I don't recall the press objecting to it at the time.

Posted by: Lisa at April 4, 2006 12:02 PM

I too have noticed that Bill has avoided the selective-photo-publication question, which is AT THE CENTER OF THIS POST.

Here's the essential point: the assumption that the media is UNbiased IS A DEFAULT ASSUMPTION. There is NOTHING INHERENT IN THE MEDIA that enforces non-bias. Indeed, the media in Europe openly declare their political positions and have Lefties EXPLOIT default assumptions. Default assumptions are subject to challenge based on the facts.

The most convincing method for demonstrating bias against blacks and women has historically been hard statistics. Counting things like hires, promotions, benefits handed out, salary raises, disciplinary actions, and firings. Companies have been exonerated, and companies have been CONDEMNED by the statistics.

The most recent redistricting of texas was opposed by democrats. When they took it to court, THEY WERE DEFEATED when the republicans showed that the old layout consistently allowed 60% of the congressional delegation to be elected by 40% of the electorate.

Time to apply statistics to the media self-proclamation of impartiality, Bill, and the results are in: they aren't, and you aren't either.

Posted by: Ptah at April 4, 2006 12:51 PM

You guys do such a thorough job that there's nothing left of Bill for me. Sigh.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 4, 2006 12:55 PM

AOG: There's that retention rates for Iraqi War veterans are up over quota; that the war remains popular with the troops; and that being in the army in 2005 was no more dangerous than being in the army in 1980.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 4, 2006 1:46 PM

#1 cause of military deaths in iraq, now, is single vehicle accidents.

Posted by: toe at April 4, 2006 4:02 PM

Weren't 6 guys killed in a flash flood the other day, when their vehicle tipped over and they couldn't get out?

Posted by: ratbert at April 4, 2006 4:20 PM

50 years ago yesterday, a catagory F5 tornado struck here in western Michigan and more than 20 people were killed.

Posted by: Dave W at April 4, 2006 4:43 PM