Are you mad? Showing someone smoking??? Think of the children!!!

So much for your retirement. Pussy!

Admit it. You are addicted to blogging. You need it. You want it. You can't live a day without it.

Jeff Gannon would be proud.

Rocketman is obviously not a photographer. You can tell from the grainy image that it was not take from a "few yards away". Assuming even that it was high speed film that was being used it is obvious that it was taken from a great distance. No need to actually look into that baseless claim though is there. Facts can be so inconvenient..

You freaks are pathetic, looking for media bias in everything. You don't know shit, so make something up. pathetic.

Be sure to hit the PayPal tipjar, Frank!

And thanks for coming!

Im with Frank on this one. There are tons of clearly biased stories out there, but I dont think that this particular photo is one of them. It isnt a very good photo is it though?

I do think the pic of the Marlboro man should have been chosen though.

I think you guys are missing the main point. The Marlboro Man is just a "button" to the story, a cute little point made at the end.

Let me repeat to you the actual point:

THEY GAVE THE PULITZER PRIZE TO TERRORIST-FRIENDLY PHOTOGRAPHERS WHOM AP ADMITS WERE "TIPPED" AS TO HOW TO BEST ASSIST TERRORISTS IN PUBLICIZING THEIR TERRORIST MURDER-PORN PROPAGANDA.

Does this... fail to register?

Are you still gonna be Smitty, while posting as Ace?

Frank is an asshole, but he makes a good point. Exactly what is so out of the ordinary about the pic?

Im pretty sure I could take a picture of somebody getting shot in Iraq. hell it happens all the time. If the AP was tipped off about exactly what was going to happen thats one thing, but im pretty sure there isnt any solid proof of that.

The AP is Anti-American. There is tons of evidence to back us up on that. I just dont think this pic is though.

The correct answer is: "Who gives a shit about the Pulitzers anyway?"

Okay, fellers, how about you stop fixating on the retard-bait in that post-- the picture-- and read the links.

Do I have to repeat myself in ALL CAPS again?

I read a piece early this morning (Jawa report) and I have to say I agree --- the "story" told by the collection of AP photos is Anti-American. If Frank READ the piece - the AP reported admitted to being tipped off ... to have had some sort of relationship, because the terrorists - opps, I mean "insurgents"- were interested in getting "their" side of the story out as well.

April,

1. The bad guys phone up the local AP stringer for a photo op

2. That photo, staged for all intents and purposes, wins a pulitzer prize

This doesn't bother you? You really think the photographer just happened to be there?

The AP admitted to being tipped to demonstrations in the area- not murders. If the AP guy shows up, and witnesses the execution from a distance(as the photos appear to be taken from) whats the problem? Should he not have taken the picture?

If he actually knew what was going to take place, then theres a problem. But nobody has proof of that-yet.

Look, i admit the AP is biased as hell in there reporting. I just dont see how anyone can think this photo was staged without more proof.

For the last fuckin time, my name aint April. April is the fuckin month!

If a photographer is told that there is going to be a demonstration at the GOP national convention, and while there they witness several protestors attacking a cop- was the photo staged? No. Thats what the AP claimed happened, and nobody has provided proof otherwise. Its a shitty picture- if you were going to set something like this up dont you think they could have done a better job?

It looks like it was shot from a distance which supports the APs story.

Listen April, if that's EVEN YOUR REAL NAME: AP has admitted the photographer has connections with the killers. And AP went with the photo even though they knew the sole purpose for arranging for a photographer was to enhance the very special terror effects that only capping unarmed civilians on film can have.

To really put the icing on the cake, APRIL, they decide to give it their Photo of the Year award, which, if you mean the photo that spells out what the AP is all about, I suppose it deserves.

Look at April 15 (I guess he/she wants to be referred to by their full name) --- the photo WAS staged ... by the terrorists. The AP photographer was a willing tool.

They admitted being tipped off to what exactly? A murder, no. They admit to having associations with the insurgents, how else do you think they take the photos of them? That is what the AP was admitting to. Look at the name of the photgraphers who took the pictures of the insurgents. Look like Iraqi names don't they?

See what happens when you defend the moonbats April? Come back to the light!

Ahhh. So, its Miss Frank. But can we still call you April?

I admit i havent followed this story to closely, but what i think that the AP said was that the photographer had tribal and social connections in the area. Which im pretty sure translates into - the dude lives there and can speak the language. that doesnt mean he was working with the terrorists. It just means he knows the neighborhood.

They said they were tipped off that there might be demonstrations in the area- not a murder.

Is their story that far fetched? I think we are seeing conspiracies everywhere. I cant blame you really though. The AP is as biased as they come, and I think thet by choosing this picture it shows their bias. I just dont think that the picture proves that they are collaborating with the bad guys.

Damn. I am in know way associated with Frank. I got a tip that someone was going to be posting Kim Richards pictures here and when I showed up a Big Lib was saying it was ok for the AP to work with terrorists.

Doesnt your new post completly undercut your first one Frank? You just admitted that all of Aces facts were right didnt you?

I dont know if the AP actually said that or not though.

stop calling me April

then start signing your name, April

NEVER

It aint the messenger, its the message.

Ask yourself this, APRIL: If the photographer weren't there, say he had the trots and couldn't get off the can or something. Ate a bad durkmah, say. Would those unarmed civilians still be alive?

At what point does the photographer's presence actually cause the crime? Should we give awards for when this happens?

yes photographers are the cause of all the worlds crime.

Holy shit. That's he fastest rollover since Ace hit the Martz depot in a full rock jones.

Thanks for playing!

"...fastest rollover since Ace hit the Martz depot in a full rock jones."

Im sorry, but im not hep to your Jive young blood. Could you please translate that into English? Turkey.

Did you folks read the post at powerline? from the AP.

A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.
...............................

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures

Hey Franko,

You left out Powerline's conclusion:

"The Pulitzer Prize awarded to the Associated Press for work based on complicity with murderers and enemies of the United States at war is a disgrace."

It's clear that you need to read this:

http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/top-10-categories-of-msmdnc-bias.html

as you are already praciticing selective dishonest reporting.

This is what passes for Pulitzer-winning sedition today? They still got a few million more deaths to enable before they're even in Duranty's league.

Lightweights.