Gay Patriot Header Image

What the Gaza Civil War Tells us About our Enemy — and MSM coverage of the War on Terror

This morning, reader Peter Hughes e-mailed me a link to an excellent post on Hugh Hewitt‘s blog on media coverage of the Civil War in Gaza. Hugh observes:

The MSM’s reluctance to call the Gaza civil war a civil war . . . because the Gaza meltdown doesn’t fit the tired media narrative that sees America as ‘”breeding terrorists” in Iraq and the conflict in the Palestinian territories as the result of Israeli oppression. . . . The idea that virulent Islamist fundamentalism is spawning crisis after crisis across the globe, crises which cannot be ignored or retreated from, is alien to folks whose agenda journalism is driven by BDS.


The Israelis withdraw completely from Gaza and it becomes a launching pad for rocket attacks against sovereign Israeli territory and itself a lawless land where violent factions fight each other. Civilians are caught in the crossfire. Islamicist gangs target those using computers (for unapproved purposes) or anyone else who may be acting contrary to their interpretation of the dictates of their faith. They seem to have forgotten the flourishing Islamic civilization at the turn of the last millennium where there was a great respect for a variety of ideas, including those of different cultures. And where great Islamic cultures debated the meaning of their faith’s sacred texts.

The Palestinian people are those who suffer the most. As would the Iraqi people were we to abandon our project there and let radical militants and their terrorist allies (with similar ideologies to the Palestinian factions) attempt to govern that troubled land.

Some on the left — and in the MSM — think we (the West) are to blame for the radicalism of the Islamicists. The Gaza story — of subjugation and civil war — tells a different story.

The West did not make the Islamicists radical. Their own poisonous ideology did so. And it does so by ignoring much of the rich history, traditions and customs of the faith to which they swear allegiance.

What is it about the MSM that they seem to see every problem as created by Western actions — why they can’t seem to understand the evil of our enemy? Not only does that enemy threaten us, but its followers tyrannize their own peoples. They’re the ones blowing up mosques and attacking the Muslim faithful making pilgrimages to sacred sites — or otherwise observing the rites and traditions of their faith. And they’re the ones subjecting Muslim civilians to live in societies governed by a narrow interpretation of sacred scripture.

Perhaps the real civil war in Gaza — as well as the ongoing violence in Lebanon — will serve as a reminder to the MSM and the Democratic party of the nature of our enemy. Should the Democrats fail to understand what’s at stake, they may well find themselves losing yet another presidential election.

And now that I’ve whet your appetite, make sure to read Hugh’s post and take care to follow the links, especially to Victor Davis Hanson’s excellent column on the war in Iraq.

UPDATE: Just to see how bad it is in Gaza, AP reports today (06/14) that as Hamas captures Hamas facilities, instead of offering mercy to their fellow Palestinian Arabs (or even taking them as prisoners, they are executing them, often “as their wives and children watched.

UP-UPDATE: In his New York Post column, Ralph Peters pretty much sums about the attitude of the left mentioned in this post: “Meanwhile, back home, the get-out-now crowd pretends that, if only we pull out our troops, Iraqis will magically settle their internal grievances (presumably, the way the Palestinians have).” And adds:

The left doesn’t care how many Iraqis die, as long as President Bush can be humiliated. Four years ago, the neocons fantasized about a post-Saddam Age of Aquarius. Now the Murthacrats insist that, once we bail out, Atlantis will rise from the Tigris and Euphrates. The willful naivete is identical. The only differences are the timing and who gets blamed.

(Via Real Clear Politics.)

Just read the whole thing. He offers some serious criticism of the president’s past policy in Iraq.

Earnhardt & Hendrick:Two Biggest Names In NASCAR Join Forces

There was an earthquake in the most popular American sport today.  The MSM mostly ignores NASCAR, but each weekend hundreds-of-thousands (yes, that’s right) of Americans gather in speedways around the USA to watch this exciting home-grown racing sport.

Today, the two biggest names in NASCAR today officially bonded.  Dale Earnhardt, Jr. announced he’s joining Hendrick Motorsports for the 2008 NASCAR season.  Rick Hendrick and Junior’s late father were close friends, and Junior grew up with Hendrick’s son, Ricky, who was killed in a plane crash in 2004.  But there’s more to Junior’s decision than just old family bonds.

“I wanted to find…the team that was right for me as a person and where I could compete for championships,” Earnhardt Jr. said. “As I sit here today, I could say with complete honesty that I have found and accomplished that goal.

“We talked with many teams, but one stood out above the rest and it became apparent to me the man I wanted to drive for. I’ve known him since childhood. He competes with integrity, and most importantly, he wins races.”

With that, Earnhardt Jr. introduced Rick Hendrick, whose drivers have amassed six championships and 159 race victories since 1984. This year, Hendrick’s four drivers have won 10 of 14 points races, with Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson winning four each and Casey Mears and Kyle Busch each winning once.

Hendrick and Earnhardt are winning names for NASCAR.  Not only in race wins, but in marketing.  Alone, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. brings in 30% of all revenue from NASCAR-related marketing items.  That is astounding.

Of course the big question for Charlotte race fans, and fans of Junior is this:  “How can we root for Junior when we still want to boo at Jimmie Johnson & Jeff Gordon?”

We will find out next season.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bias in Coverage of Attorney Firings

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:03 pm - June 13, 2007.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Congress (110th),Media Bias

It’s always amusing reading media coverage of — and Democratic grandstanding on — the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys. It’s almost as if they have forgotten that federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. And whether they like it or not, George W. Bush is President until January 20, 2009. But, maybe that’s the problem they just can’t accept the results of the 2004 election.* Or they’re just doing their utmost to undermine them.

Latest case in point. In an AP article reporting that congressional committees “are issuing subpoenas for testimony” from former White House officials on the firings, reporter Laurie Kellman writes, “Democrats probing whether the White House improperly dictated which prosecutors the Justice Department should fire” (emphasis added). Unless the White House officials are not doing the bidding of the president, it would not be “improper” for them to tell Justice Department officials to fire political appointees, including federal prosecutors.

In the concluding line, we learn that “E-mails made public have shown that [White House officials] Miers, Taylor and Rove were looped into the decision-making process and attended meetings on the firings.” So? It isn’t seem improper for the president’s top legal and political aides to attend meetings about the firing (or hiring) of presidential appointees.

A further sign of the reporter’s bias is that while she does report that “that U.S. attorneys serve at the president’s pleasure and can be fired for any reason, or none at all,” she does so in a sentence which begins “Republicans point out.” As if it’s a partisan point, rather than a long-established practice. And constitutional prerogative.

No, there is no scandal here. Had the White House and Justice Department done a better job of explaining the firings, Democrats might not be trying to find a scandal when there’s merely a discrepancy between how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained the firings — and what actually took place. But, maybe even if he had pointed out that White House officials participated in the decision-making process (as was entirely proper), the Democrats would still be looking for scandal. After all, if George W. Bush does something, even if he does something which his predecessors have done, including his immediate predecessor, it must be scandalous because Bush — or his “minions” — did it.

It’s time for the Democratic majority in Congress to stop looking for scandals where there are none and to stop promising votes merely to appease their liberal base. They seem more interesting in appeasing that base — and embarrassing the president — than in governing the country. And that’s what they were elected to do.

*While Democrats may have won control of Congess in 2006, the Constitution invests executive power in the president. And that power includes the firing of certain federal officials.