AP., Gonzo, and those pesky "suicidal" insurgents

Within the past hour I had a peak at the local hard copy news paper for today 061207. Two articles, both appearing on the same Nation front page got my attention oddly enough to tickle my funny bone. One was on the circus that is the recent Gonzalez nationwide firing (of high level lawyers) spree that has since been parlayed into "Senate Showdown". The other was pretty much the same kind of daily routine "X number of U.S. Soldiers killed today" that has become one of MSM's calling cards of the past many weeks of day by day reporting "war updates" that are not really updates to speak of other than more death being reported from this  U.S.- instigated terror that is otherwise being promoted as "Iraq War".  Both were AP articles and as is the nature of AP articles, what AP considers the "same story" of theirs does not remain for long in the exact same version it may appear in throughout a given day or news-reporting period. As confirmation of this, the hard copy versions I just read were etched in AP stone most likely during the wee hours in order to make print deadlines for this early A.M.'s delivery schedules locally. Having just gone and searched AP affiliates on-line to see if there was still be found an identical e-version, there was no such luck. The good news is, enough info has been provided thus far for pretty much anyone to do their own searching of AP affiliate's reporting for today so as to  figure out which basic "stories" are in play here.

An aspect of the Iraq story that really drew my attention  enough that I in turn point it out here, was found in the hard-copy versions but not, co-incidentally, in the first handfull of online versions I just searched for. The hard-copy war story  included a complimentary map-photo of the area in question near Baghdad just in case there are readers out there somewhere who already do not know, roughly, where Baghdad is. This map was attempting to pinpoint for the reader where the U.S. service people in question met their demise as reported by AP this morning. This map included a few of the routine graphic helpers to help the reader drill down on what it was MSM was trying to draw attention to; specific locations, each indicated by a star, with accompanying captions further instructing that the stars indicated more precise locations around Baghdad where "bombings by suicidal insurgents killed  X number of U.S. combatants". There were two such stars accompanying the hard copy version read a little over an hour ago. The thing that catches my attention with this kind of repeat MSM tactic & language is the glaring use in this case of the repeat adjective "suicidal" in conjunction with "insurgents". This in turn puts me to mind wondering if MSM is subtly trying to get in an implied jab. Are they possibly suggesting that there is something relatively unworthy, unbecoming of war-time behavior, in terms of tallying war casualties collected by each side? Are they attempting to contrast or compare, through repeatedly portraying death tallies that occured on one side as a result of yet again more of those bastards !   "suicidal insurgents", as opposed to, say, those kinds of tallies wracked up by those "shining beacons of freedom worldwide U.S. Combatant Killer soldiers working hard to protect democracy "?

Warmongers historically have been quoted often, repeatedly and gratuitously, ad infinitem, of such quotable nuggets as "War is war". This is to say  "nugget" in this instance, if one is willing to consider, wearing the same set of undies for 9 days straight, without toilet paper throughout, after which said ripe undies are removed, wadded up, stuffed into one's mouth like so much chewing tobacco, as a speciment nugget in this context. War is war, war is hell, yada yada yada, right? Dead counts are dead counts no matter how the dead came to be counted that way, right? Somehow I get the idea that MSM is trying to imply that those GD insurgents are not playing fair, not following good war-time sportsmanship in picking off the U.S. combatants in the manner that they have and continue to.

Reminder to MSM: the terror being promoted as a war in question just happened to be instigated by the side which, coincidentally, owns & sponsors those GD U.S. combatants. Whether you like it or not, when one picks a fight, especially when one unnecessarily picks a fight upon a far inferior opponent, one should not be expected to subsequently be given forum to whine and complain about how the fight picker has subsequently succeeded in getting it's nose bloodied in the ongoing fight which it provoked in the first place. Also remember that conservatively speaking, the vast majority of deaths inflicted upon the Iraqis by the U.S., collectively, have been tallied in the hundreds of thousands, itself orders of magnitude greater numbers than the relative few occuring on by way of Iraqi "rebels"... "insurgents" and otherwise; hundreds of thousands of deaths that by and large have occured mostly absent any particular heroic behavior of U.S. combatants, per se, but more so delivered through the sky by U.S. combatant fly boys and boat boys projecting mass terror through the skies to land upon non-insurgent, unarmed, non-combatant Iraqi women, children and men. Is suicidal insurgent methodlology somehow to be perceived as significantly less wimpy, less manly, less honorable than fly boys, tank boys and boat boys & girls dropping terror from safe distances?

The war-time news art of portraying home-side methods in one way as honorable, and enemy-side deaths another way as unbecoming, is disgusting & cowardly at best, even by MSM's low-ball standards, and comical at worst; recalls to mind the once infamous U.S.-sponsored puppet - Idi Amin, who's victims habitually met their demise by "oooh, veeery sad, bus crash". Either way, dead is dead, it's time you - MSM, realized as much and move onto some other new or at least different horizon in the daily droppings of what you consider your art of propagandizing / mis-informing / dis-informing & deceiving by way of war-time play by play.

Here is an on-line copy of the other AP story I read in hard copy earlier today. The online version I found does not contain the same convoluted quote alleged to have been uttered by Mr Gonzalez in offering some nuggets of wisdom in his own defense.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/oniWire/oniWireDetails.asp?articleID=23544&s...

The quote in question now missing from the online version went something like this. Gonzalez said (paraphrased)  "I do not care what the Senate is trying to do to me, therefore I am not focusing on what the Senate is presently attempting to do with respect to me and my recent spate of firings. I am focusing on what the people expect from their Attorney General".  

This particular quote of double-speak immediately put me to mind of the movie Volunteers, wherein the dastardly government-puppet Chung Mee (read: military officer, in this instance) was given to say "the bridge means more people... more people mean more drugs... more drugs mean more money ... more money mean more power... more power mean more money", into which one Lawrence Bourne III interjected "er, wait a minute, I thought you just said more drugs mean more money?", and Chung Mee sternly replied "more money mean more money!".

A question for Mr. Gonzalez. How, generally, does he expect, plan or envision coming to know what the people expect of him, especially if he is focused on not focusing on what the Senate has to say of him? Based on election system theory, the people are re presented by their elected officials. Rumor has it that in the present, Senators are known loosley as a specimen example  of this so-called stuff re presentative of the people. Ignorring Senators implies one is ignorring what the people expect. What say you Gonzo?