Tim Blair

Pilger LIIIEEEDDD!

Pilger lied, Uday died, I'll have tofu on the side.

Hey Tim, Jewish terrorists! Jewish terrorists! Demonise the whole race! Demonise them all! Invade Israel. Kill, kill. Haaaaaaaaaaaaate.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7356529%255E1702,00.html

So if Pilger is lying, what the fuck are your heros doing. I guess about as much as loud mouth Tim is. Sweet FA.

Hey Tim, things look really bad over there. Maybe you should put your fat white ass on the line and volunteer for some real active duty. Even an aging Gen Xer like you must be of some use.

But if you can't actually bring yourself to be placed in harms way, what about going over as a reporter for one of the many publications you write for as a journalist.

Oh that's right, not only are you a chickenhawk coward, you are also a fraud as you have never actually worked as a real journalist in your life. And so the chances of anyone sending you to Iraq as a reporter are basically zero.

So I guess all we'll be seeing from the big brave Tim is just more crapblogs, where you copy other people's writings and then abuse them for not writing what you think they should have written.

Wow Tim, you could get a job on Fox and Friends with such a shallow attitude to journalism.

Enjoy lunch tomorrow Tim, but try and spare a thought for the MREs all those poor kids you have sent to war have to eat day after day.

have you tried a laxative, whatever?

i spare lots of thoughts for my relatives and friends who are eating mres, but i also spare a lot of thoughts for my friends who died in the world trade center.

Pilger couldn't scoop icecream.

Ah, I see the Big Hawk AI has been reactivated.

Apparently, Mr. Whatever believes that opinions related to war are invalid unless expressed by those who have fought for their country. So why the f*ck did the American people let this chickenhawk drag us into a European war? Dumb sheeple...

Of course, the dumb sheeple could earn the right to express valid opinions by fighting for their country (actually, world) under this political model.

Retard.

Besides the lunch fixation, I'm really digging Big Hawk's "not a real journalist" line.

Whatever or Big Hawk or Billy or Whatever,

Are you ever planning on writing anything even remotely intelligent? Otherwise, your writing seems to be a waste of both your time and ours. Intelligent discourse is not for everyone -- perhaps you should try something more your speed. I would recommend fingerpainting, blocks, or perhaps Brite-Lite. Remember, though, never engage in these activities without the supervision of an adult.

Tongue,

So why the f*ck did the American people let this chickenhawk drag us into a European war?

As far as I can tell, there were no deaths in Kosovo due to enemy fire. So what'd the rhyme be? "Clinton lied, but no Americans died"?

To an extent it serves the republicans right that they get the target of chickenhawk claims considering that they made similar claims about Clinton.

Whatever,

But if you can't actually bring yourself to be placed in harms way, what about going over as a reporter for one of the many publications you write for as a journalist.

Reminds me of Michael Kelly, who wrote an article in defense of Chickenhawks. He got killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Do I get the feeling this is what whatever would have liked to have happened to Tim?)

Just like it may be easy to advocate war if one has never experienced it, it may be easy to advocate not going to war with Iraq if one hasn't lived under Saddam's rule. Those who supported war with Iraq have quoted those who fled Saddam's rule a lot more than opponents of the war have quoted refugees.

Andjam states,

As far as I can tell, there were no deaths in Kosovo due to enemy fire. So what'd the rhyme be? "Clinton lied, but no Americans died"?

No, but some diplomats did. And since Clinton sexed up the intelligence, [all together now] "Clinton Lied, People Died!"

But, in Mr. Clinton's defense, it could be argued that he made a decision to use American forces for what he saw as a compelling national interest but couldn't bear the thought of endangering a single American soldier's life. Thus, the high altitude bombing campaign. Or, was he calculating the hypocrisy factor before giving the order to send troops into ground combat? We report, you decide...

And of course that air campaign destroyed about 10 or 11 tanks and hit lots of "collateral positions." By the way - aren't we still there? What has it been - 4 or 5 years? We really need to pull out of Iraq so we can put more people in eastern Europe.

I myself have posted that quote from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union dozens of times during the past seven or so months at Lucianne.com. Anti-war people can’t bring themselves to read it, absorb it, build it into their undertanding of what Bush has said. There’s a lot that the anti-war types refuse to build into their thinking, like the ramifications of the accelerated advance, this year, next year, every year, of development in power, accessibility, miniaturization, deadly synergies, of technologies adaptable for mass destruction. But back to Bush’s quote. Maybe if I boldface it:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Andrew Sullivan recently quoted it & said that Bush clearly conceded that the threat was not imminent. Andrew was off target there. Instead, Bush conceded that the threat was not clearly imminent. We knew that Saddam was a repeat perp in dissent suppression, brutality, mass murder, expansionist aggression, in WMD acquisition, use, & concealment from inspectors. The USA is out to reduce the size, complexity, & opacity of the swamp. We know that dangerous things from the swamp reach out & bomb us. Much of the criticism of Jessica Lynch’s rescue is based on a retrospective delusion of an absence of uncertainty & risk. We knew she was in a war zone. Whoever doesn’t grasp the common thread of my remarks in this paragraph, doesn’t grasp much at all about anything.

Jem has a point. What is the U.S.'s exit strategy from the 5-year quagmire known as Kosovo? Surely, Clinton left some plan behind in the White House whilst stealing the bath towels and bed linens.

It seems the link in the UPDATE section is broken.

Hey Tim, so show us your claims to been a real journalist. You know, someone that goes out and interviews people and quotes what they say without editorial comment.

To be a real journalist Tim you need to interview a variety of people and report the story from various perspectives.

It's also critical to the process that the reporter doesn't subjectively comment on the story at hand. I'm sure a rightblogger like you would agree with that one!

I dearly look forward to being shown some examples of you actually following the process of real reporting.

Either now or in the past.

How about a full accounting of your CV with checkable references.

it's time you detail your claim to being a journalist - otherwise stop this deceptive and misleading conduct of yours where you claim to call yourself a journalist and then appear on the ABC under such a title, when in fact there is no evidence to back such a claim.

You slander other working journalists each and every day so all I'm doing is applying the same standards to you and seeing how you come out after a closer inspection.

Maybe I'm wrong and you have actually worked as a real journalist, but I remain to be shown the evidence.

Hey, Tim, do you have the secret decoder ring? If you don't, then you're not a real journalist!

By the way, Big Whatever, there are medications that can control these obsessions of yours.

A columnist published in a journal is a variety of journalist.

(Boldface for the slow of comprehension.)

A friend of mine and I were just the other day complaining about the fact that modern journalists are not simple "reporters" anymore. Just about every news story these days elides comment with news, because our modern journalists want to be seen as educated players in the game of politics, not just humble observers. These journaloists may be the famed "real journalists" of Whatever's imagination, but they are also bad journalists.

However, having said that, we concluded that a journalist, like Tim Blair, who does not pretend to be a reporter and who writes op-ed pieces is still a "real journalist", in the same way as a barrister who becomes a judge is still a real lawyer.

I also suppose that the trade-off of no American lives lost during the bombing for several thousands of ethnic cleansing lives and collateral damage lives lost makes that a good thing. Funny how Clinton supporters don't seem to care how many people died because of Clinton's idiot decisions (or sometimes non-decisions), viz. Rwanda, Bosnia, Serbis, etc, not taking OBL when offered, but start yelling about thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq (didn't materialize) and millions of refugees (ditto) in Iraq, or Afghanistan (actually a couple of million have returned.

It must be easy when you don't have to use logic or check facts. Clinton = good, no matter what the damage. Bush = evil, no matter what the gain. Maybe we should just let Iraqis vote in the next Presidential election. Who do YOU think they'd vote for? (Probably should put "Bush, Democratic candidate, other + Return Saddam Yes/No")

Big Hawk,

Began at Truth newspaper in 1988, became editor in 1993, joined Time magazine in 1994, was appointed senior editor in 1995. Lots of my Time stories are online; they’re not really all that hard to find. Then to the Daily Telegraph in 1999 as chief of staff and columnist, next to The Australian as columnist, then The Bulletin, where I also write the occasional non-column piece.

No, but some diplomats did.

My suspicion is that claims that the hit on the Chinese embassy was an accident is a fiction endorsed by both America and by China. Maintained by China because China was involved in doing something it ought not to have been doing, and a fiction maintained by America because it'd receive a torrent of protest from other countries if it were known that it deliberately targetted embassies.

Andjam,

by your reasoning, the Chinese "diplomats" got what was coming to them. And the problem is . . . .

Pilger digs up a video that was apparently hiding in plain sight on a government website that undercuts the US President's case for war, and shows that Colin Powell is a liar, and he's a loser? I don't get it.

And for those who say Saddam is no longer a problem, so what. Iraq is now a much, much, much bigger problem for the US. Losing a soldier a day and spending a few hundred billion dollars is not a great position to be in.

But more to the point, the WMD threat in general is also much, much greater now because of this strategic blunder. Iran has put its program to build nuclear missiles into hyperdrive and no amount of international pressure can stop them. They saw that Saddam let the inspectors in, and he paid for it. Only an idiot would stop its weapons program now. The only way to head off a nuclear Iran is to invade, and we've already bitten off more than we can chew when we invaded Iraq.

Oh, and by the way, Iran is a fundamentalist regime, Iraq was not, Iran did support a terrorist attack on the US in the Khobar bombing, Iraq did not. I can go on, but let's look at how our strategic blunder reverberates elsewhere.

Saudia Arabia, the bullseye of fundamentalist terrorism, is now looking to become nuclear because of the Iraq war. Within ten years, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria will have nukes thanks to this war -- why did we do this again? Oh, yeah, to take out a guy that Colin Powell admits, on the State Department website, posed no threat.

So your an editor not a journalist/reporter.

Is the adage not... "Those that cannot write - Edit"

Come on Tim be honest and admit that you aren't a real journalist. And calling a sub editor a journalist is a serious insult to the working press who actually do the foot work to find the stories, do the research and interview people.

Your claims to been a journalist will require substantially more proof that saying you worked as an editor, with some further waving to time spent at "Truth" as a youngster

You know I'm right as that's why you included the claim that you also wrote some non oped pieces at the Bulletin. But did they actually contain real interviews with real people that you personally did. Or did you just cut and paste from someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

And as for the Melbourne Truth - well only you Tim would ever put that on a resume and expect to be respected for it. The Melbourne Truth - fuck you might as well be writing for Pravda or the Baghdad Times and claiming to be an investigative reporter.

Na, you ain't no journalist - if you were you'd have a little more respect for the rest of us who actually are.

Your problem Tim, is that you can't actually take on an argument without abusing the person making the argument. Your not even a good columnist, just one of the right wing attack dogs thrown a few gold coin to stir up trouble and attack your political enemies boots and all.

You're a fraud and a disgrace to the profession you claim to be a member of.

It's time to smarten up Tim and start being a professional and not some wannabe cadet from the Melbourne Truth - who 15 years later writes a column for the Bulletin and now proudly calls himself a journalist in the hope you'll get some extra respect for being such.

If you want real respect then go get yourself an assignment as an embed in Iraq with a reserve unit from Ohio. And then lets see what you have to report. I'm sure ACP would love to have a really experienced guy like you out there in Baghdad writing about real war from the front lines.

If this war is so important why aren't you out there reporting on it where the action is, instead of hiding behind your little rightblog, and doing lunch.

Whatever, Tim's credentials point to him being a journalist. A reporter, an editor, a columnist. Les Carlyon respects Tim. And Les is a journo God. You do not respect Tim. Between you and Les, who rocks, dyareckon?

Ya idiot.

You are insane.

Whatever: 'You're not a journalist.'

Tim: 'Yes I am. Here's proof.'

Whatever: 'See? You're not a journalist, you're just an editor.'

Tim: 'Alright, I'm an editor then. Whatever, whatever.'

Whatever: 'No, you are not an editor! You're a publisher!'

The way this debate is heading, Tim will be Rupert Murdoch very soon. At least that will end the argument. Maybe not.

"You're not a Murdoch! You're a Hearst!"

Okay, Hawkey, we've dealt with the journalism issue, can we get on to lunch talk?

Here's what I had -- toast, cream cheese, smoked salmon, poached egg on top.

I am, however, not a journalist.

"Those that cannot write - Edit'?

Would that be like, G. B. Shaw or summick?

Let me "Edit" that for you.

"Those who cannot write, edit."

I know the "that / who" distinction is on its last set of kneepads, but, y'know, I'm still here to honour its crustiness and precedent.

Did someone mention lunch?

Sandwiches - hot roast pork with crackling and apple sauce in fresh buttered white bread.

Beer on the side - if you're cashed up, splash out on a nice German or Belgian beer.

Try a DAB with that.

Can I have extra crackling?

BIG HAWK. Today for LUNCH i had a steak with baked taties and salad which consisted of lettuce, tomaties and that weird shit that the lebs eat (name escapes me now.. it has parsley and tomaties all mooshed up together.. oh yeah!! taboulie!). This was washed down with TWO slices of WHITE bread adorned with a THIN layer of margerine.

So your an editor not a journalist/reporter.

I thought the adage was something like "your is possessive; you're is a contraction". But I could be screwed up on that.

Tim,

You do the insane an injustice with that accusation.

Jerry

Tim as usual has failed to answer the questions in full, and we can only be left with the conclusion that Tim likes to call himself a journalist even though he only writes opeds and is unable to provide a single reference to a story that contains real quotes from real interviews. That is what a real journalist does. And that is obviously not what Tim is. But given your hatred of most other journalists why on Earth do you call yourself one. Be honest Tim, you are a columnist not a journalist. Meanwhile, what about that assignment to Baghdad as an embed for the ACP group. I notice you brushed that aside and simply went back to more cut and paste. Which is Tim's stock in trade.

Enjoy lunch today Tim. Maybe you could go to a camping store and buy some MRE type products, some army disposal clothes and a tent, then go camp out in some building lot somewhere and pretend for a moment that you are doing what the real men in this war are doing. Somehow I doubt it as it's much more fun to go to a trendy cafe and hang out with your righteous mates and bitch about the rest of us over a long long lunch for not writing what you want us to write.

THE LUNCH BOY'S HERE! I'll 'ave a bacon an egg roll, can of coke and a pack of PK chewie thanks!

Go back and have a look at the stories I linked to, Hawk.

See these things: ""?

The words contained within are quotes!

Burger with the lot. Tomato sauce.