As human beings, journalists make mistakes. We (I pretend at being one from time to time and actually get paid for it, so I have to include myself) sometimes make a lot of mistakes, or a string of mistakes.

People understand that. They get that we make mistakes—and get this—actually find us more credible when we admit just how badly we screwed up a story, as long as we explained how it happened, and make an honest effort to improve. when we bury our heads in the sand, and refuse to admit obvious mistakes or failures in our reporting, assumptions, editing, or conclusions, we hurt only ourselves.

Right, Dan?

I've been advocating that approach for quite a while now and hope I practice what I preach. At least one person believes I'm doing okay, though I know there is plenty of room for improvement.

Another person I know who constantly works to improve his work is Michael Yon. I don't think he needs much introduction to my readership, and his work as a combat journalist has always stood on its own. Yon is also big on focusing on integrity as a writer, and it is something he has harped on on his site, in interviews, on the phone, and he tells me in his book as well, which I will eventually read once somebody starts sleeping through the night.

Yon published a military memo on his site Wednesday which quickly got the attention of the online community. The sourcing was solid. It was authentic, no doubt about it.

Many bloggers, the military community, and their supporters were quickly outraged over the content of the memo, which alleged that military uniformed personnel we being targeted for verbal abuse by anti-war fanatics. Just as quickly, online anti-war activists claimed that this was false, even noting (though they phrased it differently) that they were too craven and cowardly to berate men and women that could easily beat them into pulp.

I was immediately interested by the report and posted on it, and thought it might be something interesting to follow up on in more detail.

As I did so, Yon pointed out via email that some in his comments were calling it a hoax, and asked me to pursue the story. You can ready about what I found in a post this morning at Pajamas Media.

Now, that may not sound like a big deal, but when was the last time that a journalist at one newspaper encouraged a journalist at another to follow up on his work and check for inconsistencies? How often does it even occur within the same news organization? It very well may happen. In fact, I hope it does... but we don't often see the results of such a check-up, and far to many times we see stories that are utterly false that go uncorrected—*cough*—Brian Ross—*cough*—and the same mistakes or falsehoods reiterated another day.

Yon is interested in getting it right. Perhaps if our journalistic class was more interested in getting it right instead of just getting it out while feigning perfection, the public's respect for them wouldn't be collapsing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Perhaps if our journalistic class was more interested in getting it right instead of just getting it out while feigning perfection... It's worse than that. Too many of them want to get something out that will bulldoze public opinion in the correct direction, and the fact-gathering process needn't be complete, but only sufficient to accomplish that aim.

Posted by: Micropotamus at May 23, 2008 11:42 AM (YeWPs)

2 More kudos to you and Yon Micro has it very right as well. Ever since Watergate, almost every MSM 'journalist' is/has been trying for that "seminal scoop". Whether the facts actually support their preconceived conclusion or not.

Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2008 02:05 PM (4od5C)

3 I heard The New Republic does it all the time... And speaking of double checking... You might want to take a look at this AP facade http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2rT2wzhviymfyfyRdmdKw6tciagD90O9DJ80 by the same guy who worked with others to write the Nogunri (infamous) famous article. Another blogger has taken it apart fairly well: http://rokdrop.com/2008/05/20/rehashing-korean-war-era-executions/ But I thought this was up your ally and might be something your readers would like to know about.

Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:15 PM (cwn6C)

4 Read the post and the memo. It doesn't sound like much any way around. The memo didn't seem to me like it was offering much of an alarm. Having lived in South Korea, and having watched a lot of the armed forces network, to catch shows in English, you see all kinds of public service announcements. Someone heard of an incident involving a uniformed soldier and someone shouting anti-war items and sent out a fairly tame memo. I could see myself doing the same if my job in the military had to do with public safety or public relations. It isn't as if a Defense Department spokesman went on CNN claiming frequent physical attacks on GIs in DC by anti-war activists....

Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:27 PM (cwn6C)

5 usinkorea: The attacks start in subtle ways. Those of us who have been through it once are probably more sensitive to the subject. We've seen how teachers work it, telling innocent 7 year olds that "God doesn't listen to prayers for baby killers," landlords saying, "no pets, no soldiers/sailors," employers saying, "you might get transferred or try to push a military agenda, so I can't hire you." After that is when it becomes more blatant. Nasty ridiculing remarks in stores, malls, at the gas station, even in church, spitting, garbage cans of raw sewage dumped on a member in uniform, picket lines with screaming a$$holes outside your residence or place of business, your car keyed because it has a base sticker. We remember! We have promised never to let it happen again.

Posted by: Sara at May 23, 2008 02:50 PM (Wi/N0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yochi J. Dreazen posts an article titled U.S. Delays Report on Iran Arms in the Wall Street Journal, May 21:

The U.S. military, in a shift, has postponed the release of a report detailing allegations of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, according to people familiar with the matter.

The military had initially planned to publicize the report several weeks ago but instead turned the dossier over to the Iraqi government, these people said. The Iraqis are using the information to pressure Tehran to curb the flow of Iranian weaponry and explosives into Iraq, these people said.

Me, writing here at Confederate Yankee on May 8 in a post titled Why You Won't See the Iranian Weapons We've Captured in Iraq:

...hopes of a diplomatic solution between Iran and Iraq have forestalled the U.S. military press conference displaying captured weaponry first expected in Baghdad over a week ago.

The press conference was delayed in hopes that an Iraqi delegation to Tehran bearing evidence of Iranian weapons captured by U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent fighting could resolve the issue as a matter between the two neighboring states.

Unsurprisingly, Iran has disputed the evidence, and as a result, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered a special committee to compile evidence captured by both American and Iraqi forces. Once the evidence is compiled, it is hoped that this would help inform the committee in putting forth a coherent Iraqi policy on Iranian involvement in smuggling weapons into Iraq. That policy will be presented to the Iranian government in hopes of stopping Iranian smuggling of weapons and preclude a conflict between the two nations, according to U.S. military sources. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-88 that claimed approximately one million lives when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and the political goals of neither Shia-dominated government would be well-served by a return to conflict.

Perhaps by June, the media will also come to my conclusion on what this means to Iranq/Iran relations, as well.

It is getting harder and harder for the media to keep up with the turn of events in Iraq. Many had been wedded to the "quagmire" theory of assumed stasis leading to assured defeat and withdrawal, a theory still coveted by most senior Democrats and the online activist left. They bitterly cling to this theory because of the amount of political capital they have invested in it, even though that theory is being directly countered by evidence mounting at a blistering pace.

Iraq is not free from terror or outside influence and will not be for years to come, but the facts are that the insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and rogue militias in Iraq are collapsing before the onslaught of increasingly fierce and competent Iraqi security forces, civilian-provided intelligence, and gutsy civilian leadership, backed by U.S. forces. We'll leave it for the historians to decide at which point the corner was turned and victory was assured, but some things are certain.

Anyone still attempting to claim that coalition and Iraqi forces are fighting in a lost cause or a endless quagmire as of mid-May, 2008, is doing so in direct opposition to the facts on the ground.

Your only response should be wondering what they are trying to sell you, and why.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

Associated Press reporter Bushra Juhi:

Two Iraqi officials said the shooting occurred about 5:30 a.m. in the Obeidi neighborhood after three roadside bombs targeted joint U.S.-Iraqi troops. But the U.S. military said its forces were not involved in any events in the area.

It was not clear who opened fire after the explosions. Eleven bystanders were killed and one person wounded, one of the police officials said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

AP Television News footage showed the body of a man in a track suit covered by a blue blanket and another body in a blood-spattered wooden coffin nearby.

AFP offers a near identical account also claiming 11 bystanders (innocence implied) were killed, in accounts obviously coming from the same Iraqi police sources. Insurgents and their sympathizers have routinely masqueraded as police officers throughout the war, and news outlets have dutifully published their accounts, many of which we later determined to be entirely false.

SGT Brooke N. Murphy, MNF-I PAO, responded immediately to these claims via email:

We can definitely state there was no IED attack on a U.S.-Iraqi convoy
in Obeidi at dawn this a.m. That's not talking about any particular
area, we do not discuss ongoing operations. I can state we specifically
target those committing a violent act or about to commit a violent act.

We would warn residents against moving toward any engagement, especially
when armed. We absolutely do not target law-abiding Iraqi citizens.

So there were not 11 (innocent) bystanders killed. Who died? Anyone? As a matter of fact, yes.

Murphy then sent a breaking MNF-I release that states that 11 Iranian-backed "Special Groups" forces were killed in New Baghdad:

Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers have killed 11 Special Group (SG) criminals in an ongoing operation in the New Baghdad security district in eastern Baghdad, May 21.

MND-B Soldiers observed as a special groups militant, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, exited a sports utility vehicle. The individual scanned the area and motioned a suspicious truck forward. Then Soldiers then watched as the militants emplaced an improvised-explosive device.

They engaged the suspect with small-arms fire and killed him.

Nearby, MND-B Soldiers encountered four SG militants, who were armed with AK-47 and RPK rifles, travelling in a SUV. They engaged the vehicle and killed the four militants.

MND-B Soldiers engaged and killed another SG militant carrying a rocket-propelled grenade. At another location in New Baghdad, MND-B Soldiers noticed a SG militant armed with a modified AK-47, who was conducting reconnaissance from a vehicle in a suspicious manner. The Soldiers engaged the armed SG militant and killed him.

Nearby, MND-B Soldiers spotted a militant in an alley. The SG militant moved away from the alley, holding an AK-47 in a firing position. An MND-B Soldier engaged and killed him. Another SG militant, who was driving a tan SUV in New Baghdad, made several passes by MND-B Soldiers.

He stopped the vehicle and attempted to hand an AK-47 to his SG militant cohorts. An MND-B Soldier shot and killed him.

Who do you trust to have the story right, the anonymous media robo-calling police sources, or a named Army soldier issuing formal releases?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Yon emailed early this morning to warn me American soldiers are being given a travel warning by the federal government.

The sad part? It isn't overseas, but related to what are now only verbal assaults on the Washington, D.C. metro.

Recently, there have been local incidents in which military personnel have been verbally assaulted while commuting on the Metro. Uniformed members have been approached by individuals expressing themselves as anti-government, shouting anti-war sentiments, and using racial slurs against minorities.

It sounds like we've got a few disciples of the William Ayers/Bernadine Dohrn wing of the Democrat Party still active. Fringe leftists haven't murdered uniformed government officials since 2002 in anti-war, anti-government violence, but it is an election year, and tensions are already running high.

This isn't the kind of "hope" and "change" I think most of us expected.

5/27 Update: This one is for those authors and moderators of blog entries at the Village Voice, as they don't seem willing to correct misinformation they spread even after being contacted by both Michael Yon and myself. Despite their assertions to the contrary, I went to great lengths to correct this story, spurred on by Yon.

I not only wrote the Pajamas Media article debunking the substance of this claim; I also wrote a separate article for this very blog, though I didn't update this particular post, because at that point, this post was old news pushed well down the digital page. Perhaps I should have done so.

That doesn't excuse Edroso's laziness and unwillingness to actually read the blogs he claims to for the Voice, or for their unwillingness to publish my response to them as of 5:47 PM today.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:38 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Arthur Tesler has been found guilty of making false statements in a case resulting from the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched Atlanta drug raid. Gregg Junnier and Jason Smith were two other officers involved in the raid who have already pled guilty to federal conspiracy charges.

Smith was profiled in a botched New York Times article claiming that veterans were responsible for a disproportionate number of violent crimes.

Expect the Times to now explain how Smith's war-related violence became contagious and affected Junnier and Tesler.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

The specific diagnosis has yet to be determined, but it is believed to be a malignant glioma, which could mean he has anywhere from 1-5 years to live depending on how aggressive the tumor is.

Our prayers go out to the Kennedy family.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, I feel much better now.

File this as another reason Bush would want to strike Iran—and hard—before the end of his term.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

So says the Jerusalem Post, citing Army Radio, citing an anonymous Israeli government official, citing someone he says is "a senior member of the president's entourage."

Why, it's just like hearing it from Bush directly!

Responsible journalists don't run stories this poorly sourced as a rule, but exceptions are almost always made when the stories are sensational enough, and the story is something that journalists, editors, and many readers want to believe. That is why variations of this story of an impending attack on Iran have been recurring for the past couple of years, and no doubt will continue until President Bush leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at which point the same rumors will be passed down to (hopefully) President McCain.

The story repeats because elements of it ring true enough for those convinced that a military strike against against the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism and arms used to kill American soldiers since 1983 is an act of a fascist dictatorship, and also for those that have the good sense to recognize that reducing the capabilities of a rogue nuclear and asymmetrical warfare threat promising genocide as a matter of state policy is a common sense act of survival for the greater good of man.

It is quite possible that certain events before January of 2009 could trigger preemptive strikes upon Iran by the present Administration, Israel, or perhaps even both nations acting in concert. I rather doubt such rumor-mongering helps anyone, however, beyond creating full employment in Palestinian phone banks calling on behalf of the pacifist candidate Obama.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:28 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And then when Bush doesn't attack Iran, the liberals will say "see, we said he wouldn't!" or "we stopped the warmonger!" or, after Iran has nuclear weapons "Bush should have attacked Iran!" You can never win with the left, since they have have no sanity

Posted by: William Teach at May 20, 2008 10:53 AM (cuTsc)

2 To be precise CY, Iran isn't really a dictatorship. There isn't any one particular 'person' in charge but rather a loose confederation of mullahs. Sure, there are the trappings of an administration so things look on the up and up but the reality on the ground in Iran is much more complex. I'm in no way implying that some groups with 'power' are benevolent in any way. Sometimes the Iranian right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Counterterrorism Blog had an article about it some time ago but I can't seem to locate it in the archives. But I'm just being pedantic. The rest of your analysis is spot on.

Posted by: Dan Irving at May 20, 2008 11:03 AM (Kw4jM)

3 who said anything about Iran being a dictatorship? I was referring to the American dictatorship that the Think Progress readership is convinced they live under.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 20, 2008 11:09 AM (xNV2a)

4 Ah - my bad - I parsed that wrong. Go on with your bad self

Posted by: Dan Irving at May 20, 2008 01:08 PM (Kw4jM)

5 The military, right now, has plans to invade Iran. And Canada. And South Dakota. And Lichtenstein. There are folks who get paid to draw up these contingencies, just incase. It does not mean that they are going to put them into action. America projects force to protect itself, and its allies, and threats can arise anywhere in the world. Funny, because a belligerent Iran is already killing US soldiers, as well as Iraqis, with their weapons smuggling and training. And promising to wipe a certain nation off the map. But hey **** Bush, right?

Posted by: Dave Burton at May 20, 2008 07:07 PM (WPFyi)

6 Hi Confederate Yankee, I did an In T View with an Iranian dissident(s), who burns Qurans in Iran -- not exactly a good career choice if the Regime finds out who you are -- and asked them if they wanted a US intervention in the country. Even he/she/they who absolutely despises the Regime, didn't want the US to intervene... and how can Bush really attack Iran between now and the elections, which would destroy McCain; and after the elections, which would be unfair to his predecessor? Mister Ghost Iraqi Bloggers Central

Posted by: Mister Ghost at May 20, 2008 07:26 PM (Vlrej)

7 Well, you certainly made the case for an invasion. Vox Day also reported the rumor. He thinks that the price of petroleum reflects that possibility.

Posted by: dad29 at May 21, 2008 08:23 AM (CfGtp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Holly Springs, NC Animal Control & BBQ. Sent in via email.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:49 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Obama is going to be making three campaign stops in Kentucky today, but even if she says something incredibly inflammatory or depressed, her husband requests, nay, demands that only the positive be aired.

Will it work? Who knows, but one thing is certain: if he doesn't want us to talk about her, he can tell her to leave the campaign trail and go back to the Hundred Acre Wood.

Chicago. I meant Chicago.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:14 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Something else to his list of descriptors.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Barack Obama has made clear today that he is running an affirmative action Presidential campaign, demanding preferential treatment from both the Republican Party and the news media as the freshman Senator runs for the White House.

The preferential treatment comes in the form of a unique entitlement: he wants his wife Michelle Obama to be able to campaign for him for president, but wants her held blameless for any controversial or newsworthy comment she makes.

Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

I'm sure—absolutely positive—that Hillary Clinton would have liked to have had the same standard applied to husband, former President Bill Clinton. His outbursts during his months on the campaign trial have done as much to hurt as help her, but she understands that when you put you spouse on the stage, you make that spouse fair game for criticism when they say or do something newsworthy.

Barack Obama wants soft and special rules, just for his campaign. I'm sorry, Barack, but it doesn't work that way. You won't get special treatment as President when you deal with the rest of the world, and you don't get special treatment campaigning for the job.

Man up, or drop out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Mike Huckabee, the same grating "aw shucks" candidate that nearly shot members of the press on the campaign trail, shot his remaining credibility to shreds today in front of annoyed members of the National Rifle Association.

During his speech at the annual convention the following transpired, as noted by CNN:

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

Oh my word.

The dead silence from an upset crowd of responsible gun owners—many of which were legally armed—was obvious in the video. Huckabee beclowned himself, and everyone in the audience knew it.

Predictably, fringe bloggers on the left tried to make the most of Huckabee's moronic tastelessness. "smintheus" at Daily Kos lied and said "this audience laughed," a falsehood proven by the icy silence that quickly resulted in the video linked above.

Pam Spaulding helpfully notes what liberals think about gun owners, claiming, "We've already seen the yahoo vote unapologetic about the fact that they'd never vote for a black man — and plenty of them have an NRA card."

Liberals such as Spaulding would equate gun ownership with Klan membership; I hope that the millions of law-abiding Democrat gun-owning "yahoos" remember that in November.

Only one good thing came out of Huckabee's comments today... his quick exit from the national stage.

Update: Some liberals in the comments are questioning whether or not there was laughter at Huckabee's comment that "someone aimed a gun at him and he hit the floor."

The video link is above, but here's a blow by block chronology, according the the clock on the 2:19 CNN clip.

There were hundreds of people in that room. No more than a handful made any noise immediately after Huckabee made the follow-up gun comment, and they were silent within two seconds.

Timeframe, using the CNN counter:
00:00-00:50 HUCKABEE is giving an apparently good speech generating good applause from the audience
00:51 -- A loud noise is heard offstage.
00:52 -- HUCKABEE (turns and points): "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair..." Moderate chuckles from the crowd began to build.
00:58-1:00 -- HUCKABEE continued: "Somebody aimed a gun at him, and he dove for the floor." The crowd immediately starts to go quiet.
1:02 -- Crowd is DEAD SILENT. Huckabee looks out at crowd, seems to understand he really made a huge gaffe.
1:02-2:19. -- HUCKABEE rushes through the rest of the speech shown, rushing past obvious applause lines where pauses are designed.

The audience is DEAD SILENT on the CNN audio after ingesting Huckabee's comments, though I'm almost certain there was unheard murmuring not picked up by their microphones.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:53 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 4 kb.

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve" , but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."

And just what are these "legitimate claims" that Obama mentions in talking with David Brooks of the New York Times?

Is it that the existence of Israel is a catastrophe?

Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe." (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.)

The co-founder of the Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department.

Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, at which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Ah, the Woods Fund. Where Barak served with his domestic terrorist friend, Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, who along with his domestic terrorist (and Charles Manson fan) wife, Bernardine Dohrn, helped kick off Obama's political career at their house.

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state, and says (in part):

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Somehow, I don't think that is a change most Americans or Israelis can believe in.

But what about Hezbollah?

...Hezbollah's ideology is inspired by Khomeini, the original leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to "The Hezbollah Program", a document that specifies Hezbollah's ideology, Hezbollah's main goals are to fight against "western imperialism", achieve the destruction of Israel, and establish Islamic rule in Jerusalem. It also supports the transformation of Lebanon into an Islamic state in the same spirit as Iran, which Hezbollah takes as the model of an Islamic state. In addition, the party glorifies suicide bombers as martyrs. It promotes violent resistance as a means to an end and teaches that "each of us is a fighting soldier". This ideology—which includes anti-Semitic, anti-western and anti-democratic dogma—is indoctrinated in Hezbollah's schools and kindergartens, which are free for all of Hezbollah's Shi'a supporters.

I'd really like to know what is legitimate about the claims two terrorist organizations dedicated to the obliteration of Israel in the eyes of Barack Obama.

Please, Barack... do tell.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 5 kb.

I don't think they could possibly find someone more qualified to review Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq than Michael Totten, another independent journalist who has spent and extensive amount of time in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Read Totten's review The Real Iraq, and if you haven't yet read Yon's book, or would like to donate copies to your local library so that other people can, click the image above to order from Amazon.com.

I'd note that both Yon and Totten are independent journalists, and traveling to and through combat zones to bring you stories the media won't tell is both expensive and dangerous, so please consider contributing at their sites, Michael Totten, and Michael Yon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 2 kb.

You've heard of EFPs (Explosively-formed penetrators or projectiles), a kind of IED, being used against American armored vehicles.

Very few people outside of the military have seen the results of an EFP strike in detail. Thanks to confidential sources inside Iraq, I have relatively rare photos of an EFP strike in my post at Pajamas Media, How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

In Israel, President Bush mentioned in a speech that:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Though not mentioned by President Bush, Barack Obama howled in protest:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

The White House went on to state that they were not talking about Obama, but as the saying goes, "it's the bit dog that barks loudest." Barack Obama recognized his own weakness in Bush's speech, even though Bush never mentioned him.

Perhaps we'd all find Barack's stance against meeting with terrorists a lot more sincere if he wasn't friends with several, kicking off his political career at their house.

Update: Heh. Obama, sweetie, calm down.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

In a story on the L.A. Times blog Top of the Ticket about John McCain's new position that he thinks American combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2013, the Times includes this photo.

Pardon me for asking, but at what point did American Presidents command Israeli solders?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

1 In their dreams on how to use the 3 Annapolis "monitor" generals: Dayton, Fraser and McCain's friend (Retd) Gen. James L. Jones, current Middle East envoy?

Posted by: ER at May 15, 2008 08:32 AM (C9+q9)

2 Obviously a member of the New York National Guard's 11th Kitten Battalion.

Posted by: bvw at May 15, 2008 09:20 AM (GldVa)

3 Why were you reading the Los Angeles Times.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 15, 2008 09:27 AM (eDnDo)

4 Gee, didn't you know that the vast neocon-zionist conspiracy controls both?

Posted by: Grey Fox at May 15, 2008 09:50 AM (9btbQ)

5 Meh, the Democrats can't tell Canadian troops from U.S. troops, http://www.exurbanleague.com/2006/10/08/they-stand-on-guard-for-us.aspx why should we expect different behaviour from the L.A. Times?

Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at May 15, 2008 11:54 AM (ppKzH)

6 Perhaps it is in the "Secret Protocalls of Zion".

Posted by: David at May 15, 2008 01:27 PM (cPLO6)

7 Looks peaceful, but I've been to anti-Bush rallies where the National Guard thugs were using those animals to intimidate the crowd.

Posted by: Brad at May 15, 2008 07:22 PM (d/RyS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here's the video:

I don't object to the word "Sweetie"... when addressing a female child, or as a term of endearment with a relative or close friend. Using it condescendingly here as Obama did here in addressing a grown, professional woman is demeaning, and the reporter he called "Sweetie" is obviously steamed at the dismissive slight.

At The Politico Ben Smith has more on the story, and the comment thread there is certainly illuminating. Obama supporters on the site attack Smith, Hillary Clinton, and even the reporter for reporting the slight, instead of admitting that Obama went out of bounds.

The video says something about Obama's character, but the Politico comments are even more shocking in how it reveals the character of his acolytes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:55 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

I suspect that this is less a case of "fauxtography" than a curious physiological response, but Associated Press cameraman Karim Kadim captured this photo of a Sadr City woman having a bullet removed from her forearm.

Here is an enlarged and cropped version of the photo as tweaked in PhotoShop to focus on the wound. I got as close as I could without distorting the image significantly.

As you can see, the bullet is being pulled nose first, suggesting that it penetrated though the outside of the woman's arm and passed through the interosseous membrane between the ulna and radius to stop at some point on the inside part of her forearm.

All combat rifle cartridges commonly used should have fully penetrated this woman's arm completely with a significant (and ghastly) exit wound if not impeded by either hitting a barrier of some sort, or coming from an extreme distance away. I'd love to see a higher resolution version of this photo to see if we could determine what kind of rifle cartridge this was.

Whatever the bullet is, I'm pretty sure it isn't one of these.

5/20 Update: After speaking with Associated Press resources in New York, trauma surgeons, and other resources in Iraq, this photo is confirmed as the extraction of a bullet that hit the woman in the photo after being fired from a considerable distance, and after the bullet had expended much of its energy. Additional still footage is said to exist showing the entry wound, and there is also said to be videotape of the extraction.

This was not a staged photo, just a strange physiological response to an uncommon wound.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.