Naturally, TIME's description of Joe the Plumber was more a cut at him than an accurate picture. Not only that, but TIME seemed to have somehow forgotten that Barack Obama made Joe famous, not John McCain!
Wurzelbacher, who got his first 15 minutes of fame as a prop for John McCain during last year's U.S. election campaign, has swapped his plunger for a reporter's notebook on a mission to cover the Gaza war for the conservative website Pajamas TV.
No, TIME, Joe did not get his "15 minutes" because he was a "prop for John McCain during last year's election." He became national news when he served as the catalyst for Barack Obama to showcase his communist agenda for America. But, notice how TIME conveniently forgot that Joe made the news when his question to a campaigning Obama gave Obama the opportunity to show that he wanted to "spread the wealth" around in this country, just like a good communist does.
Now, why do you think that TIME would want to conveniently forget that Barack Obama revealed his communist leanings during the campaign, eh?
TIME reports on Joe's scolding of the Old Media for all too often coming down on the side of the terrorists of Hamas and its Palestinian supporters and then goes on to pretend that such bias isn't occurring. TIME main point is that Israel is losing the public relations war in the media without admitting that it is the media forcing that loss of message in the first place.
Then, TIME reveals its ignorance of the situation in Gaza, an ignorance that is either born of stupidity or of support for Hamas.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Fox News, "For us to be asked to have a cease-fire with Hamas is like asking you to have a cease-fire with al-Qaeda" - despite the fact that Israel and Hamas had, in fact, agreed via Egypt to a six-month cease-fire just last June.
Does TIME reveal the truth that this so-called "cease-fire" that Hamas had supposedly negotiated was a lie? Does TIME reveal to the reader that Hamas never stopped randomly firing explosive rockets into Israel despite the so-called cease-fire it signed? No.
TIME next gives us a "may have" when the fact of "HAS" is indisputable. Naturally this softening of reality is in favor of Hamas, the terrorists. (my bold)
Hamas fighters have shed their uniforms and blended into the civilian population, hiding weapons and communications systems in houses and mosques. That may have contributed to a death toll so lopsided that it speaks louder than any Israeli press officer...
May have, TIME? No, it isn't a "may have," with which we are dealing here. It is a singular fact that Hamas hides its weapons and military facilities among civilian populations. And the reason they do that is the Palestinians want dead civilians by the score. That way, with the eager assistance of the western media, they can paint the Jews as evil for killing women and children.
And then we get the media-driven canard of the "exit plan" for war.
As much as each side seeks to spin the war as advancing their overall vision, Israel has yet to articulate a clear, workable exit plan that will achieve the war's objectives without reoccupying Gaza.
The reality is, Israel is under no obligation to offer the anti-Israeli media its plans for an "exit strategy." Neither, for that matter, is any other nation that goes to war.
This faux "exist strategy" requirement that the media falsely uses as a club against Israel is just another weapon in its Hamas supporting, terror fostering arsenal. The Old Media uses it against both the U.S. and Israel with impunity. And then, when neither country satisfies it's false requirements, the Old Media then proclaims the war effort a "failure." They did it in Iraq, they've done it in Afghanistan and they are doing it in Gaza.
But, remember, the Old Media is not on anybody's side... right? And if you believe that I have some land in Florida to sell you.
(Joe photo credit: ctv.ca -- TIME Magazine photo svsb.edu)
Clarification: TIME did not pick Hitler as man of the year in 1938 because they thought he was an upstanding man. They picked him because he was the terror of his day. I have frequently in the past maintained that TIME should use its man of the year award to uplift the world not dwell on evil. Certainly Hitler was consequential in 1938, but he was not one to be lauded with a man of the year style moniker and it was this dwelling on the negative that I was alluding to in my piece above. In any case, I wanted to make it clear what TIME meant by its then choice of Hitler as its man of the year for 1938.
