On Saturday I was out and about and walked past a newspaper box which had copies of USA Today.  (Considering that I am typically a day ahead, this must have been a Friday edition.)  Above the fold, there was an article decrying the lack of translators in U.S hospitals and how this was causing untold suffering to those without a command of English. 

I wasn't about to waste my valuable quarters on buying USA Today, but I drew closer and read what I could of it.  And then I shook my head in amusement.

See, I have traveled extensively, and to top all of this off, I am in a foreign country.  If something medically unfortunate happens to me in the Korean countryside, I am not expecting to run into English speaking doctors unless I get taken to a military facility.  Nor would I expect this in a German Krankenhaus.  Or, for that matter, anywhere in the world where English isn't widely spoken as a first language by the majority of citizens.  But then, I suppose that little inconvenience is lost on the editors and publishers of USA Today. 

Well, sports fans, The Terrorist…er, I mean The New York Times is at it again. One of America’s allies purchased a variety of weapons last year, and now that it is being attacked by a shared enemy, has asked that the shipment of these arms be sped up to allow it to better defend itself.

Sadly, The Times felt it was important to report this shipment Saturday – on the front page no less – so everyone – including the sworn enemy that is currently attacking our ally – would be fully aware (hat tip to Michelle Malkin):

For the second time this week, a US soldier has been cleared of charges in the death of an Iraqi civilian.  For the second time this week, the US media is not reporting the story.

From the Washington Post...

An investigating officer in Baghdad has recommended that commanders drop voluntary manslaughter and conspiracy charges against a Pennsylvania National Guard soldier after determining that he followed appropriate rules of engagement when he killed an Iraqi man in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi in February.

Army Lt. Col. John W. McClory found that Spec. Nathan B. Lynn, 21, of South Williamsport, Pa., did nothing wrong in shooting Gani Ahmad Zaben in the post-curfew darkness outside a group of homes on Feb. 15. McClory ruled that Lynn thought the man was armed with an AK-47 and believed he was a threat.

It appears the ongoing effort by CBS to totally divorce itself from former anchor Dan Rather is not over, for another snubbing has occurred, this time at the CBS News website. As reported by The New York Post Friday:

IS CBS trying to wipe out all traces of Dan Rather's history at the network? In a glowing story about Katie Couric's "Eye on America" tour's going to the Twin Cities, the CBS News Web site crows that the perky newsgal, who takes over Rather's seat in September, "will be the first female solo anchor of a network weekday newscast, following such esteemed journalists as Douglas Edwards, Walter Cronkite and, most recently, Bob Schieffer." There is absolutely no mention of Rather, who was unceremoniously dumped after 44 years with CBS following his notorious report on President Bush's military record, which turned out to be based on fake memos.

Don’t believe it? Here’s the article The Post was referring to. The Post deliciously continued:

Even for a Boston Globe columnist, Robert Kuttner's effort this morning has to go down in the annals of Bush-hatred at its most rabid. Consider these excerpts, annotated with my comments:

• 'The latest violence in the Middle East demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Bush administration's grand design for the region.' Stay with me - Bob's just clearing his throat.
• 'The quagmire has demonstrated the humiliating limits of US military power.' Crocodile tears?
• 'Saddam turned out to be telling the truth about nuclear weapons and Bush turned out to be lying,' Make your contribution today at SaddamDefenseFund@ramseyclark.org
• 'Bolton and the other radicals in the administration want Israel to keep pummeling Lebanon a while longer.' No, they want Israel to keep pummeling Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon.
• 'The party of mutual Armageddon . . . the war party of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Israeli right, the Iranian ultras, Rumsfeld, and Cheney.' Moral equivalence strikes again. The terrorists, and those who would stop the terrorists - same difference.
  
  • Mark Finkelstein's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Read more

The New York Times op-ed page has a feature today called 'A First Step Back From the Brink.' As the Times describes it:

"With chaos threatening to engulf Lebanon, the need to resolve the conflict in the Middle East has rarely seemed so urgent. The Op-Ed editors went to seven experts with experience in the region, asking each of them what should be the first step toward defusing the crisis."

The Times did accord Richard Perle the opportunity to make the case that 'Israel must see the current fighting through to a conclusion that is unambiguously a defeat for Hezbollah and Hamas.' But most if not all of the other contributors call for an immediate cessation of hostilities, including Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations who wants to negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas and describes them as 'political parties and social welfare organizations', albeit with 'military wings.'

The Telegraph newspaper apparently cannot believe that America is gauche enough to take it upon itself to evaluate its own distribution of military forces in the world. How DARE the USA think that, in this era of unrest in the Mid East and terrorism, it can do what it wants to do with its own military!

In an article by David Rennie titled American pullout leaves Iceland defenceless, America is reported as "tactless" for its need to reevaluate keeping forces in Iceland, forces that were originally posted there for fighting the Cold War.

Apparently, many in Iceland, not to mention the offices of the Telegraph, have not caught up to the news that the Cold War is over.

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

• Login or register to post comments
• Read more