MSM Contracts ODS

~Snooper~

Published at Canada Free Press

Well, well, well. What do we have here? Nancy Gibbs writes in the Leftinistra Rag called Time, owned by CNN: " Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope." ... And some are born from the bowels of anti-Americanists such as Saul Alinsky, Uncle Frank and George Soros. She forgot them. Did she just compare Obama to Jesus Christ?

Lisa Miller writes in Newsweek, "Is Obama the Antichrist?" This was written on 15 NOV 08. Where were these "curious articles" before the elections? That is curious as well. Naturally the answer is no because the Anti Christ will fool everyone and the fool hasn't fooled me. Not even remotely. But, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell these uneducated ones here.

While on the subject of the moosetwits in the "media", Shep is just as much in the dark about the United States Constitution as the dolt Olbernuts at MSLSD. However, he does understand that the auto maker bail out is just another super duper and peachy keen step to national corporate welfare and wonders when it will all stop and who it is that will draw The Line.

Do The Right Thing has a chronology of Pro Life issues that have gone unreported in the media because it casts a shadow on the "tolerant" Obamawhiners including the Chief Proponent of Infanticide himself, Sir Illegal Alien Barack. These acts of the defunct and pillaged media outlest are the very epitome of ODS.

When news outlets censor themselves to not offend Obama, that is ODS. When news outlets brag that their "bias" is what "saved America", that is ODS. Saved America from what? Freedom? For more ODS, refer to the Flopping Aces piece that we covered on my BTR show when the "media" said that Obama was a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”. Creature? We were led to believe that he was The One. The Messiah. This was reported on 9 NOV 08. Where were they BEFORE the elections?

The media bias in this nation is the result of journalistic malpractice. Of that there can be no doubt. I have been teaching/preaching this for a seeming eternity. When the alleged main stream media compares Obama to Jesus Christ or FDR, that right there is ODS. When the news media will not "offend" by reporting the Logan Act violations of their "zero" which includes negotiating with HAMAS behind the scenes during his campaign, that is ODS.

For more ODS issues not classified "officially" yet by those that ARE suffering from ODS, go to the bottom of this post. You will find a link to the LA Times NOW wondering what Obama's resume might contain and where is it?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen...those of us still fighting this fight have not contracted ODS. The media has had it all along. Get a clue.

Another Example of Severe Media Bias

~Snooper~

Hat Tip to Lew of Right In A Left World for an email alert. It seems the Caliphate News Network as my friend Hawk has so dubbed CNN, cannot get over themselves.

They DID report a story in regards to a burn victim from Iraq being brought to the United Stats for treatment but, they failed once again to bring forth the generosity of the American People.

Lew's message:

A heart wrenching story of an Iraqi child burned badly and brought to the US for treatment. But, instead of giving credit to the Children's Burn Foundation or the American public for their generosity, CNN mentions themselves 12 times in the story. The Children's Burn Foundation once and generosity of the American people not even once!

The Children's Burn Foundation

The CNN story

CNN cannot help themselves but to slam America at every given opportunity.

Journalistic Malpractice: Crickets

~Snooper~

When a theoretical Main Stream Media, as they like to be referred to as, purposefully "buries" a Good News story developing in the GWOT, it can be argued that the journalistic entity is conducting journalistic malpractice.

We have Medical Malpractice. We have Legal Malpractice and in recent times, we have Accounting Malpractice. I think we are due for some good old Journalistic Malpractice. It can be argued that such "cover ups" create a false perception, damaging morale within the Armed Forces and the American Public as a whole. A good attorney could have a Field Day second to none in this regard. Get a good Crash and Burn firm to lead the charge to hold the journalists to a standard to which they hold all others...except their moppets, naturally.

We in the New Media have shown that the Media Darlings are never held to as a higher plateau of honesty and integrity they demand so much of from others. It doesn't mesh with their personal agendas or tenets of dishonesty.

Case in point: Musa Qala, Afghanistan. Where is the "Main Stream Media"? A blog at ABC has some good coverage, does it not? Or, not.

The "Main Stream" coverage "IS" "Rather" relegated to the Boredom Pages...why is that?

The self-vaunted "Main Stream Media" said that the rebels fled or Afghan Troops over-ran a rebel position and 50 rebels were killed where the truth is this: the Taliban was seriously routed, defeated and crushed by overwhelming and superior firepower.

Ace of Spades:

The US Military had a "temper tantrum," I guess ABCNews would say.

A wonderful temper tantrum. "Hundreds killed," not the 50 or so reported earlier. [...]

[...] Now you may wonder why a major victory in the, ahem, "Forgotten War" (the first forgotten war Afghanistan, and not Forgotten War II, Iraq) isn't being reported by the media.

It's because they're Patriots, buddy! They don't want to leak out the sensitive intelligence to the Taliban that they just got their asses kicked unholy. They might not know yet, so keep it on the QT, all right?

All hail the Patriotic MSM for its discretion. Huzzah, sirs!

Thanks to dri.

IBD Editorials:

Coalition forces captured the Taliban's biggest stronghold on Tuesday in a major military victory. Funny, isn't it, how the good guys winning doesn't make banner front-page headlines?

Musa Qala was the only town in the strategically vital Helmand province under Taliban control. The enemy had seized it in February after the collapse of a local truce between the British military and Afghan elders. But this week Afghan and NATO-led troops changed that by killing, wounding or capturing hundreds of Taliban fighters, including several commanders, in retaking the town.

On Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7, U.S. infantry were participating in one of the biggest air assaults in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban government a few weeks after 9/11. So many of the enemy were killed that Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told reporters, "We are still busy collecting dead bodies from Musa Qala." Azimi also said an important Taliban meeting in the mountains of Sangin and Musa Qala district was also bombed, resulting in many casualties. [...]

[...] Far from just an important Taliban command post, Musa Qala was also a training base for both Afghan and foreign Islamist militants. Azimi has said hundreds of foreign terrorists had gathered there. That makes this week's victory a big win in the global war on terror.

On top of that, though, is the fact that the town was home to as many as 70 heroin labs, profits from which were used to fund Taliban terrorism. Afghanistan makes over 90% of the world's opium, more than half of which is grown in Helmand province. So chalk up a victory in the war on drugs, too. [...]

[...] Major media outlets are only too happy to report things falling apart in Afghanistan, while Democrats just complain that Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught yet. This week we saw all the signs of a major victory in the global war on terror, and a victory for freedom for the Afghan people. That's nothing to be quiet about.

Simply amazing and, this DAV now has a burning hatred for the Leftinistra and their idgits in the now defunct and untrustworthy once Main Stream Media.

Yes. It is time for Journalistic Malpractice to become a reality.

Anti AQ Parade In Ramadi...Doing The Job The Lame Stream Won't

Hat Tip to Wake Up America for this data.

There was a parade in downtown Ramadi, Iraq on 10/25/07 and much like the Medal of Honor recipient, Lt. Michael Murphy, the recipient of the first congressional Medal of Honor in the War on Terror was ignored by the Lame Stream Media, so was this parade.

From Wake Up America:

I think one of the most damning things about our media today is when you look for the recent parade that was held in Ramadi, Iraq, this week, when you do a search, there is very little in the news about it. (Time article about the parade)

[...]

This parade is very significant for several reasons but the primary reason I see this as very significant is that just a few days ago, OBL, acting like our own Democratic Party Leaders and some Republican Party Leaders, began the whining about "why can't we all get along?" and acting like a spoiled brat when things aren't going his way.

He, as most of the political leaders of the Democrats, cannot and will not admit defeat...they blame someone or something else.

For a more in depth analysis of the OBL whine and cry incident, go here or here.

To see the responses of OBL's pathetic plea from other mutants of the genre of flaming fools of OBL's ilk, go here, or here.

From DefenseLink News: By David Mays, Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26, 2007 – A remarkable parade in Iraq’s Anbar province, openly attended by citizens from all walks of life, demonstrates that Iraqi reconciliation efforts are working, a coalition commander said today.

“Out in al Anbar, which you know has been a difficult area about six months ago: a total change,” Army Brig. Gen. Dave Phillips told online journalists and bloggers during a conference call from Baghdad. “When they say there is an awakening, I think that's almost an understatement.”

Phillips, deputy commanding general for the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, said he personally attended an event earlier this week that proved the awakening movement encouraged by Sunni sheiks is working.

“This past Tuesday, I went out to Ramadi,” the general explained. “The Iraqis came up with a concept of a Unity Day parade. Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think Ramadi would host a parade which would be led with a band playing and then also young Iraqi boy scouts marching with flags, young Iraqi girl scouts marching with flags, followed by the fire department, the national police, the regular police, ambulances. Never dreamed I would see something like that.”

Increased security in Iraqi communities allows such open celebrations to take place, Phillips explained. To that end, the general said, he and his team have helped hire more than 13,000 new Iraqi police officers just in the past two months.

“We have more people signing up than what we actually have ability to hire,” Phillips explained. “And when I say ‘we,’ I'm referring to the Iraqis.”

Tomorrow, 450 Iraqi police officers will begin 10 weeks of specialized training led by Italy’s fabled Carabinieri force, the general said.

“The national police of Iraq are structured very similar to the Carabinieri in Italy,” Phillips explained. “The Carabinieri have nationwide authority; so do the (Iraqi) national police. They can deploy anywhere in the country, and they're a high-end police force that can transition very rapidly to almost light infantry. And so we saw the parallels there.”

In addition to the thousands of police applicants, thousands more Iraqis are volunteering to patrol their own neighborhoods as “concerned local citizens” the general said.

“Most of them bring their own weapons with them,” Phillips said. “They will work with the Iraqi police, and they will be responsible for guarding a block or a corner or some area. And they basically are auxiliaries. They help the police. They can't make arrests, but they are there as eyes and ears on the street, and they provide information.”

So far, more than 50,000 concerned local citizens have offered their services in and around Fallujah, Muqdadiyah, and Diyala, the general said.

“Some are paid. A vast majority are not paid,” Phillips said. “They're doing it because they want to see a difference in their community.”

It’s clear, the general said, that Iraqi citizens are making a difference in their community when they are able to openly celebrate as they did this week in Ramadi.

“When I sat there at the Ramadi parade, that evening I contacted my wife and told her that for one of the first times in a long time, I was very optimistic,” he said. “In the past, I was cautiously optimistic, but what I saw at Ramadi, to me, that was one of those days to where you realized you are witnessing something extremely special.”

(David Mays works in New Media at American Forces Information Service.)

The video can be viewed here or click my VODPOD above. The Americans were invited to witness this parade. Security was extremely tight but the fact that the parade took place without incident is a tribute to the hard work that our Armed Services have rendered to the returning to normalcy in Al Anbar Province.

Why is this ignored? Could it be that it goes against the grain of the idiots like Arianna Huff and Blowhard that still are stuck in their own BDS quagmire? Isn't it in the Journalist's Credo to find news and to seek truth without bias and personal feelings? Could it be that the parade and what it represents too hurtful in revealing blind rhetoric?

For a recent transcript at a news conference in regards to the successes in Iraq and the recognition of the turning point for Victory In Iraq, go here. The data therein is also largely ignored by the BDS crowds as well as the Lame Stream Media and the alleged leaders of the Democratic Party Leadership.

As an aside, click here to read the translation of the latest OBL video and audio of the plea of OBL, theoretically to unite the Iraqi people against the United States.

Poor slog. He has lost...he knows it. Our politicos know it...yet are too cowardly to accept it.

The Democratic Party Leadership Under Severe Scrutiny By The NYT?

What gives?

Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year.

[...]

Ouch. Is that a biting indictment as to the "udder" uselessness of the Leftinistra? Are we to believe that the NYT was snookered by the lies of the Leftinistra...the very same ones the NYT aided and abetted? Is this a sad attempt of the leftie-leaning rag to spin their way out of a dismal failure as a journalistic outlet? Have their own ways and means come back and bitten them in their own socialist arse?

Are we to believe that the "democrats" the NYT is whining about has led the vaunted NYT astray?

Please. Spare us the ignorance of all of that. The NYT is very much complicit in aiding the Leftinistra lies and deceit that got them into power. We that are "in the know" knew then what the NYT is pretending to "know now". They lied their way in and once in, have not been able to perform one single thing they campaigned on except for the ignorant minimum wage quagmire and maybe renaming some post offices. EVERYTHING else they tried to do ended in dismal failure because the majority of Americans woke up and said, "Hell no."

They pandered and catered to the anti-Americanists and they are most assuredly NOT the majority of Americans, no matter the spin on polls.

Oh. Right. here we go.

[...]

It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.

[...]

What propaganda would THAT be, eh? How about some specifics there, skippy? Why was it OK for the Clintonista to use Echelon but not OK to listen in on terrorists, eh? Oh. Wait. The Clintons listened in on their personal domestic enemies and that is OK. I see. Their Shadow Government was just peachy-OK-fine with the NYT, I suppose. Idiot.

I wonder who the idiot is that wrote this pathetic editorial in the NYSlimes.

And since when do terrorists get to be protected under the United States Constitution, you moron?

I have noticed that Wake Up America and others have written some articles on this subject and here are their words:

What the writer neglects to inform his readers is that the Democrats had that bill on their desks since April, months before the August Recess and they sat on their collective butts and did nothing about it until the last possible minute and only then did they act because their "vacation" was threatened.

Power Line reminds us that the request by the Director of National Intelligence, was sent to Congress in APRIL, so this last minute shuffle and accusations that the President was pushing this at the last minute, is due to the lack of concern or importance shown regarding this by our the Democratically controlled Congress.

The writer of the NYT opinion piece goes on to lament:

House Democrats drafted a measure that, while imperfect, was an improvement to the one passed this summer. But before the House could vote, Republicans tied up the measure in bureaucratic knots and Democratic leaders pulled it. Senate Democrats did even worse, accepting a Potemkin compromise that endorsed far too much of the bad summer law.

Once again the writer deliberately doesn't tell the readers that it was the Democrats that played fast and loose and tried to cut off all debate and allow no amendments on the bill and the Republicans used their "right", under the rules of the house, of a motion to recommit and that stated:

Nothing in this Act [H.R. 3773] or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community (as defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4))) from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) from attacking the United States or any United States person.

As Jeff Emanuel from Red State said:

House Democrats were unable to whip enough votes to get their way. Today, they were against a simple vote on a Republican proposal to protect America's intelligence agencies ability to fight Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That's it - they were against that and fought desperately today to kill it.

When they failed, they pulled the entire FISA bill.

To his complaint about the "Potemkin compromise" that the Senate endorsed, the writer would do well to remember that in a two party system, the only way to get bills passed that will not receive a veto is to compromise, which the White House and the Senate did, but I guess that concept is a little hard for the editorial writer to grasp.

More from the "brainless opinion writing blowhard" states:

As the debate proceeds, Americans will be told that the delicate compromises were about how the government may spy on phone calls and electronic messages in the age of instant communications. Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.

That "hot air" which is not disputed, is the fact that people like Adam Gahdan, known and self admitted al-Qaeda affiliate, who happens to be American and on the FBI's most wanted list after having been indicted for treason, would not be allowed to have his communications monitored under the Wyden amendment.

He is listed on the FBI's website of most wanted terrorists and was indicted in the Central District of California for treason and material support to Al Qaeda.

I guess the facts are a little hard for the editorial writer to address.

It is editorials like that that make the next piece, from The American Prospect, even more amusing when the title asks "Is it Time for Democrats to Start Panicking?".

They can't stop the war or override the president's veto on S-CHIP. Harry Reid is less popular in his home state of Nevada than the president is in the country, and, if you listen to the pollsters and the pundits, the Democrats are about to choose one of the most divisive political figures in the Republic’s history to be their 2008 presidential nominee.

Which begs the question: When should Democrats begin to panic?

The answer is "not yet." But the truth is that unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.

The Democrats have held majority in both houses for 10 months now and their own supporters are already preparing themselves for the death of the Democrats.

We have shown how the far left liberals have called Nancy Pelosi weak, other far left liberal blogs have suggested that Harry Reid step down because he is weak and more of them have targeted what they call Bush Dog Democrats.

Example of what I mean by "eating their own":

Back in August Matt Stoller first floated the idea of a "Bush Dog" campaign against Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments.

Now the campaign is in full flight. If you type "Bush Dog Democrat" you now get thousands of results. Profiles of all 38 House Bush Dogs have been completed. Among critics are the DLC, DSCC and insider news source National Jornal.

However it has been primarily focused on House Bush Dogs. However with a little research I found that Senate Bush Dogs are a much bigger problem.

They are right, a search for Bush Dog Democrats shows they are, indeed, eating their own and saving the GOP the trouble of having to do it for them....LOLOLOL

The perfect finish for a piece like this showing the NYT preparing the eulogy for the Democrats and The American Prospect wondering when they should start to panic, would be William Kristol's "Epitaph for a congress"

All of this followed by several months the defining statement of the 110th Congress: Harry Reid's assertion, this past April 19, "This war is lost." History may well record that statement as the epitaph for the 110th Congress, and the party that led it. The Democrats engaged in endless efforts to make sure the war really was lost. They failed. Now it looks as if the war, despite the Democratic Congress's best efforts, may well be won. It's the congressional Democrats who are the losers. And so could be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Are the American people likely to elect the candidate of a party that has tried its best to lose a winnable war?

Read the whole thing, but the bottom line here is that in a short 10 month period the Democrats and their supporters have worked against each other, eaten their own, publicly embarrassed themselves, multiple times, and are divided from within their own party on almost every issue.

In answer to The American Prospect, yes, I do think the Democrats should be in panic mode and their most recent attempt to grasp at any straws, no matter how embarrassing it turns out for them, has shown that are, indeed, allowing panic to rule.

I guess that settles that. We in The New Media have our act together, can distinguish between right and wrong and know how to accept personal responsibility and can own up to errors when made. No one of substance can say the same for any Leftinistra...Murtha being the perfect example.

Is There ANY Doubt As To Which Side The Lame Stream Media Is On?

From The Tank:

Al-Qaeda Internet Communications Go Dark to U.S. Intelligence [Daveed Gartenstein-Ross]

Today Eli Lake has an important article in the New York Sun claiming that U.S. intelligence lost its access to al-Qaeda's Internet communications system (known as Obelisk to American analysts) after recent leaks concerning Osama bin Laden's September 11 video disclosed that al-Qaeda's communications system was penetrated. As Lake notes, this blunder initially appeared to be a victory for U.S. intelligence, since the federal government managed to intercept bin Laden's new video appearance a full four days before al-Qaeda intended to air it.

On September 7, when ABC News posted excerpts from the speech, some of my contacts in the American intelligence community were concerned. They felt that we gained nothing from this triumphalist disclosure, and that disclosing the video's interception could compromise our intelligence-gathering. As Lake reports, these fears proved to be correct:

One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system. America's Obelisk watchers even saw the order to shut down the system delivered from Qaeda's internal security to a team of technical workers in Malaysia. That was the last internal message America's intelligence community saw. "We saw the whole thing shut down because of this leak," the official said. "We lost an important keyhole into the enemy."

By Friday evening, one of the key sets of sites in the Obelisk network, the Ekhlaas forum, was back on line. The Ekhlaas forum is a password-protected message board used by Qaeda for recruitment, propaganda dissemination, and as one of the entrance ways into Obelisk for those operatives whose user names are granted permission. Many of the other Obelisk sites are now offline and presumably moved to new secret locations on the World Wide Web.

The founder of a Web site known as clandestineradio.com, Nick Grace, tracked the shutdown of Qaeda's Obelisk system in real time. "It was both unprecedented and chilling from the perspective of a Web techie. The discipline and coordination to take the entire system down involving multiple Web servers, hundreds of user names and passwords, is an astounding feat, especially that it was done within minutes," Mr. Grace said yesterday.

Over the past year, I've witnessed a number of puzzling leaks to the press that risked compromising sources or methods of gathering intelligence — but never have the repercussions been this dramatic. While I'm not convinced that U.S. intelligence has completely lost its access to the Obelisk system (there may have been other points of infiltration), I hope that the right lessons are being learned.

There isn't any doubt in my mind which side our own media is on. At every turn, at any and all opportunities, all in the name of The Big Scoop, the ways of which our Intelligence Services are mysteriously leaked which enables the enemy to take measures to block the ways we track the enemy.

Time after time, this is the case. The NYSlimes and their collaborators betray the American People. What is it going to take for our CONgress Critters and our much self-vaunted Law Enforcement Agencies going to stop this utter treason?

Have our newsies no brains? Have they no Patriotism? Can they not see the damages they cause? Can they sleep well with themselves? Can they look themselves in the mirror and see that which they have become?

And don't dare tell me that it is under the guise of "the people have the right to know". There comes a time when the people can be told but NOT during current National Security on-going operations. Perhaps we as a nation can learn from the Israelis in this regard.

And who are these "leakers"? Why are they not prosecuted? Surely the ones that are "in the know" are few and far between. It should not be all that difficult to hunt these cretins down and hang them when found.

This is serious business and all these reports do is place us all in more danger than that which we already are, thanks to idiots thinking that "radical and backwards people" cannot do us harm.

Complacency will be the death of us all.

This is unacceptable.

Catch the wave.

Track back: StormWarning's Counterterrorism

The Lame Stream Media Says Good News Cannot Be Reported

There is a special place in hell for those that decide what is reported to the American People and what is not reported to the American People. Especially when that news will unite the country against an enemy that has been at war with the United States since the early 1970s.

We find ourselves embroiled in a Holy War, not declared by the United States but by the Islamic Jihadists seeking to reinstall the Caliphate. The Lame Stream Media, the once vaunted Main Stream Media, once great, once admired and once respected, have fallen to the levels where only whale excrement is deposited.

The following piece can be found at Wake Up America and, the buzz is at memeorandum.

I was not surprised that this issue has risen to the fore but I am still all agog that these cretins still believe that it is they and they alone that decide for the country what is best for the country and that they are controlled by the likes of MoveOnDotTreason.

Good News Isn't News, Bad News Is Bad News and No News Is Good News

The new rules of Journalism, admitted by Robin Wright from Wapo and Barbara Starr from CNN to Howard Kurtz. (Video below)

I am SO glad we now know those new rules and how Wapo and CNN determine what is and what is not appropriate to tell American viewers. (Although we already knew that CNN much prefers to report things that they have, admittedly, obtained from terrorist)

Huge hat tip to NewsBusters.

Increasing casualties: news. Declining casualties: not news.



From NewsBusters:

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

[...]

Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Go read the rest of the transcript over at NewsBusters.

Amazing.

This leads us to the next, logical question which is: What is the reason that the good news from Iraq isn't being told to the American people, and is, in fact, deliberately being hidden from the American people?

The Jawa Report shows one possible reason:

So only report the enemy's news, and not ours. It's not like we need to have a more complete and balanced picture of what's going on in Iraq, is it MSM? Gotta get those anti-war Democrats into the White House, after all!

Kudos to Kurtz for asking the questions and showing the reports of the progress in Iraq.

Back to NewsBusters:

And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

Anyone still idiotic enough to try to deny liberal media bias now, from Wapo and CNN?

It seems Robin Wright from Washington Post and Barbara Starr from CNN, both need a refresher course on Journalistic Ethics:

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.


Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

If you would like to email Robin Wright from Washington Post a copy of these Journalistic Ethics, here is her email contact form.

Feel free to send CNN an email so also with a copy of the Code of Ethics they are obviously ignoring using this contact form page.

Perhaps mention to them that we would like all the news, not just the news they wish to cherry pick and that we do not appreciate them deliberately hiding the good news from Iraq.

Thanks!!!

WOW!

[Update--Spree] Snooper kindly gave me permission to add the response I received from Robin Wright [Wapo], via email this morning.

I used those contact forms above and emailed CNN and Robin Wright from Wapo, letting them know that we, as Americans, would like to hear ALL the news coming from Iraq, not just the bad and not just the trends and CNN has not responded yet, but Ms. Wright did.

Robin Wright's response:

Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright


Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883

Now, I never mentioned "victory" in my original email to her, via her contact form", yet her claim that before she can report "differently" [good news from Iraq] depends on them reaching of "irreversible momentum" show her incredible bias as well as her complete ignorance of the Codes of Ethics journalists are supposed to use as their guidelines.

This is what is called reporting now folks.... is it any wonder that the new media is often getting the "scoops" on the dinosaur media?

My response to her email:

No one asked you to report a "trend" Ms. Wright, just a complete picture of the news. Good news IS news to Americans and as a journalist, your job is to bring us ALL the news and you have failed to do that because you are waiting for a irreversible "trend"?

That is disgusting and I will be posting this on MY blog, others I contribute too and as well as that "excuse" you just emailed me.

Americans expect better from our reporters and you have failed us miserably on this issue.

Have a nice day,

Susan Duclos

What are you folks waiting for... weigh in using her contact form and let her know whether waiting for the "irreversible momentum" is a good excuse for hiding the good news coming from Iraq, from you! [End Update]

Everyone Knew Al Qaida Orchestrated Haditha But Ignored It For Political Gain

As many of us knew already but were quickly set aside, a report has come out recently that explains quite a bit. As I, as well as others, have previously reported here, here and here, we all knew damn well that the Haditha "massacre that wasn't" was a hoax from the get-go.

War Chronicle (Defend Our Marines) has a very good article here: (catch the wave here)

Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

The report – apparently overlooked by a Washington press corps awash in leaked Bargewell documents and secret Naval Criminal Investigative Service reports – shows that Marine Corps intelligence operatives were advised of the scheme to demonize the Marines by an informant named Muhannad Hassan Hamadi. The informant was snared by 3/1 Marines on December 11 2005 and decided to cooperate.

[...]

Well, imagine that. Bias in the media? Leaked data engineered to do what? Substantiate lies? What? Say it isn't so!

Heads should roll over this, Murtha's included.

With the NYT lamenting about a lost opportunity of the Haditha Crime Syndicate and the Pagan Throne CNN sits on, what will the Lame Stream Media do next to further soil their already vacated souls?




Track back: Miss Beth's Victory Dance

The Pagan Throne...CNN

Is Bill O'Reilly correct in calling CNN The Pagan Throne?

Absolutely and good on Bill O'Reilly. As one will see by going here to catch the wave, the Leftinistra lap dogs such as The Newsgaggers, Think Digress, and other such anti-American publications such as the NYSlimes, are having the usual and quite frequent emotional melt-downs. They haven't awakened to the fact yet that we in The New Media will no longer tolerate their anti-American rhetoric all in the name of "getting along".

We don't want to get along with the anti-Americanists. Why should we? We want them silenced, ignored and prosecuted for lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Is this too much to ask? Are there no men remaining in Washington? Do the diseases of political correctness, multiculturalism and identity politics trump common sense, decency and Patriotism?

It is totally evident that the enemies within want us silenced. We are the Silent Majority, silent no more...get used to it.

Today, over at Wake Up America, we find a rehash, justifiably so, of the actions of CNN, the Communist News Network from last year, recently brought to the fore by a recent article by the New York Times, lamenting the loss of the Defining Atrocity in Haditha, Iraq that really wasn't the atrocity they had hoped for.

The CNN piece, in a separate story involving the video of enemy snipers killing American Troops, was lauded as a Grand Piece of journalism. This article, coupled with the rehashing of the sniper video supports our claims of anti-American activities within our anti-Americanist media.

As in the CNN shameful video and the NYT apparent disappointment that the Haditha Marines are innocent, it is all so evident and plain for all to see that the theoretical citadels of journalism are in fact professional Anti-Americanists. They hide behind the Free Speech deal and if any of their kind ever read this piece, I will more than likely be accused of trying to suppress another's Free Speech deal. If not, I merely beat them to the punch.

And why do we call these cretins anti-Americanists? Behold.

[...]

We should not let ourselves forget when a media organization, any media organization, helps our enemies deliberately and tries to pass it off as news.

Make no mistake, when a terrorists hands you a video and asks you to play it and that video is of a terror group killing one of our soldiers, that is not news, that is deliberately becoming an outlet to spread enemy propaganda.

Purposely and deliberately trying to help our enemies in a time of war.

Isn't there a name for that?

Yes, there is.

Utter Stupidity Disguised As Political Analysis

Cross posted by request from Proprietor Nation

Hatchet Job Masquerading as Political Analysis

A friend of mine asked for help in a political media interpretation class they were taking. I won't bore you with the details but I only bring it up because this is how I came upon this article. This is the sort of hatchet job one would expect to find in the New York Times or Boston Globe however instead I found it in a local Midland, Texas newspaper. It is the exact sort corrupt political writing that has made Conservatives everywhere distrustful of the media. It starts like this...

Giuliani's ties to Houston law firm gives him Texas boost

Republican Rudy Giuliani -- thrice-married, liberal on social issues and a consummate New Yorker -- seems an unlikely White House contender to be embraced by a Texas' GOP establishment rooted in the energy industry and dominated by religious conservatives.

Right from the get go, the article is suspect. Imagine, the shoe on another foot. One could see this sort of lead in, Democrat Hillary Clinton, scandal ridden, highly polarizing and with negatives already at or near 50%, has bucked convention and continues to lead nationwide. Let's try another... despite his Mormon background, flip flopping on key issues, and reputation for being to slick for his own good, Mitt Romney maintains a lead in Iowa.

While it is perfectly fine to lead in in such a way, if there is going to be straight analysis, we will expect to understand how he has bucked the conventional wisdom that a social liberal could lead in a social conservative party. Instead, what we get is a nebulous reason that is really just an excuse to attack Rudy in a backhanded and terribly unfair sort of a way.

But the former New York mayor has built a formidable political base in Texas with the help of well-connected Republican money men. He owes his advantage in part to his role as a name partner with a powerhouse, Houston-based law firm known for its impressive roster of energy-giant clients, Bracewell & Giuliani.

His partnership in the law firm has also brought Giuliani unwelcome criticism in connection with some of the firm's more controverisal clients, including a Spanish contractor involved in planning part of a Texas superhighway toll road known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Texas farmers and other landowners are worried their property rights will be trampled to make way for the highway. Conspiracy theorists see Giuliani, because of his highway connections, as allied with a cabal of international monied interests plotting to supplant the United States with a North American Union that includes Mexico and Canada.

[...]

Giuliani reported in a federal financial disclosure form in May that he received $1.2 million in income from Bracewell & Giuliani during 2006...

[...]

So, if we are supposed to believe the article, Rudy's ties to this all powerful law firm minimize the nature of his positions in a party that sees those positions 180% opposite of him. By this notion, any senior partner at this firm could get traction in the Texas Republican Primary regardless of their social views. This is of course nonsense, but it isn't really meant to be analysis. The law firm is a trojan horse as an analysis piece. It is placed in there solely so that the author could then spend the next three paragraphs analyzing the merits of a case Rudy wasn't involved in, a case that obviously is not one most people would approve of. In other words, while pretending to analyze Rudy's merits as a candidate, what the author is really doing is trying to marginalize Rudy through guilt by association.

It continues...

"The relationship with Bracewell has given Giuliani a financial foothold in the state," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, which tracks money in politics.

While Giuliani isn't "totally in sync with the base on social issues," Texans liked his take-charge approach during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and his mayoral record on crime-fighting and budget control, said Austin-based GOP consultant Reggie Bashur...

[...]

"The grassroots in Texas is ... strongly conservative. ... very much right-to-life, very fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, very strong on the war on terror, not overly sympathetic to the gay rights movement," Bashur said.

[...]

Giuliani's campaign finance chairman is Roy Bailey, a former finance chairman of the Texas Republican Party. Dallas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks are major fundraisers.

Giuliani had raised $3.69 million in Texas as of July 30, the most of any presidential candidate.

[...]

So, again, if we are pretending that this is just mere straight analysis, it seems this law firm is all powerful because it has given him a foothold financially and he has raised more than anyone else. At this point, we are almost three quarters of the way through the article and it has devoted exactly two sentences to anything that is positive about Rudy.

The next two sentences masquerade is more mere analysis but in fact give the author away as the hatchet man they are.

Giuliani has also developed a bond with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whom he helped win re-election last year. That groundwork could make Perry a high-profile ally in Texas, although the governor hasn't yet endorsed a presidential candidate.

[...]

We are nearly done with the article before a much more logical reason for Rudy's success in Texas is even referenced, his ties to its leading politician the governor. It is of course a well known political paradigm that helping powerful people get elected helps you put together an organization for your own future runs, and that is what Rudy did when he got into bed with Perry and his successful run at the governors mansion. Let's face it, the tie to Perry wasn't done for any sort of analytical reason. It was done for the excuse to say what follows next.

Bracewell & Giuliani represents a business consortium involved in the Trans-Texas Corridor, a costly, high-profile toll road pushed by Perry and opposed by farmers and ranchers.

The first phase of Perry's proposed $184 billion toll road, envisioned as part of a superhighway stretching from Oklahoma to the Mexico border, was planned by the Cintra Zachry consortium, composed of Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA of Spain, one of the world's largest developers of toll roads, and Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio.

Landowners say they worry that fields and farmhouses in Texas families for generations would be bulldozed for the highway. The state acknowledges some private land will be taken, but Perry said new roads are needed to handle Texas' growing population and trade.

[...]

But the lawsuit further fueled concerns about foreign ownership of a major Texas highway, and the project continues to be criticized by conservative groups like the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society, who see it as part of an international conspiracy to create a North American Union. The conspiracy theory has also provided fodder for cable television commentators like CNN's Lou Dobbs.

So again, what we have is more guilt by association. Even Rudy's relationship with the governor comes down to nothing but baggage because of some obscure case they were involved in. This is a case that most people don't actually know about. It is only an issue because the author is making it an issue. Furthermore, he presents the John Birch Society and the Eagle Forum as some sort of mainstream and influential Conservative groups. Of course, that is just ridiculous. These are two fringe groups and John Birch has thrown their weight behind fringe candidate Ron Paul. The North American Union is something only fringe groups worry about, and Conservatives do not look to Lou Dobbs as any sort of leading commentator.

If, again, we are supposed to still look at this as mere straight analysis, the sum total of his relationship with the governor will amount to nothing more than the case that his firm helped the governor with. No straight analysis would ever make such an outrageous assumption, but then again this is no analysis but a simple hit piece. The hit piece wouldn't be complete with one last dig that really has nothing to do with the substance of the rest of the story.

Earlier this year, Giuliani sold his investment firm, Giuliani Capital, for an undisclosed sum to the Macquarie Group, which is part of Macquarie Bank of Australia. Cintra and Macquarie's infrastructure group formed a consortium that operates a major toll road in Indiana.

Scott Segal, a Washington-based Bracewell & Giuliani partner in charge of its government relations division, said Giuliani was not involved in the Texas toll road legal work and that the law firm doesn't lobby on behalf of Cintra Zachry.

[...]

Black, Perry's spokesman, said he doubts Perry even knows that Giuliani's firm has represented the transportation companies in connection with the project.

[...]

While it dresses it up with some nice explanations, the clear implication is that Rudy sold out to foreigners. Furthermore, if Rudy doesn't even know about the project, why did the author spend several paragraphs in a painstaking attempt to flesh out the minute details of the case. This is frankly the sort of thing that even the NY Times would avoid printing and the editor and author should both be ashamed of themselves.

I am personally disgusted. So much so, that I contacted the editor and wrote this,

Dear Mr. Gott,

Recently, I came across a political analysis from your paper about Rudy Giuliani that I find to be the gutter of all political discourse. This is a hatchet job masquerading as serious political analysis. I have no doubt that most people in Midland are frankly too stupid to realize what is being done to them, or at least, I have no doubt you do. I am not from Midland, but I do have power in the blogosphere and I will make this article and your paper by extension the symbol of everything that is wrong with this country’s journalism practices.

Here is the article in question.

Here is my analysis in response. If I am wrong, I encourage you to respond to my blog. I think that my response deserves the right to be heard in your paper. Furthermore, the author and whoever decided to let this be published should not be working for your paper, unless of course, you want the whole world to know that you have an obvious and uncontrollable bias toward Republicans or at least Rudy.

If you are as disgusted then I encourage you to go here and exercise your own first amendment rights.

There is some GREAT stuff over there, folks. Go getcha some!

Marines Punish 3 Officers in Haditha Case

I am not buying this one bit.

Refusing to repeat the thoroughly debunked and exposed "witnesses" of the proven-to-be-false Haditha "massacre", there are still those that just thrive on keeping alive the Lies of thge Leftinistra, no matter where the slime balls can be found. This particular slime ball can be found under a rock.

The New York Times doesn't do a very good job either, go figure.

This whole "issue" is actually a non-issue and it sends home the ultimate message that the PC Time Bomb has self-detonated, with a very hard push from Dishonorable MisRep Murtha, the EX-Marine.

No where in any of these stories even comes close to mentioning that the "witness" turned out to be a fraud and a liar and the reporter that got the scoop KNEW it at the time. That is what makes this a non-issue.

The stories repeat the same old tired and used up lies as if the "witness" was an honest and upright guy. I guess if one is a Jihadi Sympathizer, the non-"witness" "IS" a pretty good guy. It resulted in the destruction of careers and lives of men in combat. I sure would like to see one of these egg-headed "journalists" in the trenches and see if their "spin" would be the same.

What I find interesting is that in this particular piece, the PC internal of the military "legal morons patrol" is all too evident. The piece at CNN is equally pathetic. What happened to the stories about the non-witness witness? And, I didn't see the pertinence of this piece.

And this abortion of a news-rag boasts of being "trusted" since 1942. Trusted? By what? It joins every singly piece quoted and/or referenced above by NOT telling thew whole story.

Simply amazing. For an in-depth and honest appraisal of the theoretical wrong-doings as stated by Murtha the EX-Marine, visit here. Why is it that we in the New Media always have to let the alleged professionals do their own damn jobs?

Ranting Profs has a fine and honest piece here and Euphoric Reality has the exposed fraud non-witness witness here.

Is it any wonder the trouble we find this nation in when the alleged Champions of Truth In Advertising resort to lies, deceit and hate to get their "dulls" out there?

Get a rope.

Tom DeLay Trounces A Professional Troll!

A MAJOR ATTA BOY!!

To Lauer's Dismay, DeLay Condemns Media's Scandal Double Standard

OOPS!! D'OH!!

MATT LAUER: By all accounts, these are some tough times for the Republican party. Last fall, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, largely because of opposition to the war in Iraq. In 2006, the Republican party was also hit with distracting scandals involving Congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male congressional pages, and lobbyist Jack Abramoff's corruption case, that brought down several prominent Republican Congressmen. This year, the phone number of Republican senator David Vitter turned up in the records of a Washington, DC escort service, and now, recent polls show voters prefer a Democrat over a Republican by 51 to 27%, and at least one poll found the most popular choice among Republican presidential candidates is "none of the above." The question now: can any of the damage be reversed? Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay served in Congress for 22 years and knows personally how scandals can impact a party. He's also the author of a new book called No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight. Tom DeLay, Congressman, good morning.

TOM DELAY: Good morning, Matt.

LAUER: So, I went through a litany there, and maybe I should start by stepping back. We've got two members out of 49 Republican Senators in office right now embroiled in controversy. So, do we have a party embroiled in scandal or do we have two bad apples?

DELAY: Well, I hate to say this Matt, but you just showed the problem, the double-standard, and you just participated in it. You listed a whole lot of scandals that involve the Republicans, but you didn't mention one Democrat.

LAUER: But you didn't hear me. I also just said do we only have two bad apples or is there a case of an entire party embroiled in scandal?

DELAY: I think in your premise, if you had listed all the Democrats that are having problems right now, it would have been different. You see the Democrats re-elect the people with their problems. Republicans kick them out. If you look at what's going on, it's how you handle it as a party and as a political group. You have right now, Alan Mollohan, a Congressman from West Virginia, who is being investigated by the FBI, and the Democrats have kept him on as chairman of the committee that has oversight of the budget of the FBI. You have William Jefferson-

LAUER: So, you're saying it's a positive thing. Is it a positive thing that the Republicans do this, they weed out immediately?

DELAY: You don't want me to finish it? Because you don't want me to-

LAUER: No, no go ahead.

DELAY: Well, you have William Jefferson caught with $90,000 of marked bills in a freezer. And they did put him of the Ways and Means Committee, but they put him on a highly-sensitive Homeland Security Committee. You have Barney Frank, who was caught with a homosexual prostitute who was re-elected over and over again. Gerry Studds who was caught in a bathroom with an under-aged page and he was re-elected.

LAUER: So, why are people like McCain and Norm Coleman and Mitt Romney immediately distancing themselves from Larry Craig? And let me ask you this -- as someone who has seen personal scandal yourself, and knows what it can do -- when you look back in hindsight, knowing how this of thing plays out in the news cycle -- if you could talk to Larry Craig right now, what advice would you give him?

DELAY: Well, first of all, it's really unfortunate that people rush to judgment like they have. I'm not defending Larry Craig. I have great sympathy for what his wife and his family are going through right now. But the decisions that Larry Craig need to make are up to Larry Craig and his constituents in Idaho. But it takes us off our message, and I grant you that. It takes us off the fact that we are winning in the war in Iraq; that the President is going to stop the Democrats from raising taxes and increasing spending; that we desperately need border security in this country. We need to be talking about those kind of things, rather than this.

LAUER: And we've heard some very public statements, as I just mentioned, from John McCain and Norm Coleman and Congressman Hoekstra there a second ago. If Larry Craig decides to -- as your book title, No Retreat, No Surrender -- stay and fight, ok. What other ways, more subtle ways, do members of his own party -- and from your own experience -- start to deliver the message that it's not going to work?

DELAY: Well, I know Larry Craig, and I think he will make the right decision, that benefits him and his family, and his constituents in Idaho. But if you're not guilty of something, you should fight-

LAUER: But he pled guilty?

DELAY: But then he said he made the wrong decision in doing that. I'm not going to get into the specifics of what he has done. He didn't handle it very well. That's obvious.

LAUER: Given the situation in Washington right now, Congressman, I mean, can Larry Craig pull a Trent Lott? Can he duck under the radar for a while, and give up a powerful position, stay out of the spotlight for a while, and come back, make a comeback?

DELAY: I have no idea, Matt. You asked me to come on to talk about the GOP and politics, not about this man's personal life. Whatever decision he makes, I think it will be the right decision. The point here, though, is the Republicans handle it. They look at it, and when the evidence is right on that someone is guilty, they do something about it. On the other hand, the Democrats don't. And the media, the double-standard in the media is amazing. The feeding frenzy, the sharks in the water that's going on right now because of a Republican. Where is the frenzy on Alan Mollohan from West Virginia or William Jefferson from Louisiana?

LAUER: I think you mentioned William Jefferson. There was an awful lot of coverage of William Jefferson when that story broke, Congressman.

DELAY: Yeah, for just a couple of days and then we went on. In the case of a Republican, believe me, I've experienced this, it's day in and day out in the media, and they write this story over and over and over again. We all know the double-standard in the media. It's amazing.

LAUER: Well, I'm not going to let it, you know, end with that assumption, Congressman, because I clearly don't agree with it, but why don't we just say-

DELAY: You exhibited it, Matt!

LAUER: But you know what, Congressman? I think it's unfair. Because I listed a list of problems and then immediately-

DELAY: All Republicans.

LAUER: Well, we're talking about the Republican party. You just said, I invited you on to talk about the GOP.

DELAY: Because you don't want to talk about the Democrats.

LAUER: So, that's exactly what I started with-

DELAY: Because you don't want to talk about the Democrats.

LAUER: And I also, Congressman, started and then said, 'Is this a misperception, that there is a party embroiled in scandal, when we may just have two bad apples?' That's exactly how I started my first question.

DELAY: No, you started the first question by listing a bunch of Republicans and didn't mention one Democrat.

LAUER: Because we're talking-

DELAY: About the situation that's going on in Washington today, and including both Democrats and Republicans. There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.

LAUER: Alright Congressman, I'll let you have the last word. It's good to have you on.

DELAY: Thank you. Thank you

.

That was just too funny...