Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« A Pixelated Lynching | Main | Iranian regime is mad at Canada »

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

MSM Can't Hide It

Biased BBC News can't hide the good news from Iraq any more:

Iraq is a better place now thanks to the blood and sweat shed by the brave American soldiers. This is good news and the defeatists of the world can't spin or hide the facts now.

Posted by Winston on November 21, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MSM Can't Hide It:


Even Christopher Hitchens, in today's National Post, seems to grudgingly admits Iraq has tenuously turned a corner.

Hitchens, it appears, dislikes radical Islam as much as anybody, but had to appear credible by smearing all religions in his book.

The most telling part of today's article spells out how the radical Democrat agenda in the US needs failure in Iraq to legitimize their pre-election strategy.

This is not news, but it could spell trouble for the George Soros, moveon.org/Michael Moore crowd which has hijacked the traditional Democratic party.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-21 10:07:16 AM

The Dems in the US looking for an issue to flog the Republicans with is just too cool. All they have left is tax and spend promises.

I don't think the US is in any condition to have higher taxes. They are on the brink of a major recession and many are losing their homes.

What will be needed more than anything in the USA right now is someone who will continue the pressure on the Islamo whackos and also know how to handle the crime wave that may be coming as the American working classes lose their jobs and get desperate. Guiliani has that experience and the willingness to do what it takes on both fronts.

We don't need socialists we need warriors and tough guys in an increasingly tough world.

Many in the MSM will be looking for work as well. They are in a declining industry. It's all good. I am loving it.

The Dems have had control of the house and senate for many months now and have been able to do Zero. They are inept and their policies are as lacking as the Liberals in Canada.

There will be another Republican in the white house and Stephen Harper will win the next election in Canada. When you have logic and common sense on your side it's hard to lose.

Posted by: John | 2007-11-21 10:21:37 AM

What is the difference between our media and the media of our enemy? They continue to report they are winning when they are losing while our media report we are losing when we are winning.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-21 10:52:13 AM

Painfully true Alain, painfully true.

By staying the course, peace will be established in Iraq--it is just simply a matter of time.

I will live long enough to watch the dems cry fowl that they knew everything would work out all along--and try to claim some of the victory and glory from a job well done.

And war--it will always be as ugly as it gets.

Although I have some reserved opinion on how it all may turn out given the fact that the constitution has been written in the manner to which it has.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 11:10:34 AM

correction: the dems are going to "cry fowl", through "multiples" of chickens.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 11:12:02 AM

fowl = to do with birds

foul = offensive to the senses, loathsome

I'm assuming you meant to use the word foul, otherwise it's about our feathered friends, which would make no sense in the original context.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-21 11:17:33 AM

set ~

Are you attempting to display superiority in one fowl swoop? :)

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-21 11:29:57 AM


Correct spelling is an important part of effective communication and literacy helps convey a message more clearly.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-21 11:42:06 AM

set ~

I totally agree! I just made that comment to include the phrase:

"One fowl swoop".

The proper phrase is usually "One fell swoop". :)

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-21 12:40:34 PM

This is just too funny to ignore:

"Writers Strike Could Cancel Dems' Debate"

al-Associated Press

New York - A potential strike by CBS news writers imperils the last debate among Democratic presidential contenders before voting is to begin. In a statement Wednesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would not cross a picket line to participate in the debate, scheduled Dec. 10 in Los Angeles. Most of the other candidates quickly followed. CBS is to broadcast the debate, which is co-sponsored by the Democratic National Committee.

SO WHOEVER IS PUTTING WORDS into the mouths of these DemoRat candidates is on strike, according to the headline? LOL!!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-21 12:43:30 PM

set you free, Christopher Hitchens has been a supporter of the war in Iraq from its inception. He's not "grudgingly admitting" anything.

Posted by: Ian | 2007-11-21 1:05:11 PM


I intended to use the word "foul" and not "fowl" and then when I was going to make the correction (and I don't normally make corrections for typos) I could not make the correction without playing a pun on the word twice by including a reference to another correction by another blogger, in relation to the word "multiples" which was corrected in the other thread AND make a joke on the typo at the same time.

It is really stupid--then again I am not a comedian and I am always just one step away from the purchase of a pocket protector.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 1:26:49 PM


And one more thing--since you are interested in "Correct spelling is an important part of effective communication and literacy helps convey a message more clearly" it is also important--not only to spell correctly, but also to say the right words with the correct meaning, in the right context, and with proper reference.

"Fowl" actually is not a word that pertains to birds, as you stated "fowl = to do with birds", but actually is in reference to two different orders of birds, known as either gamebirds or landbirds. Chickens are related to the ancient overarching clade and Galliformes, which have been domesticated--however seagulls and ostriches, are neither Galliformes nor Anseriformes. They are neither fish, fowl, nor good red herring. Yes, there is a pun in there--if you can see it?

So, you missed the pun in the pun.

Sorry. I will attempt to spell and write at a level that is more conductive to your un-der-stand-ing.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 1:43:34 PM

What will the Liberals do about this news on Iraq?
Just when they're all pounding poor George W. at every opportunity both here and in the US on the War Monger theme, it's starting to look good for both the Iraqis and George Bush. Who would have imagined?

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-21 1:57:38 PM

Hello Liz J,

The Liebrals will say "Hhuuuh? never mind Iraq...our peace protests lead to peace..." and they will move over to the next thing their spin Drs think might be useful in their non-principled struggle to regain political power.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 2:08:00 PM


This is Hitchens article on good news from Iraq

Posted by: winston | 2007-11-21 2:34:57 PM


There will be another Republican in the white house and Stephen Harper will win the next election in Canada. When you have logic and common sense on your side it's hard to lose.

Posted by: John | 21-Nov-07 10:21:37 AM


Woo-hoo! Of course, John, we'll hold you to that, ok? ;)

Posted by: Larry | 2007-11-21 7:00:07 PM

Her Heinous will NOT reign. Her lesbian lover - the Pakistani Muslim Huma - has been outed today in South Carolina, and this will quickly spread nationwide.

No effect in California, New York and New England, but the rest of the nation will reject Shrillery.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-21 7:05:53 PM

They can put all the spin they want on it,but we will still be leaving with our tails between our legs within the next couple of years. As our casualties and costs increase we will eventually fold like cheap deck chairs.Our politicians say this is not like Vietnam. I beg to differ. This is exactly like Vietnam.

Posted by: peterj | 2007-11-22 9:59:29 PM


We will be leaving? Our politicians?

Did I miss something? Is Canada involved in Iraq?

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-23 10:43:36 AM

From your comment, peterj, I believe the only thing you have any real acquaintance with is cheap deck chairs.

Although you might have a tail.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 10:50:17 AM

I was talking about Afghanistan. In Vietnam we were told constantly that we were winning. Right up to the time we left with our tail between our legs.I really hope I'm wrong.We will see.

Posted by: peterj | 2007-11-23 7:33:26 PM

Vietnam was being won, peterj.

The back of the Vietcong insurgency had been broken during the Tet Offensive and they were never an truly operational force after that.

When President Nixon started a bombing campaign called Linebacker it finally brought the North Vietnamese to the Peace table in Paris.
They diddled around and argued about the actual seating and dimensions of the table for a while, stalling for time until the bombing stopped then left with nothing accomplished.

So President Nixon started Linebacker II that brought the North Vietnamese back to the Paris Peace Talks and they were about to ink a deal when the Watergate Scandal broke out.

The Paris Peace Talks were scuttled by the Democrats passing a bill that cut off funding for the war.
Then a wily lass who was a lawyer for the Democratic Party, some hippy chick named Hillary Rodham, wrote the impeachment papers and that was all she wrote, peterj.

Nixon resigned the Presidency, the U.S. Armed Forces didn't have the funding, and the American people and body politic lost the will to continue.

Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield or the Paris Peace Talks, it was thrown by the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Treachery, peterj, treachery.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-24 12:10:38 AM


You have got to be kidding--this ain't no vietnam!

52,000 Americans died in Vietnam.

And there are estimates that over 5 million people died in Vietnam--and about 67,000 were Americans--with about 52,000 soldiers.

Although numbers do not chnage things--Vietnam and Afghanistan are more than just thousands of miles apart.

And North Vietnam--they really did lose the war--I mean look at them from outter space and you will see--they have and are nothing! Children are starving in North Vietnam--if they did not do what they have done, they would have been was well off as (if not better than,) Southern Vietnam today.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-25 10:54:09 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.