I received email from a few readers of this site to say they heard me referred to on a CSPAN panel discussion (we defnitely get a tony crowd) as a “Koch Democrat”. Well, as it happens I am on the email list of the former NYC mayor and I received the following today in my inbox – a copy of a Letter to the Editor ‘Hizzoner’ sent to The New York Times on September 21:
In today’s article reporting the decapitation by terrorists in Iraq of American civilian Eugene Armstrong, The Times reporter wrote:
“In the video of the beheading, an insurgent wearing a ski mask and surrounded by four men with assault rifles says the group is killing Mr. Armstrong because the American occupiers and the interim Iraqi government failed to meet the deadline. Much of the man’s long speech is addressed to President Bush, who is called a dog at one point.”
Please note that the news article omitted an important part of the story which was the exact phrase uttered by the executioner at the time he cut Armstrong’s throat and severed his head from his body. That phrase was, “Oh you Christian dog, Bush, stop your arrogance.”
The reference to President Bush by the terrorist strengthens the belief of many that we are involved in a war of civilizations. Fanatic Islamists believe that Christians and Jews who do not recognize the supremacy of Islam should die. That awful message is part of the story and The Times erred in not carrying that quote which many other papers did.
Lee Hamilton, Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, has said in describing Muslim terrorists, “They want to kill us.” Why? Because those making up western civilization and its ideas which Jihad is bent on destroying are overwhelming Christians and Jews. I believe it is President Bush’s faith that gives him the strength to stay with and implement the Bush Doctrine which is, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
Your reporter refers to the spokesman for the murderers as an “insurgent.” What would it take for The Times to call someone who has just participated in the beheading of an innocent civilian a terrorist? I am sure the public would like to know.
I’m sure they would too. Readers of this blog know that I, like the Mayor, have for some time put the word “insurgents” in scare quotes because I believe it is a propagandistic lie. [Is there something about an ex-mayor of New York that makes you an honest politician? Do they inject them with a truth serum or something? First Koch... then Giuliani.--ed. Well, maybe not all of them - but two of them. Not a bad percentage in politics.]
Although I have rarely agreed with his politics, I’ve always loved Ed Koch. There’s just something genuine about the man.
Go, Ed! Give ‘em hell.
It is hard to conceive of such mindless hatred.
I fear the day will come when most people, whether they want to or not, will think homocidal maniac when they hear the word Muslim.
And that is what the terrorists want. They want us to hate all Muslims so that they can have their holy war. Jihad is all there is.
Christian Europe had the Renaissance, all the Arab world has had in the last several hundred years is poverty, ignorance and hatred.
All that oil wealth and not one world class universtiy. No medical or scientific advancements. No increase in literacy or standard of living. No large busiess concerns other than oil that can employ or had wealth and diversity to the economy.
Other than crude oil which nature left beneath the sands,their only export is terror. And their only hope is men like Allawi.
Christian dog. How medieval.
For the Times to stop referring to them as ‘insurgents’ one of two things must happen:
A: A nuclear event in some major city (I’m not sure Akron
or Tulsa will do) or
B: Frank Rich is standing near by when a truck bomb goes off and he gets a splinter in his pinky.
We’ve spent a lot of time on Rathergate and media bias, but I think there is a deeper and much, much more troubling story regarding the western media.
There was an article posted a few days ago on LGF that was very disturbing. The gist of it is that Canwest, a Canadian newspaper chain, had began substituting the word Terrorist for insurgent (or whatever else they use) in stories about the more Islamist actions they pulled off the Rueters wire.
Rueters objected to this edit, and requested that Canwest drop the Rueters’ byline if such edits were made in the future. This position was explained in the article by a New York Times quote:
Endanger their reporters? They are so frightened that a word change in Canadian papers intimidates them? If a simple word scares them so badly, how can they possibly file a credible story?
We all recall the depths that CNN sunk to so they could have cameras on the roof of the Al Rashied Hotel when the bombs started to drop. Increasingly, in the coverage of the WOT, the press is prostituting itself — not so much from bias, although that certainly is a factor — but from fear of the Islamists.
Rathergate was bad, bias is pervasive, but the deeper problem is reporters running de facto Islamist propoganda out of fear. Imagine Goebbels determining the tone of Ernie Piles dispatches. How does that serve the public?
“What would it take for someone who has just carried out a
beheading to be described as a terrorist?” Obviously, this
will not happen until the terrorists saw the head off a New
York Times reporter with a dull knife. Daniel Pearl doesn’t
count because he worked for The Wall Street Journal, a
wicked tool of the Right-Wing Conspiracy.
Is there something about an ex-mayor of New York that makes you an honest politician? Do they inject them with a truth serum or something? First Koch… then Giuliani. [...]
And what a contrast they are with that ineffectual nonentity David Dinkins. You’d think he no longer had any connection with New York.
ambi:
I think you are right. They are scared. They see themselves as targets.
I was thinking about this earlier, if all the reporters left Baghdad, how many of the terrorists would go with them? How much of this is about the media and its use to them?
In other words, if they could not make a snuff film, would they bother killing a random American? If they could not jump up and down on a Humvee in front of the cameras would they bother blowing it up?
How much of all this is for our benefit?
I hate to get a little bit off topic—but I hope Ed Koch will also take a leading role in the Dan Rather fiasco. My impression is that a whitewash is currently taking place. The mess will be studied to death, a few people will be fired, and everything else will essentially remain the same. More importantly, the Democratic Party of Terry McAuliffe will escape unscathed. Thatís not tolerable. Ed Koch could save the day.
Mike G ó Don’t forget Abe Beame…
Richard,
Better toss in Fiorello LaGuardia. He did more to clean up corruption in NY than was considered possible. Very interesting fellow.
Rick ó As a New Yorker (lapsed), I gua-ran-fucking-tee you I am not putting Abe Beame in the same class with La Guardia… and maybe not the same species…
” Fanatic Islamists believe that Christians and Jews who do not recognize the supremacy of Islam should die.”
The hope of the anti-war crowd is that this war is about the behavior of the West, and if we change our behavior they will stop killing us. But, sadly, it is existential. They kill us because of who we are, not what we do.
Potential cheap shot, potential overtaken-by-events comment ahead.
Ed Koch is mentioned in Chapter 3 of the 9/11 commission staff report:
“…In 1996, a new law enabled the INS to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies through which the INS would provide training and the local agencies would exercise immigration enforcement authority. [281] Terrorist watchlists would not be made available to them. Such agreements were voluntary, and only Salt Lake Cityóunsuccessfullyóattempted to take advantage of the law. Moreover, in prior years mayors of cities with large immigrant populations sometimes imposed limits on city employee cooperation with federal immigration agents. [282]
Footnote 282: This ìsanctuaryî policy was first published by Mayor Edward Koch on August 7, 1989, and directed city ìline workersî who had contact with the public to not transmit information respecting any alien to federal immigration authorities. However, it exempted the police and the Department of Corrections and directed them to continue to work with federal authorities ìin investigating and apprehending aliens suspected of criminal activity.î Koch, executive order, Aug. 7, 1989.”
Roger, I searched in vain for the Ed Koch list serve information you referenced. Are you willing to share that information with me (us)?
Memo to Mayor Ed Koch,
How does your concern for US national security and the safety of Israel gibe with your desire for the Democrats to win in the 2006 national elections? With their latest calls to cut and run from Iraq and their defense of the traitorous leaks from the CIA the Democrats continue to show that they should never be trusted with our national security again.