Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Media — Rick Moran @ 9:47 am

This is so outrageous that I’m going to take a break from what’s happening in the Middle East long enough to spout off about this piece of jaw dropping idiocy from the New York Times.

It seems that in one of the newspaper’s online slide shows of photos from Iraq, a photographer for the paper snapped a few Polaroids of he and his buddies in the Mehdi Army killing American citizen-soldiers:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The caption under the picture reads - incredibly - “A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.” Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments:

“Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

Goldstein nails this idiocy:

Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or his bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

Hinderaker adds:

It would have required courage to hang out with the Mahdi Army, if there were any likelihood that a member of the Iraqi “insurgency” would regard a representative of the New York Times as an enemy.

Apparently this Mr. Silva has an entire book of these photos of him cozying up to the jihadis entitled Me and Mookie’s Boys or maybe its called Moral Relativism for Fun and Profit.

Whatever the real name of the book, I will not identify it nor will I link to it. And perhaps some clever reporter type may want to do an indepth interview with Mr. Silva. If he did, I’d love it if he asked the photographer the Dierks Bentley question; “What were you thinking?”

For a little perspective, let’s imagine it’s 1944 in France. Here’s the “courageous” Mr. Silva covering the invasion - from a unique vantage point.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Given the cluelessness exhibited by his editor in being so profoundly touched by his “courage,” I doubt very much if Silva or the Times gave much thought to the mother or wife of that American soldier the fanatic was killing at the time he snapped the picture.

Maybe we should ask Mr. Silva to stop by the widow’s or the mother’s house and explain himself while looking her right in the eye.

Now that would take courage.


Dan Riehl:

I’m not sure which is more disgusting, a New York Times employee observing snipers targeting our military, or the lofty prose with which they are surrounding the pictures in a new book.

Here’s what he’s talkng about. It’s a blurb selling the book:

“This photographic body of work, recorded over twelve months, richly captures the Shi’as’ intense commitment to their faith and their indomitable spirit of sacrifice.”

“Indomitable” indeed.


In my haste to compile this post, I neglected to mention that the folks at Little Green Footballs were the ones who ferreted this stupidity out in the first place.

I apologize to all Lizardoids who may have been wondering how I possibly could have forgotten them.


  1. [...] Right Wing Nuthouse is is outraged and shows what this would have looked like in WWII. [...]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » When terrorists trust you… — 7/16/2006 @ 1:13 pm

  2. [...] Rightwing Nuthouse [...]

    Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Our Treasonous New York Times — 7/16/2006 @ 1:15 pm

  3. Rick,

    From what I understand, not very many reporters actually get to tag along with our own forces, and even fewer are even liked by the soldiers. Then again not very many journalists actually have the balls of Robert Kaplan. He actually joins Specials Force Units around the world, and he is actually respected by them. Maybe the Times’ reporters felt so bad about being shunned by our military that started to field offers from various militia groups so they can report the war. Perhaps it is these new found friendships that prompted the Times to point out the weaknesses in the US Body Armor. Anyway, this is how we get back at them. We point the weaknesses in the body armor of New York Times reporters:


    Comment by Svenghouli — 7/16/2006 @ 1:24 pm

  4. Photographers are not soldiers. They are not in the midst of war to take out the enemy. They are there to take pictures.

    What would you have journalists do? Kill any enemy they see? That’s not their job. I don’t understand why some on the right don’t get this simple reality. Or is it that your hatred of all things New York Times has clouded your judgment?

    You want exposure if what’s really happening in Iraq, yet you decry the jounalists who bring it to you.

    Comment by catnip — 7/16/2006 @ 1:45 pm

  5. Journalists is what they do.

    Americans is who they are.

    Nuff said.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 7/16/2006 @ 2:03 pm

  6. catnip, hey man, the new york slimes would not kill the enemy trying to kill our guys if they had a clear shot. They are against our President, the war on Terrorism, our attemps to fight this war by leaking tid bits to the terrorists giving them complete details of how we are doing it, ect. They are the real pukes of journalism, along with the atlanta constitional and the la times and a I could add a few more.

    Comment by Drewsmom — 7/16/2006 @ 3:31 pm

  7. Trying to Control my Anger!

    I am seething over this photo and post at Little Green Footballs.
    New York Times photographer Joao Silva was right there in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mahdi Army” tried to kill American troops:
    You have to click the link and see t…

    Trackback by The Real Ugly American.com — 7/16/2006 @ 5:21 pm

  8. Catnip,

    Mercy, I guess that to be a journalist means no allegiance to any county or right or wrong. Well, If that is the case, kill all the journalists during war (works for me if that is the case). Is that blunt enough for you…

    Comment by DEagle — 7/16/2006 @ 6:08 pm

  9. [...] Then there’s Rick Moran, who I really hate to criticize as he often demonstrates signs of thinking clearly. He titles his piggyback post “New York Times: Enemy Of The People”. His angle: [...]

    Pingback by Grouchy’s Liberaltopia » Chickenhawks On Parade — 7/16/2006 @ 8:52 pm

  10. A New New New Low for the Times

    Flooding the zone - for America’s enemies. This is sad, because the Times was actually once a good newspaper. I hate that the reputation of this American institution has been thoroughly trashed by agenda-driven morons….

    Trackback by Slublog — 7/16/2006 @ 8:53 pm

  11. Just read your post, grouchy.

    Profanity and the chickenhawk argument?

    You folks have got to get some new material.

    Comment by Slublog — 7/16/2006 @ 8:57 pm

  12. An Amazing Photograph in the New York Times

    Catch the action here before the New York Times comes to its senses and deletes the web page. Photographer Joao Silva took a picture of an Al-Mahdi sniper shooting at American soldiers. Before you get too angry, it’s important to…

    Trackback by Conservative Cat — 7/17/2006 @ 12:08 am

  13. Jao Silva should be embedded with coalition special forces, then we could see true bravery at first hand. Jao might step on a mine as a bonus.

    Comment by Jefferson Ross — 7/17/2006 @ 2:26 am

  14. Furtive Glances - The Mid-Vacation Special

    I go on vacation, taking the timeliness and pertinence of this one-man show with me, and war breaks out in the middle east. Again. And there are a lot of other items of interest out there, too much to cover.

    Trackback by Joust The Facts — 7/17/2006 @ 5:32 am

  15. Talk about a win-win for the morally challenged editors at the Times. Consider what the headlines would have been had the photographer been killed by a US counter-attack on that sniper:

    US Troops Targeting Journalists in Iraq!

    Heroic Journalist Dies in US Attack!

    Comment by DaveG — 7/17/2006 @ 7:27 am

  16. [...] LGF: The Media Are Our Enemy Joao Silva * Michele McNally NYTimes photo album “In the Company of God” Goldstein * Power Line Patterico * Moran * Anchoress [...]

    Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Which side is the NYT on? — 7/17/2006 @ 8:00 am

  17. [...] Whether or not it’s a crime, it’s certainly immoral and disgusting.Why isn’t Bill Keller (the grey lady’s pimp) hauled in front of Congress to answer for his despicable moral equivalency policies? (as well as their policies of leaking national security secrets) [...]

    Pingback by The Wide Awake Cafe » Imagine - Part Two — 7/17/2006 @ 11:23 am

  18. “Just read your post, grouchy.

    Profanity and the chickenhawk argument?

    You folks have got to get some new material.”

    That wasn’t Grouchy, slublog, that was me. ‘Smatter, never swore before when you were angry? I know Rick does.

    So I used the word chickenhawk. Well, that’s what I would call someone who advocates violence without putting themeselves in danger. Argue that(Rick, please know I am not calling you one, but Jeff Goldstein, you betcha).

    As for me getting new material, perhaps you guys might like to consider some as well, like maybe something else besides calling the media traitors and enemies.

    Comment by Ron — 7/17/2006 @ 11:33 am

  19. While I am at it, not that it matters to Rick, but I may as well apologize up front to him some more. It was more Goldstein’s piece I was irritated by, but I was dismayed by your echo. Sorry for the namecalling. My senior sergeant has always told me to never punish when you are angry, and perhaps I should extend that tangentially to what I write.

    Comment by Ron — 7/17/2006 @ 11:42 am

  20. The point of the post was simple; his father or grandfather would not have done the same thing in World War II.

    And as I say above; being a journalist is what he DOES. Being an American is WHO HE IS.

    Be true to yourself first - then go out and get a story. And if the gentlemen is being true to himself by watching as the enemy kills Americans, one can legitimately question his patriotism, his motives, as well as those of his employer - the NY Times.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 7/17/2006 @ 11:50 am

  21. That wasn’t Grouchy, slublog, that was me. ‘Smatter, never swore before when you were angry? I know Rick does.

    Sorry about that. The hazards of a group blog, I suppose.

    My point is that the chickenhawk argument is a fine rhetorical device, but does little to advance the argument, as it depends entirely on the assumption that your opponent is a coward. It’s not really an argument at all, really - it’s more an ad hominem with pretensions.

    Comment by Slublog — 7/17/2006 @ 12:03 pm

  22. Whose side is the NY Times taking anyway?

    Little Green Footballs (via Ace of Spades HQ) finds a photographer for the NY Times, Joao Silva, in a very suspicious position - he took pics while a terrorist fired on US troops in Iraq

    Trackback by Tel-Chai Nation — 7/17/2006 @ 12:09 pm

  23. Don’t this guys know that all American journalists and their foreign staffs work for the CIA.

    When the guy in the picture is found next week dead in a pool of blood, remember that it was the Times journalist that turned him in.

    Just kidding or am I ?

    Comment by Neo — 7/17/2006 @ 1:26 pm

  24. Blood Money for the New York Times

    EFFETE MURDERERS: This terrorist, Joao Silva and the New York Times
    So the New York Times thinks they’ve got themselves a real scoop here. They got themselves some photos of terrorist murderers trying to kill American Soldiers! Aren’t they just some…

    Trackback by Blue Star Chronicles — 7/18/2006 @ 12:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress