November 08, 2004

VIRULENT NEW BDS STRAIN EMERGES

"Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level," writes Mark Steyn:

On the morning of Nov. 2, the condescending left were convinced that Bush was an idiot. By the evening of Nov. 2, they were convinced that the electorate was. Or as London's Daily Mirror put it in its front page: "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?"

Well, they're British lefties: They can do without Americans. Whether an American political party can do without Americans is more doubtful. Nonetheless, MSNBC.com's Eric Alterman was mirroring the Mirror's sentiments: "Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the 'reality-based community' say or believe about anything." Over at Slate, Jane Smiley's analysis was headlined, "The Unteachable Ignorance Of The Red States.'' If you don't want to bother plowing your way through Alterman and Smiley, a placard prominently displayed by a fetching young lad at the post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco cut to the chase: "F--- MIDDLE AMERICA."

Almost right, man. It would be more accurate to say that "MIDDLE AMERICA" has "F---ed" you.

Steyn’s piece also includes this pure wisdom: "Nobody who campaigns with Ben Affleck at his side has the right to call anybody an idiot." BDS is rife at the BBC, as Stephen Pollard reports:

Last Thursday, for instance, I took part in a discussion about the American elections. The presenter, Natasha Kaplinsky, began the slot with this: “It seems that the polls throughout the election were right, but nobody really wanted to believe them; that George Bush was going to get re-elected.”

"No one" wanted to believe them? Not in White City, for sure. The programme’s researcher had rung me the night before to ask what I would say in response to a variety of questions.

Researcher: "Why do you think the exit polls were wrong, so that we were all so disappointed by the result?" Me: "We weren’t all disappointed. Not everyone shares the BBC’s anti-Bush leftie bias. I was delighted and relieved that the free world will continue to be led by a man who understands the threat we face."

Researcher (giggling, and clearly mystified that such a person existed): "Oh gosh, I’m sorry, I forgot you were pleased by the result."

The Guardian's Paul Carr wasn't. He blames the Internet:

While the Democrat supporters had right on their side, the Republican supporters were far, far better at fighting dirty. Conservative mega-sites such as Freerepublic.com galvanised their hundreds of thousands of visitors into an army of amateur attack dogs - ready to yap and snap the moment a foolish journalist wrote anything bad about Bush. Woe betide any TV reporter who didn't check his facts properly before claiming that George W didn't finish his national guard service. And pity any liberal British newspaper that launched an online campaign to convince the voters of a small county in Ohio of the merits of a Kerry administration. The mass yapping and snapping worked like a charm - making even the most fearless journalists think twice before they questioned Bush's suitability for a second term.

"An army of amateur attack dogs." Sounds like The Guardian’s newsroom. Note that The Guardian considers pointing out factual errors to be "fighting dirty" ...

UPDATE. Ted Rall is working through his post-election rage in a subtle, intelligent manner.

Posted by Tim Blair at November 8, 2004 11:07 PM
Comments

It's amazing what they just come right and say now:

"Woe betide any TV reporter who didn't check his facts properly."

Or, indeed, made them up entirely. How sad that that's no longer possible. In the name of the higher truth, of course.

Posted by: Mike G at November 8, 2004 at 11:16 PM

Why can't I post?

Andrea am I banned?

I've been a good boy

Posted by: jlchydro at November 8, 2004 at 11:29 PM

It only seems to happen if I use the word "Arafat"

Posted by: jlchydro at November 8, 2004 at 11:32 PM

It only seems to happen if I use the word "Arafat"

Posted by: jlchydro at November 8, 2004 at 11:33 PM

Or if I mention David Frum

Posted by: jlchydro at November 8, 2004 at 11:37 PM

Or if I mention David Frum

Posted by: jlchydro at November 8, 2004 at 11:39 PM

jh, keep up the stupid, juvenile behavior and you will be banned.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 8, 2004 at 11:46 PM

Re Bush Derangement Syndrome --

Two words: Ken Layne.

Posted by: Pat Chang at November 9, 2004 at 12:18 AM

Dear Angry Left: Keep telling me I am a stupid bigot and that you want my vote. Oh, and reduce your numbers by fleeing for Canada, Europe or anyplace else that will have you. I like winning.

Posted by: charles austin at November 9, 2004 at 12:20 AM

"Woe betide any TV reporter who didn't check his facts properly."

Yep...we conservatives do fight dirty!! We keep clouding the issues with facts! ...but then I was laboring under the misconception that the job, no - the very mantra, of a journalist was to report the facts....all of the facts, and to double check the facts. Guess not. The MSM has decided that their new mantra is to "Make it up as they go", given Rathergate et. al. I want no part of the fairy tales. I want factual news, and the best place I've found, is the Internet. At least there I can go visit the links to the quoted sources, and their sources, and their sources, etc.

Thank God that when the MSM door closed, the Internet door opened.

Posted by: Vulgorilla at November 9, 2004 at 12:31 AM

If the bloggers are "amateur attack dogs", does that mean the professional journalists we snap at are real pussies?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 9, 2004 at 12:34 AM

Rall and the lefties are just one step away from saying conservatives shouldn't be allowed to vote, but *we're* the fascists?

Posted by: Damian P. at November 9, 2004 at 12:36 AM

The mass yapping and snapping worked like a charm - making even the most fearless journalists think twice before they questioned Bush's suitability for a second term.

Yeah, what journalist would not wither under the pressure of being fact-checked and, you know, getting e-mails from people who didn't agree with him? You'd need balls of steel or something.

Pussies.

BTW, I noticed Tim has apparently been demoted from being under Karl Rove's command to being an attack dog for Freerepublic.com. Bummer.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at November 9, 2004 at 12:42 AM

Andrea,

I'm just trying to post.

Perhaps it's because I'm working from a dial-up connection in Vietnam, but almost every time I try to post, I am rejected.

BTW - you can call me JLC

Posted by: jlchydro at November 9, 2004 at 12:49 AM

Actually, the MSM might be finally waking up. I just saw an article in our daily left-leaning rag by an Associated Press reporter named Jim Krane, titled "Media May Be Weapon For Militants". It goes on to report that the "insurgents" in Fallujah may be trying to manipulate American public opinion through the press by causing as many casualties as possible. Believe me, an article like this in the AP and our rag is like a sign of the apocalypse or something.

Maybe there's something to that attack dog thing.

Woof.

Posted by: Rebecca at November 9, 2004 at 01:04 AM

Sorry, I've been dealing with crackhead monkey trolls who apparently have no jobs or any other useful activities to occupy their time.

I don't know why you'd be banned unless some troll was spoofing IPs. Fortunately dialups use dynamic IPs, so you can get in. If you are just having trouble posting, just hit the button once and wait; what usually happens is your comment posts right away but on your end you are still hung up on your end. Also the site was slow a few hours ago.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 9, 2004 at 01:05 AM

Or uh -you are still hung up on your end. Take note, folks: coffee and leftover Halloween candy isn't a really nutritious breakfast...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 9, 2004 at 01:06 AM

Andrea — Agreed. You gotta let that candy air a few more days before it grows enough protein to be good for you...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 9, 2004 at 01:12 AM

Just a hint: I have sometimes had the Website Not Responding message come up, when in fact my message had posted. It's best to check before you try to post again.

Posted by: Rebecca at November 9, 2004 at 01:19 AM

Even if you agree with Rall, that cartoon doesn't appear to make any sense.

Posted by: Chris K at November 9, 2004 at 01:23 AM

A friend of mine works at the BBC. He says the amount of anti-Bush and anti-Conservative bias there is frightening. He has been verbally harassed for refusing to acknowledge that GWB is the source of all evil ("How can you say that?" etc.) As he doesn't have a martyr complex, he keeps his head down most of the time.

Posted by: PJ at November 9, 2004 at 01:27 AM

On the bright side, not one person has talked at me about Michael Moore and F911 which they were doing over and over rather mindlessly. I was a good boy and didn't hurt any of them. Since the election they have stopped.

I thought a major theme of the election was that it was the war on terror. I don't hear that anymore. Now all I hear is "moral values." I guess if you lose a referendum you get to redefine what the referendum was about.

Posted by: Fred Boness at November 9, 2004 at 01:52 AM

Is making fun of the retarded acceptable again, or is it only a retarded cartoonist that's allowed to do that?

Posted by: Arty at November 9, 2004 at 01:56 AM

Fred, yep, exactly the same thing happened here in Oz.

Though they do have a point here. The Labor Party dropped the war as a campaign issue when they realised it wasn't going to get them anywhere. All the real anti-war nuts voted Green anyway.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 9, 2004 at 02:00 AM

PJ, your friend in the BBC sounds smart...in more ways than one. I hope he does well, the BBC needs that sort of person, whether they realize it or not.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 9, 2004 at 02:05 AM

Rall's had a grudge against retards ever since he took art classes from one.

Posted by: Jim Treachr at November 9, 2004 at 02:21 AM

But at least he can spell his own name!

Posted by: Ijm tReechOr at November 9, 2004 at 02:22 AM

Has anyone tried to map the election reactions onto the 5 stages of grief.

1. Denial
The time it took for some of the networks to call Ohio and Florida.

2. Anger
The thumping of the 'Guns, Gays, and God' mantra

3. Bargaining
Bush stole the election! This category seems a lot like denial.

4. Depression
People threatening to kill themselves.

5. Acceptance
Are we there yet? Taking the positives could be a sign of acceptane. Or maybe more denial?

Posted by: drscroogemcduck at November 9, 2004 at 02:22 AM

Don't ya love the condescension:

"And pity any liberal British newspaper that launched an online campaign to convince the voters of a small county in Ohio of the merits of a Kerry administration."

The underlying premise--believing it an acceptable journalist practice for a foreign newspaper to actively encourage its readers to lobby on behalf of a candidate in a foreign election--is deserving of all the scorn heaped.

And then there's this:

"The mass yapping and snapping worked like a charm - making even the most fearless journalists think twice before they questioned Bush's suitability for a second term."

This is pure revisionism. There is no evidence that journalists even that once before questioning Bush's suitability--as if that's the role jo"urnalists perform!

Posted by: Forbes at November 9, 2004 at 02:28 AM

UPDATE. Ted Rall is working through his post-election rage in a subtle, intelligent manner.

When did Ted Rall start calling himself "Charlie"?

Posted by: Spiny Norman at November 9, 2004 at 02:48 AM

Got an email today from a BDS sufferer. Probably an oldie, it was a photoshopped picture of George Bush meeting Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. As he often does, the fatigued Pontiff has his head in his hand as he listens to the President's prepared remarks. The caption read: "Dear Dalai Lama."

Anyway, I replied to my friend thus:

"That IS funny. LOL. But... He is a Yale/Harvard graduate and former fighter-jet pilot. He speaks quite a bit of Spanish, having had a large Latino constituency as Governor of Texas. He has an IQ higher than John Kerry's. A life-long dyslexic, he doesn't read very well. The rest is myth."

She replied back: "Interesting."

In other words, she wasn't interested. Lies are more fun. That's why I'll end by saying that rumour has it that John Kerry is having an affair with Ben Affleck.

Posted by: C.L. at November 9, 2004 at 02:52 AM

GOOMBA GOOM!

Posted by: Brent at November 9, 2004 at 03:30 AM

" The presenter, Natasha Kaplinsky, began the slot with this: “It seems that the polls throughout the election were right, but nobody really wanted to believe them; that George Bush was going to get re-elected."

In her defence Natasha Kaplinsky is the number one tele-bimbo in the UK. She is seriously hot and gets me up every morning, so to speak.

Posted by: Ross at November 9, 2004 at 03:44 AM

In other words, she wasn't interested. Lies are more fun. That's why I'll end by saying that rumour has it that John Kerry is having an affair with Ben Affleck.

But... but... I thought Ben was with Matt. That slut.

Posted by: Rebecca at November 9, 2004 at 03:48 AM

"Woe betide any TV reporter who didn't check his facts properly before claiming that George W didn't finish his national guard service. And pity any liberal British newspaper that launched an online campaign to convince the voters of a small county in Ohio of the merits of a Kerry administration."

Well, um... yes.

Meanwhile, in the Guardian's financial section:

"Woe betide any CEO of a major corporation who cooks the books to put a flattering light on his performance. And pity any officer of the corporation who trades stock based on insider information."

Posted by: Dave S. at November 9, 2004 at 04:01 AM

Journalists realy don't consider themselves "reporters". "Reporters" are those sorry sods on your local evening news consigned, for life, to report on traffic jams and where to get your flu shots. Same for local newspapers. Journalists have a higher calling in life. They consider themselves to be engines of social change. They are shapers of societal evolution. As a consequence, "facts" are viewed as a commodity, to be shaped in accordance with one's worldview. These people are 100% postmodernists. Hence they would consider it an affront to their calling to have someone check facts on one of their pet memes.

Posted by: YoJimbo at November 9, 2004 at 04:15 AM

I think Mr. Carr displays an uncanny knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, especially for a furriner. Take a look at the text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except for stadium church snake-handlers; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except for conservative amateur attack dogs; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, except for NRA gun nuts who will just get someone shot or at the very least poked in the eye with one of those insanely long rifle barrels, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Mr. Carr has correctly identified the problem: a whole gaggle of uppity BOTT-listening, monogamous dullards are noisily exercising constitutional rights that simply don't exist. I just don't know what Tim's beef with this gentleman could possibly be.

Posted by: Tongueboy at November 9, 2004 at 04:35 AM

No signs of BDS letting up here.
The left-leaning media is already running Hilary against the world in 2008.
While Britain has only Charles, our choices for “Prince of Wails” are numerous.
Note to condescending liberals: misspelling was intended.

Posted by: southpaw at November 9, 2004 at 04:54 AM

BDS has struck the New York Times big-time & it’s no joke. The NYT published an article in the Nov. 7, 2004 Sunday NY Times Week In Review calling for—well, I’ll report, you decide whether Pinch Sulzberger, Bill Keller, Gail Collins, & Dean E. Murphy ought to be deeply investigated by the Secret Service & denounced throughout the USA.

Can History Save the Democrats?,” Bolts from the Political Blue, by Dean E. Murphy, November 7, 2004, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07murp.html

Accompanying illustration: Red elephant stands with foot on butt of blue donkey on the ground, blue donkey is looking up & smiling at meteor (= act of God) heading for elephant

Opening:
66__________________
LITTLE more than a month before he was assassinated, Abraham Lincoln stood at the east portico of the Capitol and delivered his second inaugural address. It was a brief speech with a distinctly religious message: he twice cited biblical verses, and made a dozen references to God, most strikingly in assessing the opposing sides in the Civil War.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯99

Closing:
66__________________
Professor Wilentz of Princeton said that even if the 2004 victory was an incremental one, that should not comfort the Democrats. He said Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush now have a chance to do what Hanna and McKinley never did: Lay the foundation for lasting Republican dominance.

"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."

Until the next act of God, that is.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯99

Somebody just emailed me that in the NYT International edition, the article included a call for another Hinckley to come foreward. I’ll try to find it. This is incredibly sick.

Posted by: ForNow at November 9, 2004 at 05:06 AM

"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."

Bullshit. All the checks and balances built into our system of government by our FOunders are intact. They did not rely on partisan rivalry, equally balanced, to preserve the United States, and neither should we.

Posted by: R C Dean at November 9, 2004 at 05:18 AM

I now think that my email friend was thinking of Charlie T. Brooker’s Saturday article in the Guardian.

Anyway, Lincoln & McKinley were Republican presidents who got assassinated. Hanna was McKinley’s political handler & the article compares him to Rove. The whole article is about assassinations. This is disgusting.

Posted by: ForNow at November 9, 2004 at 05:19 AM

Pinch Sulzberger & the New York Times:
BROADSHEET BROWNSHIRTS.
This is a huge scandal, in my view, & should be treated as such.

Posted by: ForNow at November 9, 2004 at 05:26 AM

Sorry, I should have given a hat tip to Power Line at
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008555.php

Posted by: ForNow at November 9, 2004 at 05:53 AM

I used words very similar to Steyn when describing flyover country's Republican vote. "That's right, East & West Coast media, keep denigrating the values we hold dear. You guys get to broadcast your opinion every day, we only get to broadcast ours every four years. Keep slandering us and you'll have Bushes in the White House till 2060."

Posted by: Alex at November 9, 2004 at 06:16 AM

Bushes in the White House until 2060. Wouldn't that put the Bush Twins in play. Yikes! There has to be a plan "B" somewhere.

Posted by: YoJimbo at November 9, 2004 at 06:46 AM

"Think twice"... obviously a new concept for journalists.

Posted by: alfadog at November 9, 2004 at 06:48 AM

Ted Rall's depiction of the US classroom is actually quite correct. This is exactly what the Left has been doing for decades in their drive to dumb-down America.... and the Western World as well.

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at November 9, 2004 at 07:52 AM

My ol' favourite, SBS, joined in with a gleeful piece about 'how the bloggers got those US exit polls wrong'. Attention bloggers: if you're doing something that pisses off public media, please just keep doing it, whatever it is.

And as for BDS, spare a thought for me: I work in the public service, and have basically had people crying on my shoulder since both elections. Although these are the same kind of people who tell me, as one did yesterday, that global warming is caused by the hole in the ozone layer, letting all that extra heat in. I kid you not.

Posted by: cuckoo at November 9, 2004 at 08:10 AM

I have just e-mailed that Guardian writer and received a pretty nasty e-mail in return about how backward etc Bush supporters are and how the Guardian vetoed the most virulent things he had to say. E-mail him on paul@thefridayproject.co.uk and rub in the fact that HE LOST BIG.

Posted by: Craig at November 9, 2004 at 08:14 AM

OT: Iraqi Blogger Sam from Hammorabi recieves a death threat from an Australian Muslim:


A Threats from Australian Arab Muslim!

I received an email from an Arab Muslims in the name of Kareema (Kareema76@optusnet.com.au) which is a female name but also we got other details which we will hold from publication now. The email is full with abuses indicates how dirty is the sender! It is also threatening to kill me and full with support to the terrorists.

Here is some of its dirty contains which could not come from but dirty unclean cockroaches terrorists who abuse the freedom offered to him/her from Australia:

It is idiots like you that really make me sick. Do you often get told by the Americans to bend over and get ready for Bush to have his way with you.

What makes me really angry is that I live in Australia, yet I understand fully why the Iraqi people are fighting this illegal occupation, whilst dogs such as yourself will do anything to appease your masters. Do you not feel any sympathy for the 100,000+ Iraqis who have died from American bombs?

Oh, oh I get it now. I have just figured out why you are such a coward and why you post these traitorous blogs of yours. You know that you have no chance in hell of surviving if the Americans are not there to protect you cowardly ass, so you try in vain to do your part and try to influence others to think the way that the Americans want them to, in the hope that if you are able to convince some, then your life will be less in danger.

But I have news for you, your killing will reap so much rewards on the one who carries it out, that that person will be almost assured a spot in heaven while you burn in hell for eternity. Yes as you slowly burn and scream in hell, the person that kills you will enjoy eternity in heaven and would not even piss on you to put out the flames of hell, because you would be a waste of piss, you worthless piece of dog shit

I pray day and night to see your limp dead body hanging from a light post somewhere in Iraq, I will promise that I will throw a huge party if I got to see that sight.

As long as there is traitorous idiots like you infecting Iraq and the Arab world, then we have lots of struggles to overcome.

My advice to you dumb idiot, is to open you damn eyes and see just how murderous the Americans are, see just how traitorous you have been and change your ways, you still have time to enter heaven, but that will never happen until you stop supporting the Zionist Jews and help you Iraqi brothers to liberate their lands from the American occupiers.

Posted by: Mister Ghost at November 9, 2004 at 08:15 AM

>In her defence Natasha Kaplinsky is the number one tele-bimbo in the UK. She is seriously hot and gets me up every morning, so to speak.

Ross, even the ropiest page 3 girl in the Sun is hotter than Natasha. Buy some magazines sometime soon.

And hasn't she been seen out with Tony Benn? That should put you off her for life. The thought of the Wedgewood Benn... no, no it's too horrible.

Posted by: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny at November 9, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Woe betide any TV reporter who didn't check his facts properly before claiming that George W didn't finish his national guard service.

'Scuse me, Mr. Responsible Global Citizen-person, but what woe has betided Dan Rather to date? He's still getting paid millions for his lies and biases. The host of this website should do so well.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at November 9, 2004 at 08:27 AM

Tony Benn's still alive?

Posted by: Annalucia at November 9, 2004 at 08:49 AM

What a bunch of drama queens. The fact that the lefties are--seemingly--even more upset about this election than they were about 9/11 is really gross.

Posted by: lexine at November 9, 2004 at 08:57 AM

>Tony Benn's still alive?

Not only alive, he's now a star of the stage - see this post of Tex's:

http://www.whackingday.com/permarch_nov04/8nov04.htm#ben

Posted by: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny at November 9, 2004 at 09:16 AM

I love the way the Guardian can devote literally millions of words criticizing the Bush administration, US policy, and Americans in general, but when a handful of bloggers decide to return fire, Paul Carr says they're "yapping". It's called free speech, asshole. Learn to live with it.

Posted by: Emily at November 9, 2004 at 09:23 AM

"'Scuse me, Mr. Responsible Global Citizen-person, but what woe has betided Dan Rather to date? He's still getting paid millions for his lies and biases. The host of this website should do so well."

You're right, Citizen Rick, we should all cease our opprobrious acrimony against that fine upstanding and (most important) wealthy humanitarian Mr. Dan Rather and bow silently before the might of his huge salary. We are not worthy! We are not worthy! Because money is all that really matters in this world -- is that what you are saying?

Cordially.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 9, 2004 at 09:28 AM

Yep, I can see this working real well as the Dems' 2008 slogan:

"If You Voted For Bush-Cheney In 2004, You're A Moron And A Bigot! Unless You Redeem Yourself By Voting For Clinton-Obama in '08!"

To quote The Simpsons:

"On-ly a moron wouldn't cast his vote/ For Mon-ty Burns!"

Posted by: Uncle Milk at November 9, 2004 at 09:30 AM

Amen Lexine. You hit the nail on the head - the real tragedy is a democratically elected president is considered a bigger threat than a lunatic who crashes passenger planes into populous cities or encourages kids to strap bombs on themselves and blow up crowded markets.
The level of stupidity it takes to embrace this kind of thinking astonishing.
You have to joke about it because it's seems impossible for anybody to to be this stupid- only a liberal could be so delusional as to believe their idiocy is really some form of social enlightenment.

Posted by: southpaw at November 9, 2004 at 09:38 AM

It ain't just the UK media that has a problem. Take a look at 'Voting Without the Facts' By BOB HERBERT in the New York Times.

"I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won."

This actually reflects very badly on the NYT because they as much as anyone tried to inform the US voters of the "facts".

Posted by: gordon at November 9, 2004 at 09:56 AM

I know we shouldn't be suprised but the MSM's military pundits are already describing the assault on Fallujah as being "bogged down"!!!

Sigh .... Australian Sky News 11am bulletin.

News Presenter: "...so the US risks being bogged down in a bloody quagmire?" - `expert' "yes, all the lessons from the past such as Northern Ireland show the US risks being bogged down in a bloody military quagmire."

Northern Ireland!!!!!!!!! what a fucking moron .... last time I looked the Brits in NI hadn't shelled and bombed Belfast for a couple of weeks, shot the shit out of everything that moved with AC10s and used drones with variable wavelength cameras to ID every enemy position before assaulting the suburbs with over ten thousand troops, APCs and tanks ....

Other reporters on the scene witnessed building after building being flattened by huge volumes of US fire ... "the enemy toll will not be light" intoned one sombre correspondent ...

Good!

And would you believe it, a stupid CBS news slut just said "Iraq will soon be having elections not seen here since the time of Saddam Hussein ..."

The mind boggles at her ignorance ...

Posted by: OldDigger at November 9, 2004 at 10:41 AM

I think that Rick was complaining that insufficient woe has betidden Dan Rather, not claiming that Rather’s income is proof against our any criticism of Rather’s reporting.

Posted by: ForNow at November 9, 2004 at 10:41 AM

Andrea - You misread Rick's comment. I think he was saying that Rather deserved to lose his job and has instead suffered very few consequences, certainly none rising to the level of betided woe.

Plus he wished more money on Tim. Money might not be all that matters, but I still wish the bloggers I liked had more of it.

Posted by: Matt Moore at November 9, 2004 at 10:48 AM

Andrea - ForNow and Matt Moore are right. We know you must be tired though. You're just getting a little snowblind, that's all. Sorry, I meant shitblind -- there's so much of it about. Easy mistake under the circumstances.

Posted by: JamesUK at November 9, 2004 at 10:55 AM

I used to receive many anti-Bush cartoons or jokes from colleagues at work - since it was a government department, most were lefties and there were a few hysterical haters.

I made a point of sending back cartoons or jokes that rebutted whatever item they had sent to me - eg, when I received a joke about Bush's IQ, I sent back his SAT scores and educational history.

They soon got the message. But I doubt that any of them really thought about the replies I sent to them. They probably wrote me off as a victim of rightwing brainwashing.

The thing that amused me most was the assumption that I would agree with them. Why would anyone assume that? I would never presume to send anyone a political cartoon, but this elementary politeness never occurred to them.

It was as if some little voice in their heads had told them that any reasonable educated person would just have to agree with them.

And the misconceptions they held about America were kind of scary. They had no real idea of American history, or why Americans feel so strongly about issues like the right to bear arms. They appeared to think that the whole country is full of homicidal, racist rednecks, but not one of them had the faintest idea of what makes Americans tick.

Their ignorance was frightening.

Posted by: dee at November 9, 2004 at 11:06 AM

I used to receive many anti-Bush cartoons or jokes from colleagues at work - since it was a government department, most were lefties and there were a few hysterical haters.

I made a point of sending back cartoons or jokes that rebutted whatever item they had sent to me - eg, when I received a joke about Bush's IQ, I sent back his SAT scores and educational history.

They soon got the message. But I doubt that any of them really thought about the replies I sent to them. They probably wrote me off as a victim of rightwing brainwashing.

The thing that amused me most was the assumption that I would agree with them. Why would anyone assume that? I would never presume to send anyone a political cartoon, but this elementary politeness never occurred to them.

It was as if some little voice in their heads had told them that any reasonable educated person would just have to agree with them.

And the misconceptions they held about America were kind of scary. They had no real idea of American history, or why Americans feel so strongly about issues like the right to bear arms. They appeared to think that the whole country is full of homicidal, racist rednecks, but not one of them had the faintest idea of what makes Americans tick.

Their ignorance was frightening.

Posted by: dee at November 9, 2004 at 11:08 AM

I can't believe Dan Rather's not toast :-(

Posted by: gubbaboy at November 9, 2004 at 11:12 AM

Apologies for double posting, I went offline and thought the first one hadnt gone through.

Posted by: dee at November 9, 2004 at 11:14 AM

Deep in the bowels of the Unnamed Government Agency that I work for, there's a guy (Ralph) with a certain level of responsibility. God knows why, because Ralph is loonier than most of the moonbats that flutter through this blog.

Seriously. This guy can't write an e-mail with a single complete, coherent sentence. He lives for the latest buzz words. His greatest joy seems to be using different fonts and colors for each e-mail. Often different fonts/colors within an e-mail Ralph is a classic socialist; he even hated Wal-Mart jokes because it isn't unionized. Physically, he resembles Senator John Kerry. Ralph even served in Vietnam.

All of which is striking because Ralph is/was ardently pro-Kerry, and venomously anti-Bush.

However, a buddy of mine and I, who have worked with Ralph on several projects(to our regret), "innocently" sent him many anti-Kerry jokes. This really pissed Ralph off.

Ah, good times!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 9, 2004 at 11:18 AM

Europeans don’t even understand their own history, let alone the USA’s. They seem to have learned nothing from experience, all their war-spawning power politics. Most educated Americans have no respect for Europeans when it comes to statesmanship. Europeans don’t even understand that the reasons that they are safe yet weak is that it has been US policy since FDR that they be safe yet weak. They were simply too much trouble for the world before then. They are now what we have made them. That doesn’t mean we have to like them.

Posted by: ForNow at November 9, 2004 at 11:20 AM

Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level

The rhythm is the bass, and the bass is the treble.

Posted by: Chris K at November 9, 2004 at 11:56 AM

Regarding Dan Blather, Broadcasting & Cable somewhat hearteningly reports today:

Pre-election, the feeling in some quarters at CBS was that if Kerry triumphed, fallout from the investigation would be relatively minimal. The controversial piece’s producer, Mary Mapes, would likely be suspended or fired, but a long list of others up the chain of command—from 60 Minutes II executive producer Josh Howard, to Rather and all the way up to news division President Andrew Heyward—would escape more or less unscathed.

But now, faced with four more years of President Bush, executives at CBS parent Viacom could take a harder line on the executives involved.

Yes, it's mostly a rumor at this point, but the fact that it's even being talked about (finally!) in the business is a good sign. (Viacom can't like the ratings dropping out from under 60 Minutes, that's for sure.) Perhaps it's time for the blogosphere to move the point of pressure from CBS further to Viacom itself?

Posted by: PW at November 9, 2004 at 12:24 PM

"..Fearless journalists": I love this 1930s B-grade movie image that journalists have of themselves: broadbrimmed hat pulled rakishly over the eyes, a bottle of Scotch on the desk, pounding the old typewriter, calling "Copyboy!" and "Hold the front page-I've got an exclusive from Fallujah!". Or sweating it out in the merciless heat of the Iraqi desert, Humphrey Bogart style, to bring us a story on the Iraqi PM who personally executed his enemies, and then awarding themselves prizes for daring stories that scooped and amazed the world. A grateful Carole Lombard waiting to welcome them home.

It's all so bold and exciting. Makes me quite envious really; poor little right wing blogger bashing away on my computer, hoping some one at The Guardian might acknowledge my plaintiive emails.

Posted by: Freddyboy at November 9, 2004 at 12:33 PM

Mister Ghost,

Please either tell Sam (or if you have a copy, e:mail it yourself) to forward it onto the Federal police. Sounds like the nutjob is looking for ways to 'wreak her fearful revenge' in Australia, and the Police should at leaset check her out.

Posted by: Andrew at November 9, 2004 at 12:45 PM

"Bush Derangement Syndrome,"
Krugman Simplex B

Posted by: guinsPen at November 9, 2004 at 01:47 PM

Not bad for amateurs!

Posted by: Razor at November 9, 2004 at 02:23 PM

"Please either tell Sam (or if you have a copy, e:mail it yourself) to forward it onto the Federal police. Sounds like the nutjob is looking for ways to 'wreak her fearful revenge' in Australia, and the Police should at leaset check her out."

Andrew I agree, would be interesting to see how seriously the govt takes this after it has promised to prosecute such threats.

Posted by: max power at November 9, 2004 at 04:44 PM

BBC bias is beyond a joke. It has been going on for far too long. Throughout the Cold War we were constantly fed a balanced diet the effect of which was to portray a moral equivalence between the democratic West and the Warsaw Pact. Its bias continues to this day. The bias would not matter so much if it were not such a grossly overweight organisation funded by the taxpayer. It should have been privatised by the Conservatives in preference to British Rail. We need an alternative radio and TV medium free from the luvvies left of centre self hating bias. Until that day we shall have to rely on the internet.

Posted by: esbonio at November 9, 2004 at 05:56 PM

Such a sad and twisted mind- mister ghost--Iraq today would already be a thriving vibrant country- oil flowing, power on, fresh water running hospitals and schools being built, but no, you and your kind do not want people to walk the streetswith heads held high and the Americans planning to withdraw some of its military- you and you ilk would rather prolong the carnage and cause more blood shed- and for what?? please explain in language that this simple person can comprehend, what would be the result if all your gun and knife toting 'heros' lay down their weapons and got to work helping to rebuild this country which has suffered so much for 35 years.
Why, if you hate freedom so much, are you living in Australia? we do not want you kind on our shores, you foul the air we breathe and ground beneath our feet.
Take yourself and your vile thoughts to a place that will appreciate you such as Palestine where you will feel so much more at home and appreciated.With luck a stray Israeli bullet may find its mark.
If however you do like the freedom to be be whatever it is that you are- why would you deny that to your brothers and sister in Iraq.
You are either ex Taliban or ex Ba'athist here under false pretences as a 'supposed refugee' and thank God for Woomera and Baxter, I hope that you are there already and soon deported - or caught and sent there. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME.

Posted by: Rose at November 9, 2004 at 06:26 PM

I hate to jump in on the end of a nearly dead post, but reading this reminded me - according to his column in the Australian Magazine last Saturday, Phillip Adams (big surprise) similarly believes that quoting someones own statements back at them during a political campaign constitutes "digging dirt", and is an unconcionable attack on liberty and free speech.

Posted by: Waste at November 9, 2004 at 07:54 PM

Uh rose

I know its confusing how he's laid it out and you probably have a pea-sized brain but I think if you read mister ghost's post again you'll see he's quoting someone else's e-mail.

Posted by: grogan at November 9, 2004 at 08:09 PM

Andrea,

Because money is all that really matters in this world -- is that what you are saying?

Uh....no. As other correspondents here noted, I was scoffing at the notion that any woe has visited the still-overpaid Rather.

Now, my true view of money was summed up by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof; when informed that money is a sickness, he said "then God should smite me with it, so that I never recover." Or something like that.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at November 10, 2004 at 03:50 AM