**Late Ad: REUTERS PHOTOG FOUND DOCTORING PHOTOS FROM WAR. IS FIRED.
Michelle Malkin and Blackfive have the goods on the guy.
Hezbollah's PR Flak:
See below for Hezbollywood.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Have Your Bomber Talk to My Bomber...Oh, and Let's Have Reuters Shoot it for Us
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Hey, Ms Victoria, the ubiquitous corpse-carrying flak from Cana could be "Rescuer Rashid," and the guy in Beirut is a "Baghdad Bob" clone, "Hezbollah Hairy." (Can we have a contest? Please...Puleeeze?)
Al Reuters may have fired the dude (how does an independent photographer get fired?) but the photos went out and were seem by millions worldwide before the photoshopping was caught.
Kudos to alert bloggers how spotted the fakes that would have otherwise gone unnoticed and unchallenged.
Gotta love that drive-by leftstream media.
When do we hear Dan Blather come out in support of the photos saying they were fake, but accurate?
Oh, for your contest, Bear, how about Beirut Billy?
FreeRepublic has already named the woman seen over and over wailing in front of all of her homes as Veiled Lady.
It's Shocking that AL-Reuters-Jazzera would stoop to this level of Photo Shop 6. At least they could upgrade to Photo shop 9.
I'm Shockeddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
lew, I think you have a WINNER!!
Strange. No comments from the left here.
Amazing how they disappear from time to time, isn't it? ;)
What do you want me to say?
You're blaming the big, bad, faceless "left" (nobody in general, pretty much just anyone who disagrees with you) for a guy who altered a photo and paid the price for it by being fired.
How do you want me to respond? I find it as regrettable as you do, but I don't feel that it is a product of "the left" in any way, shape, or form.
Nice of you to show up and comment, iknow.
What we would like to hear is how the anti-war left feels now that the "evidence" many use to show how wrong we freedom supporters are was actually manufacturered and not evidence at all.
You say you find this "regrettable." Odd choice of words, I think, considering how everyone seems to believe evidence on WMDs was also manufactured and lied about by Bush. It would seem that discovering real evidence, especially an admission, that the photos were staged or photoshopped would elicit a similar reaction.
It also begs the question of just how much more "evidence" of the anti-war left may also be manufactured. Seeing that coverage of the WoT and in Iraq has been exaggerated or manufactured, wouldn't you think it proper to investigate some of these drive-by leftstream media claims against the war? Or, is it only "regrettable" because they were exposed as fakes?
Regrettable, as in it is regrettable that anyone in a position to tell a truthful story would instead choose to manipulate a portion or portions of the story to purposely mislead others.
Regrettable, as in, since I'm not there to see things first hand, I'd like to see honest representations of what's actually going on.
I'm sure Fox news has never done this, of course. Have you ever seen the video of Sean Hannity coaching Terry Schaivo's nurses on what to say on TV when the broadcast went live? Also regrettable.
It's wrong, it's reprehensible, and it's dishonest. I abhorr it. What else do you want me to say?
You have reluctantly expressed your outrage (I think), but I also wonder where others are who seem to steer clear at revelations as this.
Reluctantly? A couple of days ago, I asked you why you hadn't answered a couple of questions I posed, and you responded that they weren't all worth your time. Likewise, I offer the same response for the "delay" in responding to this issue.
I want to point out, again, that I am not a Democrat. I have some major problems with some of the folks on that side of the aisle. For the most part, however, I share the same very basic beliefs as they claim to have. Whether or not they are hypocritical, that's for them to prove or disprove. In theory, however, I agree with much more of what they say than what conservatives say.
But no Democrat speaks for me. No policial party speaks for me. *I* speak for me.
So the insinuation, intentional or not, that the left speaks for me is not necessarily true. Nor do I necessarily "speak for the left". I do find it flattering, however, that my response is apparently looked upon as such.
I certainly wouldn't judge the entire left wing of the political spectrum on my thoughts, in the same way that it would be dangerously haphazard to do the same and say that, for instance, John Gibson speaks for all conservatives, or that Anne Coulter speaks for all organisms that resemble human beings, no matter what cockamamie planet she may actually be from.
Frankly, if I could hit the reset button and have a re-do - as in, EVERY member of Congress and the Administration is replaced at the next election - I'd say go for it. Start fresh. Throw ALL the bums out and try again, because the folks we have in there now are, by and large, useless and out of touch with reality. I might keep Barak Obama. That'd be about it.
Again, we see a Liberal who won't admit to being a Liberal.
How convenient that you relate questions of a personal nature to commenting on obvious fabrications of so called evidence being used to hinder support for a war.
Still, you did speak against them, so I'll give you credit for that.
As for your "not being a Democrat," would you say who the last Republican was you voted for? Just curious.
I've stated this before, at least twice, I think: I am not a Democrat - I am a registered Independent.
I do consider myself a liberal, and I don't treat the word like it's some obscenity or insult.
However, I think that on occasion the ACLU goes a little too far for my taste. I think that Michael Moore's methods often obscure his message. I could not give a fart as to what Barbra Streisand has to say about anything. I think Ted Kennedy's day has long since past, and if he wanted to contribute something to congress, he would retire.
But, I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and I think that this administration has been a disaster of the highest degree. I feel that I have been lied to every day by this government - or, at the very best, not told the entire truth. I think it is foul and corrupt to its core. I think W is as blinded by his religion as Muslim extremists are by theirs, though he's not as obvious about it.
So call me a liberal. It's fine with me. But I'm my beliefs are true to myself above all else, and I do not judge the merits of an argument based solely on who has a (D) or (R) next to his or her name.
You're not my enemy, Lew, we just disagree. I would hope that you don't consider me to be your enemy, either.
Whether we like it or not, we're in this thing together.
I am a registered Independent.
I do consider myself a liberal
Okay, why not just say which Republican you last voted for? An independent votes for both parties, right? I'm a registered Republican and yes; I have crossed party lines and voted for Democrats, when I felt they would do a better job. Unfortunately, often it turned out the one I voted for just stuck to the party line, not performing the job as they described when campaigning.
I appreciate your feelings on Moore, Kennedy and such and agree with you. I might add some Republicans, or at least, registered Republicans, that I feel do more harm than good.
My only major disagreement with gays is over same sex marriage, believe it or not. Even on abortion, I do not seek to have the procedure outlawed, just not used as a birth control method of convenience. I feel there are legitimate reasons for the procedure, but that is a personal decision between a woman, her doctor, and husband. To me, a return to more old-fashioned morals and education would eliminate much of the need for them.
You are entitled to feel and voice however you feel about Bush, just as I am about Kerry or the rest. We obviously disagree as to who does the better job.
Like I said before in the post I left for a couple days then deleted (on the gay marriage thread), I was once more liberal myself. Yes, I do see it as misled, feel-good and harmful overall to our society. Not entirely, mind you, but enough I cannot support those views any longer. Life has taught me that too many liberal views simply don't work. That's why I am a conservative now.
Being called a liberal is no more insulting than my being called a neo-con and it is only an insult if I let it be.
I do not see you or anyone else here as my enemy. Yes, we disagree, but disagreement has brought about other beneficial plans for both sides. So, you need not ever worry about me "punching you out" if we were to meet. I might argue you to death, but that would be about it. Besides, you are probably bigger than me anyway, LOL.
And yes, we are in this thing together, along with Bush. I'd hate to be in his shoes having to make all the decisions and be responsible for them especially with the majority of the media second guessing everything you do and reporting only the negative.
Like he says and keeps saying, this is going to be a very long fight, lasting long after he is out of office and possibly, even over a generation. It's not like fighting a country with a uniformed military. It's a misguided and oppressive ideology we are fighting. An ideology backed up by some of the most gruesome and brutal people in history.
Cutting and running now is only postponing that fight for our children and grandchildren. This is probably the greatest enemy we have faced in our history, if not the history of mankind. If we are in this together, let's fight the terrorists together!
Post a Comment