Thursday, August 25, 2005

This Man Is The True Enemy

-
The islamo-fascists can not defeat us in battle. No way- no how. Not ever. They know that- we know that- everyone in the world knows that. Still, they realize they can win if only our media continues being a willing accomplice to the jihad.

Now, we all know that Knight Ridder is a ridiculously liberal "news" organization. Still, it is shocking to read a story like this one. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the military has given this "reporter" any time at all. He is a traitor and is clearly, obviously, and blatantly on the side of the jihadis.

Consider this nugget of an opening paragraph:

[[ Insurgents in Anbar province, the center of guerrilla resistance in Iraq, have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate. ]]

Fought us to a stalemate?? Now, what does that conjure up in your mind? Images of tough, hardened "freedom fighters" battling bravely against the occupying forces of darkness...? I'm sure that is the effect this seditionist was going for. Anytime they use words like "guerrilla" and "resistance", you know it's going to be good. It gets better:

[[ Military officials now frequently compare the fight in Anbar to the Vietnam War, saying that guerrilla fighters, who blend back into the population, are trying to break the will of the American military - rather than defeat it outright - and to erode public support for the war back home. ]]

Yeah... all of my Marine Corps buddies are talking about how this is Vietnam all over again. How we're in a "quagmire" and we have no hope of winning. It's all anyone can talk about in the chow hall. The only part this moron gets right is the fact that the terrorists are trying to erode American public support... and this useful idiot is their number one agent. Still more:

[[ Instead of referring to the enemy derisively as "terrorists" - as they used to - Marines and soldiers now give the insurgents a measure of respect by calling them "mujahedeen," an Arabic term meaning "holy warrior" that became popular during the Afghan guerrilla campaign against the Soviet Union. ]]

Yep. All the Marines are saying how much they respect these murderers who hide like cockroaches and come out only to slaughter children and women. Oh, yeah... we respect them as "warriors" because they are so gifted in the art of taking innocent lives. They are practically colleagues of ours! Oh, and remember that America is just like the Soviet Union. My blood pressure is dangerously high here... and still, he goes on:

[[ "Some of the Iraqis say they want to vote but they're worried there'll be a bomb at the polling station," Marine Capt. James Haunty, 27, of Columbus, Ohio, said recently. "It's a legitimate fear, but I always tell them, just trust me."

Less than five minutes after Haunty spoke, near the town of Hit, a roadside bomb down the street produced a loud boom followed by a funnel of black smoke.
]]

Message: Do NOT trust those Marines. They are liars who cannot back up their promises.

The rest of this piece of filth article is more of the same- and when it starts to say something positive (or even just something TRUE), there are "howevers" and "buts" waiting in the wings.

I swear, this is one of the most insanely one-sided pieces of anti-American propaganda I have ever read. I didn't even have to work very hard to see between the lines, because this man is fairly out in the open with his slobbering love of the jihadis and his equally intense hatred of America's forces.

Here is his resume... tell me what you make of it. My favorite part is how he wrote about our "low morale" after spending lots of time on "regular trips" to Fallujah on his own. Nothing unusual there... no chance of collaberation... just a good reporter going after a story... yep.

[[ Tom Lasseter made regular trips to Fallujah in the summer and winter of 2003, interviewing tribal sheiks and residents there before the town fell to insurgents. He wrote extensively about the brewing unrest in the region, and the misunderstandings and conflicts between residents and the U.S. military units stationed there. During that period he was able to walk freely throughout the town with a translator.

He was last in Fallujah without military escort in early 2004 when insurgents overran the downtown police station. After men repeatedly pointed AK-47s at his chest and face and threatened to shoot him, he decided not to return except with American troops. Insurgents took over the town that April.

He reported on troops in Ramadi last summer, and wrote about the scaling back of patrols there and low morale among troops. He returned to Anbar province in November, when U.S. troops retook Fallujah in the worst urban combat since Vietnam. For this series of stories, Lasseter spent three weeks in the province this month embedded with Marine and Army units in Haqlaniya, Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and Fallujah
. ]]

Here's the link... hope you haven't eaten recently. (LINK to trash)

I honestly wish I cold meet this "reporter" in person someday... just to look into his soulless eyes and ask him how he can sleep at night.

I am sickened by this more than I can possibly express in words.

-

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what passes for "journalism" now. I'm disgusted by these idiots.

Nice blog!

25/8/05 18:41  
Anonymous Friendly Freddy said...

It only passes for that with the libs. For me it passes for crap.

25/8/05 18:42  
Anonymous Tsar Lazar said...

This guy reminds me of Peter Arnette during the Gulf War. I wonder if he's married to an Iraqi or a Muslim. I remember the collaborationist Arnette was married to a N. Vietnamese woman.

These kind of liberals seem to me to be suffering a widespread, cultural version of the Stockholm Syndrome. In fact, I am slowly gathering data to write an article about it.

Pomoze Bog.
Tsar Lazar

25/8/05 19:31  
Anonymous James said...

Cool site. I'm glad Charles linked to you.

Why do any of us act surprised when these fools show their bias? We all know they hate America and want us to lose this war. No surprise here.

25/8/05 20:24  
Blogger kmg said...

It really offends and angers me... even though I know it shouldn't- it really, really does. When an American acts this way... it is so very obscene and offensive.

Makes me want to do... things...

25/8/05 21:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your right. No surprise here- they all act like the terrorists are f'ing heroes.

I hate them.

25/8/05 21:44  
Blogger Don Miguel said...

When my son was in Ramadi he said he avoided journalists like the plague! Obviously, he met guys just like Tom Lasseter. He also seems to be in love with the term "guerrilla fighters" -- a term I have never heard used by anyone in the military in Iraq.

BTW, Mr. Lasseter, when the soldiers and Marines call the head-choppers the "Muj," it is not a term of respect.

25/8/05 22:56  
Blogger husker_met said...

This is going to be a long-y, so I apologize now in advance.

When I was a lad of 20 or 21, I was a journalism major. Part of being a journalism major is lots and lots of contact with the English language. You write, you read, you edit. As a byproduct, every time I read or hear a news article, I am compelled to mentally critique it, based on journalistic standards instilled many moons ago. Plus I know little about the pedigree of the profession itself.

The two things that are inherent to any news story, whether in print or broadcast, are content and context. Bearing that in mind I have several points:

1. Words mean things, and some words mean nearly the same thing, but with a different nuance or focus. Journalists know that. How they choose their words, or string them together, is the acid test for a story's objectivity. The obvious ones are "insurgent vs. terrorist" or "invasion vs. liberation". Likewise we "attack" cities rather than terrorist enclaves or terrorists. One of the best compare/contrast excercises there is is to read WWII-era journalism then contrast it to modern journalism in terms of how they "put" things.

2. Journalism has gone in the last 60 or so years from a trade to a profession. Back in the 1930s, you didn't go to school to become a journalist. If you were a reasonably good writer and a good snoop, you went down to the local newspaper and begged for a job. Some friendly editor would take you under his wing and you would receive on the job training, working your way up from society pieces and obits to short features to hard news. It was like becoming a plumber or an electrician, you gradually learned your trade through assignments. Sometimes college professors or novelists would become newsmen part time to make ends meet. But by no means was journalism considered a "respectable" job, and the press was definitely not endowed with any of the "Fourth Estate" nonsense we hear about today.

That all changed with the emergence of "journalism schools" in the 1950s and 60s. Now you could get a degree in journalism, which somehow imparted more legitimacy onto the whole endeavour. Or at least every brand new and unemployed journo at the time thought so. Unfortunately, the old school reporters who came up the hard way were now old school editors, and these youngsters were by-God going to pay their dues, degree or not. Today, that first generation of journalism students are editors or journalism professors (those who can, do; those who can't, write about it; those who can't write about it, become journalism professors), but they never lost the chip on their shoulders they received by having to do work that was "beneath" them and their shiny new degrees.

3. Watergate was the defining moment for modern journalism. Herein you have the magical sotry of two hack reporters (brought up under the old pay your dues system, vindicating the new system) who toppled the most powerful man in the world. Journalists were now kingmakers, a position befitting their self-bestowed nobility.

This single incident entrenched the new system of "journalist as professional". The self-important "journalist", product of higher education, had done what no "reporter" could ever do. This was what all journalists would aspire to from that point on, and the "expose" would become the focal point of all "serious" journalism. Awards would be given based on the sensationality of the story, or it's effects on establishment, rather than the hard facts conveyed. Journalists were now "change agents".

4. Journalists are now all the product of educational institutions, the old school has mostly retired or died. These J-schools (the "best" ones located in liberal enclaves like Berkley and NYC), rather than teaching a trade, are teaching mostly theory. That is, instead of learning how to operate a camera and some basics about composition, you're learning "what photography is supposed to do". Or, rather than learning how to structure a news story or conduct an interview, you're learning "the role of the journalist as truth-sayer". BS like that (although, to be fair, you do learn a bit of technique as well).

So, all of the soft philosophical stuff, taught by professors who would like to think that journalists are somehow more noble than everyone else, comprises the bulk of the J-school experience. In that atmosphere, journalists are implicitly given the concept that rather than "report facts" they are to "seek truth and instill meaning". In other words, they're not supposed to tell you what happened, they are supposed to tell you what happened and what that means to you.

How would they know what a particular story means to you, the gentle reader? That's simple-their professors and editors (the same downtrodden and put-upon truth seekers with the anti-establishment chips on ther shoulders) will tacitly tell them. Write an article that doesn't pass the journalism echo chamber muster? You'll get redlined and told you'll never succeed (or get a bad grade). And so you learn that to succeed, you must follow some implied rules, which over time you internalize.

5. Very close to the top of this rule set is that authority is inherently corrupt and evil. Your job is to expose that. Can't find any corruption or evil in the authority around you? Well then, you must not be very good at your job. Expose and tear down the corrupt authoritarian institutions around you.

Probably at the top of the list is that the masses are ignorant and ill-informed boobs who desperately need your help, whether they want to admit it or not. Therefore it is incumbent upon you, the educated and noble journo, to teach them and help them understand. Therefore, you must always remember that you know more about any given subject than anyone you are writing for. Further, that because you know more anyone who disagrees with you must be clinging to his ignorance.

Wrapping up here...

Bear in mind, everytime to read or listen to MSM, that these people think you are stupid and that they are hard-wired to find the flaws in everything they look at. Journos are the ultimate nihilists because they just know how corrupt and crappy everything is, even if you, the ignorant reader, don't.

Also bear in mind that all journalists want to be considered legitimate and useful members of society. In fact they want to be considered as part of the moral elite of society. To that end, being what they in fact are, society must be torn down or made lower in order for the journalist to assume a higher status. Rather than bring journalism up, everything else must come down, and continue to be brought down.

For those who still care to participate in MSM, understanding all of these things will greatly enhance your negative experience. The good news is that bloggers are reviving the old tradition of investigation and factual reporting. MSM has such disdain (when they choose to acknowledge it at all) for New Media because in it they see the shadow of what they fought to overcome. "Obviously bloggers can't know anything," journos think, "because they are not highly educated and trained professionals like us."

We'll just see about that...

26/8/05 08:40  
Blogger kmg said...

Husker_Met-

That was awesome! Thanks for the well-put comments. Before I got to the end, I was thinking of how your description of "old school" journalists (1930's) reminded me of the blogging phenomenon of today. "Good snoops" and "reasonably good writers"...

That was great!

26/8/05 08:54  
Blogger husker_met said...

What I lack in brevity, I try to make up for in quality.

Thanks.

26/8/05 09:16  
Blogger kmg said...

Brevity is not all it's cracked up to be... just look at my post on soul selling...

We're kindred spirits there...

26/8/05 09:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry people, thier bias is driving everyone away. People stupid enough to buy their lies deserve them.

26/8/05 11:17  

Post a Comment

<< MAIN PAGE

web counter
web counter