It's all the fault of the mad blog rabble.

MSM morons.

Readers usually take things literally.

Funny how that is.

Words have meaning.

Funny how, after all this time, the MSM still doesn't get it.

I also like how she tried to separate the Washington Post's website from the newspaper, saying they were totally different.
Does she think that people are going to buy this?

Editors...necessary to keep the blatant hate under wraps while still managing to spread the leftist propaganda.

What do you expect from people that live in ivory towers and spit down on the dirty peasants who even dare to complain ?

What again were his military qualifications?

Did one online column irreparably damage Post national security journalism? No. But it does show that an online column rubs off on the newspaper.

How can it not rub off on the newspaper when the blog bears that publication's name?

That's what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves.

Yeah, that works all of the time at the MSM, doesn't it?

#5 freakagriep

Does she think that people are going to buy this?

Why not? Think of all the other garbage spewed by the MSM that is swallowed without question.

I think Arkin could learn a few things about military science from Col. Klink.

I have to keep reminding myself of the inferiority of a blog vis-a-vis an established newspaper like the WAPO when I read something in the paper six days after the fact I read it on "just a blog."

I see more layoffs on the horizon and journalists looking for work.

David Horowitz, et al help us identify the Left and Leftism.

Leftism has completely dominated the Democrat Party for a very long time. Now the Dems are synonomous with Leftism. The Left is also infiltrating the Republican Party. This has to stop. Work through primaries and referendums at the local, state, and federal level to make sure that the Left has no control over your vote. Work hard at this.

Defeat Leftism first. Then we can get about the business of running and debating about how to run this country. It's our country. Let's take it back from them.

Defeat Leftism first always.

I'm telling you, Democrat candidates should be asked whether the agree or disagree, unequivocally, with the sentiments of William Arkin.

Dem candidates should either condemn this man or be tarred with the same brush as Arkin and his Lefty friends. No nuance from Dem candidates, just straight answers.

Readers usually take things literally.

That's a reaction to living in the real world, Deb. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with a lot of words that say absolutely nothing, as with a Chomsky Bot:

Note that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is necessary to impose an interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Let us continue to suppose that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is to be regarded as an abstract underlying order. Analogously, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not readily tolerate an important distinction in language use.

That’s what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves.

The implication being that opinion wrtiters, at least for the WaPo, are at their core, fools.

Great points, Charles… so true.

Isn't it curious that leftist's true beliefs/objectives/agendas have to be sanitized and laundered before mainstream consumption?

Leftists must camouflage who they are...

Did one online column irreparably damage Post national security journalism?

No, the damage has resulted from ongoing and relentless pursuit of an agenda, without regard for the truth.

#12 Earth2Moonbat

I think Arkin could learn a few things about military science from Col. Klink.

And being a Lefty scum, Arkin would probably have his "Schultz" throw anyone who disagreed with him in the "cooler."

Readers usually take things literally.

That's kind of the idea behind written communication. Glad you understand what words are for.

Howell's school-marm stupidity makes WaPo look even worse. Arkin has lots of compatriots over at Kos and DU, they're happy to use inflammatory words, as Charles says, it makes their points more clearly. Ms. Howell seems to have no clue as to what Arkin actually says. The term "mercenary" is an ad-homimem attack on the soldiers, but not on the policy that put them there, or their success or lack thereof, which are the real targets of Arkin's screed. Maybe WaPo should stay off the Internet and keep to what they're "good" at, killing trees.

I get it, were too stupid to understand MSM nuanced reporting.

#11 rw in san diego
I think this is the last straw for a lot of people when it comes to the Washington Post. They've exposed themselves as a far left paper one too many times.

Deborah Howell of the Washington Post:

Another in a fine list of WAPO journalists saving a loogie for the troops.

And again, whenever a leftist gets caught with their neo-Marxist underwear showing, the rest of the MSM swoop in to provide cover: Which usually entails one of the following insulting excuses:

1. It was satire
2. Those evil right-wingers took it all out of context.
3. Why did you take what he said "literally"? What are you stupid or something?

Steyn: Climate Holocaust Denier

I get the feeling the Boston Globe ombudsperson will have some explaining to do about the insane accusations of Ellen Goodman.

So the Washington Posts' ombudsman Deborah Howell informs us that their military "analysis" is:

Arkin is unrepentant about two things: He works for The Post. Period. And he said he is "probably one of the best-known and respected anti-military military bloggers."

Well thanks for putting to bed all your lies about being neutral anyway Ms. Howell.

Ms. Howell says he made a fool of himself with that statement.
But he hasn't retracted it.
So Ms. howell considers him a fool?
Welcome to the club. I wonder if arkin has managed to figure this out?

Howell thinks:

Readers usually take things literally. And an editor should have told him to take out the word. That’s what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves.

Oh really?

How about keeping reporters from making asses of themselves by conflating separate reports and treating them as though they're part of one story? You know, like exactly what happened Friday at the WaPo? And then what happened Saturday at the New York Times, which regurgitated the first WaPo story from Friday without noting that the whole thing was wrong? You know, all those layers of editorial controls that supposedly catch errors of fact?

Howell has actually made a case against having an editor reading WaPo.

There! Fixed that for ya!

Earth2moonbat (#21):

Readers usually take things literally.

That's kind of the idea behind written communication.

Except, of course, when they can be passed off, after the fact, as "satirical criticisms of public policies and politics."

From Howell's milksop-

Did one online column irreparably damage Post national security journalism? No.

It took years of continually slanted articles to do that.

Later on she makes this comment;

That’s what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves.

Then two paragraphs later points this out-

An editor read his column before it was posted but didn't see the problem.

I guess her editor didn't see the problem with such a self-contradictory piece in the paper. Actually, the entire essay seemed to be pointless, or ast least very poorly presented. Was she trying to say "Don't blame the Washington Post newspaper for what goes on at our namesake website, becuase those guys are poorly supervised and aren't really a reflection of our journalistic integrity?" She starts off saying that the two erntities have nothing to do with each other, but then notes that Arkin is unrepentant that he works for the Post.

Sorry, toots, but the blog is a reflection of the paper. If you don't like the results of it, either clamp down on the employees in that section of the company, or do a better job of vetting them before handing them a password.

#24 freakagriep

Hopefully, you're right and their subscribers will leave in significant numbers. Perhaps their readers are mostly leftists, however, and this will have no impact. I don't know.

#27 JammieWearingFool

Great blog post, great Steyn link.

Thanks!

This bitch is worse than Arkin:

Readers usually take things literally. And an editor should have told him to take out the word. That’s what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves.

It was taken literally because based on the body of work of Arkin he means it literally. Hearkening back to the Popular Army concept soldiers should not be incentivised to join. This is the sort of tripe that Arkin belives in.

Let's try that again:

Readers usually take things literally. And an editor should have told him to take out the word. That’s what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves letting the people see what their real agenda is.

There...Much better!

JammieWearingFool (#27),

Steyn: Climate Holocaust Denier

I get the feeling the Boston Globe ombudsperson will have some explaining to do about the insane accusations of Ellen Goodman.

I can assure you that the Boston Globe won't be liking my letter very much.

And no Boston Globe unlike you, I won't be making a fake appology if you claim to be upset about it. I said every word I said and meant every word I said and will gladly repeat them.

I also noticed that Deborah Howell's piece was entirely lacking moral outrage at Arkin's vicious insults on the American troops. In fact she took that even further by acting as the advocate of such hateful comments by Arkin, claiming that the blog readers are too stupid to understand what Arkin was really getting at.

The WaPo insults us and the US troops to our faces.

Time to get Twisted Sister on their asses.

(bloggers are the kid in the video)

Freakagriep

The Washington Post kind of reminds me of our on campus news paper, don't you think?

Same essential excuse, if you don't like it, don't read it and then you have nothing to complain about.

/BS

Speaking of WaPo, anyone else notice FOUR (4) pictures of Obama splashed all across the WaPo print edition today? Including a gigantic inspirational front top-fold picture of Obama smiling philosophically into the heavens? Another picture had him shooting hoops, then there was a high school or college yearbook photo. These were combined with approximately two full WaPo pages full of biographical sketches and analysis. You had to see it to believe it.

Washington Post: "All Obama, All the Time!"

It made a nice contrast with the lead editorial/picture on the front page of the Outlook section, entitled "Victory is Not an Option", complete with a massive picture of dejected looking troops in Iraq

Myself, as a retired military guy, would like to kick that Arkin dude in the Jimmy.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

And I didn't even need an editor to keep me from making a fool of myself.

#40 find your violent jihadi on ebay!

Obama and Hillary are going to tear each other to shreds. It's all good.

Readers usually take things literally. And an editor should have told him to take out the word.

So, from now on, when you read anything you might as well just consider it a metaphor.
Like when he called our military men mercenaries that was just a metaphor for his own inadequacy, right?

8 E2M-

I am willing to allow that one can become reasonably well-informed enough about military matters to work as an analyst without having been in the service. I don't think Victor Davis Hanson ever lived in Sparta, but I find his writing on Ancient Greece very informative.

#14 right wing zephyr 2/11/2007 09:26AM PST

What!? no one here loves Horowitz...? or is it just the enormity of it all?

click the link and let me
know what you think.

And in keeping with the theme of layers and editorial controls, I give you this courtesy of the New York Times via Hot Air.

#43 Pro-Bush Canuck 2/11/2007 09:48AM PST

Obama and Hillary are going to tear each other to shreds. It's all good.

The upcoming Hillary vs. Obama fight, it seems to me, is like putting an angry, ravenous mountain lion in a cage with a small puppy. When it's all over, Hillary will be standing there with blood spilling out of her mouth, and all that will be left of Obama is a few pieces of matted bloody fur laying on the floor.

#35 Pro-Bush Canuck

Steyn makes a point that needs to be made more often, which is that if you accept for the sake of argument that the anthropogenic hypothesis is true, and the extrapolations are accurate, Kyoto is pissing in the wind. If that were true, nothing short of a complete paradigm shift completely away from fossil fuels (which implies toward nuke) would do anything meaningful to stop it.

People need to understand that. Win, lose, or draw, Kyoto accomplishes nothing except taking money from industrialized democracies and giving it to dictators. Even if you believe the anthropogenic hypothesis hook, line, and sinker, Kyoto does nothing meaningful to affect climate change.

#45 tankdemon

I am willing to allow that one can become reasonably well-informed enough about military matters to work as an analyst without having been in the service.

Absolutely. The problem is that the MSM consciously seeks out the most anti-military people they can find who have service records (a miniscule minority) and promote them to full-blown "analysts".

The Leftists do this all the time.

#39 sunburned

Convenient, hey? Of course, there's always consequences to actions, especially when you demean troops in harm's way.

#49 Earth2moonbat

Yes that is a critical point. The problem is much, MUCH worse up here in Canada. Global Warming hysteria is almost as bad as in the UK among the chattering classes (but not among the regular population, which is intrisically skeptical).

Canada is about to push through legistlation which will make meeting Kyoto targets the law. The government will be bound by this.

Frankly I think it is a good thing. Any government actually attempting to do this would provke an armed rebellion in Canada (yes, we do have a lot of guns up here).

One way or another we need to rip the mask of these lying bastards...

To the WaPo, hard leftist anti-military, military analyst is center of the road. Hatred of America permeates this newspaper.

(#1 JammieWearingFool :
It's all the fault of the mad blog rabble.)

Nah, somehow it must be Bush's fault.
[/snark off

#15 DesertSage
I'm telling you, Democrat candidates should be asked whether the agree or disagree, unequivocally, with the sentiments of William Arkin.

Other than Lieberman, don't they all? By the way, Thanks, Charles, for having me in. I have a deep respect for all you 'zards and am glad I finally got in.

#48 find your violent jihadi on ebay!

No. They're going to cut a deal, and soon. He'll be her veep. I don't think he's stupid enough to try to tangle with that machine. He's just trying to be annoying enough to get her to buy him off with the veep slot.

TO The saudi arab news is lamenting the fact that Saudi women dont want to marry into Islamic marrages. Its all the fault of dirty western Culture that is making these women immoral

Article

Many Women Shunning Marriage
Sarah Abdullah, Arab News

JEDDAH, 11 February 2007 — Recent studies have shown that the Saudi divorce rate is on the rise.

“I have decided to remain unmarried because, frankly, divorce and the scrutiny that goes with it scares me,” said 24-year-old Jeddah resident Badriah, who did not want her family name published. “Over the past few years I have witnessed numerous schoolmates of mine as well as family members who have divorced young or have been mistreated by their husbands. After a girl divorces in this country people are anything but kind, and they look at her differently — as if she’s to blame, lacking what it takes to keep a husband and marriage happy. I can’t put myself through that.”

S.H., a 27-year-old Jeddah resident, said a history of abuse from her brothers has “forced me to forget the thought of marriage all together.”

“My family and friends always try to change my mind telling me that not all men are the same, but I can’t help but hate them to the extent that I was even reluctant to have children fearing that I might have a son who might one day continue the cycle of violent abuse,” she said.

“This type of phobia is normal,” said Wafa Al-Saadi, a psychologist and sociologist at the Ministry of Social Affairs, which is responsible for the country’s marriage registry. “Many girls or young women might decide to remain single after witnessing the pain and frustration felt by a close friend or family member while going through a divorce. A lot of these women simply don’t want to become another statistic. Still, I feel a big problem adding to the increasing divorce rate is the urge for Westernization. Many young people are vastly trying to imitate slices of life seen on satellite television. It is as if television has dictated everything about their lifestyle from fashion to eating habits to how they psychologically react to others.”

Dr. Parveen Sultana, a Jeddah-based psychologist and marriage counselor, agreed. She also said that there is an increased amount of interaction between men and women in the form of e-mail and mobile telecommunications than before.

“Technology when used properly can be a positive achievement. However, nowadays many people are living their lives without observing piety,” she said. “I feel that the country needs to get back to Islamic principles in order for the situation to change. Many men’s manipulative attitudes are another reason for the turmoil. They are Islamically permitted to marry up to four women, which they do. The problem begins when they don’t treat them with equality or work to support them, instead marrying professional women who can support them.”

Abrar 17, also from Jeddah said that she decided to remain single for numerous reasons. “One reason I have chosen not to get married is that I don’t think it is fair for men to have a list of physical qualifications in mind before meeting their potential bride,” she said. “Many of them tell my father they are looking for a white, thin, pretty girl and even though I am not unattractive, I often ask myself what about the girl’s mind and personality. Aren’t these things important too? Meanwhile many of these men don’t bother keeping up their own appearances.”

#52 Pro-Bush Canuck

Unfortunately, even though the IPCC models show very clearly that Kyoto won't do anything, if they make it law, the solar cycle will peak in 2011, and then turn around, just in time for them to take credit for it.

There's a precident for this; the way the Montreal protocol takes credit for the shrinking of the ozone hole, even though CFCs are still manufactured to this day in most of the world.

Just watch. In 10 years, the world will be cooling, and they'll be taking credit for it.

Howell's ombudsman columns always leave me more frustrated than satisfied. Her attempt to distance herself from the Post blog, which is "under different management" than that of the more "intensely" edited print newspaper, struck me as kind of odd. Perhaps the Post should have a separate ombudsman for its online-only content.

#55

I doubt Hillary will pick Obama. I realize that is the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Hillary is cunning, and I'm pretty sure she sees Obama as a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon - sort of Howard Dean-like, in the sense of being a media creation combined with some mad crowd notion of a new Savior for the party, which will burn out well before anyone has to vote, or at the very latest, on the first day of voting (like Dean). Hillary is probably saying, hmm I'm a woman and if I don't make a multicultural joke of the election by picking a black dude, I might actually become president! And unlike some of the people in her party, I don't think Hillary could give a flying f** about causes or political correctness, I think she just wants to get elected. For this reason, I expect Hillary to pick a very mainstream, while, Protestant, appropriately-experienced VP.

#57 Earth2moonbat

I am very suspicious of the whole ozone thing.

How much do you know about it?

Bill O'Reilly was absolutely right on this point: giving a far Left activist with Greenpeace and such on his resume, the title of "Military Analyst" is a plain fraud on the part of the WaPo.
Don't let the WaPo sidle stage Left with this cheat. They knew what they had and they knew the public wouldn't know their "military analyst" was no such thing. Thus, Arkin could spew hard Left talking points with the cover of authority. Fraud is the word, Washington Post, print newspaper and on-line edition. Arkin wrote that stupid piece to push the Draft, a hard Left socialist goal to gut the United States ability to wage war, ie protect itself, and starve the job market of employees by the creation of a mandatory National Service.

See, if Arkin’s hate screed had been edited, no one would have known that the Post’s “military analyst” was a hard left anti-military moonbat. The editor would have come in and sanitized it, and no one would have been the wiser.

Howell has actually made a case against having an editor.

Arguendo, WaPo defines Arkin as a so-called "Military Analyst." Arkin's self-proclaimed expertise and anointment is white-washed by Ms. Howell.

The Truth? The WaPo wants the Truth? HA! The WaPo can't handle the truth by hiring the likes of the "military analyst" Arkin.

Then again, Arkin the "Military Analyst" is a hack journalist, from a hack newspaper, writing a hack story, using hackneyed words and allegories.

Who needs Editors? They are just "Mercenary" military analysts.

Im all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who write incendiary blogs and are associated, however remotely, with a major news media source. But I also hope that editors and management take the blogger/analyst aside after the story and explained to them why it wasnt for them to disapprove of the people in the military service or the American people that support the troops.

#60 Pro-Bush Canuck

I used to work for a chlorine producer, who also manufactured HCFC-134a. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the ozone thing was a hoax used by several chemical producers (including the one I worked for) to force replacement of non-proprietary CFCs with proprietary (read: extremely profitable) HCFCs.

Who Is William Arkin?

Arkin is a veteran of four years in the Army (he served from 1974 to 1978) and many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a "military intelligence analyst" during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent).

/for the record

This story Dugg.

#64 Earth2moonbat

Seriously?

So it was perpetrated by the chemical companies themselves? Any idea where the original "scientific" credibility came from?

All of this is really starting to bother me. I feel extremely betrayed by the scientific establishment. I used to consider journals like Nature and The Lancet to be scientifically irreproachable (which they were at one time).

I don't think we realize the extent to which the Left has infiltrated the scientific community, and we don't understand how dangerous this is.

He also writes books.

Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World

Arkin has a specific goal. He believes the post-9/11 drive for secrecy has imperiled American security and democracy. Information is often classified, he writes, not because of the danger of passing information to those who would harm the United States, but in order to close down public debate about controversial activities.

/some of the information was still classified at the time of publication

#65 Killian Bundy

Arkin is a veteran of four years in the Army (he served from 1974 to 1978) and many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a "military intelligence analyst" during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent). He received his BS from the University of Maryland.

His employment

since leaving the service is easier to trace. Arkin cut his teeth with the lefty Institute for Policy Studies, and went from there to positions with Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In recent years he has taken more mainstream work as a senior fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (he appears to do most of his writing not from the SAIS campus, but from his home in Vermont).

Ok, for starters, BS in what? Secondly, how does someone with only a bachelor's degree and no particularly noteworthy carreer achievements rate positions with think tanks like that? This just shows how much being a frothing moonbat can do for an otherwise lackluster carreer, if you're willing to be a professional moonbat.

In other words, being a subversive is very profitable. Just like with chuch.

#59 Find Your Violent Jihadi

I totally agree with you. If the Hildabeast gets the Presidency, she's got her own agenda. She's not gonna let a VP like Hussein mess with her plans.

All I wanna know is where's Ahmadhinejad's 2/11 announcement?

OT
in an effort to give equal time, here at Osama's Christmas Carols is a poem which might be offensive to Christians
[Link: www.cruxy.com...]
(or to Christians and Muslims both)
(hire me John Edwards)

#67 Pro-Bush Canuck

I don't have room to go into it all, and I don't know what's on the internet because the controversy was mostly pre-internet. A decent synopsis of the criticisms are in Dixy Lee Ray's book "traching the planet".

Among other things, the problem with the theory is that is claimed that CFCs decomposed into free radicals, and the chlorine free radicals catalyzed destruction of ozone. However, they never found any CFCs or CFC fragments in the upper atmosphere, and they were never able to demonstrate the chlorine free radical concentrations were above background levels. Oh and BTW, volcanos belch elemental chlorine into the atmosphere at levels that far exceed human production.

#00 Charles

Howell has actually made a case against having an editor.

Hehe! Years ago, when the idea of someone self-publishing a book via textfiles on floppy first came along, back when the concept of an e-book reader was anticipated near-future tech, I remember it being stated that, by distributing one's work this way, one would not have, or need, an editor in order to get published. And it occured to me:

This was a "good, news, bad news" thing. The good news was, there wasn't an editor between you and that author. The bad news was, there wasn't an editor between you and that author. :-D

In fact, I actually encountered a sci-fi novel, distributed as shareware on floppy (actually, distributed as an archive meant to be unpacked onto a floppy, complete with MS-DOS text-reader front-end) that demonstrated this... uh... principle. That book was badly in need of an editor. The novel wasn't half bad, but... and I kid you not... at least every other word throughout the entire book was either mistyped or was a homophone (wrong word, but same pronunciation as the right word). The guy was either dyslexic, or he wrote the thing with the display set too high-res for his monitor.

67 Pro-Bush Canuck

I don't think we realize the extent to which the Left has infiltrated the scientific community, and we don't understand how dangerous this is.

The disturbing this about the ozone hoax is that it wasn't just the left. There was a convergence of interests between leftist activists and major corporations. And whenever you get the for-profit sector and the non-profit sector on the same page, the consumers always end up getting the shaft.

#73 E2m

In two words you've nailed why climate scientists today have nearly no chance of being right in the future:

volcanos belch

And how.

#73 Earth2moonbat

Without knowing any of the detail you do I have suspected this was another Big Lie for some time now.

Then again, Candians know all about Big Lies. We have socialized health care.

#71 Taqiyyotomist

Exactly! I've been checking in here periodically all morning waiting to find out.
I went out yesterday and 'topped off' my stockpiles - (not to mention that I laid in a 3 month supply of junk food, just in case). Guess I shouldn't try to give up candy for Lent. sigh

The depth of the shit at the Washington Post is way over Ms. Howell's ability to cover.

Dan Froomkin: I write washingtonpost.com's White House Briefing column

Lessons we thought had been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now, as we cover President Bush’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Iran, it’s looking like the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all. So at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some thoughts about what those lessons were.

Let's look at some of Mr. Froomkin's suggestions for better "journalism":

- You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority

Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

- Understand the Enemy

Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.

Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.

Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.

Interestingly enough Mr. Frookin doesn't even apply his own rules to himself as there isn't one "dissenting" voice in the comments.

And not a word about being skeptical of what the "enemy" tells us?

Funny that, huh?

Hey Y'all - hope this post makes it - I have no e-mail capability and this is the 6th time I've tried to post a message.
Bought a new 'puter, won't be delivered, installed and data transferred for 11 days.
Hopefully I'll see y'all then.
Stay well and play nice my friends!

#71 Taqiyyotomist

All I wanna know is where's Ahmadhinejad's 2/11 announcement?

Iran insists on its nuclear programme (w/video)

Iran will not suspend its nuclear programme according to its President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. To do so, he says, would be a humiliation. He was speaking at a rally to celebrate the 28th anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution, when the country ousted the US-backed Shah.

A huge crowd of people were at Azadi Square and all were provided with letters to write to the UN declaring their right to have nuclear energy.

/anticlimactic at best

Iran Continues Nuclear Work, Inviting More Sanctions

Another report on 2/11.

/complete with "Death to America!"

If you ever need an example of why editors are a good thing, google "eye of argon". Grignr is gold.

Iran needs to be humiliated.

Quite anticlimactic. Didn't he say all that last week? And the week before that? And 2 months ago? And where's the herbal AIDS cure (*snicker*)? I thought he was going to bring a nuclear plant online or something, ANYTHING but a repeat of his childlike, rebellious mantra.

Oh well. Did anyone else notice the headlines regarding Iran's missile announcement the other day? They all (without exception, I think) said that Iran says "Our missiles can hit the US", yet when you click the link (*punch the monkey and win) the actual statement was that they could hit US vessels in the Gulf and troops in Iran.

I think headline writers are taking hints from internet advertisers, to get you to click the link. Seeing that more and more lately, such deception, outright lying in the headlines.

#82 Killian

Thanks for the links.

Well Mr. Froomkin pretty much explains Ms. Howell's excuse about "editors":

He lists his jobs at WashingtonPost.com as:

Senior Producer, Politics
1997 to 1999

Metro Editor
1999 to 2000

Editor
2000 to 2003

See Deborah, you put a Bush-hating America-hating anti-war loon in charge of "editing" and guess what? You get crap through the filter. That you get to make excuses for.

Why not just admit you're Bush haters through and through? Oh that's right you're cowards when it comes to your convictions.

I think I'll write a letter to Mr. Froomkin just so I can listen to him proudly tell me that that's not what he meant and he didn't write what I thought he wrote and he didn't actually mean what he wrote anyway.

Editing by itself is a necessary evil in any type of journalism. Charles knows this and uses his power well.

The problem comes in when journalists use editing to promote an agenda. That's when it becomes propoganda and we all know that's what the leftists do best, and why they try to camaflouge it.

79 Geepers

Let's look at some of Mr. Froomkin's suggestions for better "journalism":

- You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority

Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

- Understand the Enemy

Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.

Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.

Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.

Mr. Froomkin's Journalism ROE aka Rules of Engagement, should be immediately emailed to the rulers of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority.

OMG! I really should start clicking links sooner! Howell said this:

Arkin apologized. He said he was "dead wrong" to use the word "mercenary," that it "is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally."

HERE is Arkin's "apology":

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Q: When is an apology just another insult?

A: When uttered by a moonbat.

Also from Arkin:

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

Gosh, do you think that, just MAYBE, that's a result of the ubiquitous chickenhawk argument?

[Link: niemanwatchdog.org...] and you wonder why the msm is the 5th column.

And won't there be some of type of happening/announcement, over there in Iran, around the vernal equinox? Someone coming out of a well or some hell hole over there. That's the one that scares me. I think something big may happen but it could be just be more BS spewing from the Iranian prez.

I have a great idea.. Why doesn't Edwards hire Arkin to replace the two Incredibly Foul Mouth Blogger Chicks?

the Washington Pravda is an evil institution

Does anyone think its a little strange that WAPO employes an "anti-military" military analyst? WAPO does not employ "anti-technology" technical analysts or "anti-media" movie critics. And of course don't even think that WAPO, AP, Rueters, BBC is leftist biased because we all know just how "balanced" their coverage is. They are selling a lousy product, why should we buy it?

loFlyer (#98),

Does anyone think its a little strange that WAPO employees an "anti-military" military analyst?

The Washington Post? No.

#97 Durendal 2/11/2007 11:34AM PST

the Washington Pravda is an evil institution

Wasn't Pravda an arm of the Soviet government?

#100 Ginn

The Soviets had "Tass" and "Pravda" Tass was the state news agency, and Pravda (Russian for "truth") was the propaganda outlet. They were both Soviet publications, but Pravda was more unabashedly political. They didn't pretend to be unbiased like Tass did.

100 Ginn, Yes and it appears that WAPO is also run by the Soviets. Wasn't the Soviet Union and communism discredited a decade ago? WAPO sees thing differently than the rest of us. No wonder we are losing the war in Iraq.

101 E2M

Thanks E2M for the Pravda info. I was kind of arguing with post 97:

#97 Durendal 2/11/2007 11:34AM PST
the Washington Pravda is an evil institution

I don't believe that WAPO is the same as Pravda, an arm of the government propaganda machine. In fact it is far from it.

102 loflyer

I didn't look at it that way. I suppose WAPO could be an arm of the Communists but I think it's more a case of Idiots who attended Liberal Journalism Schools.

Which almost means the very same thing.

Do Lefty posers ever stand behind what they say?

Ms. Howell illustrates the hypocrisy:

In January 2006, Howell became involved in a dispute with some of her readers over the contents of one of her columns. In her January 15 column defending the reporting by Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt on lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Howell claimed that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties,"

After receiving many angry comments at the Post's blog, Howell responded: "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff 'directed' contributions to both parties."

On January 22, 2006, Howell discussed the controversy started by her column the previous week. She repeated the statement that Abramoff had directed his clients to donate to both parties, but this time referred to her original assertion as a mistake and agreed that the Abramoff scandal is "not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal."

The kicker for the column summed up her attitude about the whole matter: "To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind. Keep smiling. I will."

You mean: "I will continue to speak whatever the Washington Post tells me to" don't you don't Ms. Howell?

For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind. Keep smiling. I will."

Yes, Ms. Howell, of course we are all smiling, maybe even grinning, as we watch you and your ilk steer the MSM/drive-by media/leftist propaganda machine straight for the iceberg of truth.

And you thought your ship could never sink, didn't you?

Deborah Howell is an evil bimbo.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I sent this to D. Howell and got a response acknowledging my "thoughtful comments".

It seems to me that what the Washington Post needs to learn, and W. Arkin desperately needs to learn, is that, in my opinion at least, there is no difference between the newspaper and washingtonpost.com in most consumer's minds.

Furthermore, there's hardly any difference at all between washingtonpost.com and W. Arkin's blog, and it's only going to get smaller as "old media" adopt new media technology and techniques. It's his blog. He's your man. It's your website.

Readers don't want to know the internals of the WaPo editorial process. And shouldn't have to. Readers should see results. Good reporting. Sound, fact-based opinion. Or, a senseless, frothing, spiteful "reporter" kicked to the curb.

I can't help but compare this situation to that of the NYT and Michael Gordon (recently admonished by editors for offering an opinion, upon being asked). Handled quite differently I'd say. I find both "cases" worrisome...and the differences in the way each was handled equally if not more worrisome.

How about a Clinton/Gore ticket in 08?

/I wonder what Tipper's been doing these days?

First Post.

It sounds like Deborah Howell is trying to smooth things over between the WaPo and very many (remaining?) readers. Perhaps Mr. Arkin and the (responsible?) editors are “untouchable”, and Ms. Howell gets this thankless cleanup job:

1. “Arkin apologized.”
Does a drunk driver’s apology to the surviving family members of a car he just t-boned at 80mph make everything right? What about someone who “sit[s] in my safe little cubicle in front of a keyboard sipping lattes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy while our boys and girls die.”?

2. “Readers usually take things literally.”
No. Most people take spoken or written words at face-value, taking into account the context at the time. Mr. Arkin’s words and context were clear.

Will not the editors of the WaPo write their own (defense/apologies/etc.)? Surely, the two-fisted-cigar-chompin-hard-drinkin’ Jonah Jameson types should write for themselves.

To continue the subject of my first post, looking at selected writings of William Arkin, at least they are so identified, are in order.

Check the Memory Hole: [Link: www.thememoryhole.org...] . The last paragraph (abridged) is most interesting: “Mr. Arkin served . . . from 1974-1978, . . . an assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the US Commander Berlin. . . . engaged in a number of covert intelligence collection projects . . . the primary intelligence analyst for the West Berlin command.”

Then there’s this: “Demonization and Responsibility” (06 Feb 2007) at the WaPo: [Link: blog.washingtonpost.com...] , where Mr. Arkin writes (~pgh.7) “I enlisted in the Army less than one month after my 18th birthday in June, 1974”

Compiling Mr. Arkin’s own writings, then, we see a different picture of his Army career.

In 1974 (pre-personal computer days), an 18 y.o High School Graduate, an E-4 (if he did well at AIT) “assistant” / “analyst”, was much more likely to be a clerk, typist, stenographer or “file boy”, than a Subject Matter Expert (with, say, a Master’s and 15 years of relevant experience) on anything other than acne.

It would be interesting to know if, when and where he received a university degree, and in what area. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak.

He co-authors a book, “SIOP: The Secret US Plan . . .” which is published in 1983. Books take time to research and write, 5 years is not an unreasonable length of time. Perhaps he also finished his B.S between 1979 and 1983.

I have this sickening feeling that being able to be given the title of “director of military research for Greenpeace International” is sufficient to launch one’s career and to cause the MSM (well, the WaPo, at least) to accept one’s expertise without question. Please, somebody, say it ain’t so.

I further note that the style of “Demonization and Responsibility” reminds me of propaganda that I read long ago.

Mr Arkin’s paragraph.8 seems to address the crux of the situation:

1. “It isn't so much what I say . . .”:
Actually, it is. See point 3.

2. “. . . after all I'm an opinion columnist and if you don't like what I say, don't read it . . .”
Finding a counterpoint article, allocated the same amount of space at the same level, on the facing page, seems impossible, and it is due to the policies of the WaPo, the NYT, and others, not the government.

3. “. . . it is more that I sit in my safe little cubicle in front of a keyboard sipping lattes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy while our boys and girls die.”
This sounds like a legally-admissible confession.

4. “In other words, I'm comfortable while others suffer.”
No. It is partly because of what he says and partly because the MSM allows such writings, unedited, unchallenged, unanswered.

But Mr. Arkin writes several paragraphs later: “Note: On the advice of my editors, this is the last column I will post for awhile on this subject.” Perhaps this is a wise choice.

This thread is running a bit on autopilot, and I don't agree with our esteemed host's emphasis that Howell "sticks up" for Arkin.

Howell does minimize what Arkin actually said--yes. Another poster has her smoothing things over. No doubt. But Howell clearly doesn't think much of this column, plainly states that "Arkin's column did not meet Post standards," and references Washington Post reporters who thinks Arkin harms their reputation. And she knows very well how Arkin's statement about being an anti-military military reporter will be received. That's not something that can reasonably be interpreted as protect-Arkin mode.

Folks, there's gotta be a notch on your dial somewhere between "0" and "11."

I'll tell you what, though, it is pretty funny to see Arkin insist he writes for "The Post," considering my own little forays here and elsewhere pointing out the online outfit is a separate operation.

Didn't the WaPo fire a conservative blogger for some sort of controversy last year? If I recall correctly it didn't take them all that long either.
Oh well I know why they call this rag the Washington Compost

Arbalest (#111),

That was a hell of a first post.

Welcome aboard.

And they wonder why their readership is shrinking...

PostWatch (#112),

Good job at PostWatch.

And if the Washington Post doesn't want to be associated with blog.WashingtonPost.com they need to spring the 15 bucks for a new domain name.

And to add fuel to the fire, yesterday's conventional, paper edition Sunday Post featured prominently an article by a supposedly more qualified anti-Iraq war military pundit, former General William Odom, who did time in Jdhimmy Carter's National (In)Security agency--originator of cut & run & apologize all the way home.