Patterico’s Pontifications

7/13/2006

Meanwhile, in the Real World

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:39 am

Everything is going to hell in the Middle East.

Train bombs are going off in India.

Clint Taylor has this report.

P.S. It bears the unfortunate title “India’s 7/11.” But don’t blame Clint for the title. He didn’t write it. Joe Biden did.

P.P.S. I condemn everything. It’s safer that way.

33 Comments

  1. Also, patterico, maybe you need to change your tune on the WSJ. Seems like their reporters don’t really agree with the lunatics in the editorial page that they’re just treasury department stenographers

    Looks like, much to the consternation of those who wish our press would just repeat official truths, the WSJ actually does reporting, research and digging. Which we knew they do, because they have an excellent reputation.

    Comment by actus — 7/13/2006 @ 8:14 am

  2. If it takes exhausting threads to purge the “you must condemn everything” insanity, it’ll be well worth it.

    Comment by jpe — 7/13/2006 @ 9:00 am

  3. Well sheesh. And here I spent hours this morning Googling everything you’ve every said or written, on this or any other site, to see whether I ought to purge you from my blogroll and retroactively condemn everything you’ve ever said.

    Really. Just knowing you is becoming incredibly time consuming. I *do* have a job, you know. And now I have to go take a shower.

    *running away*

    PS: this was posted from my Treo :D

    Comment by Cassandra — 7/13/2006 @ 9:31 am

  4. So hows that indictment on Rove coming along…I havn’t seen the latest updates…

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter — 7/13/2006 @ 10:17 am

  5. I can understand the huffing and puffing from those bastions of objectivity known as hacks, er, reporters. Gotta keep up the pretense that it was good for the country to report on SWIFT.

    But, really, what’s wrong with:

    “the administration “felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times.””

    I guess when someone you despise says you’re honest, you gotta take it as an insult, right? Gotta love those objective truth-tellers in the press!

    Comment by sharon — 7/13/2006 @ 10:43 am

  6. “india’s 7/11″…i got coffee there once.
    the problem is, we attacked the wrong country, iraq, which had no wmd’s and nothing to do with 9/11, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to our real enemies, pakistan, which proliferated nuclear technology to a number of rogue states, and saudi arabia, which bought, paid for and staffed 9/11, apparently because these regimes are deemed “friendly” to the united states. with friends like that….

    Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 7/13/2006 @ 10:43 am

  7. ADA-

    Keep your friends close.

    And keep your enemies closer.

    Comment by See Dubya — 7/13/2006 @ 11:04 am

  8. I guess when someone you despise says you’re honest, you gotta take it as an insult, right?

    What I got from the article is that the insult was in the editorial’s downgrading of their reporter’s ability. That the reason the WSJ got the story is because the administration wanted to feed the story to someone, not because they had done independent reporting. Also insulting was that this was all done by talking to the government PR people, rather than actually finding out what their own reporters were up to.

    Also of note, people who have been praising the WSJ’s reporting based on their op-ed page may have taken solace in the fact that the WSJ was not investigating SWIFT. But the story I link to says that for months they were working on a SWIFT story.

    Comment by actus — 7/13/2006 @ 11:10 am

  9. ADA

    we attacked the wrong country, iraq, which had no wmd’s and nothing to do with 9/11,

    How do you even say that with a straight face with Hamas and Hizbollah making common cause and Iran supplying Hisbollah with Russian missles now exploding in Israeli cities?

    what is it about ISLAMISM that you are failing to get?

    :::sigh:::

    keep clicking those heels, Dorothy.

    Comment by Darleen — 7/13/2006 @ 12:39 pm

  10. ADA - I’ll agree with you that Pakistan poses a serious proliferation issue -

    But I’ve never read anything to show that there is evidence that Saudia Arabia paid for and staffed the 9/11 attacks. What is the basis for that assertion?

    (I’m not saying its not possible - the Saudi gov’t has some issues. I’ve just not seen any credible evidence that they were the perpetrators of 9/11)

    Comment by C Student — 7/13/2006 @ 12:41 pm

  11. Gee, Actus, we must’ve read different stories. What I got from the article was that the newsroom was huffing and puffing that the editorial writer had had the audacity to praise the idea that the administration thought the WSJ might provide a less-slanted story than the NYT. From there, the newroom had to prove its bonefides by how *they* would not be a foil for this administration. It’s all claptrap, to be sure. I mean, they certainly wouldn’t want to appear objective.

    Comment by sharon — 7/13/2006 @ 12:48 pm

  12. “the problem is, we attacked the wrong country, iraq, which had no wmd’s and nothing to do with 9/11″

    Um, no.

    And, no.

    Comment by Abraxas — 7/13/2006 @ 12:59 pm

  13. Great Shasta!

    Here are the links:

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/iraqwmd.pdf

    http://husseinandterror.com/

    Comment by Abraxas — 7/13/2006 @ 1:02 pm

  14. I mean, they certainly wouldn’t want to appear objective.

    And the point is that they take umbrage at being portrayed, by their own editors, without talkin to them, as A PR man’s version of “objective.” Which is not, as you might expect, objective.

    Comment by actus — 7/13/2006 @ 1:06 pm

  15. “And the point is that they take umbrage at being portrayed, by their own editors, without talkin to them, as A PR man’s version of “objective.” Which is not, as you might expect, objective.”

    Yes, they do indeed take umbrage that the administration thought they would be less biased.

    Comment by sharon — 7/13/2006 @ 1:20 pm

  16. Yes, they do indeed take umbrage that the administration thought they would be less biased.

    Don’t forget, besides the damnable praise of the PR man, they also get portrayed as ineffective researchers — which is not the case.

    Comment by actus — 7/13/2006 @ 1:22 pm

  17. Cheer up, Patrick! Valerie Plame is suing Cheney, Rove, and Libby for conspiring against her. Can you IMAGINE being in on the discovery wars?

    Life’s good, and when it’s not good, it’s pretty damned funny.

    Comment by Federal Dog — 7/13/2006 @ 1:51 pm

  18. saudis funding terror? um, yes!
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305
    what country were osama bin laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers born in?
    darleen, you cited hamas, hizbollah and iran, i’m not going to deny your premises, but they don’t add up to a case against iraq. i’ve got a diploma for you, scarecrow!

    Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 7/13/2006 @ 2:08 pm

  19. “Don’t forget, besides the damnable praise of the PR man, they also get portrayed as ineffective researchers — which is not the case.”

    Yes, being seen as not as biased must be damnable praise for the hack class.

    Comment by sharon — 7/13/2006 @ 2:42 pm

  20. ADA -

    You gotta be kidding. You asserted that the government of Saudi Arabia financed and staffed the 9/11 attacks.

    As proof you point to the nationality of the attackers. By that rationale when Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Federal building the US Government was responsible because he was an American and used American currency to finance the operation. You can’t possibly be relying on such a facile line of reasoning as to equate nationality with the acts of the government. You do realize don’t you that by many accounts Osama bin Laudin is as much at odds with the Saudi government as he is with the US.

    Then you cite to that article. First, the article talks about a possible “sleeper cell” that was to conduct follow ups to 9/11. It doesn’t deal with 9/11. But more importantly as the article points out there was no evidence that the officials at the Saudi Embassy had any knowledge of the financing activities.

    Frankly this sounds more like the nonsensical “conspiracy theories” that abound on the internet than actual rational thought.

    Comment by C Student — 7/13/2006 @ 3:20 pm

  21. Yes, being seen as not as biased must be damnable praise for the hack class.

    Do you really think the WSJ news unit are hacks? Compared to PR people?

    Comment by actus — 7/13/2006 @ 3:32 pm

  22. “Everything is going to hell in the Middle East.”

    and how. Interesting that just yesterday I heard a market comentator say that we were just one incident away from $4.00 a gallon gasoline. I’m guessing he didn’t figure that the “incident” would take place the next day.

    Comment by C Student — 7/13/2006 @ 3:46 pm

  23. meanwhile in the real world I still find this to be unfriggin’ believable, maybe you guys will too.

    http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/20550.asp?q=teacher

    Comment by Boss429 — 7/13/2006 @ 3:58 pm

  24. “Do you really think the WSJ news unit are hacks? Compared to PR people?”

    I consider most working journalists to be hacks when they are disrespectful to those they cover by calling them “the PR man” and other perjoratives. It shows an inexcusable arrogance to assume that, somehow, only journalists are the arbiters of truth and anyone who hoped for what they considered neutrality is a “PR man.”

    Comment by sharon — 7/14/2006 @ 5:09 am

  25. I consider most working journalists to be hacks when they are disrespectful to those they cover by calling them “the PR man” and other perjoratives.

    I called them the PR man. And PR is what they do.

    Comment by actus — 7/14/2006 @ 7:29 am

  26. “I called them the PR man. And PR is what they do.”

    And I call them hacks. And hack is what they do.

    Comment by sharon — 7/14/2006 @ 7:50 am

  27. And I call them hacks. And hack is what they do.

    Thats all I wanted to know. Whether you think the WSJ news reporteres are hacks. Because I think that’s a crazy assertion.

    Comment by actus — 7/14/2006 @ 8:06 am

  28. I think Sharon & actus are a real-life married couple who enjoy bringing their constant “he said, she said” debates into a public forum.

    Ha, ha, ha.

    Comment by Desert Rat — 7/14/2006 @ 8:12 am

  29. “Thats all I wanted to know. Whether you think the WSJ news reporteres are hacks. Because I think that’s a crazy assertion.”

    So glad we could clear that up. See, I think it’s a crazy assertion to say there’s something to take umbrage about when one is seen as more objective. And I consider a reporter to be a hack when they call someone a “PR man” because that person thought they would be objective. Which is a reporter’s job, you know.

    Comment by sharon — 7/14/2006 @ 8:14 am

  30. “I think Sharon & actus are a real-life married couple”

    Wow, that’s gross. And the only reason I respond is that I find his assertions ludicrous and I like refuting them.

    Comment by sharon — 7/14/2006 @ 8:20 am

  31. And I consider a reporter to be a hack when they call someone a “PR man” because that person thought they would be objective

    #1 I called them a PR man. #2, they are. Thats what PR people do. Public Relations.

    Comment by actus — 7/14/2006 @ 8:31 am

  32. “#1 I called them a PR man. #2, they are. Thats what PR people do. Public Relations.”

    Which “them”? The administration? The editorial page editors? Neither does “PR.”

    Regardless, it’s a hackish thing to take offense at being called objective.

    Comment by sharon — 7/14/2006 @ 8:39 am

  33. [...] This is disgusting, vile hate speech. I would condemn Confederate Yankee, but luckily I have already pre-condemned everything, making condemnation unnecessary. [...]

    Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » I Condemn It All — 7/18/2006 @ 7:08 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.