This is infuriating. HotAir, Michelle Malkin, and others have covered this and there's not much to add because I think we're all equally outraged at the "rules of engagement" that led to this Clinton style bungle. Kerry Sanders originally broke this story, and has details on the photo release.

Anyway, here's the deal. We had an undetected drone spot over 100 taliban fighters standing in formation at a funeral in Afghanistan. Excited Army officers quickly had the wind taken out of their sails when folks higher up in the chain of command said a strike was a no go because apparently our self imposed rules of engagement forbid attacking terrorists at a funeral.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal or against Geneva Conventions (not that ununiformed soldiers that don't fight for a particular country are entitled to Geneva Convention rights anyway). Judge Napolitano broke it down on Gibson today, and to sum up this was basically a stupid decision in an effort to appear civil to people that don't car about civility! There was nothing that forced us to pass on this massive target, other than our own "let's play nice" rules. This is crap. I just mentioned the other day that this mentallity is our biggest weakness and we need to cut the crap and get tough.

Remember the fiasco in Iraq when terrorists were hiding in hospitals, mosques, and schools. They fired out but we wouldn't fire back in. Actually this is still going on today. These sorts of rules are our weakness and get our military folks killed. It's the same as this funeral incident. We try to play nice with terrorists... why? I don't think anyone wants to argue that we're trying to show good will to the Taliban, in hopes that they'll "see the light" or something. The argument you'll probably hear is that we're trying to be sensitive to everyone in the region, but come on. If they're going to get made about it, you know who's side they're on anyway. There's comes a time when we need to decide if we are trying to win these wars, and stop all these politically correct tactics. How many people will now die at the hands of these 100+ Taliban fighters?

 

If you've actually been paying attention to the U.S. economy under the Bush administration, you're aware that it's been nothing short of great for most of the Bush administrations time in office, since troubles from the Clinton-Gore recession and 9/11. While all sectors of real estate were hitting record levels month after month for years under Bush, the necessary slow-down has begun and the media has been rushing to spell doom for the economy through alarmist headlines, and spun articles. They were even doing this during continual record growth over the past two and three years, insisting a "crash" was imminent, but as predicted by any realisting non-BDS suffering economist, we're experiencing a necessary and healthy slowdown, particularly as the fed raises interest rates to slow inflation.

But the housing sector doesn't even scratch the surface of the media lies that are leaving most people giving negative numbers on the economy, while giving positive numbers to their own situation. I love these numbers because they prove that people are being lied to or they wouldn't think that their own positive situation was a fluke, while knocking the economy as a whole. The major problem with all of this, is that a recent Fox News poll shows that the economy is the number 1 issue on voters' minds as the midterm elections approach. Let's take a closer look at the numbers and the lies.

The jobs numbers are out today, showing that another 128,000 jobs were created last month, which brings us to more than 5.5 million jobs created in the last 3 years! This also brought the unemployment rate back down to 4.7%, from the slight increase to 4.8% in the previous month. Even if the number had stayed at 4.8, it would have still been great and lower than the average of the 70s, 80s and 90s! Better still, wages grew faster than inflation.

I do have to say that this is probably the most fair AP story I've read on the economy in recent months, though you can still sense that they're looking for something negative to print, just not as hard as usual:

The tally of new jobs last month was slightly stronger than the 125,000 that economists were forecasting. The nation's unemployment rate dropped down a notch from a five-month high of 4.8 percent in July. Job gains for June and July also turned out to be better than previously estimated. In June, employers boosted payrolls by 134,000 positions and in July they added another 121,000.

See, what is the point of that "five-month high" line? An average reader sees "unemployment was at a high", they don't know that 4.8 is still a historically low unemployment rate and barely up from the previous months which obvioiusly were also historically low, especially in an economy after the recession, 9/11, expensive wars, the New Orleans situation (that I refuse to call "Katrina"). This leaves the impression that the drop to 4.7 was some sort of fluke, when in fact it's part of the low unemployment trend. But as I said, this AP article was much more fair than most, and this is a minor offense. I do have to give them credit for including this:

Workers' average hourly earnings edged up to $16.79 in August, a 0.1 percent increase from July. Economists were forecasting a bigger, 0.3 percent advance. While workers welcome strong wage growth, economists worry that a rapid and prolonged pickup in wages can ignite inflation fears.

Over the 12 months ending August, wages grew by a strong 3.9 percent. The last time this figure was higher was in June 2001.

Oddly "Consumer Confidence" dropped, but "Consumer Spending" rose. I'm not an economist, but those two numbers would seem to contradict eachother. More importantly, I've isolated a flat out AFP lie in the short article on consumer spending growth. The whole article follows:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US consumer spending has rallied strongly in July but incomes fell, according to the government.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that personal spending rose 0.8 percent last month, after going up 0.4 percent in June. It was the fastest pace of spending since January.

Personal incomes rose 0.5 percent, a slower pace than June's increase of 0.6 percent.

Both releases were in line with Wall Street forecasts.

I hope I don't need to spell that out for you, but on the assumption a liberal might be reading this... The very first sentence says that income FELL. But by the time you get to the third paragraph you learn that it simply GREW at a slightly slower rate, but didn't fall by any means. This is one of those situations where you libs can't spin this. That first line is a lie any way you slice it.

Still with me? I'm just laying the groundwork, because the poll responses are when the issue will really sink in, so hang in there. So far we know GDP and job growth continue to be strong, the unemployment rate remains historically low, wages are increasing, etc. etc. But as you're about to see, the public continues to be very down on the economy. Of course the liberal response is "the growth only helps the rich, and the economy is bad for the average person". Well, as I've done for months (see here, here, and here), I'm about to do a preemptive strike on those sort of responses, because the fact is that most people ARE happy with their own financial situation. (All numbers that follow via American Research Group, Inc.)

First I always like to start with the biggest proof that the public is being lied to about the economy: the recession question. Consistently only about half of the country knows that we are NOT in a recession, the other half either believes that we are or is undecided. For starters there shouldn't be "undecided" because recession is an absolute, either we are or we aren't, it's not an opinion.. And the fact is WE AREN'T. Here are the numbers:

How can only half of the country not know that we aren't in a recession? The only logical conclusion is that they are getting bad information, and where do they get their information? The news media! How can 28% be so stupid to think that we are in recession, and another 22% be unsure about something that isn't an opinion question!? How!?

Before I get to the public's view of their own financial situation, here's their opinion of the economy:

Ouch! 55% see the economy either bad, very bad, or terrible, while only 44% see it as good, very good, or excellent. As bad as that is, it's actually a sharp jump from July's numbers where 68% rated the economy in the negative columns, and only 31% positively, but it still doesn't jibe with the personal situation numbers:

Whoa! 68% of the public is happy with their own financial situation, while only 31% aren't!!! Again, how do you explain this discrepency, without concluding that the public has been lied to, leaving them with the impression that they are the lucky flukes in an economy in the crapper. It probably doesn't help that virtually everytime positive economic numbers are reported, it's always with words like "unexpected" or "surprising", again leaving people with the impression the growth is out of the ordinary, while the numbers show the economy has been booming, and only in recent months has it even begun the necessary slow down to maintanable levels that won't cause inflation to go out of control.

Like with all lying liberal media issues, the big problem is that their lies (obviously) affect public opinion, and public opinion dictates how the public votes. We've got an extremely important election coming up in which the public puts the economy above terror and Iraq on their "what is important to me" scale, an economy they have a negative opinion about, because they were lied to. This of course carries across all things from national security to wars to immigration, but this is the easiest example to lay out with irrefutable facts. Please, tell your liberal friends that any financial upturn they've had isn't luck and they aren't in the minority. Or you could just wait for speaker Pelosi to come in and waste our time and money with a series of pointless investigations.

Oh, and suck on this White House summary:

On August 4, 2006, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 113,000 Jobs Created In July. The economy has created more than 1.7 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.5 million jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent – below the average of each of the past three decades. In addition, wages grew 0.4 percent in July, the second consecutive month of strong wage growth and faster than inflation.

The Economy Remains Strong, And The Outlook Is Favorable

• Employment Increased In 47 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In June.
• Real GDP Grew A Strong 3.5 Percent Over The Past 4 Quarters.
• Productivity Has Grown At A Strong 3.5 Percent Annual Rate Since The First Quarter Of 2001. Productivity growth during the past five years has been at the fastest rate in nearly four decades.
• Real After-Tax Income Has Risen By 13.5 Percent Since January 2001.
• Industrial Production Increased 4.5 Percent Over The Past 12 Months.
• Manufacturing Production Has Risen 5.7 Percent Over The Past 12 Months. Manufacturing productivity has grown 4 percent over the past four quarters, faster than the 3.7 percent average growth in the 1990s.
• Strong Growth Is Helping Raise More Tax Revenues For The Federal And State Governments. In 2005, Federal tax revenues grew by $274 billion, the largest increase in 24 years, and State tax revenues are up substantially in 2006.

 

*(Scroll for actually city council resolution blocking this)*

When will the elected officials of my state stop embarassing us? If it's not Howard Dean and his "Civil Unions" it's Howard Dean screaming like a mental patient after the Iowa primaries... YAAAAAARGH. If it's not having U.S. Senate candidate and current congressman from VT Bernie Sanders being the only self-proclaimed socialist in Washington, it's crazy hippy ladies coming home after visiting their online Pakistani boyfriends in their homeland, flying with banned weapons and peeing on the floor of the plane. If it's not Howard Dean saying... well, I'll stop there because that could go on forever and I really haven't kept up with updating my Dean's List anyway.

It would seem that Vermont politicians are in a competition to prove their idiocy. Well, the mayor of Burlington (Vermont's largest city), Bernie Jr. Bob Kiss actually proposed making the city a sanctuary for illegal immigrants!!! I'm not putting on some Republican spin job, this is what he did. Luckily the city attorney and council wasn't having it, but he actually made the attorney look in to it. Locals may be familiar with the story already, but having not moved back until late June, I hadn't heard about it until my brother mentioned it to me at Al's French Fries earlier last night.

I figured he must have heard wrong, so I did a quick search and sadly I quickly discoverd via Burlington's City Council Agenda that he was all too right. What kind of fricken' twilight zone city do I live in? A mayor encouraging mass criminal activity by attempting to set up his city to host illegal immigrants. Not to mention that with the insanely high cost of living here, the last thing one should do is bring in a bunch of cheap labor.

Now for the goods... The City Council's resolution, blocking this crap after the mayor asked the city attorney to look in to implementing the "concept". Incase you don't have Acrobat to read the PDF, I've decided to reproduce the whole document below. Again, why should this even have to have been done?

CITY ATTORNEY EFFORTS ON SANCTUARY CITY CONCEPT

In the year Two Thousand Six………………………………………………………………
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows:

That WHEREAS, the Mayor of Burlington, the Honorable Bob Kiss, has proposed designating the City as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and directed the eminent City Attorney, Joseph E. McNeil, Esq., to research how such a concept could be implemented; and

WHEREAS, since the concept of a sanctuary city entails a municipality adopting a policy which would forbid its officials, including police, from inquiring into anyone's immigration status or cooperating with immigration officials, such a policy thus creates a safe haven for illegal immigrants by condoning their violation of Federal law; and

WHEREAS, while the United States is an immigrant nation and has been made great by the contributions of those who have come to our shores; and

WHEREAS, while we are all the children of immigrants and strongly support legal immigration, to become a sanctuary city would not only condone but encourage violation of Federal law on the subject and serve as an insult to the many millions of people who strove for the privilege of building their lives in this nation while adhering to the law; and

WHEREAS, in 1996, the United States Congress passed two bills enacted into law which dealt with the concept, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, both of which were later upheld and under which state and local governments can no longer prohibit employees from inquiring about immigration status or reporting to immigration authorities; and

WHEREAS, the Deputy Chief of the Burlington Police Department noted in response to the concept of a sanctuary city that law enforcement officers are bound to uphold federal laws on immigration and to make reports to immigration authorities; and

WHEREAS, however, it is not currently the practice of the Burlington Police Department, or any other City entity, to seek out illegal immigrants; and

WHEREAS, any influx of illegal immigrants to Burlington as a result of implementing the sanctuary city concept could place added burdens upon City social services and infrastructure at a time when both the municipal budget is overburdened with costs, to the extent that the Kiss Administration is proposing a 9% increase in property taxes that does not even include an educational tax component, and there is a serious affordable housing crisis; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney has stated that his research indicates that while the criminal laws regarding immigration issues must be enforced, the civil laws are more complicated and has further stated that there will be "no recommendation from the City Attorney's Office that would involve anything less than full enforcement of our criminal laws. And with regard to the civil statutes there's a great deal of policy discussion that will have to take place between the research that we found and any implementation."; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office already has extensive tasks to complete on behalf of the City such as, most prominently and most importantly to the City Council, the Zoning Re-Write; and

WHEREAS, while the City Attorney's Office has always most ably and professionally served Burlington, there is a limit to how many demands can be placed upon its Staff and resources, particularly at this busy time; and

WHEREAS, since the Burlington City Council must ultimately approve any implementation of the sanctuary city concept;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does not now wish to consider the sanctuary city concept; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council therefore directs the City Attorney's Office to terminate both any of its further research efforts into and any of its further development of a proposal for implementing the sanctuary city concept.

lj/KAS/c: Resolutions/City Attorney Efforts on Sanctuary City Concept
6/8/06

 

Associated Press headline: Rockets hit Lebanon despite cease-fire

Regular readers know that a favorite pastime of mine is busting Yahoo! and the AP for their misleading or outright lying headlines. Sometimes it's the AP's own headlines, other times Yahoo! reveals their own bias by changing a perfectly good AP headline to a misleading or lying one, often only for the purpose of displaying it on their home page (to mislead headline skimmer types). (For a few examples see here, here, here, and here)

The blame for today's example rests on the AP's shoulders, because as we see here other's picking up the story are using the same headline. Worse than the fact that the AP is up to the old tricks again, is the fact that I wasn't the one who found it this time! Credit for today's find goes to 7 Deadly Sins who I was linked to by Byran at HotAir. Great find guys, as you'll see from my links above, this is definitely a type of bias I enjoy exposing. There are way to many headline readers out there, and the MSM knows it.

Here's a screen cap of Yahoo!'s home page, incase they decide to change it (which is unlikely anyway). Eventually it will be bumped off of the home page, but they never respond to emails or anything, so don't bother. (image links to story)

If you check out the story, you'll see that these are actually rockets launched by Hezbollah at Israel, but they didn't reach. So these are rockets originating in Lebanon, staying in Lebanon. How hard could it be to write a headline that accurately describes the situation?

What media bias?

*UPDATE*
At least Fox News did the right thing here and took the identical story, and applied a proper headline: Hezbollah Rockets Fall Inside Southern Lebanon As Citizens Return to Battered Region

Related:
Stout Republican, The Jawa Report

 

***UPDATE 8/19/06 9:31pm ET - EMAIL REPLY FROM THE TIMES***
FINALLY, I got an email reply from the Times about this after emailing some specific people. Looks like they passed it off to someone else, because the reply I got was from a name I didn't email. The case isn't closed by any means, but now we have a dialogue going. Here's what NY Times staffer Seth Carlson said:

(note: Seth didn't know which photo we're talking about because I didn't include the link in my emails to the Times, for fear of setting off a spam filter)

Randy,

Are you referring to this image? It's the only Hicks photo of a Tibnine hospital that I can find on the site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/middleeast/01scene.html?ex=1156132800&en=71a6dfdf1f535cbe&ei=5070

I can assure you that no photograph that appears on nytimes.com or in the printed paper is altered before publication.

If it's a different photograph that concerns you, please send me the link. Thanks.

Seth Carlson
nytimes.com

To which I replied:

Seth,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I respect that the company line is that no photos are altered before publication, and that you truly believe this, but let's be real? We've all seen the staged images, and the "body" of the man who was obviously posing who had been a rescue worker only moments before. I know you guys got out of that one with the "imprecise" caption excuse. But there is no excuse that will work for this other one:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/25/world/200607725_LEBA_SLIDESHOW_4.html

Look at the black man's head in the bottom right. Crop and zoom in if need be, but you can clearly see that his head is pasted over the head of a woman in a headscarf. You can see the headscarf all around the back and on top of where his head is pasted. The tan cloth with writing over his/her right shoulder appears that it is photoshopped in as well.

I'm not calling "bias" (in this instance) because I don't understand what the motivation would be for photoshopping this, I don't see any agenda that it helps further, but it is clearly photoshopped. If the Times would like to be a paper of record and hold any credibility, swift and decisive action must be taken against whoever is responsible, regardless of why it was done.

While I don't think there is any logical explanation for this I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about it. I would also be interested to know if you would agree that whoever is responsible for this should be fired immediately. I don't know if this was done by Tyler Hicks, or by a photo editor, but whoever is responsible should no longer be working at the Times, and a VERY public apology should be made, especially as this comes amid the Reuters/Hajj scandal (which you may or may not be aware went way deeper than what the mainstream news covered).

Thank you again for your reply, and I look forward to you next one. Please don't attempt to stealthily remove the image without any public apology or acknowledgment.

Thanks,
~Randy

So, now it's a waiting game to see what Seth has to say. My only fear is that the Times with try to quietly remove the photo from the internet. If this happens, I'm going to need your help to expose this. I have the screen captured image and we'll have to come up with a way to get this on at least Fox News.

(/end update 8/19/06 9:31pm ET.... original post below)

****SCROLL FOR UPDATES - EVERYONE WEIGHS IN****

When will the MSM hire some competent editors and honest photoshoppers photographers so us bloggers can get some sleep!?

LGF has presented us with yet another, shall we say odd, Tyler Hicks photo from the NY Times. Before I get to that though, I've got to mention that the blogosphere scored a victory forcing a halfassed correction out of the NY Times for yesterday's scandal.

You might remember from yesterday's coverage that Tyler Hicks was the fauxtographer who took the photos of of a man running all over rubble and later as a dead body amid the rubble. After seeing that NPR labeled the same photo as a man who had fallen down (rather than at body like the Times), I assumed that the people at fault were those who got production credits for the Times' slideshow, so I took back my rushed call for Hicks's head. Well, at least the Times was forced to issue a..... um... correction (?), of which Michelle Malkin has details.

A picture caption with an audio slide show on July 27 about an Israeli attack on a building in Tyre, Lebanon, imprecisely described the situation in the picture. The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed.

Riiiiight.

Anyway, on to today's story, check out this Tyler Hicks photo via the NY Times. (click image for full size, or follow NY Times link until they inevitably take it down)

The thought is that the black guy in the bottom right corner isn't real. It appears that his face may be crudely photoshopped on to someone else's body, that may or may not be a woman (I'm begining to think more and more that it's a woman, but I'll get to that in a minute). Check out the blown up version of the head that LGF added to help us make up our own minds:

The first thought is "oh crap, busted again!" when you see the back of someone else's head emerging from the back of the black man's head. But for some reason Allah thinks there's nothing here. He even points to Daily Mail photo with an indistinguishable man in the background that he thinks is the same black man. First of all, I'm not sure how that would prove the photo real anyway, but most importantly, how can you make out anything about the man in the background. I wouldn't say anything about background man is 100% but from what you can see he appears to be a lighter skinned Arab man with a beard. Check it out folks, am I right? (*MID-POST UPDATE* - It appears Allah is less convinced it's real, but won't buy it until we get a confession.)

Still, Allah's skepticism did get to me where I forced myself to question the Times' image further. For a minute I thought maybe that weird different color head emerging out of the back of his head was a bandage or something, possibly covering an injury caused by another evil Israeli civilian massacre. But then I began to think about LGF's suggestion that the body might be that of a woman. on closer inspection it appears that it is a woman with a tight headscarf on, which explains the tight cloth all around his neck and the different color head protruding from the back of his head.

I bolster my believe that what you see coming out of the back of the mans head is really a woman's headscarf by creating the following negative image of LGF's blown up image. No smoking gun, but interesting. Notice that the cloth on the neck looks to be the same color as the back of the head?

I know everyone is afraid of taking this too far and jumping the gun, but I believe that this is undoubtedly a photoshop. Just look at it, it's almost as bad as a Hajj job! I won't again call for Hicks's firing (yet), because I don't know who shopped the fauxto yet, but heads need to roll at the Old Gray Lady this time.

****UPDATE****

Codemite breaks it down with excellent photographic analysis. Seems more and more clear, to me, that this is a photoshop.

Rusty gives his take, and mocks with his own PS.

Malkin makes mention, but doesn't go out on any limbs.

*****BONUS*****
The first photo in the NY Times slideshow containing the above photoshop, was taken by none other than our old pal Adnan Hajj. Not surprisingly the Times doesn't have the integrity to purge all of his images. I have much more about this image later as I have it in a foreign publication with much brighter colors, etc. But I dont' want to tip my hand on anything yet.

***UPDATE***
The photoshopped image is also featured in this NY Times story.

Others:
Old War Dogs, Iowa Voice, TexasXtreme, Pillage Idiot

 

This is one of the most sickening and sad stories I've heard in a while. Two border upstanding border patrol agents face 20 years in jail for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who fled from them and while fleeing turned to one agent with what the agent thought was a gun.

The drug smuggler was shot in the buttox (too angry for a Forrest Gump joke), and didn't act as if he'd been shot at all. He quickly jumped in a van, fleeing off back in to Mexico. The border patrol aparently has a policy that agents can't pursue people (WTF?!), and that on top of the fact that at the time the agents didn't know he was a drug smuggler carrying 800 pounds of marijuana in his van, and can't be 100% sure that what he flashed was a gun, these mens' lives are essentially over. Oh by the way, the drug smuggler is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights (wait, he's not a U.S. citizen), and he'll probably see some money considering that violiting his civil rights is one thing the agents were convicted of.

I will only post a handful of excerpts as the story is rather lengthy, but read the entire thing, pray for their families, and pray that someone in government will fix the system so this sort of tragedy NEVER happens again. Get pissed, and spread the word. I don't know what we can actually do about this, but perhaps there is a way to get this overturned in time but it would definitely require massive outrage.

EL PASO, Texas - Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos could hear his heart racing. He could feel the dry, hot dust burning against his skin as he chased a drug trafficker trying to flee back into Mexico.

Ramos' fellow agent, Jose Alonso Compean, was lying on the ground behind him, banged up and bloody from a scuffle with the much-bigger smuggler moments earlier.

Suddenly, the smuggler turned toward the pursuing Ramos, gun in hand. Ramos, his own weapon already drawn, shot at him, though the man was able to flee into the brush and escape the agents.

Now, nearly 18 months after that violent encounter, Ramos and Compean are facing 20 years in federal prison for their actions.

According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene.

Even more broadly, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place.

"It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone."

If there is any job in the country where someone should be pursuing someone who is fleeing, it's the fricken border patrol!!!

The smuggler was given full immunity to testify against the agents and complete medical care at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso.

Read: Your tax dollars helped heal a Mexican drug smuggler, and brought him back here to testify to put good men in jail for doing their job.

"They don't throw this many charges at guys they've caught with over 2,000 pounds of marijuana," Ramos said. "There's murderers and child rapists that are looking at less time than me.

"I am not guilty. I did not do what they're accusing me of."

Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, are set to be sentenced Aug. 22 for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican citizen, on Feb. 17, 2005, in the small Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles south of El Paso.

A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil-rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.

Keep that date in mind as we wait to see just how big of a tragedy we're dealing with.

But the conviction for discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence requires a minimum 10-year prison sentence. The sentences for the other convictions vary.

On July 25, the U.S. Probation Office in El Paso recommended to Judge Kathleen Cardone that each man get 20 years.

Ramos, an eight-year veteran of the Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year, now has but one thing on his mind: What will happen to his wife and three young sons if he spends the next two decades in prison?

"It's (with) a leap of faith and my devotion to God that me and my family will make it through this," Ramos said as he looked at his wife, Monica, during an interview last month in El Paso.

The van later was found to have about 800 pounds of marijuana inside.

Aldrete-Davila is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights.

As a Border Patrol agent, Ramos has been involved in the capture of nearly 100 drug smugglers and the seizure of untold thousands of pounds of narcotics. He also was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year in March 2005, though the nomination was withdrawn after details of the Aldrete-Davila incident came out.

Ramos also had drug-interdiction training from the Drug Enforcement Agency and qualified as a task force officer with the Border Patrol. But Ramos' training in narcotics - as well as the numerous credentials he had received for taking Border Patrol field training classes - was not admissible during the trial, he said.

"My husband is a good man, a loving father, and his devotion to his country and his job is undeniable," Monica Ramos said. "Prosecutors treated the drug smuggler like an innocent victim, refusing to allow testimony that would have helped my husband. The smuggler was given immunity. My husband is facing a life in prison.

Again, you have to read the entire story to get Ramos's story vs. the prosecution story, as well as the laundry list of injustices done to these men.

 

****UPDATE***** - AFP PHOTO OF SAME BURNING DUMP SAYS: "Black smoke engulfs the sky following an Israeli air raid on Beirut's Kafarchima neighborhood." So Reuters calls it a downed Israeli Jet, AFP calls it the results of an Isreali air raid, and again we call it... a trash dump. SCROLL FOR DETAILS AND PHOTO

I can't tell you enough times DON'T TRUST ANYTHING YOU SEE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! And I can't ask the media enough times, where the hell are all the editors!? How is it all you high paid jackasses manage to let all of these just slip past your high standard scrutinizing policies. I can only pray that Fox News picks up on the story (beyond the original photoshopped images) and exposes what a widespread scandal this is to an audience beyond the blogosphere. Any Vermonters want to get together and hold a rally mocking the "bring the troops home now" crowd, with a "bring the journalists home now" rally? That's the kind of cut and run I can get on board with.

On with the show...

Big hat tip goes out to AllahPundit who is getting bombarded with tips, and while I don't have nearly as many tipsters, keeping up with everything and posting a few things in my backlog is practially impossible. But this one is a must see.

If you're a subscriber to U.S. News & World Report (*MID-POST UPDATE* Time Magazine was fooled too<), then your magazine showed up in the mail a couple weeks ago with the cover you see at right. And if you've been following the Hajj scandal, and all the subsequent disection of the Hezbollywood media, you probably also saw the following photo taken by Adnan Hajj.

Maybe you didn't catch that image, but most of us in the blogosphere did as we dug through the Hajj collection, looking for more to crow about. Dan Riehl actually posted it when trying to determine if the man in the photo was the same man seen in other photos. He recalls the photo in his two posts (here and here) on the latest development (which I promise I'm getting to).

Now thanks to Allah, Michelle Malkin, Riehl and others, we learn that this photo is yet another case of fakery.

Obviously you see the burning pile in the distance in both photos, but can you tell what's burning? All captions we've seen say that the fire is wreckage from a downed Israeli jet, do we have any reason to doubt that? Allah posts a scan of the caption from Time magazine who also featured a photo of the same scene. It reads:

The wreckage of a downed Israeli jet that was targeting Hizballah trucks billows smoke behind a Hizballah gunman in Kfar Chima, near Beirut. Jet fuel set the surrounding area ablaze.

Really? Let's take a closer look:

Closer still:

Wait, that appears to be just a trash dump, full of burning tires. I'd like to know what Mr. Hezbo is aiming his gun at, but I'm certain he couldn't just be posing for this captivating photo, right? I mean, if there's one thing we've learned this week... it's to believe every photo and piece of news you see coming out of Lebanon. Well, that's the gist of what we've learned.. only the exact opposite. (Okay, not that funny of a joke unless you're hearing Norm MacDonald saying it in your head, like he did in Dirty Work after describing the bar fight).

AllahPundit has some questions about some other photos as well. And more here and here.

Rusty uses some one of these images, and another taken moments later as part of his making the case that Adnana Hajj may have multiple identities, one of which may or may not still also be employed by Reuters.

Zombie has a great round-up of all the types of deceit Reuters has been found to traffic in, this week in Lebanon.

*****UPDATE****
I thought I'd breeze through some AFP photos to see if they had anything interesting related to all the "Fautography" we've been exposing this week, and what did I find? Another photo of the burning trash dump, with yet another description. The photo is actually on the Yahoo/AFP wires in two locations (here and here) with two slightly different captions (though their description of the cause of the fire is the same, which is the important part anyway).

Black smoke engulfs the sky following an Israeli air raid on Beirut's Kafarchima neighborhood. Britain is preparing for the biggest evacuation carried out by its military since World War II, as Israel continued to pound Lebanon in deadly air raids.(AFP/Oussama Ayoub)

Black smoke engulfs the sky following an Israeli air raid on Beirut's Kafarchima neighborhood. The first of six Royal Navy ships is positioned off Lebanon to begin a potential mass evacuation of Britons from the "appalling" situation there, Tony Blair has said.(AFP/Oussama Ayoub)

I'm going to ignore the different posting times of the images, because I think one could easily argue any number of reasons that this occurred innocently, but for the record they are stamped Tue Jul 18, 5:09 AM ET and Tue Jul 18, 6:38 PM ET respectively. 13 hours is a big difference, but again, I'm not sweating that.

What I'm concerned about is the fact that AFP calls the fire a result of an Israeli airstrike. We just established that Reuters (Hajj in tow) called the fire a result of a downed Israeli jet, while they had a Hezbollah fighter posing with his gun aimed at the fire. Despite both of these descriptions, we can easily see that it's a trash dump on fire, particularly rubber tires, which accounts for the dark black smoke (Rumor has it Adnan Hajj was relieved it wasn't gray smoke, or he'd have had to photoshop the black smoke in).

So it would appear that both AFP and Reuters are lying about the fire, sense we see it's just a trash dump. Is it possible that a jet went down there? Yes. Is it possible Israel struck the location? Yes. While I personally don't think either of these is likely, if one were proven true, it still means that the other description is a lie and someone needs to publicly own up to it.

More:
Michelle Malkin, The Yelling Box, Lightshiner, Brutally Honest, Outside the Beltway, Mark Nicodemo, Alphabet City, ThoughtsOnline, Alarming News, The Hashmonean, JFGreco's, Texas Rainmaker, Sierra Faith, Medary

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

Reader Michelle has tipped me off to a very disturbing photo slideshow at the website of As-Safire Newspaper. Yeah, the As-Safir that we recently learned employs Adnan Hajj as an economic editor.

I don't want to show a lot of the images here because they are extremely graphic and disgusting, but if you have the stomach for it, it's important to see how these "Lebanese civilians" treat their dead - By dangling mangled and charred corpses, one after another for cameras of local newspapers..

*BONUS* Some mild (comparitively) photo fakery included. Again, I don't want to show these extremely graphic images, but I need to show two to expose the photo fakery. Read the captions closely (photos are linked to their location on As-Safir's site):

A United Nations medic holds a body that was badly charred and destroyed after an Israeli missile hit a van carrying passengers on a road in southern Lebanon, July 15

Lebanese civil defence member carries the corpse of a young girl from the southern village of Marwahin

There is no question that this is the same man... The question is why he's identified as a "Lebanese civil defence member" when is shirt patch is visible (and the UN flag isn't), and why when there is a hand in front of his badge and a UN flag visible he is called a "United Nations medic"? WTF?! Sadly, as this is a Lebanese paper, we can't hold their feet to the fire the same way we can over here, however one of those photos is credited to Reuters, and I suspect all in the album are, but they aren't labeled clearly.

If you have the stomach for it, and want to see this dual-careered hero disgustingly posing and dangling corpses for cameras, check out the rest of the short slide show.

By the way, like Allah who can't keep up with the tips, I have a backlog of things that need posting but I simply don't have the time. Stay tuned to see them trickle out.

*UPDATE*
Trouble isn't over for Reuters either (I'm talking to you Alan Colmes). Earlier they LIED, reporting that Israel bombed a funeral procession. Later they took it back in a very low key manner (h/t Allah).

***UPDATE***
TownHall has more on the parading of dead children for the cameras.

 

Like I told Dan Riehl in my email reply to him, I don't want to go too far and call this a "smoking gun" yet, but it's about as close as you can get. Before you watch the video, you absolutely must read Riehl's break down. Too important to pick and choose what to quote, you've got to read the entire thing.

Riehl catches the "rescue workers" directing the scene to set up for photographers. He notes that they're bringing people from around the block and pausing to put down the body while the media gets in position. One HUGE giveaway that Riehl repeatedly hammers home though, is that every "rescue worker" appears spotless. Their clothes look brand new, no wrinkles, no nothing. How would people who've been digging dozens of children out of rubble (and we've seen the photos, the kids are clearly covered in dust, etc.) look like they're ready to go on a date? When you get done reading Riehl's analysis, watch his slow-mo video. Then watch the normal speed version at Little Green Footballs, or right here:

Previous:
EXCLUSIVE: Another BIG Reuters / Adnan Hajj Scandal Busted
Lebanese Website Blames Hizbollah For Qana Incident, Says Set Up
PHOTOS: "Green Helmet's" Friend "White T-Shirt" A Hizbollah Fighter?
Reuters Rocked: More Adnan Hajj Photoshopping & The Reuters Lebanese Mystery Woman Who's Always Ready For Her Close-Up
Photoshopping The News - Reuters Blows Smoke Up Our...

 

*****UPDATE***** Reuters pulls all Hajj photos. Congratulations conservative blogosphere, especially Jawa, you've done it again. SCROLL to the bottom of this post for full details and more updates...

****SCROLL FOR UPDATES**** AFP labels one photo with two opposing captions

Bear with me through the longwinded opening, it gets good

It appears things are only getting worse for Reuters. First, a little background...

After being thoroughly busted by the conservative side of the blogosphere, Reuters thought their "photo kill" and decision not to use photographer photoshop artist Adnan Hajj's "photos" anymore would get them out of hot water. Not so fast Reuters. First of all, you still haven't held any editors responsible. Hajj is clearly a guilty party, but this should have never made it to the internet supported by your logo if you followed your own policy. (Note: Reuters has played around with their links in the past day, and you have to click another link on that page to find the policy I'm quoting)

Our policy is to send news to our customers only after scrutiny by a group of production editors who ensure quality standards are maintained across all our news services. When we get something wrong, our policy is to be honest about errors and to correct them promptly and clearly.

1. How did this group of production editors miss the crappiest photoshop the world has ever seen?
2. A follow up to #1 - How does the obvious fact that you didn't scrutinize the image (images as you'll see), fit with you policy to be "honest" about errors? Either you have children running your organization, who couldn't spot the photoshop, or you're lying.
3. I don't believe you'd corrected promptly and clearly. I'll leave promptly alone, because at least you took some action, AFTER the blogosphere took you to the cleaners. But "clearly"? It seems more like your corrections and apologies have been low key in an effort to put this behind you.

Ready to laugh? Listen to Hajj's excuse for his photoshop job:

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

Bee Ess! You've all seen the images, so you don't need me to tell you, but check out this animation from Wuzzadem (probably the best I've seen), that shows the vast differences in the images. Beyond the cloned smoke, look at the sky color, building color, etc.

Reader Jim Flynt emailed the following explanation:

1 - The entire picture was darkened quite a bit to give a gloomy effect 2 - The entire pitcure was then sharpened several times 3 - The smoke in the sky created a cloud over the top 80 per cent of the picture not allowing sun to shine on the front of the buildings 4 - next the photo doctoring was done adding black smoke and cloning buildings 5 - Finally a tool called the magic wand was used to highlight the sunlit fronts of all the buildings in the lower 20 per cent of the picture and they were brightened to help highlight the gloomy background

Dorkafork at INDC Journal has a couple animations for anyone who still might not get it, and Tim Blair busts ABC News still using the photoshopped image WAY after even Reuters pulled it. Where are all the fricken editors in the MSM!? Anyway, another lie totally busted, moving along... (stick with me, this only gets better)

Before I get to the good stuff, let's look at a couple smaller, but equally important Reuters photos that leave many scratching their heads. Remember the guy strolling away (looting?) from a burning building, in what appear to be brand new clothes? (another Hajj photo) Flopping Aces wondered if it was also a photoshop job, due to some odd pixelation from the shoulders up. I don't believe we've determined anything for sure on that, but Beth at My VRWC busts a lie in the caption. Does the man appear to be "running" to you? 1. Why is he so clean and 2. Why is it clearly daytime when he flees, when the building was supposedly struck in the middle of the night?

Still hangin' in there? Good, because now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. First, ANOTHER DEFINITE PHOTOSHOP by Adnan Hajj. The Jawa Report deserves all the credit on this one, and I'll refrain from stealing all of his supporting images, but here's the original, Reuters still has online (as I type this):

An Israeli F-16 warplane fires missiles during an air strike on Nabatiyeh in southern Lebanon, August 2, 2006. (LEBANON)

Now let Jawa show you what's what. A MUST READ, AS THIS IS A DEFINITE HAJJ PHOTOSHOP. No missiles fired, just ONE flare. SPOILER:

So, the original photo of the Israeli F-16 was probably of a single anti-SAM chaffe flare being dropped. In other words, the F-16 which Reuters proports to show firing missiles at Lebanon, was taking defensive measures.

Funny side note: As I type this, Fox News Watch's late rerun is playing in the background. The following is a word for word transcription of what far left nut Neil Gabler just said (thank you DVR):

I was interested in how skeptical people are about what they consume in the media, which I think is a product of the right-wing attack on the media, over the last 10 years.

No, it's a product of us continiually busting them lying and photoshopping you ass! I'll accept your apology on next week's show.

Back to it.... Hajj isn't just a master of photoshopping (chuckle), he's also a master of taking photos of a building twice, almost two weeks apart, and identifying it as one that had just been destroyed on both occasions. Thank the eagle eyes of Scott at Powerline Blog for this one. Check it out (captions follow each image):

Journalists are shown by a Hizbollah guerrilla group the damage caused by Israeli attacks on a Hizbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, July 24 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

BUSTED... AGAIN! You're on a roll Mr. Hajj. Allah will bless you with even hotter virgins for your excellent work, battling the infidels of truth. What else ya got for us? A mystery woman? Whatever do you mean?

Drinking From Home ripped this one wide open, but I've taken it a bit further, as you'll see. Drinking From Home found a couple STAGED photos by other Reuters photographers, Issam Kobeisi and Hussein Malla. Seems Hajj has some competition (don't worry, he joins in this fun as well). Here are the two photos that Drinking from Home found (with captions):

A Lebanese woman wails after looking at the wreckage of her apartment, in a building, that was demolished by the Israeli attacks in southern Beirut July 22, 2006. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisi

A Lebanese woman reacts at the destruction after she came to inspect her house in the suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006, after Israeli warplanes repeatedly bombed the area overnight. Israeli commandos attacked near the southern city of Tyre early Saturday but were repelled by Hezbollah guerrillas who killed an Israeli member of the force and wounded others, the group said in a statement. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

If you don't believe that's the same woman, Drinking from Home has zoomed images of both faces and you can clearly identify a scar, face marking, and headscarf in both. It's her, no doubt. But how could this woman be reacting to her "house" being bombed overnight on August 5, when she clearly already reacted to her "apartment" being bombed on July 22 (two weeks earlier)? I guess the BBC is too busy to figure this out, as they're using the second image twice on one page, as I type this.

You thought it ended there? Nope! Look what an anonymous commenter at Drinking From Home found, by yet another photographer, Issam Kobeisy:

A woman reacts as she surveys the damage to the southern suburbs of Beirut, site of intense Israeli air raids, August 1, 2006. REUTERS/Issam Kobeisy

Obviously not as good of a shot, but I think it's very likely that this is the same woman. Let me know what you think. These 3 dates weren't the only time the mystery woman seems to have shown up. Admittedly, some of this is speculation on my part, and there is no way to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, but don't the women in these 5 photos from our old buddy Adnan Hajj bear a striking resemblence to the woman in posing in the staged photos just mentioned? If this is the same woman, it would seem that she travels with the Reuters photographers, to pose wherever and whenever they need (see dates). Please let me know if you think all, none, or any of these women are the same as the one above:

Lebanese women walk past a damaged building in southern Beirut July 15, 2006, the Hizbollah stronghold that was targeted Friday by Israeli warplanes. Israeli aircraft pounded areas in south, east and northern Lebanon on Saturday, a day after Hizbollah's chief declared an open war against the Jewish state following the bombardment of his stronghold in Beirut. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj.(LEBANON)

Lebanese women pass under a bridge in southern Beirut July 15, 2006, the Hizbollah stronghold that was targeted on Friday by Israeli warplanes. Israeli aircraft pounded areas in south, east and northern Lebanon on Saturday, a day after Hizbollah's chief declared an open war against the Jewish state following the bombardment of his stronghold in Beirut. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj.(LEBANON)

A Lebanese woman cries as she carries belongings from her home in south Beirut, July 23, 2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj

A Lebanese woman after seeing her destroyed apartment in a building that was targeted by Israeli air strikes in southern Beirut, July 24, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

A Lebanese woman carries her belongings while fleeing Israeli air strikes in southern Beirut July 24,2006. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj (LEBANON)

Again, all input is welcome. I think the woman in the third photo looks very much like the woman in the photos that Drinking at Home caught. The fourth photo is difficult to tell because the lighting is different and she's wearing a totally different outfit, but use your imagination. Wouldn't he want to try to make her look a little different? The others are a bit too distant to be sure, but looks a lot like her to me. What say you? Perhaps I'm reaching a bit, but given what we've seen, can you blame me? And would you be surprised if I was right?

A couple other quick points worth mentioning before I finish this post up. I found this photo of a burning Koran this afternoon, but put off posting and have now been scooped by Ace of Spades who notes how lucky Adnan Hajj must have been to find a terrorist inciting burning Koran hours after an Israeli strike. I mean, clearly this little book just defied logic and stayed burning for hours. It obviously wasn't lit by Hajj or one of his pals just for this photo, right?

A copy of the Koran burns in southern Beirut after the Hizbollah stronghold was targeted by Israeli air strikes July 16,2006. Israeli air raids shook Beirut on Sunday, the fifth day of a devastating assault on Hizbollah and Lebanon that has prompted no U.N. Security Council action and only a mild plea for restraint from Israel's U.S. ally. REUTER/Adnan Hajj.(LEBANON)

I'm left wondering if this photo isn't photoshopped too. I'm no fire or photo expert, but don't those flames look weird? Why are they so translucent, and not fitting with the image? More importantly, why are they coming out of a part of the book that appears to be nothing but ash? If it was clearly paper burning, okay.. .but the flames are shooting out of a bunch of charred black ash. Am I right?

Beyond just looking weird and ash burning, look at the weird black dot in one of the flames, wtf? I've never seen fire that had solid black dots in it. And is that a stick going through the whole picture? If this isn't a photoshop (which again seems possible), was that stick used to start the fire? Also, if this is a real photo, it appears more that the Koran was dropped on top of a fire that was already there, doesn't it? Check out this zoomed image where I point a couple of these things out:

One way or another, as Ace pointed out, it makes no sense that the book would still be burning hours after an attack. And again, this is Hajj, not one deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

Another image I got scooped on by waiting to post was Cox & Forkum's latest toon. Michelle Malkin beat me to the punch and added it to her extensive and great round-up of all these new finds by the time I finally got around to posting. Oh well, it's a definite must see anyway. As always C & F nail it:

Dan Riehl is out of the gates with 3 other posts cracking down on more obvious photo fakery and other questionable photos (see here, here, and here). As I check back to see if he's updated, I see he's got more for us. It appears that Adnan Hajj is an economic editor for a Lebanese daily newspaper.

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker thinks we need an outside investigation of Reuters, which should include Charles Johnson of LGF who got this whole ball rolling.