« Constitutional Judges
Why We Don’t Read Newsweek »

The Wolf Pack and The Ass

Tuesday was a day which exhibited well the meltdown of The Left. First, we have the Fourth Estate Wolf Pack defending reckless reporting by Newsweek by attacking, you guessed it, President Bush. The repulsive Legacy Media are best deconstructed by a Roger Kimball post aptly asking Whose side are they on?

The last time I checked, 17 people had been killed in the riots sparked by that story, scores more injured. But so what? Here we have the pampered US media: their enemy is the Bush administration, and if some natives somewhere have to die to embarrass the US government, well, you can’t make an omelette, etc., etc.

Not that I have much time for those rioters--they are murderous thugs. (And, by the way, how many Christian churches or Jewish temples are there in Saudi Arabia? Take your time . . . ) Denis Praeger got it exactly right when he asked Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? Did any Christians riot and murder when an “artist” produced “Piss Christ” -- a crucifix immersed in a jar of the “artist’s” urine? When all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? When Christians are murdered while at prayer in churches by Muslims in Pakistan? Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph’s Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003? It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

“Remarkable” is one word for it. “Savage,” “barbaric,” “evil” are other words.

Michelle Malkin notes Newsweek is breathlessly defending their star reporter (OK, their star reporter who failed the Journalism 101 rules exam) Michael Isikoff. Like the little kid who claims his stickball teammate broke the neighbor's window, Newsweek lands a juvenile red herring claiming "We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us." They certainly couldn't do worse. The Ass? Member of Parliament George Galloway. The fact that this Glasgow Scotland clown still sits in Parliament says a great deal about his constituents who re-elected this Oil-for-Food beneficiary thief. You see, in George's fantasy world, it's OK to take 20 million barrels of oil from Saddam as a Thank You for playing the role of Neville Chamberlain (and, yes, starving Iraqis). His defense? Yes, right again! Blame the Bush Administration.
I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns.
CNN (at least the Headline News segment I caught) obliged by showing only George's testimony before the Senate (or was it an audition for a West Wing cameo?). Fox, as usual, was balanced and reported the hearing questions (excellent ones at that) and post-hearing statements by both Senators Coleman (R - Minnesota) and Levin (D - Michigan). Galloway is likely toast, but he received his 15 minutes of infamy trying to take down the GOP a notch while he slithers into the footnotes of history.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 18th, 2005 at 12:37 AM and is filed under Public Square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to “The Wolf Pack and The Ass”

  1. Colm Says:
    May 18th, 2005 at 1:41 AM

    You see, your thinking that Fox News offers unbiased coverage of news events is laughable. Any right-thinking person could not bear to listen to Bill O’Reilly and his goons. We get Fox over here and usually it’s something that we’d only watch for its comedic value.

    And I understand it’s one of the most watched news channels in the US?

    As for George Galloway, I can’t say I particularly like him. But he has gusto and wit that is sadly lacking in many corners of the political sphere. Your assumptions(what you’ve been fed by Fox no doubt) that Galloway is
    guilty has been proven wrong twice. In two separate defamation court cases.

  2. Greg Says:
    May 18th, 2005 at 1:49 AM

    Hmmm, now who is making assumptions?

    I’m not a fan of O’Reilly, but have great respect for Brit Hume, on whose Special Report was the Galloway reporting. Brit is a serious reporter and editor. O’Reilly is simply out for O’Reilly.

    I’m glad to hear you have faith in the defamation court case outcomes.

    Time will tell whether the evidence is true that both Republicans and Democrats agree is substantative and without any real contradiction by Galloway, but I’ll bet he’s going to live with Neville in the Hall of Shame.

  3. Colm Says:
    May 18th, 2005 at 2:20 AM

    I have no respect for Fox. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch. Enough said.

    And I do have faith in the defamation court case rulings. See, I believe in democracy and fair trial and not the George Bush kind. Some people like the judicial system we have in place over here.

    “Neville in the Hall of Shame”? That’s just the type of rhetoric that Fox would spew. Seriously, watch a different tv channel.

    Wasn’t Brit Hume the one who deliberately skewed the words of the great Franklin D Roosevelt? The first rule of journalism, fact is sacred. Brit Hume is just as bad as the rest at Fox.

  4. Greg Says:
    May 18th, 2005 at 8:32 AM

    Is Google unknown across the Pond?

    Brit was right according to none other than FDR on January 17, 1935:

    In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

  5. Colm Says:
    May 18th, 2005 at 9:23 AM

    Go get your learnin’ on … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
    You’re deliberately getting off the point to avoid the issues at hand.

  6. Greg Says:
    May 18th, 2005 at 8:20 PM

    The issue at hand is that George Galloway is a pompous ass (unless, of course, you believe Senator Levin is a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy also).

    While your lack of respect for Fox and Murdoch is a quaint cliché, Senate Minority Leader Reid must be on your Ain’t Gonna Give No Respect list also.

    Last night, Senate minority leader Harry Reid likened the president’s proposal to allow Americans to divert a portion of payroll taxes into personal security investment accounts to “gambling.” But in 1999, the Nevada Democrat proposed something very similar on our own “FOX News Sunday” saying, “Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector.”

    Who’s destroying whose legacy?

    Oh, and more Galloway fun at the evil Murdoch London Times. Claudia Rosett, as always, gives us the latest Big Picture in The New York Sun.

    Great entertainment.

    Too bad Iraqi children starved while George got fat. . . .