Hardly a choice for the NYT

NYT faced a tough choice on Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Twitchy has this entertaining back and forth between NYT editor and a professor. (I say entertaining for lack of adjectives)

The guy, Marc Cooper, calls out the Times for not showing the cartoon culprits from Charlie Hebdo that caused 11 people to be executed. Fumbling around, the editor finally mentions being “open minded”, calls him an A-hole and storms off. The irony of lecturing him on open mindedness when being so close-minded about showing cartoons.

Then there was a rationale piece in NYT about its decision. As usual the explanation sounded as bad as their decision. The title was appropriately called:

A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

Mr. Baquet [editor] told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.

He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

“I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”

Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers.

See Public Editor’s Journal

Okay, so the NYT was actually on the fence about publishing but then decided no it wouldn’t. So did that count for a ‘we almost did publish it, but decided not to? We were very close, and seriously considered it.’ Two points to NYT, for almost publishing it. It is the thought that counts, right? So he did it to protect….

But Twitchy captured the back and forth PC theatrics of the editor trying to rationalize it. Now maybe the NYT should have first consulted with their gal Hillary Clinton, who wrote a book on the topic called “Hard Choices”? Then again, maybe not. Scratch that…lol

Ref: Facebook page Marc Cooper

Face of Islam

Alton Nolen in Oklahoma is the latest face of Islam, for now but only until another comes out to take his place in a similar spurt of evil anti-humanity. It made the three bullets of a gun priceless.

What do we know? Well, he had a Facebook where he laid out his profession of evil. It makes me wonder: if Hitler was alive today, what might we see on his Facebook or Twitter feed? Among the graphic artwork he displayed were his rants laced with the religious jargon of a terrorist.

Compare it to his past that is reported like a mosaic, in and out of prison, attack on a cop prior to this. Then we have the gem of a rant on the social ills of AmeriKa. Ain’t it just like an ex-con?

So let me grapple with that dynamic. He lectures America (US) on the finer ethics of society, according to him anyway. The guy has a record half a mile long and he’s a self-anointed doctor diagnosing society? It sounds eerily similar to someone else who lives on Pennsylvania Ave. I guess this is another one of Obama’s kids. Runs in the family.

He apparently never got the memo from our dubious pretender that he was not Islamic, and what he was doing was not Islamic. So maybe there is some twisted point in what Obama says, maybe these people are not Islamic enough?

RightRing | Bullright

Dempsey under the gun

Joint Chiefs Chairman Testifies He Was Not Directly Involved in Failure to Prepare for Benghazi Terror Attack

Dempsey says Joint Staff discussed pre-9/11 security with White House

BY: Bill Gertz | Free Beacon
October 11, 2013

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this week that he was not directly involved in preparations by the U.S. military and security forces to respond to possible attacks on the anniversary of the 9/11 terror strikes.

Dempsey told the House armed services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, which is investigating the failed military response to the terror attack in Benghazi, that Joint Staff officials coordinated with the White House on pre-Sept. 11 preparations, according to a congressional aide.

The closed-door testimony raised further questions among investigators looking into why the White House published a statement Sept. 10, 2012—a day before the Benghazi attack—that the United States was ready for any attacks, a committee aide said.

U.S. military forces were unable to defend or rescue scores of U.S. diplomatic and intelligence personnel who were attacked at a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby Central Intelligence Agency facility on Sept. 11, 2012.

The attack by several dozen armed terrorists, some equipped with mortars, killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. Several others were wounded.

Rep. Martha Roby (R., Ala.), chairman of the subcommittee, said she questioned Dempsey about the U.S. military posture during the hearing Thursday.

“General Dempsey confirmed that while he was not personally involved in that review, elements of the Joint Staff were,” Roby said in a statement. “His description of the process leads me to conclude that while it may have allowed the White House to issue a comforting press release, it was far from the rigorous examination and preparation the security of the American people deserved.”

Dempsey repeated earlier statements that no heroic action by the military could overcome “our lack of preparedness during the horrible Benghazi attack,” Roby said.

“We simply were not postured to respond in time,” she said. “I continue to be concerned that more than a year after the attack, our posture has not improved enough to sufficiently mitigate the risks to Americans serving overseas and in harm’s way.”

More> http://freebeacon.com/joint-chiefs-chairman-testifies-he-was-not-directly-involved-in-failure-to-prepare-for-benghazi-terror-attack/

Drip, drip, drip…. the ever-evolving, musical stories. It doesn’t add up. Which is it?
“Not personally involved in that review” — it got personal afterward, I suppose.