The Red Pill

This blog is now located at http://djatnieks.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://djatnieks.blogspot.com/rss.xml.

Another example of the culture of government jobs - even someone found to be a deserted from their official police officer duties in the wake of a national disaster may not lose their job because of it.

Where are all the loud voices that complained so much about Bush not being qualified for President because of alleged Guard duty absences turning their anger at these police deserters?

Leader of New Orleans Police Resigns: "Earlier in the day, the department said that about 250 police officers--roughly 15 percent of the force--could face discipline for leaving their posts without permission during Katrina and its aftermath.

Each case will be investigated to determine whether the officer was truly a deserter or had legitimate reasons to be absent, Deputy Chief Warren Riley said.

Sally Forman, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said it is not clear whether the deserters can be fired. She said the city is still looking into the civil service regulations."

The WSJ has a good piece about discusssing a recent Pew Research study showing how the press really full of reporters that are liberal and whose views are liberal. They think the press is not critical enough of President Bush and cannot name even one liberal news organization. Wow. Out of touch.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has a new survey of "547 national and local reporters, producers, editors, and executives across the country." It finds, not surprisingly, that journalists are far more liberal than the general public (Pew surveyed the latter separately). The section on "Values and the Press" finds that only 7% of national journalists described themselves as "conservative," compared with 33% of the public. Thirty-four percent of national journalists called themselves "liberal," vs. just 20% of the public. A majority of national journalists (54%) called themselves "moderate," while 41% of the public did.

In some ways, though, journalists are even more liberal when compared with the general public than these numbers would indicate. Pew asked three specific questions to gauge journalists' social views:

Is belief in God necessary to be moral?


Should homosexuality be accepted or discouraged by society?


What's more important: that everyone be free to pursue his goals without government interference, or that the government guarantee no one is in need?
On the first two of these questions, the views of self-described moderate journalists were far to the left of the public's:

Public Cons. journos Mod. journos
Belief in God necessary 58% 26% 12%
Belief in God unnecessary 40% 72% 85%
Accept homosexuality 51% 49% 84%
Discourage homosexuality 42% 40% 8%

Self-described liberal journalists were nearly unanimous on both questions, with only 3% saying belief in God is necessary to be moral and 2% saying homosexuality should be discouraged.

In addition, 55% of national journalists say they think the press is "not critical enough" of President Bush; only 24% of the public agrees. Thirty-four percent of the public thinks the press is "too critical," vs. a mere 8% of the national press. Thirty-five percent of both groups characterize coverage of the president as "fair."

Journalists were also asked, "Can you think of any news organizations that are especially liberal?" Among national journalists, 62% said they couldn't. But 82% said they could think of an organization that is "especially conservative."

Among both national and local journalists, 68% percent of self described conservatives answered "yes" to each question, while among self-described moderates, 70% could think of a conservative organization and just 40% could think of a liberal one. Among liberals the gap was even greater: 79% could think of a conservative organization and only 24% of a liberal one.

All this suggests that journalists not only are considerably more liberal than the general public but also wish their own coverage were more liberal than it is. No wonder public confidence in the press is suffering.

Yes, there is good being done in Iraq and some of it is listed in this blog.

A very interesting blog article discussing how it's possible to fight a war by attacking the political "head" of the enemy by using the media to inflict damage.

Writing about critism that arose over the publication of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, Howard Kurtz writes the following in the Washington Post:

What would be the alternative: covering it up?

Sitting on the story so the U.S. military wouldn't look bad?

Why not suppress all negative news and just salute?

And one week later Kurtz writes the following about the beheading of Nick Berg:

Did the networks have to play the gruesome video, except for the final act, thus handing the terrorists the propaganda victory they wanted? A still shot, a snippet, and a description wouldn't have been enough?

I think he's got it backwards.

He believes showing the video of Nick Berg about to get beheaded is "handing the terrorists the propaganda victory they wanted"?

I don't think so. Reaction seems rather to have steeled American's resolve against these brutal killers. I've already heard the beheading compared directly to 9-11 in terms of the long lasting shocking effect it could have on Americans. No, the enemy has seriously misjudged us and our reaction to this atrocity.

On the other hand, the Abu Ghraib, while mild in comparison to the Berg video, was much more the kind of propaganda event the enemy could hope for. America was distracted from the actual war in Iraq and was turning inward on itself, wondering how we could have done this and debating what should be done to punish those who carried it out and how to prevent it in the future.

In the propaganda war, it is the behaviour and actions of Americans that cause us the most anxiety. We already know - or should know - what the enemy is capable of, has done, and plans to do. The shocking video of Berg's death only too starkly reminds us of that. But when Americans behave and act below the high standard that we set for ourselves, that is the worst propaganda.

In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib pictures, Iraq really was finally turning into a quagmire of the Vietnam type. How can Americans support this war, or any war, if our military does not live up to the hightest of standards?

Consider how seriously this matter has been. Not only are the responsible persons being prosecuted, but calls have been made for the Secretary of Defence to resign. The President, and the Secretaries of Defence and State have all apologized publicly for these events.

Yet, I wonder if any of the Senators going to a private viewing of still more Abu Ghraib pictures today felt just a little bit small and petty - especially those making political hay over them - in comparison to the absolute horror of the death of Nick Berg. It should certainly put things into perspective.

Back to the topic of media critism; one only needs to hear the words of Berg's killers to understand what was the propaganda victory for them - they stated that the killing of Berg was in revenge for what happened at Abu Ghraib. The investigation of Abu Ghraib has been ongoing since the beginning of 2004 - yet only after the media frenzy in the last week does something so horrific as Berg's killing occur.

Kurtz does make one point that I agree with, although I doubt he, or the rest of the mainstream media, really understand in what light it applies:

Stories have consequences. That's the way journalism works.

The media frenzy over the Abu Ghraib photos was a story with consequences. It fed the terrorists hate and led them to think that if those pictures could have such an effect on our country then just think what would happen if they kill and American on video tape. Terrible consequences. For Berg, for us, and eventually for the terrorists.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del, goes as high as possible in determining who is responsible for the abuses in Abu Ghraib. As reported by the Delaware News Journal:

Once those people are identified, Biden said, Bush must "demand the resignations for whoever is involved in this policy, and that includes Lord God Almighty himself. It includes anybody involved."

Some irreverant thoughts after reading the past couple days about Abu Ghraib prison and the abuses that occurred there by U.S. soldiers.

• One Iraqi, Hasham Mohsen Lazim, who claims to have been one of the prisoners in the photos of hooded been being abused, has since been released and has trained to become an officer in the new U.S. sponsored Iraqi police force.
  


• Another Iraqi claiming to have also been one of the abused prisoners wanted some kind of restitution to be paid to him by the U.S. He also let it be known that he felt so humiliated over the abuses - and their public display - that he could not return to his home town and, by the way, would not refuse an offer to come to the U.S.
  


• Name other countries in which there would be such a public vetting of military abuses and in which the government would accept responsibility, vow to punish those responsible, and put safeguards in place to prevent future incidents. Short list, I bet.
  


• Here's a fun little trail of events (in reverse order):
  
  
  
  1. Abuses of Iraqi prisoners by lowlife degenerate military personnel.
  
  
  2. Lowlife, degenerates accepted into military because of lack of higher quality applicants
  
  
  3. High quality young people do NOT join military because ROTC programs banned from college campuses.
  
  
  4. ROTC programs banned from colleg campuses in protest of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military
  
  
  5. The administration of Bill Clinton institutes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for gays in the military
  
  
  
  So we see, that the abuses of Iraqi prisoners can be traced back to none other than Bill Clinton.
  
  It would be fun to see an episode in the style of that PBS show "Connections" on this topic.
  

Some liberals are coming to their senses and increasingly see Kerry as a liability. The very liberal Village Voice actually calls for the DNC to dump Kerry and nominate someone else.

Doctor gives medical description of Kerry's first Purple Heart wound. From the National Review.

Kerry doesn't get support from his own commanders, but does get support from most of those serving under him. Interesting. From the Boston Globe.

Kerry's commanders speak out against him
Staff says assault is tied to GOP
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | May 5, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A group of former officers who commanded John F. Kerry in Vietnam more than three decades ago declared yesterday that they oppose his candidacy for president, challenged him to release more of his military and medical records, and said Kerry should be denied the White House because of his 1971 allegations that some superiors had committed ''war crimes."

Kerry has since said his accusation about war crimes and atrocities was too harsh, but many of his former commanders contended yesterday that they believed the allegations were aimed at them.

''I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief," said retired Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who helped organize the news conference and oversaw all of the swift boats in Vietnam at the time Kerry commanded one of those crafts. ''This is not a political issue; it is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust -- all absolute tenets of command."

The Kerry campaign, seeking to control the political damage on a day when a new batch of biographical ads touting Kerry's military service was hitting the airwaves, arranged for two of Kerry's crewmates to appear at a later news conference and declare that Kerry was a consummate leader who braved bullets and aggressively took on the enemy. The Kerry campaign also handed out documents it said showed that the news conference was handled by a public relations firm with ties to the Republican Party and President Bush.

One of Kerry's fellow patrol boat skippers, Wade Sanders, defended Kerry and compared the statements of Kerry's commanders to the investigations of suspected communists by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, saying the commanders should be asked, ''Have you no decency?"

The senator's campaign has long weathered criticism from some Vietnam veterans over Kerry's actions in Vietnam and as an antiwar leader, but yesterday's event was unprecedented because it included nearly all of his commanding officers. Two of those officers, former lieutenant commander George Elliott and former Coast Guard captain Adrian Lonsdale, stood by Kerry's side when questions were raised during the 1996 Senate campaign about whether Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Jim Zumwalt -- the son of the late Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who also had appeared by the senator's side in 1996 -- also expressed his opposition to Kerry.

Eight years ago, Elliott, who wrote up Kerry for the Silver Star, rebutted suggestions that Kerry shot a retreating enemy in the back in that encounter, providing crucial support in the closing days of a hard-fought Senate race between Kerry and then-Governor William F. Weld. Yesterday, however, Elliott joined the other commanders in saying he opposed Kerry for president on the grounds that the senator was an antiwar leader who alleged atrocities were committed in Vietnam.

Elliott defended his current position, saying it was consistent to have supported the senator when he was wrongly accused in 1996.

''I find a couple of things ironic. I stood alongside John Kerry along with Admiral Zumwalt and Adrian Lonsdale in 1996 to defend him against the false accusation of -- Guess what? -- atrocities and war crimes," Elliott said. ''That wasn't true then; that's why I stood with him. The second irony is, in 1971 . . . he claimed that the 500,000 men in Vietnam in combat were all villains. There were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared running for president."

''It galls one to think about it," Elliott said.

Lonsdale, who recalled long discussions with Kerry when they served together, said, ''I never once heard Senator Kerry say one thing about atrocities."

In addition, one of Kerry's commanding officers, retired Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, said he strongly questioned whether Kerry the senator deserved his first purple heart Purple Heart. Elaborating on an account reported in The Boston Globe last month, Hibbard said he was briefed after the Dec. 2, 1968, event for which Kerry received a Purple Heart.

''The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received enemy fire," Hibbard said. ''And yet Lieutenant [junior grade] Kerry informed me of a wound, he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lieutenant Kerry had fired an M-79 and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment and probably said something like, `Forget it.'

''He later received a purple heart Purple Heart for that scratch, and I don't know how," Hibbard said.

Calling themselves Swift Veterans for Truth, the officers who criticized Kerry yesterday urged him to allow the Department of Defense to release all his military and medical records. The aim of that request appeared to focus on questions such as the one raised by Hibbard about the first Purple Heart. The veterans said they wanted the records released by the Navy, not by the campaign, to ensure that the public can see everything in Kerry's file. Michael Meehan, Kerry's spokesman, said the campaign has released everything in the Navy file.

Meehan said the commanders were motivated by partisan politics and noted that a lead organizer, John O'Neill, had ties to the Republican Party stretching back to the Nixon White House. The Kerry campaign showed reporters a photo of O'Neill meeting with President Nixon in 1971 and copies of favorable evaluations of Kerry by Elliott and Hibbard.

O'Neill said that he paid the $1,200 cost of the room for the news conference and that he had and others at the event had not been in touch with Republican officials.

The Kerry campaign said in a statement, however, that one of the news conference's organizers, Merrie Spaeth, was ''tied to the Bush campaign's underhanded tactics to smear John McCain in the 2000 Republican presidential primary." The Kerry campaign said Spaeth is the widow of Harold Lezar, who ran in 1994 with Bush as a candidate for lieutenant governor. Spaeth was director of media relations for President Reagan.

In a telephone interview, Spaeth said her firm had nothing to do with the attacks on McCain, and she said her late husband lost the race for lieutenant governor and had not been endorsed by Bush. She said she had been scrupulous in ensuring that she had no contact with Republican officials in helping set up yesterday's news conference.

In contrast to the commanders, all but one of the 15 or so men who served under Kerry's command have spoken highly of the senator, and many have said they eventually came to understand his opposition to the Vietnam War. ''John Kerry never backed down," crewmate Del Sandusky said yesterday. ''His philosophy was, `Attack, attack, attack.' "

Michael Moore is whining for attention again, this time that Disney cancelled distribution of his new film through Miramax because, Moore claims, it would be unflattering to Bush in an election year. However, Moore has known for a year or more that his film would be distributed through Lions Gate. It's Moore, not Disney, that's making this an election year issue.

See the article by Marc Cooper for moore details on the truth of the matter.

Kerry is even flip-flopping in his campaign, as the OpinionJournal reports.

"If George Bush wants to make national security an issue in this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he'll understand. Bring it on!"--John Kerry, quoted in the New York Times, Feb. 1

"Call off the Republican attack dogs."--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, responding to Dick Cheney's speech on John Kerry's defense record, quoted by the Associated Press, April 26

In the same Meet the Press interview, John Kerry fails to promise that he can really deliver on his claim to create 10 million new jobs - forgetting for the moment that at the current unemployment rate there are less than that many unemployed people in the country - if "something bad" happens or "we are at war". Imagine that.

Russert also asks Kerry if he will pledge not to seek re-election in 2008 should he become president and fail to meet his goals of creating 10 million new jobs and halving the deficit. His answer:

Well, it would depend on the circumstances. If I don't [succeed] because there's a war or something terrible happens, of course I'm not going to make that pledge.

John Kerry accused himself of being a war criminal. And this man is running for President of the United States???
From the April 18, 2004 transcript of Meet the Press.

Kerry mentioned Vietnam five times. As it turns out, he served there. Russert played a clip from an earlier Kerry appearance on "Meet the Press," on April 18, 1971, then asked him about it:

Kerry: There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.