You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Freedom’s Reign? Newsweek declares for other side
2004-06-30
Iraqis fervently hope that their new government can do better than their incompetent occupiers
I can't fisk this properly -- it's too long and my blood is boiling. Someone?
Posted by:Steve White

#15  does newsweak hire these guys from anti-american marxisism 101

If by that you mean "Journalism School", then, yes. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy... more like birds-of-a-feather flocking together.
Posted by: eLarson   2004-06-30 4:35:17 PM  

#14  Sounds like a large group of media are positioning themselves. Now that Iraqii are in charge and things are not as bad as the press originally thought, "It was all Bush's Fault!" becomes the headline.

The press are never wrong. Brokaw says so.
Posted by: john   2004-06-30 4:11:35 PM  

#13  5442: That's the best one paragraph description of post-modernism I've ever read.

Yank: You are right. I missed that angle.
Posted by: 11A5S   2004-06-30 3:10:23 PM  

#12  Hey, it's all about the SHOOOOOOOOOS!

I kulda said that!

LOL! SpewFactor 7
Posted by: Shipman   2004-06-30 1:40:30 PM  

#11  There is a need to understand an underlying premise of the current left: It is postmodern. This is how one understands the world: One has a certain set of "preferences" (stuff you want), you are permitted to do or say anything you want, because there is nothing true or false, right or wrong. There are only things which achieve my ends or prevent my ends. Hence, the left is extraordinarily illiberal. Postmodernism tends quickly towards violent control and suppression, because that it the quickest way to obtain one's ends. There is no need to be consistent.
Someone like Bush, the "right", et cetera are the most dangerous threats, because they are holding to outmoded ways of understanding.
Think about it this way: SH was a terrible murderer. Even if the intelligence was completely wrong, a very bad, very dangerous thug was taken out of power. Freedom is much better than material goods (which the writer of the story simply cannot understand). Shouldn't "liberals" be happy that SH is gone? Why so glum? Because he doesn't matter, and the people of Iraq don't matter. All that matters is Bush being gone.
Perhaps the question is why is Bush such a thorn in their side? What does he want that they hate so badly? It does not seem to be much more than abortion or some sort of 'sexual rights' or some such.







Posted by: 5442   2004-06-30 12:53:38 PM  

#10  mojo-----------great one! LOL!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-30 12:24:13 PM  

#9  Its not just retaliation for Wolfowitz remarks, its retaliation for jumping the gun on the changeover and leaving the media in the dark about it. This guy probably had an assignment to cover the changeover and he missed the whole thing and dag-nabbit Bremmers gonna pay.
Posted by: yank   2004-06-30 11:39:59 AM  

#8  Hey, it's all about the SHOOOOOOOOOS!
Posted by: mojo   2004-06-30 11:34:00 AM  

#7  Don't even bother Steve. Consider the source: Newsweek™ (part of the Democratic Party group of media outlets)
Posted by: Spot   2004-06-30 9:17:53 AM  

#6  Sound like Baath propaganda, doesn't it? One doesn't even know where to begin. Whoever wrote this is so ignorant that he doesn't even know why there is a problem with gas prices in Iraq -- Saddam kept prices artificially low and psychologically, the Iraqis can't cope with the 10x price jump required to bring prices to market levels. The gas shortage logically follows. If you keep charging socialist prices in an open market, yes you will have severe shortages.

It's a racist, ignorant piece. I imagine it's "retaliation" for Wolfowitz's remarks about reporters being a bunch of lazy wusses, reporting from hotels.
Posted by: 11A5S   2004-06-30 9:02:44 AM  

#5  I must say, I don't think I've ever read an article that started off with such a nasty tone. I had to stop after the second paragraph. What's wrong with this asscork?
Posted by: Anonymous5460   2004-06-30 9:00:09 AM  

#4  Has anybody seen the roses? Let chaos reign !
Posted by: Anonymous55238   2004-06-30 7:34:32 AM  

#3  These buttwipe reporters are getting so desperate of things going well that they have resorted to delusional reporting.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-30 2:29:51 AM  

#2  does newsweak hire these guys from anti-american marxisism 101 or GQ--goes on about brenner's desert boots--which are of course tres stupid to wear in the DESERT--he should wear john lobb kicks like the gucci schmuck reporter--i'm with fred/steve--put a contract out on these fuckface scumbag hotshit reporters--feed 'em to zarquari--86 the newsweak journalists in pairs--these guys---must have gone to the sorbonne they're so simplistically stoopid,venally arrogant and morally bankrupt
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2004-06-30 2:15:49 AM  

#1  Oh come on... this is so over the top it's funny as hell. Don't get so wound up about it.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-06-30 1:08:01 AM  

00:00