Posted on 12/05/2008 6:32:48 PM PST by Bokababe
Julia Gorin discusses the WSJ's James Taranto's gingerly distaste for Dutch freedom warrior Geert Wilders, and related matters:
Over the weekend, Robert Spencer called out Wall St. Journal drone James Taranto on his cynicism about the intentions of the man who is most adamant about preserving Western civilization, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Specifically, as Spencer points out, Taranto finds Wilders’ views on Islam “problematic” and isn’t sure whether or not Geert Wilders is simply an "anti-Islamic provocateur." To which Spencer replies, “It is a pity that Taranto would characterize speaking accurately about how Muslims use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and Islamic supremacism as being an ‘anti-Islamic provocateur.’"
Indeed, it’s like calling a public official an “anti-rapist provocateur,” or “anti-Manson-cult provocateur.” Taranto is also skeptical when Wilders “insists that his antagonism toward Islam reflects no antipathy toward Muslims.” On which Spencer again calls Taranto: “When a writer uses ‘insists,’ generally he thinks that the facts are other than whatever position his subject is insisting upon. In other words, Taranto here seems to reveal his own assumption that someone who reports and warns about Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism is doing so simply out of some irrational ‘antipathy toward Muslims.’”...
(Excerpt) Read more at jihadwatch.org ...
I read the article on Geert Wilder. We could use thousands like him in positions of power worldwide. He tells the truth about Islam, and of course, this makes Muslims and leftists mad.
And as for the WSJ in general - they lost my “re-up” due to their 0bamaganda on their “news” pages prior to the election.
...Let’s see, FOX is flushed, now WJS is flushed, while yer at it, give us a list of repub individuals that are near and dear to yer heart...
Wilders is right; Taranto is wrong; way off the mark.
I used to be a big fan, but I haven’t read Taranto since he became Bruce Bartlett’s parakeet, investing half of his page for a week to spreading lies about the Fair Tax, all of which Boortz refuted with several pages of fact and a new book. Boortz invited Taranto on his show to debate him on it, and the weenie never responded.
Won’t go back until the WSJ finds a new editorial page handler...
“Let’s see, FOX is flushed, now WJS is flushed”
And what do the two have in common? Rupert Murdoch.
Word on the blogs is Rupert issued an edict barring provocation of the Obama regime.
One would do better here to actually read the article instead of someone’s slamming of it. The WSJ is an excellent newspaper. Taranto’s take on Geert Wilders was overwhelmingly favorable.
The establishment is not, never was, never will be conservative or for the people. They are a variant of elitist trash. Conservatives had better wake up and realize that they have have no venue except talk radio and the internet and we are about to lose those as well. We put all our eggs in one basket and we are about to lose that basket.
Shhh. Don't get in the way of those who allow other to think for them.
GW Bump!
Yes, he was a milquetoast weenie on BO’s BC—and he managed to be offensive and insulting while spewing misinformation on it all at the same time!
OK, here's the original profile of Wilders by Taranto I read it and I would not call it "overwhelmingly favorable". I would call it conflicted and noncommittal -- which I suppose passes for "favorable" these days. I didn't learn anything from the article that I didn't already know, and I wasn't left with any deep burning questions about how to resolve the issue either. In fact, to me, Taranto made even Geert Wilders -- one of the more controversial politicians on the planet -- seem rather bland and ho-hum.
Personally, I think that Taranto has a case of elitist ennui -- terminal boredom resulting from sheer arrogance which can be quite terminal for the career of a journalist. When the writer is perpetually bored, so is the reader.
The WSJ IS the best paper we've got at the moment -- but that isn't saying much.
It is no accident that every time I ever approached the Wall St. Journal’s editors with a war-on-terror-related Balkans story, the response was: “Oh, Balkans stuff? Try the European edition.” It is therefore no accident that just two months after 9/11, when a WSJ article extensively outlined bin Laden’s Kosovo/Albania connections, it was WSJ-Europe. Since then, I’ve noticed that all such articles are relegated to the European or Asian editions of the paper (with the exception of this past year, when the Balkans once again demanded reluctant attention).
Unfortunately, the average American couldn't even tell you where Kosovo (or BiH) is located.
All the American people get is a word like "genocide" for thrown at 'em from someone like Christine Ammanpour (CNN) which grabs their attention and she subsequently blames Serbs for everything.
Case in point: Take a look at what CNN (Ammanpour) presented last week on the situation in Bosnia 1992-95 in terms of the topic of "genocide."
Any uninformed person (after viewing her presentation) would conclude that the Bosnian Serbs behaved in a manner akin to Nazis during WW2...i.e. concentration camps, etc. She completely leaves out the actions of Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Croats....amazing.
Case closed.
Now, the very same madmen support a kind of totalitarianism where breakup of human spirit is an integral part of the oppresive scheme. The term ISLAM means "submission". Good Muslim is one who has NO FREE WILL, but is completely in submission.
No wonder MSM supports Islamofascists.
All sadly true.
CNN's Balkan reporting is a real question mark in the sense that they are either really, really sloppy -- or they have an angle that they aren't willing to change even if they have to manipulate the facts to sell their BS.
In July of this year when they showed the riots in Belgrade, CNN intercut footage from a riot in Budapest just to up the excitement. The footage clearly shows Hungarian flags and a subway station that Belgrade doesn't have. They got caught by bloggers, but not one major news agency or CNN itself, ever commented on it.
And then today, CNN ran a story on "The Hunt for Mladic", and used a photo of Serbian politician, Tomislav Nikolic instead of one of Mladic. Nikolic says that he is going to sue CNN.Wonder if this story will get buried too?
As for that Amanpour special on genocide, we knew that it was coming. Most American Serbs were furious about it. For me, it's been more of a, "So what else is new? The Genocide Queen, Amanpour, returns with her same old bag of lies and half-truths, just in time for the Clinton II Administration of Barrack Obama. It's to be expected."
No one really knows or cares that Amanpour was born in Iran, or that her husband, Jamie Rubin is now an advisor to both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, just as he was the State Department spokesman during the first Clinton Administration.
In short, Amanpour is a State Department shill, willing to say anything to further her husband's career -- and her own. And we let her get away with it because there is nothing we can do to stop the BS from getting piled higher and higher.
you forgot to mention that he also squandered a good part of whatever credibility he had in the bargain.
I remember reading that and thinking it was a Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde moment for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.