Even the Washington Times gets into the act. The first headline on their web site trumpets "No Iraqi war, thousands say in protest." The next headline, in a smaller font, admits "Nuclear evidence discovered in Iraq."

Yeah, that's a much less important story than a gaggle of intellectually bankrupt hysterical preeners shouting their banal slogans for cameras sent by the networks, hopeful to make something of this.

Off topic, but this is just unreal and more evidence (as if needed) of the pathetic state of the United Nations: Libya poised to preside at U.N. top rights body

On Fox this morning, Brit Hume mentioned the organizers connection with WWP .. but that was all.

And the Leni Riefenstahl award goes to Oliver Stone ... [Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...]

WaPo...didnt see mujahadden

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

LA Times ..didnt see nuttin

[Link: www.latimes.com...]

Wash Times saw a few...wow

[Link: www.washtimes.com...]

and thanks Charles...:o))))

(Mains Michael..take note, kid)

(take note i cant spell.LOL)

All I can say is unphucking believable, but not unexpected.

Did ANYONE get the real story--the WWP, the "Mujahadeen" comment, the rest of the scene? Any of the media? What's going on?

Why the deliberate silence? There must be something we can do to break this open. I'll bet the Washington Post whitewashes it all too.

What good is it if the NYT, WP, Washington Times, all of them keep silent? There must be one news service somewhere which will tell the truth.

Honestly, if it weren't for you guys at LGF I'd swear I was losing my mind and dreamed some of this stuff. It's only when I get on here and read that you saw what I saw that I know I'm not crazy (well, I am but in a different way). I'm so mad this morning about this cover-up.

The only good thing to happen was that the Guardian has a piece on the necessity of going to war in Iraq (someone put a link on late last night or early this morning). I couldn't get over it--the GUARDIAN backing Bush and Blair on the war!

anyone registered with WSJ who can access their report on this demonstration?

The media’s lack of anything even approaching investigative journalism is nothing new. They’re all sound bite driven, so no surprise about the lack of any depth.

As for the peaceniks let them have there fun. Unlike Viet Nam there isn’t going to be a mass swelling of the Anti-War crowds as they learn more about the conflict. Even with the press’ shallow coverage most people already know about this one and are supportive. Besides it’s going to be over before it really gets started. I wonder what they did with those thousands of “End the War in Afghanistan NOW!” placards they had printed up.

Here's the only ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak landscape of whitewash today. I did not discover this; someone else (I couldn't find the post but had saved the article) put it up late yesterday on a thread. It's remarkable because it comes from the Guardian/Observer:

[Link: www.observer.co.uk...]

This story in the WashPost about how the organizations that sponsored the rallies yesterday were getting hundreds and thousands of emails didn't even bother to mention WHY A.N.S.W.E.R. was so "radical". I am very tempted to write the ombudsman again and ask him why their paper is so frickin' biased. (In yesterday's paper there were like 5 or 6 anti-war stories and how great these people are.. at least I now know where not to shop on Capitol Hill!)

Here's today's Post story

The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer both ignored the WWP angle as well. Strange...but elsewhere on the Net (was it here? I don't remember...guess I need to up that dose of Gingko Biloba) a link to the San Jose Mercury News yielded a good article in which the ANSWER/WWP/IAC relationship was discussed in considerable detail. And the Merc is hardly a conservative rag!

The blind spot is real, and something that I read this morning really drove it home. It's a fine article from 1999 by Dr. Pipes on Chairman Arafat's references to the Treaty of Hudaybiya. He begins with a brief commentary on Islamic historiography, then reviews the incident and how it has been viewed by commentators, and considers how Arafat's listeners may understand the reference.

But much of the concluding portion of the article concerns CAIR's organization of protest campaigns whenever a columnist or politician discusses the incident in the context of decoding Arafat's message. CAIR's followers defend the reputation of the Prophet, and in one of two cases Dr. Pipes describes a publication issued what he characterizes as an "abject apology.

Yet Dr. Pipes did not really see the danger. This is the concluding paragraph of the article:

Reviewing these three cases suggests that Islamic organizations like CAIR either do not fully understand or do not accept the First Amendment and its strictures about freedom of speech. The rough-and-tumble of American life does not allow for a taboo to descend on certain subjects, no matter how holy they may be to a portion of the population. Even the most delicate issues—Holocaust denial, Jesus portrayed as a practicing homosexual, black genetic inferiority—get a full and lively airing. Attempts by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and like-minded organizations to impose on Americans the Middle East's notions of sacredness, censorship, and privilege are doomed to fail. Given the vigorous U.S. tradition of free speech—indeed, its near-sanctity—American Muslims might be advised that they can best protect the Prophet Muhammad's reputation (as well as forward the other views of most concern to them) not by demanding silence, much less by threatening those who disagree, but by convincing the audience of their views. The sooner they accept this approach, the better they will represent their interests and the healthier the American body politic will be.

Dr. Pipes did not foresee the politically-correct blinders that would produce the sort of news "reporting" that Charles has called out here.

In the old days, conquest preceded dhimmitude. CAIR seems to be well on the way to reverting the order.

Before I snapped it off in disgust, panelist Michele McQueen on ABC This Week was acting indignant that Donald Rumsfeld was 'dismissive' of the anti-war protests.

She conceded that some of the face painters and sign artists were a touch over the top, but then she went on to say that very credible groups such as the National Council of Churches (the group that insisted Elian must go back to communist Cuba) and that great moral authority The US Council of Bishops (the ones who just didn't notice all that rogering of young boys going on) have come out against the war and should not be dismissed.

Excuse me, but these groups and ANSWER, Jessica Lange, Rob Reiner, Sheryl Crow, et alia, have lost all standing with me. They oppose this 'unprovoked' war simply because it will make President Bush stronger. They did not oppose the 'unprovoked' war in Kosovo simply because it was conducted by their compatriot Clinton. These people define hypocrisy.

A very depressing Sunday. These anti-war protests have been publicized to a much greater degree than I anticipated, the Bush administration seems to be backpedaling, or at least, softening its tones on Iraq, the Palestinians, in their Iraqi colors, received no media attention for their aggressive, anti-American hatefests and Bush's only committed position seems to be putting the trial lawyers out of business with his medical malpractice reform. How did things change so quickly?

The only way to counter this is to have large protests in favor of our government's position. To do this would require something the left has but we don't, a large network of established organizations. I don't think that churches would go out in large numbers to support a war.

Does anybody have any ideas. If patriotic Americans could have rally's as large (or larger) the news couldn't ignore it even if they tried.

#2 me2

the pathetic state of the UN is only matched by the pathetic state of what is now considered 'reporting'

from your link.....

Asian and Middle Eastern states are increasingly opposed to the singling out of states for criticism during the annual sessions and would reject any bid to stop African countries using their right to name the chairman, diplomats added.

righttttt

unless its Israel....

Instapundit is all over this...

[Link: www.instapundit.com...]

#18   bildo   "The only way to counter this is to have large protests in favor of our government's position. To do this would require something the left has but we don't, a large network of established organizations. I don't think that churches would go out in large numbers to support a war."

It appears that there are plenty of Republicans (right) protesting as well. Certainly the business leaders, who took out the full-page ad against the war in the Wall Street Journal last week, billed themselves as republicans.

Here is what the Saudis et al. are doing:

Fearful Saudi Leaders Seek a Way to Budge Saddam Hussein

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 18 — Increasingly desperate to avoid war, Saudi Arabia is engaged in a campaign to incite Iraqi security forces to overthrow Saddam Hussein if he continues to refuse to step down or go into exile, officials here say.

The Saudi leadership is advocating Mr. Hussein's removal as part of a war-avoidance strategy even as the kingdom signals Washington that it will cooperate extensively with an American military buildup in the Persian Gulf, including offering the use of crucial bases and airspace, Saudi officials said this week. . . " [Link: www.nytimes.com...]

A war will be a tough sell internationally if Bush does not come up with concrete proof. People are thinking about the cost of war, both in human terms and in $$$. "One bomb could pay for a lot of education," according to an interviewee on radio regarding the subject last week.

describe "concrete" proof please

Bildo (#18):

If patriotic Americans could have rally's as large (or larger) the news couldn't ignore it even if they tried.

I wish I could share your optimism on that point, Bildo. Unfortunately enough, the Islamofascist fifth col...oops, sorry, I meant mainstream media...has already done exactly that. Remember the anti-terrorist/pro-Israel demonstration on the DC Mall a while back? This demonstration filled almost the entire Mall, and IIRC, had attendance well in excess of 100,000. It got almost no ink in the news rags, and only the briefest mentions on the TV networks. Only C-SPAN and Fox News covered it in any detail at all.

The San Francisco Chronicle featured nothing but "wholesome types" -- they quoted no freaks or showed any photographs of people in Keffiyahs. One guy they quoted was a 70-year-old former scientist with a nuclear reserach center. Lots of church people and parents with liddle kids perched on their shoulders.

17 Scott W:

I am surpised that the Washington Times, of all papers, fell in to NYT lockstep with their reporting, but I'm less depressed than you are about Bush.

Many media people are aging baby-boomers who get misty-eyed when they spot protesters -it takes them back to the good old days of 68, when they were camped out with Norman Mailer trying to levitate the Pentagon. Is it really a shock that they treat any pack of left winger loons parading around on the Mall with kid gloves? It's a nostagla trip for them.

But all in all, these people are farts in a windstorm. Does anyone outside of the left really believe that Duyba pays these people any mind at all?

Like I said in a thread the other day, I think the thing to watch for is Duyba's State of the Union address. I'll think he'll make the case for war then and we'll be bombing Iraq shortly thereafter, nevermind what Meathead and Sheryl Crow think about it. I might be wrong, but I've learned not to underestimate Bush.

Re: #4 (Joe)

"The Leni Riefenstahl Award"...ain't it the truth!! And Stone shouldn't be the only nominee (Can you say "Howell Raines", boys and girls? I KNEW you could!).

Charles - here's another award to start gathering nominations for. Call it "for meritorious achievement in undermining the war against Islamic fascism through dishonest and selective media coverage".

#11 - Geepers

I would not be too dismissive of the committed Hard Left. They have coordinated with just about every whack job group out there and are putting the Church pacifists in their pockets. The Senile now Dhimmi Pope just called for "Anything But War" with Iraq.

The Radical Left has shown they can use the Internet effectively to leverage their numbers to get money and support from the undecided middle not privy to their scary Maoist underpinnings...witness the Mass Anti-Globalization protests.

The Anti-Wars protests have so far been quite effective. Saddam preached to his troops that the world was behind them based on the protests, to get their morale up. LIberal Democrats are emboldened into hoping that the glory days of Vietnam protest are back and they can make Bush look bad. Fence sitting Euros take notice of mass demonstartions of Aericans opposed to the war as a good reason not to commit assistance...perehaps even a vote in the UN...when all those people are saying "GIve the Inspectors all the time they need...6 months, a year, 11 more years...because an innocent Iraqi baby's life is on the line.

What is absolutely disgusting is that no newspaper really looked at the puppetmasters...unreconstructed Stalinists, the usual Chomskyites, and the growing numbers of Muslim activists. Elizabeth published a link about these nefarious bastards, so did I..they are repeated here:

Antiwar Movement Hijacked

The Kooks Running the Show

Hopefully, like with the Trent Lott matter...where the mainstream press completely missed the story, the blogspots will keep alive the story of who the actual puppetmasters are......how they seek America's destruction, Israel's destruction...and their days of assembling hundreds of thousands of ignorant "useful idiots" will not remain obscured from the American public.

For those like Geepers not aware of how well organized these dickheads are, I encourage you to read and browse the links. In my local area, they managed to get 740 signatures into the newspaper out of a local population of 30,000. They got whole church congregations and even some rabbis to sign on behalf of their memberships. They are real, they are highly organized, and they mean business.

And, Bush better get active. Sens Feinstein & Kyle have said the Bush Administration has not yet shared info on "Iraq WMD evidence" with members of the Senate Committee on Intelligence with full security clearances...and Feinstein said that she was not willing to proceed and support the US intervening w/o evidence.

Not everyone is as paranoid and sees Muslim fanatics hiding under every bed, like you do.

Jeff....bravo....excellent.....

ans pleasepleaseplease call it the "The Leni Riefenstahl Award"...

great idea

Donna (#25):

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping you're right about GWB (my own innate pessimism aside). Someone else - I think it was in another LGF thread - said it best: Never mind the wizard...keep your eyes on the man behind the curtain!

What struck me was the overwhelmingly socialist, or even Marxist, tenor of so many of the speakers. To them, and quite unconsciously, Iraq was the sideshow. Instead they shouted about American capitalism, poverty, income redistribution, international hegemony, colonialism and lust for oil.

It was like what I saw as a high school student in the late 60s and early 70s. Where did these people come from?

My daughter and wife asked how could I watch the whole thing (on CSPAN). I told them, "who could resist a freak show?"

I don't remember where I saw it, but one of the photographs I've seen was inside ANSWER's SF headquarters. There were huge piles of professionally printed signs with not just their slogans, but a profile of Martin Luther King Jr.

Now I'm curious. The King family is extremely protective of the use of King's image and words. Ask any advertiser. (Didn't a phone company get grief for a few seconds clip?) King County, Washington was originally named for Franklin Pierce's VP Rufus King. A few decades ago, during the hoopla over national holidays and such, the County Council "renamed" the county for MLKing. The county symbol is currently a stylized crown, which would be incorrect no matter which naming applies. So a few years ago, there was talk of changing that symbol to a portrait of King. It got shot down not just because of the cost of converting everything with a symbol on it (from letterhead to street signs to vehicles, etc.), but because the King family wanted an annual royalty to be paid. [pun unintended]

So my question is this-- how do those ANSWER people manage to use his image without incurring the wrath of the King family? Did the family not know, did the ANSWER people ignore the family, or not bother to check, or does the family actually approve? (Or none of the above.)

Wish I could take credit, Ploome, but it was Joe in #4 who came up with it! :D

And I hereby call a troll alert on #28.

#28 Justa Goy

your right...we are just paranoid...

and are misunderstanding the demands of the "Religion of Peace"

"Justa Goy" is the same Canadian troll who's been posting under the name "Bob Dobbs". Please do not feed it.

hehehe

#28 is a sullen young'un, a mujahadeen masquerading as a "goy"...

they are so deluded and sullen...

its dissonant for muslims, to really see Islam as anything but repulsive, here in the west

must be because critics arent silenced, stoned or imprisioned and of course no fackockta fatwas can stop us talking..

Soooo, Charles...

how about that Leni Riefenstahl Award idea?? :D

A couple of the reports on the various anti-war protests said that a number of the protesters' signs mentioned SUVs. Today is the last day of the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. Last year there were 759,907 people who paid to get into the nine day show and crowds so far have exceeded last year's attendance. The last Saturday of the show is typically the day with the highest attendance which means that yesterday there may have been more people attending the Detroit auto show to look at the latest SUVs (and other cool vehicles - it's a great time to be a auto enthusiast) than there were anti-war protesters in both SF and DC.

Ranbutan,

I’m dismissive of the hard left, because they don’t have much in this fight, no matter how well organized they are. As for being against war; I would posit that the vast majority of people, even here, are in agreement of that. Its one of the reasons that the US is in the position that it finds itself in today – our unwarranted tolerance. But don’t mistake won’t for can’t. There is no groundswell of support for the “War for Oil” and never will be, because that’s not what its about.

What I don’t understand is why the hippies of the Viet Nam war era aren’t collectively patting themselves on the backs for doing something truly monumental: Using public opinion to overhaul US military strategy and engagement. But for whatever reason they still can’t see past the “War” part. War in and of itself is a tool that can be ugly and devastating and messy, but that shouldn’t rule out its use. Minimizing the collateral damage of engagement has been the primary goal of the US for decades. Will it ever be eliminated? Hell no. Is that a reason not to go to war? Hell no.

Any takers on how many anti-war rallies will be staged in Arpril?

We don't need no stinkin' protests: we have carrier battlegroups!

And this was in our local paper. Morons.

Jeesica Lange seems to think she really is the reincarnation of Frances Farmer. I'm all for completing her fantasy with a lobotomy, through the eye socket, just like her heroine.

Does anybody have any ideas. If patriotic Americans could have rally's as large (or larger) the news couldn't ignore it even if they tried.

Just because someone protests war does not make them unpatriotic. That is an unfair smear. I admit, it is difficult to keep that in mind, particularly when they mix themselves into the same event as the scummy ANSWER crowd. However, there are very good, very decent, very patriotic people out there, like Jim Henley, who are opposed to the war. I think they are wrong, but that does not make them any less patriotic.

OT, but rather interesting:

Tim Blair reported that Keith Richards has criticized Paul McCartney for cancelling an Australian tour due to terrorism fears:

I say to Osama and the boys bring it on, evaporate me," Richards said on the eve of the band's Australian tour. "If it gets to the stage where these guys are dictating if we rock or not, then forget about it.

This from a bloke who has taken so many drugs over the past 40 years that his blood has probably turned green and glows in the dark. And yet he still makes more sense than Sheryl Crow!

(I'm listening to my Exile on Main Street CD as I type.)

The National Council of Churches never fails to surprise me. They follow the tennants of socialism more closely than the teachings of the Bible, the pansy social-gospelites.

#18, bildo wrote (optimistically):

If patriotic Americans could have rally's as large (or larger) the news couldn't ignore it even if they tried.

As others have already pointed out, "the news" certainly can and does ignore stories which don't fit in with their desired editorial slant. There were major rallies across the country against the Clinton Administration's "gun control" policies, for instance, which didn't get anything approaching the coverage of the so-called "Million Mom March" pro-"gun control" rally (organized by friends of Hillary).

Even if you could motivate enough ordinary people with jobs to show up for one of these things doesn't mean the press will necessarily be sympathetic and find it "newsworthy". Fortunately, now we have the Blogosphere to try and keep the professional journalists honest...

Geepers ... You wrote: "But for whatever reason they [the protesters] still can’t see past the 'War' part."

I don't think these people are really against war. Sure, some are genuine pacifists (maybe even many), but most are socialists of some variety, and they are only against this war because it is in America's interests. If we were selflessly sacrificing the men and woman of our armed forces in a war to, say, "liberate" the Palestinians, then they would not be against war.

This is the biggest whitewash happening today. It's not only that there were communists and jihadis at yesterday's protests (which is news enough); it's that all these groups and celebrities are united by their hatred of capitalistic America.

They are philosophically blinded to that which is obvious to us, that -- as a matter of self-defense -- America should militarily exact a long-overdue justice against a warmongering, terrorists-sponsoring, mass-murdering tyrant. They refuse to see beyond a fact that they find morally discomforting: that America is capitalistic and strong, and Iraq is socialistic and weak. This is the same reason they hate Israel.

I think protests are inherently a tool of the left, something always seems off when people on the right protest. The practice of chanting slogans, especially, is demeaning to the one who is chanting. Can you imagine, for example, a VDH out there carrying a sign and repeating slogans? Better to take the high road and stay out of the spotlight.

Great post, Charles. And I know anyone who saw the last protest in DC on C-Span (from sometime late last year) won't forget how it ended: with an Islamic prayer--in Arabic--being played over the loudspeakers on the Mall. Eerie.

#18 bildo

I was thinking along those lines but I'm a bit too grandiose. I think we have to find a way to match the liberal media bias. The fast way (that's what we're known for wanting) would be to take over a big network by a mass-population stock buyout. Yea, right. Well, one can dream.

A more realistic approach is to communicate your ideas, to people you know, newspapers, tv networks, owners. General Electric owns NBC. Possible. Disney owns ABC. No help there. Viacom owns CBS. Splits the difference. Fox leans right, I just wish they'd come out and say it.

There's also advertisers. Big corporations. Advertising agencies. This is where the money comes from. If enough people scream at them they will listen.

The conservative movement is gaining momentum. The Bush administration lets it falter to near-suspension, then hits with a booster somehow. They need to be prodded to assist more overtly in this effort. As much as I hate to say, they really do seem to chart a course within the means. Look at how both sides are dissatisfied.

I think a mass continual email campaign would have more effect than a one-shot demonstration-rally. It's not easy, not glamorous, not even a sure thing. But there's a possible course of action for you. And, like the islamoids do, it doesn't have to be coordinated or directed from a central location. Anyone can do it anytime. Set a goal to write a few emails every week. Do one now.

I just did while I was writing this. Popped up a new browser window, checked the local paper website, and wrote the following email (feel free...)

I was disappointed to note in your coverage of the anti-war protests that you made no mention of one of the main associations organizing the events. ANSWER is a front organization for the Worker's World Party. The Worker's World Party is a far-left organization that is overtly and proudly socialist/communist. They see the United States as the premier evil of the world. Nor did you mention the seditious anti-American statements by speakers, or the claiming of a member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations to be "mujahadeen." I find your report lacking in credibility and completeness. I am not impressed. The mujahadeen, for your information, are the terrorists who are waging war on our way of life and killed almost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Any group that has Shakedown Jesse "I've never seen a situation in which I can't play the race card to MY advantage" Jackson and Al "Jew baiter is my middle name" Sharpton as members will never have anything but my absolute disgust.

Take heart my friends. GW is not backing up, just getting ready. Our protest to the Anti Addicts will come soon. Saddam my erstwhile Satan, we're gonna' light up your life. I hope it is on Groundhog Day. That would be so cool. Got some white meat coming your way baby, up close and personal.

Ploome,

Two Hat Tips under your belt, and more than a few 'Firsts!'.

No wonder you're not taking my calls.

It's tough to get a break in this business, when friends get famous and forget their buddies, leaving them behind. Oh, cruel fame . . .

The crowd was chanting "allahu akhbar"?? What a bunch of idiots. Does anybody have a link to video of this? I'm itching to drop it in forums far and wide.

52 Maine's Michael

who did you say you were.?

have we met.?

"The San Francisco Chronicle featured nothing but "wholesome types" -- they quoted no freaks or showed any photographs of people in Keffiyahs"

People have a right to protest, to be freaks, or to wear Keffiyahs. Only when they have unwholesome alliances or are carrying red flags should it be an issue.

#42 John Cole said:

“Just because someone protests war does not make them unpatriotic. That is an unfair smear.”

You’re right, I believe in the freedom of speech, but there is a difference between wanting peace for the sake of peace and wanting the US to fail because it fits a very warped agenda. Without getting into the politics of the war (it’s obvious my view on it, and if you disagree, my explaining the point probably won’t change your mind), a majority of the protesters don’t seem to want the US to do the ‘right’ thing; they simply want the US to fail. Whatever their reasons, (socialism, environmentalism, anti-racism, it’s-a-cool-thing-to-do-on-a-Saturdayism) the only protesters that I have seen who have something other than a political agenda seem to have religious reasons, and while I respect wanting peace, peace at all costs is juvenile.

#45 Ken Barnes wrote:

“Even if you could motivate enough ordinary people with jobs to show up for one of these things doesn't mean the press will necessarily be sympathetic and find it "newsworthy".”

I still say if enough people show up it will be newsworthy, even if the coverage is slanted to the left. It would let Congress, the President and the American people know that there is a large part of America that demands that our government fulfill its’ most important function and protect this nation.

#49 Jimmy the Dimmy wrote:

A lot…

Good idea, I am already composing my version of your letter and will send it off tonight.