Army Navy Shop is your online army navy store. We've been located in New Jersey since 1985. We've been online since 1998, so we know the army navy store business! From army fatigues, to flight jackets to BDU's, we've got a great selection of military clothing, camping supplies, survival, law enforcement and more. Our selection is huge, our customer service is beyond compare and our prices are competitive! Shop with confidence at Army Navy Shop!
FlixHQ is free tv shows streaming website with zero ads, it allows you watch tv shows online, watch tv shows online free in high quality for free. You can also download full tv shows and watch it later if you want.
Watch Commando - A One Man Army Movie Online 720p
Download Zip 🔥 https://urlgoal.com/2xZlcS 🔥
Commando - An Action Thriller MovieCommando is a Hindi movie revolving around an Indian army commando, Karan (played by Vidyut Jammwal), who manages to escape the Chinese military's grasp. He encounters a girl who is in trouble. At the end of this action movie, viewers will determine whether the cop is able to arrive at his destination safely or not.
This is by far the best watch I have ever bought. I had a swiss army summit xlt for years and replaced it with the same watch because I loved it so much. The only time you would ever see me not wearing it would be walking through metal detectors at airports. I love the Luminox Evo Blackout Watch 3051.
Burke, Va.: Howard,A couple of comments here:1. Will Anthrax continue to be the "shark story" of the media? Granted, they are on the front lines on this one as it were, but there is no need to get the public in a full-fledged panic over this one. Unless you get your mail from an infected post office or work some place sufficiently high profile to warrant getting a package of nasty white powder in the first place, there is not much need to worry about it. Your chances of dying in a car accident on the way home are probably better.2. When will the media get it into their heads that the way to avoid playing by the Pentagon's rules is not to play with the Pentagon's dice in the first place? If you want to see the war, pack your sat phone, acquire a donkey and start riding. Hopefully the Taliban won't catch you.Howard Kurtz: The media have certainly helped scare people on the anthrax story, however unwittingly, but I hardly think it falls in the "shark" category. Yes, you have a better chance of falling into a manhole, etc. But someone is sending this potentially lethal stuff through the mail. And the recent death of a Bronx hospital worker shows that you don't have to work for the media/Senate/postal service in order to be vulnerable. Finally, we have no way of knowing whether there will be further waves of anthrax attacks. The average person shouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying, but this is hardly a non-story.
On the Pentagon, there are in fact some courageous reporters covering the situation in Afghanistan. (And some have been captured by the Taliban; a French journalist was released over the weekend). But on larger questions of troops, bomb damage, military approach and so on, the Pentagon is pretty much it.
Arlington, Va.: Judging from the weekend talk shows, reporters are now talking about their inability to report on the war. I watched a number of meta-discussions on lack of information from Afghanistan.Apparently reporting now means whatever the U.S. government will provide or let you report. Whatever happened to investigating reporting? When did the media become an arm of the government?Howard Kurtz: Well, there has been some investigative reporting. Seymour Hersh has a piece in today's New Yorker about the recent Army commando raid having been more of a flop than the military let on. And, as I said, there is some good reporting from Afghanistan, especially with the Northern Alliance. But keep in mind this is not a war in which U.S. troops are lined up on some battlefield. Much of it is being kept secret, and even the most enterprising journalists are limited in what they can find out in such a situation.
Ottawa, Canada: Could you please tell me what has happened to Lou Waters, Natalie Allan and Frank Sesno. Also, was Bobbie Battista let go or did she go of her own choice. I enjoyed all these people so much. If I had wanted to watch Paula Zahn, I would have watched Fox. Where did Aeron Brown come from? Too bad CNN went to other nets instead of using the great people they already had. Thanks.Howard Kurtz: Aaron Brown spent most of his career at ABC News, anchoring among other things the weekend edition of Good Morning America. Waters was let go; Battista and Sesno say they resigned of their own accord and I have no reason to doubt them. Don't know about Natalie Allen. But this is what happens when new management installed by AOL comes in. CNN was in the doldrums before this; the war has given the network a much-needed boost.
E-Guy: Howard, on"Capital Sunday" yesterday, the host, Kathleen Matthews, had as a guest her husband, pundit Chris Matthews, who was flogging his new book! Don't you think that's a bit tacky, if not an actual conflict of interest? If his book is so interesting, then he should have no trouble getting booked on other talk shows that aren't hosted by Wifey-poo.Howard Kurtz: Hey, if your wife won't put you on the air, who will?
Alexandria, Va.: If the vast majority of U.S. bombs fall on military targets, that shows that the U.S. is not aiming at civilians, unlike the Taliban and al Qaeda who do.Does the Taliban manipulate images of injured Afghan civilians? Howard Kurtz: I don't think there's any question that the U.S. is making great efforts to limit civilian casualties. Are the Taliban manipulating these images? To some extent, probably. I have no definitive way of knowing, and neither do the journalists who were escorted into hard-hit areas last week. Obviously there have been some real civilian casualties, homes destroyed, Red Cross warehouse hit, etc. Just as obviously the Taliban is highlighting pictures of injured children and the like in a play for world sympathy. I think most western viewers get it, though I'm sure this is viewed very differently in the Muslim world.
Arlington, Va.: I'm not usually one to claim about the use of anonymous sources, but the following quote, from a Reuters story about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. embassy in Malaysia takes the cake:"An embassy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he couldn't comment on security matters."Since when do you need an anonymous source to get a "no comment?" There's no reason the embassy shouldn't be able to issue a public no comment, but there's also no reason press should let them get away with this idiocy.Howard Kurtz: Pretty useless. I guess the reporter wanted to show he tried to get official comment, but such a sentence doesn't exactly advance the story.
Atlanta, Ga.: Howard, what's your take on the New York Daily News columnist who was called by Ari Fleischer over an item in which he wrote that the Bush is not a Yankees fan? Shouldn't Ari be worrying about something, like say, OUR WAR ON TERRORISM? Sheesh... everyone knows Bush is a Texas Rangers fan. What's the big deal that Ari was so upset about?Howard Kurtz: From Fleischer's point of view, he felt the reporter published a quote that was simply made up. There's no law against administration officials crying foul when that happens. And hey, the Yankees are a big deal (Ari is from New York). But it does seem like he should be focusing more of his professional energies on terrorism, anthrax and the like.
Reston, Va.: Howard,
I think the problem the press has with covering the war is that so few of them (the younger ones, anyway) are veterans. How many reporters at the Post are under 35 and airborne trained? If the answer, as I suspect, is "few or none," then it would be unsurprising that the Post reporters couldn't go in with the Rangers.Howard Kurtz: Since the abolition of the draft, there's a whole generation of journalists who lack military experience, and this is a problem in wartime. At the same time, the current crew at the Pentagon - folks like Jim Miklaszewski, David Martin, Jack McWethy, Jamie McIntyre, The Post's Tom Ricks -- have been covering that beat for decades, been out with troops and covered previous wars, so it's not like they're newbies. But even reporters who served during Vietnam are now at a fairly advanced age, and not many of them want to be crawling around in the mud.
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz,To what degree do you think ratings battles and network competition adversely affects TV news objectivity in the U.S.? Do you think this industry will ever do something about how the "beating a dead horse" approach to big stories affects the collective psychology of the citizenry? For example, many journalists agree that the dozens of school shootings in the past several years were nurtured by constant, dramatic reporting along with the necessary video footage of the networks thus creating the idea of "copycat" crimes. The same goes for the anthrax scare. Another great example of TV news organizations really tripping over one another was during the 2001 elections. The story only seems to die when the competition finds another one. Is this just the way it is or can something be done about it?Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure I buy into your thesis that covering school shootings or other types of crimes invariably produces copycat events. Someone who is sick enough to turn a rifle on innocent schoolkids is obviously motivated by more than what he sees on the tube. Nor is there a scintilla of evidence that anyone has sent anthrax after seeing the all-anthrax coverage of the past month (though I suppose we'll have to wait and see). As for the 2001 elections, gee, I had been under the distinct impression that coverage of the New York, New Jersey and Virginia contests was rather minimal, given a certain other story that seems to be dominating the news.
Vienna, Va.: Geraldo Rivera is coming to Fox News! Do you think he might impair Fox's hard-won reputation for sobriety, seriousness and objectivity?Howard Kurtz: Fox is not always so sober and serious (this is the Bill O'Reilly network), and Geraldo (who's being reunited with his old boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes) will probably be a colorful addition to their cast of characters. What's interesting is that Rivera would give up his CNBC talk show and $6-million contract - actually taking a pay cut - to go run around in the mountains as a war correspondent. This is either one dedicated guy or someone with a serious midlife crisis.
Boston, Mass.: Howard -- Will Geraldo Rivera be a straight news reporter or more of a war investigative reporter? What happened to todays online Media Notes? washingtonpost.com: Howard Kurtz's Media Notes (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 5, 2001)Howard Kurtz: Probably more of a swashbuckling reporter. We skipped today's online Media Notes (the print version is there) and will be back tomorrow, if we don't oversleep.
New York, N.Y.: I see reports where U.S. Special Forces continue to quietly be inserted into Afghanistan. How quiet can this be if we everyone is reading about it? Does this news come via a Pentagon leak or is part of the official releases coming from the military? I (and most people I talk to) personally would rather not read about this if it endangers our troops.P.S. Can you really believe the Yankees lost?Howard Kurtz: Shhh... I'll give you my secret source. Don't tell anyone. Guy's name is Don Rumsfeld. He was pretty sneaky, too, telling only a group of Pentagon reporters in front of the cameras that the U.S. was putting more ground forces in Afghanistan. You didn't know journalists work so hard for this information, did you?
As for the Bronx Bombers ... I'm still in shock.
Kansas City, Mo.: Do you think the press will file suit, or have they, to get access the former president's papers? Also, how does an executive order trump a law passed by Congress?Howard Kurtz: For those who are not familiar, the Bush White House recently adopted a restrictive rule allowing either the incumbent president or a former one to block release of an ex-executive's papers and records for pretty much any reason. Any interested party is allowed under this procedure to file a court challenge. There's little question there will be litigation, either by a press organization or some group seeking to obtain papers of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton. (Will be interesting if W tries to veto release of some of his dad's papers.)
Alexandria, Va.: I think the person from DC meant to say the 2000 elections, not 2001. Or perhaps more to the point, the 2000-01 elections.Also, I had no problem with Mrs. Matthews interviewing Mr. Matthews, I just didn't watch it. It's not really a conflict of interest when everyone knows the game up front.Howard Kurtz: True, their marriage is hardly a secret. That doesn't make the interview any less tacky. As for the 2000 elections, there were endless waves of coverage, some good, some terrible, but I hardly think the press was responsible for the Florida deadlock. All we did is yak about it for 36 interminable days.
Arlington, Va.: Afternoon Howard,Either Osama is truly an idiot, or the anthrax attacks aren't al Qaeda. As ABC News President David Westin recently proved once again in his address to aspiring journalism students (attempting to perpetuate his bias), all too often portions of the American media just don't get it. Why target folks that feel the need to be "objective" about the attacks on America or Senator Daschle -- who prior to the attacks would have been voted most likely to thwart the president at every turn? Now it looks as if perhaps they are targeting the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco. What next? Start bombing Berkley, the next anti-globalization rally or Salon.com directly?Finally, I'd like to add a couple comments on the suggestion in last week's online discussion that because you occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might now be a media infidel. First, while Limbaugh has a following not equaled on the left, you frequently quote Salon.com in your media notes. Salon espouses views I would find to be more extreme than anything uttered by Limbaugh. Personally, I use Eric Alterman and E.J. Dionne as the North Star to guide me on the issues of the day. Absent the time or effort to investigate an issue (like an all too large portion of this country), I know I can usually depend on those two guys to advocate the exact opposite of what I believe. Howard Kurtz: I don't think David Westin was showing his "bias": he just said something that was rather dumb, as he himself recognized in quickly apologizing. (Westin told students that journalists should offer "no opinion" on whether the Pentagon was a legitimate target for attack). What he was trying to say, I believe, is that journalists should basically report the facts. What he ended up saying is that journalists should take a mindless, morally neutral approach to mass murderers less they be seen as taking sides. I couldn't disagree with that more.
As for Limbaugh, I don't understand the reaction that listening to a major media figure with an audience of 15 million somehow makes you an honorary dittohead. I also watch or listen to Blitzer, Will, Novak, O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Rather, Koppel, Snow and assorted other anchors, talkers and blatherers from the left, right and center. If you only read or listen to those whose opinions you agree with, you don't learn very much.
Michigan: What do you make of the administrations apparent rapid response PR machine set up in D.C., London and the MidEast to respond to Taliban and bin Laden propaganda? I would love to know more, but read only a brief story in Newsweek. Howard Kurtz: This is a belated attempt by the White House and 10 Downing Street to compete on the info-battlefield. With the time difference, the Muslim world has often heard the Taliban's spin or distortions on war developments before Washington and London wake up. It's also a recognition that millions of Arabs have been fed a diet of anti-American propaganda for years and that it's about time we started trying to counter it. How effective these efforts will be, I have no idea.
Philadelphia, Pa.: What do you think of the current crop of op-ed columnists from the Post, Times & the like? In particular, who is respected most among his or her peers?And why have Maureen Dowd's columns radically decreased in quality over the past few months?Howard Kurtz: I'd say the columnist who has really lifted his game and become a must-read during the war is Tom Friedman of the NYT. Friedman and The Post's Jim Hoagland are basically the only two fulltime foreign affairs columnists on major newspapers, and it shows. When Friedman writes about Saudi Arabia or Israel or Jordan, he's been there many times, interviewed their leaders, etc. Some columnists who specialize in domestic politics seem a little less sure-footed these days now that the national conversation has changed so abruptly.
Alexandria, Va.: Do you have any thoughts on why the networks were slow to cover the intentional massacre of Christians in Pakistan vs. accidental civilian casualties in Afghanistan?Howard Kurtz: I don't think the networks were "slow" to report this tragic news. I think what you're getting at is why the massacre wasn't trumpeted as a bigger deal, and I'm not sure I know the answer, especially in an era when we're acutely more sensitive to terrorism. Maybe it simply got overshadowed by anthrax, investigations of al-Qaeda, etc., but that's not much of an excuse.
Arlington, Va.: I think the question involving Fox News's sobriety, seriousness, etc was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. At least I hope it was.Howard Kurtz: Ah. I see. I must be a little slow today. Fox, by the way, is a network that didn't have much in the way of foreign correspondents, or much interest during the Clinton/Condit years. They are now aggressively playing catchup (in one instance stealing an Afghanistan correspondent from CNN) because you can't be taken seriously in the news game these days if you're not covering the hell out of the war.
Somewhere, USA: I find it amazing that today you haven't even acknowledged, much less discussed, the recent comments by ABC News President David Westin regarding the attack on America. The head of one of the big three TV networks selling "objectivity" to the next generation of aspiring journalists? If you didn't like my first question along these lines, let's try it this way:Remarks by Jerry Falwell are attributed to all Christians, remarks by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are attributed to all African Americans, remarks by Yasser Arafat are attributed to all Palestinians, and on and on. Why shouldn't we attribute the remarks of the President of ABC to all the news media?
Howard Kurtz: I guess you're not a regular reader of the Post, since I wrote a story about Westin's remarks/apology the day they became public. And by the way, I don't agree that all Christians, blacks and Palestinians should be tarred by the intemperate remarks of the people you listed (though Arafat, unlike the others, is the leader of the Palestinian authority). So I wouldn't want anyone to think all media people think like David Westin, or Geraldo, or Rush, or anyone else.
Dupont, Washington, D.C.: So do you think that reporters are digging deeper in this military confrontation? During the Gulf War, it seemed that most of the information we got through the networks, especially CNN, was spoon-fed from the US government. The result, in my humble opinion, was really detrimental in that only the sanitized version of the truth got much play.On another front, when will anyone go on the record about this stuff? I read a long New York Times article about the Afghanistan attacks last week where Not A Single Quote was attributed to a named source. While I respect the New York Times' reporting, for all I know that Pentagon source could have been the bagel guy. Without a single accountable person cited, why should I believe this stuff?Howard Kurtz: The Pentagon was quite successful in controlling information during the Gulf War, in part through censorship (though some of the bad stuff was reported later, after the shooting was over). I'd agree that journalists need to dig deeper, but I'm also trying to explain the difficulties and constraints presented by this war on terrorism that lacks any battlefield or clear front lines.
I'm no more happy with stories that rely solely on unnamed sources than you are, but the fact is, the Pentagon brass have told their people not to talk, and anyone who shares information with a reporter is risking either losing his job or even being prosecuted for leaking classified information. So if you want more than the Rumsfeld-approved version of events from the media, you have to be willing to accept that people with access to sensitive information are rarely going to provide it with their names attached.
Washington, D.C.: What is the Post's policy on gifts/meals from sources? What about other newspapers?Howard Kurtz: Gifts from sources are prohibited, as at most news organizations, though I think if you're at a buffet or something you're allowed to try the shrimp.
Washington, D.C.: People criticizing you for listening to Limbaugh makes as much sense as criticizing Lisa de Moraes for watching a TV show you don't like, or Desson Howe for watching a movie you'd never see yourself. It's Howard's JOB to cover all media angles out there and report on them. It doesn't mean he agrees with them. Howard Kurtz: And I'm on the case, 24/7. Last night, for example, I was investigating the quality of sports broadcasting by watching the Yanks and Arizona - just so I could do my job better.
Detroit, Mich.: Now I get it: You listen to "Blitzer, Will, Novak, O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Rather, Koppel, Snow." By my counts, that's eight right-wingers and one moderate. Suddenly it all makes sense.Howard Kurtz: Wolf Blitzer, Dan Rather and Ted Koppel are wingers? We must be using a different definition.
Reston, Va.: A follow up: Is the Post, or other news organizations, trying to recruit recent veterans? I know the Army has a "reporter" MOS. Howard Kurtz: I don't think the Post is doing much hiring; there's an advertising recession out there, as well as the very expensive effort of covering the war. But the paper has some very experienced war correspondents in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan who are not exactly covering this conflict from air-conditioned hotel rooms.
San Francisco, Calif.: What do you think of reporting that utilizes quotes from other reporters within the same organization? Especially on time.com I see a lot of articles where nobody is quoted other than another Time reporter, who is identified as such, to be sure, but who is just offering their opinion or analysis, not adding an original source to the story.
Howard Kurtz: Hardly ideal, but Web sites offer all kinds of opinions. Time doesn't do that in the print magazine, for example. And there are all kinds of one-person Web sites that offer only the rantings of the proprietor (some of them quite good, by the way). The beauty of the Web is that you can click or not click on whatever you want, depending on who you think has good reporting, insight or wit. One thing about Post.com is we all find out exactly how many people are checking out our stuff, which is something you never quite know in the dead-trees edition. Sometimes that's great news, and sometimes...
Milford, Mass.: You referenced the Middle East Media research Institute last week. can we rely on them for accurate translations of the Arabic newsarticles?Howard Kurtz: All I can tell you is that I checked out their site and it seemed pretty responsible to me. (This is the Web operation that translated Arab-paper attacks on Rudy Giuliani as secretly being a Jew and a homosexual, which is news to those of us who's followed him for years, as well as to his Italian family. Story in today's Media Notes.)
Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: Why are we entitled to anything more than official versions of events? I'd rather make an educated opinion on the war based on official sources instead of these un-named experts. As a professional flack, I know that anonymous sources are either low-level individuals looking to feel important or high level individuals with an agenda. Both are not reliable. The "gatekeepers" should exercise a little more discretion on this issue.Howard Kurtz: Well, we got the official version of events during Vietnam and Watergate, and they turned out to be lies. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the press can only transmit the official version of events. (Say, Afghanistan.) The media have all kinds of flaws and excesses, but they do help keep the government honest. And unnamed sources - which are usually more high-level than you think (take it from a guy who's gotten his share of leaks) - are often pretty accurate.
Vienna, Va.: Howard, I agree with you that there will almost surely be litigation concerning the release of executive papers. That said, I've got three words for those who will spend their time tying up the courts -- get a life. Unless one has a darn good reason for access to certain documents, like Ken Starr did during the impeachment investigations (and many documents contain classified data) judges shouldn't even concern themselves with this nonsense -- throw the cases out of court. There is no legal "right" to look at classified information. In fact, today, a judge can even fine someone for a frivolous lawsuit. Howard Kurtz: We're not talking here about classified information. We're talking about presidential papers that a congressional law says should be made public. The White House rule allows presidents and their predecessors to try to block such releases, but they have to put forward a reason that stands up in court. So we have a collision of different rights here, but it was the post-Watergate law regarding Nixon's tapes and papers that set us on this path.
washingtonpost.com: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined thediscussion. be457b7860
BIM 360 Design 2019.6.2 Final (x86-x64-x32) Keygen 32 Bit
Zumas Revenge Adventure Full Version
filhos de joo admiravel mundo novo baiano