Recently in Liberal Media Category

Are they prepping for an announcement? The headline sure makes it look that way: The era of big Clintons is soon over.

There's been a Clinton running for the White House or living in it for approximately forever. Bill, it could be said, was born to run. Running became Hillary's destiny, too.

One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton finally exits the 2008 Democratic presidential race, she will end a decades-long, power-couple streak of unique political energy, savvy ideas, colossal policy flops and raw ambition dressed in pants suits and briefs, not boxers.

"Every day is an adventure," Bill said cheerfully at the start of it all. And how.

By now, the Clintons have been assigned mystical qualities of perseverance. The notion that the adventure is over is almost beyond comprehension.

"I never quit," she says. "I never give up."

Even in defeat, Hillary Clinton has made history as the first woman favored for a major party presidential nomination — the first with a real shot at the presidency.

Or maybe it's AP's way of telling us that they, like Jimmy Carter, aren't endorsing either Democrat.

Spend a little time over at Newsweek and you might wonder if they have any time left over for journalism. Their left-leaning bias has been obvious in recent years, but they've finally shed any pretenses. Their current cover story is not even a news story, but a long memo to Obama with heart-felt advice on how the Messiah should run his campaign and win this fall. I'm still digesting it, but here's a little jewel from page 2 (emphasis mine):

It's also important for you not to play the race card yourself. You can't imply, or be seen to imply, that anyone who criticizes you is a racist, closeted or otherwise.

The addition of the word "yourself" is telling. Newsweek is actually suggesting that it would be bad for Obama should he play the race card himself, but it's OK through others. What others? Why, Newsweek, of course. The entire issue is devoted to the subject, and they've even developed a whole new poll just to suggest that anyone not voting for Obama just might be racist:

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites.

This even as Newsweek warns Obama that "You will never get the real racists to come around." The poll itself is here, and includes a "Racial Resentment Index" based on the following list:

Disapprove of racial preferences (Q17=2)
Less qualified people hired often (Q18=1)
Whites lose out (Q19=2,4)
Gone too far pushing rights (Q20a=1)
Poor too dependent on government (Q20b=1)
Blacks responsible for own condition (Q21=2)
Disapprove of interracial marriage (Q22=2)
Few things in common with blacks (Q23=3)
Would mind if black person moved close (Q24=1)
Would be upset if daughter dated black (Q25=2,3)

It would be difficult to imagine how they could be more incendiary in their questioning.

NewsBusters notes that there's only one side of the story in the Newsweek poll:

This raises two important questions for Newsweek:

1. Why wasn't it concerned about McCain's lingering problems winning the support of black voters?
2. Why didn't it measure a Racial Resentment Index for the non-whites that participated in the poll, especially for the blacks that overwhelmingly support Obama?

Good questions. The answer is that their interest in McCain is how best to defeat him. In the same issue, Newsweek raises issues about McCain's age and health. Unable to find a smoking gun of imminent Alzheimer's or cancer, they conclude in one article:

But the eventual winner of the election—no matter who it is—should be forewarned. Roizen has assessed data on presidential health back to the 1920s and finds that the stress of the job takes a toll. "Every year in office, you age two years," he says. It's not hard to calculate the effect this would have on McCain. After two terms, his calendar age and Real Age would be right back in line.

And in another, they just go for negativism in the title: "An Answer for Every ‘Little Jerk’" Again, failing to find anything bad in the medical records, they feel compelled to insinuate that McCain's gaffe last December was directed at anyone who showed curiosity about his age and health.

It's sad that any news organization would go to these lengths to promote a political agenda. Sadder still is that this type of in-kind campaign donation posing as journalism will increase as November nears.

AP reaches way down to dredge up some gratuitous victimization sympathy for Obama:

HONOLULU - Growing up as a young man of mixed race, Barack Obama benefited from the spirit of tolerance that defined Hawaii's racial climate.

His childhood in the country's idealized melting pot was far from painless, though.

As part of the islands' small group of black Americans in the 1970s, he encountered racism and struggled to form a black identity.

Obama's experience in Hawaii is echoed by other blacks, including some of his schoolmates, and challenges the state's vaunted image of racial harmony.

"A big joke amongst the brothers was you could be anything else but a brother and have free rein of the world in Hawaii," said Rik Smith, a black former schoolmate of Obama's at Punahou, an elite private school in Honolulu. "When it comes to people of color, black people, there's a huge amount of racism."

Obama has carefully avoided making his race the main issue, but his surrogates and the media use it at every turn. One has to wonder if there will be a backlash against the continuous drumbeat of "If you don't vote for Obama you're a bigot", which the above-quoted article serves to underline. This is a major expansion of the theme, showing Obama as a life-long victim of racism, and the votes that aren't cast for him are just a continuation of that same injustice.

In discussions with friends and around the workplace, I've heard lots of reasons for not supporting Obama. His race isn't among them. If Obama's supporters in the media keep pushing this theme, that could change. Fostering racial division isn't the best way to win folks over.

In a story about old atrocities committed in another country by non-Americans, you'd think the title would identify the perpetrator of the atrocity directly. Not AP, though. Check this headline:

Here's some of the article itself, nearly as bad:

DAEJEON, South Korea - Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950.

With U.S. military officers sometimes present, and as North Korean invaders pushed down the peninsula, the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial.

There's always a way to blame America, isn't there?

You could also see this as a "name that party" exercise from history - can you guess who, in 1950, was in charge of the US military and his party affiliation from the article?

And the Politico article on the subject goes nicely with the image above - "Hillary turns fire on media". Read it all, but here is the thrust of it:

Clinton has long complained that the media have treated her more roughly than Obama. But the campaign began courting a media backlash as a central strategy after her surprisingly narrow win in Indiana and crushing loss in North Carolina, which together were characterized by the press as sealing the Democratic presidential nomination for Obama.

Campaign aides were particularly livid at Russert's election night declaration on MSNBC that, "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it" - even before the network called Indiana for Clinton.

Ironic that for years she's complained that the media existed as a right-wing attack vehicle, only now does she learn the truth. Maybe she should try clinging to... well, you know.

The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.

For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.

Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.

If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.

H/T Hot Air, here's Kerr saying that it ain't vegetable:

Regardless, he's a partisan attached to the Clinton campaign, in spite of his insistence that he only lent his name at the request of a couple of friends:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced today the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary”—a national steering committee made up of more than 65 LGBT leaders (full list included below), all of whom have personally endorsed Clinton for president.

If he had any problem with his name used that way, he had ample time to detach it before he allowed it to happen a second time.

It's still possible that he's a plant, but not Hillary's or CNN's. He's also attached to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (he's on their advisory council), self-described as:

SLDN is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related forms of intolerance.

From their press release today that appears to take credit for Gen. Kerr's performance:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination expressed support this evening for the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law which bans openly lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel from the armed forces. The candidates were queried on the topic by retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.), a member of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's (SLDN) military advisory council who 'came out' in 2003 and identified as a Republican voter. General Kerr served for 43 years in the military, including as Commanding General of the Northern Area Command of the California State Military Reserve. His question was part of this evening's CNN/YouTube debate of Republican presidential contenders.

By the way, CNN could have easily found out about his ties to SLDN. It's expected that partisans with an ax to grind would try to participate in the YouTube debate. It was CNN's job to vet the questions and questioners, and whether intentional or no, failed miserably.

Update: Here's a post from SLDN's own blog posted prior to the debate.

Wow, I missed all the fun by going to bed. Having a job that gets you up early can be a handicap for a blogger.

Remember how CNN trotted out "undecided voters" in the last Democrat debate that turned out to be somewhat less undecided than advertised? While I was sleeping, folks all over were demonstrating their google-fu on the questioners at last night's debate. So far, at least 4 of the questioners were either declared hyper-partisan lefties or actual campaign workers for Dem candidates! Details at Michelle Malkin(who is apparently still awake and posting) here and here.

The most egregious of the plants is the gay retired general, who is on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton. His performance started the ball rolling on the outings, as suspicions arose when CNN brought him in to the auditorium to flog the candidates after they gave answers that he didn't like. As Kevin at Wizbang puts it:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type "Keith Kerr, retired Colonel" into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

Yeah, right...

I think Kerr was simply too good to check. Imagine the CNN question pickers' joy at finding Kerr, who has victim status as a gay, and the absolute moral authority of being a veteran? The question could have been asked by anyone, CNN chose Kerr because it would put the Republican candidates in the worst possible light. I don't recall any equivalent popping up at the Democrat Debate - I'm sure CNN could have found a few had they tried.

As to the subject of winners and losers of the debate itself - John Hawkins (whose live-blogging I followed) thinks McCain won. I heartily disagree. Each of the candidates put in a poor performance compared to the previous debates. I'd have to say nobody won. Expect the recent polling success of the 5 top Republicans to dissolve over the next few days.

It wasn't a complete rout, however. As I said in a previous post, McCain did get the best soundbites out of the debate, particularly the exchange with nutjob Ron Paul over Iraq. Here's the clip where the only comeback from Paul is a weak retort about campaign contributions from some military officers:

Getting campaign contributions from some military folks doesn't translate into all the troops supporting you, Ron. It's stupid to suggest so. And by the way, Ron - where were you over Thanksgiving? Not in Iraq getting opinions firsthand from the troops, I'll wager. Here's Ron again, seemingly saying that we're occupying Saudi - skip to about 2:40:

Here's my wrap up and grades:

McCain - C-. He had some good moments, especially when dealing with security issues. That was tempered by his remarks about torture, where he appears to be too personally attached to be objective or rational, and his inability to see shamnesty as the mistake that it was.

Thompson - C+. Had good answers, but no fire. CNN did him a favor by giving him less air time than the other front-runners. He made a serious blunder by submitting an attack ad for the debate.

Tancredo - C. He's still a one-issue candidate, but gives good answers when given a chance.

Romney - D. I agree with John, he can't take a punch. This is going to hurt him if he makes it to the general election, where he needs to be a whole lot more nimble when attacked.

Guliani - D. Everyone knows he was Mayor of New York by now. Also, he came off as a little harsh in his exchanges with the other candidates.

Huckabee - C+. Good speaker, mostly good answers. Although the religious right loves him, he scares a lot of center and left-leaning folks when he starts getting preachy.

Hunter - C-. Did he get any questions? I can't remember.

Paul - D-. CNN obviously intended to waylay him with the conspiracy question early in the show, and in spite of Paul's attempt to moderate the tone of his answer, got what they wanted. Later rants from Paul only cemented the impression of being crazed, as his demeanor became less and less presidential and more unhinged. I'm sure his supporters will give him an A+, though. Update (11/29/07, 7:36 AM): Glenn Reynolds on Paul's demeanor - "His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station." LOL.

CNN - D-. The real winner of the debate, if you ask me. Although their moderation was incompetent (remember when they used to keep the audiences quiet?), and their bias was too clear for even the most rabid partisan lefty to miss, they managed to set up a successful venue in which to make the Republicans look bad - not that they needed the help.

Overall, the performance of all the candidates was sub-par. They all have a lot of work to do on both message and presentation if they want to defeat Hillary or Obama.

I'll give more in the morning, but I think Huckabee was very strong, McCain had the best sound-bite moments, Romney was clearly off his game.

Ron Paul would have won if judged by audience reaction. Fortunately, we grade candidates on other criteria. Ron said it best when he said he was lucky to be in the middle of his own campaign. I agree, he has no business being there and is lucky that he is for the short time it's gonna last.

CNN couldn't resist another "diamond or pearls" question - since no women on stage, they disguised it as a sports question.

Thompson has all the right answers, but no fire. Everyone's getting another beer while he speaks, no matter how right he is, it's not compelling when he says it.

More tomorrow, folks. Good night!

8:00 EST on CNN. I'll be watching, will you? As mentioned on lots of other blogs, CNN's teaser gives the impression that their bias will be showing in the choice of questions.

Since I don't type fast enough to live blog, I'll save my impressions for a post-debate post. If you're interested in live-blogging, I recommend John Hawkins, who hears that candidates asked for CNN to give them serious questions instead of going for laughs with snowmen and rednecks. I wonder if CNN can resist the temptation, though.

Update: I had a comment on this post flagged as spam due to an excessive number of links. I had considered approving the comment, but after reviewing the comment and the links decided to leave it alone. If you want to discuss, fine, but if you're just buzzing through to drop links to your site, that's spam. I don't do it on your site, please don't do it here.

At the dishonest comment deletion tactics allegedly in use at the San Francisco Chronicle(H/T Glenn Reynolds) and Think Progress(H/T Charles Johnson). However, browser caches can be unruly beasts, so I'm not yet ready to call foul.

If true, it just follows a pattern on the left of squelching any speech that does not agree with their own. This is no different than shouting down a speaker giving a speech, and belching "freedom of speech!" in the attempt to deprive the speaker of his. What makes it particularly nasty is that the commenter at SFC or TP don't know they've been shouted down.

Of course, no one at SFC or TP is compelled to publish any comment they find objectionable for whatever reason. They also have the right to ban commenters at will for any reason they like. What's repugnant about this tactic (again, if true) is the dishonesty in allowing someone to believe they're being heard when they aren't.

I does occur to me that this would be fairly easy to implement, though, through multiple methods. Expect to see a lot of site administrators (and bloggers, too) try this now that the idea is floating around.

Update: Apparently very easy to implement - Charles duplicates the effect by altering 6 lines of code.

Yeah, I watched it. Here are my impressions:

The first 10-15 minutes were exciting due to the backbiting. After that, they settled down into the familiar Bush-bashing pattern.

Hillary was on-game. She needed to be aggressive without coming off as nasty and largely succeeded. She's still going to be the front runner for a while yet. The audience booed twice when Hillary was attacked. Playing the gender card is apparently effective.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden gave some good answers - particularly Dodd when answering about security vs. human rights. Making sense is death to your campaign when running with this crowd, though. Biden got bonus points for giving a one-word answer.

Obama had a very bad night. It took Wolfe nearly 5 minutes to get an answer about the drivers license issue. He also slipped and referred to illegals as "illegal aliens". That'll piss off the open borders crowd.

Speaking of pissed, Kucinich was. And with good reason, too. He had to prompt Wolfe to let him have a chance to answer a question. No matter how loony he is, as long as he's on stage with Hillary and Obama, and deserves equal time and consideration. Of course, it won't happen, since Democrats really don't care about fairness.

Edwards loves pandering to the nutroots. I heard him repeat the word "neocon" a few times, that resonates with the delusional fringe. He also mentioned Cheney a few times, which gets the nutroots speaking in tongues. He'll be the winner with the Daily Kos crowd.

Richardson pandered as well. He even managed to invoke "Haliburton" in an answer that had nothing to do with it.

Hypocrite alerts - Hillary for saying she's not playing the gender card and following with something that sounded a lot like "vote for me because I'm a woman". Dodd for saying he has no litmus test for judges then saying he won't appoint a pro-lifer.

The second half was interesting - CNN wanted the Dems to look good, as they lined up victims one by one. One said he was a victim of racial profiling caused by the Patriot Act, no one called him on it. Update (11:28 PM): One of the CNN's "victims" is a war protester. And that's CNN's idea of an "undecided voter"? And why isn't Dan Riehl on my blogroll? Fixed.

Also, what idiot let the question about jewelry get asked?

If I had to pick, I'd say Biden won - at least in debate terms. Since he doesn't have a chance, though, that matters little. What does matter is who lost - Obama. Most folks have open minds, if he had taken a decisive stance on the illegal alien question and attempted to explain why he felt that way, folks would have respected it. Instead, he wasted everyone's time trying to avoid being pinned down to an answer on a question that wasn't difficult. It made him look especially bad after attacking Hillary on the exact same thing for the past 2 weeks.

Since Obama's loss is likely to be Hillary's gain, she'll emerge as the apparent overall winner through default - even though she didn't win through her answers.

Posted on Delaware Watch is the below video on Diego Garcia. I'm not studied on the primary subject of British policy in Diego Garcia, but the second minute of the piece paints the US military as baby killers. Sadly, this kind of disgusting totally untrue smear of the troops happens far too frequently in leftist circles. It is beyond dispute that no military in history has worked harder than ours to avoid civilian casualties.

The piece does show what appears to be horrible treatment of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia. However, its view of the U.S. military is so dishonestly wrong that the rest of the piece is highly suspect.

There's a lesson here. Journalists who really care about exposing injustices should check any ideology at the door else risk discrediting any good they might accomplish. Same goes for those who spread it.

Update: If the atrocities outlined in the film are real, then notable are the dates - the key years for the United States' involvement are between 1961 and 1968 - all during Democrat administrations.

I'm sure that makes it all OK, right? Since it was for the "common good", after all...

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

Unless you're not paying attention, the over-expansion of SCHIP has little to do with children and more to do with the gradual implementation of socialized medicine. If the Democrats fail to provide President Bush with a veto-proof bill, they'll need a replacement to further their desire for increased socialism. If they succeed, they'll need another target to exploit. Where will that target come from? Win or lose, SCHIP will soon be difficult, if not impossible, target for further expansion - at least the short term. The next target might be a perennial favorite - veterans.

Friday's New York Times offers an unsigned editorial giving us a heads up on what might be next on their agenda:

Although many Americans believe that the nation’s veterans have ready access to health care, that is far from the case. A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans’ hospitals and clinics and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Their plight represents yet another failure of our disjointed health care system to provide coverage for all Americans.

The new study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, estimated that in 2004 nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care in veterans’ facilities. An additional 3.8 million members of their households faced the same predicament. All told, this group made up roughly 12 percent of the huge population of uninsured Americans.

First, the study (which can be found here) is very specific that the numbers are for those who don't qualify for VA medical care in the first place. Yet the Times neglects to mention it, leading the uninformed to believe that we have soldiers maimed in combat going without medical care.

The VA provides medical care to those with service-related illness and veterans who are demonstrably poor. All other veterans used to be able to seek care on a space-available basis - these are known as "group 8", and are defined as follows by the VA:

Group 8: All other non service-connected veterans and zero percent, non-compensable service-connected veterans who agree to pay co-pays.

Note that families are not included in the definition.

Group 8 veterans were seen less frequently in VA hospitals as the draw down during the 90's reduced the number of facilities while increasing the number of veterans, and the VA stopped enrolling Group 8 vets in 2003.

Even the number of uninsured veterans isn't necessarily the tragedy that the Times wishes you to believe. The study, although newly published, is itself not new. One of the authors, Stephanie J. Woolhandler, testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs back in June of this year. She admitted to the true nature of these uninsured vets:

Only about half of the 1.8 million uninsured veterans are classified Priority 8, Woolhandler said. The rest may technically be eligible for some VA care but live too far from its facilities for it to be a real option, she said.

In other words, even if they were eligible they likely wouldn't be getting VA health care, due to lack of either capacity or proximity.

We're also provided some insight in to the Ms. Woolhandler's motivations as well:

Woolhandler is a well-known advocate of guaranteeing access to health care for all Americans through a government-run national health insurance program.

Also, the study includes this graph showing that veterans have a measurably lower uninsured rate than the general population, and rate of increase in number of uninsured correlates to that of the general population as well:

Match the graph to the alarmist Bush bashing in the author's press release:

“Since President Bush took office the number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed, and he’s cut eligibility, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care. This administration has put troops in harm’s way overseas and abandoned them and their families once they got home,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, co-author of the study and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. “We need a solution that works for veterans, their families, and all Americans - single payer national health insurance.”

While the version of the study published in the American Journal of Public Health doesn't have an overly-large agenda-driven bent, this version of it does, as its conclusion illustrates:

We believe that only a single payer national health insurance system can affordably cover all Americans – including veterans.

The NYT finishes this disingenuous editorial with this:

An even better solution would be some form of universal health coverage for all Americans. Then even veterans who live far from a V.A. facility, and a host of dependents who are not now eligible, could get the care they need.

So here we have the New York Times using a highly agenda-driven study with politically-motivated conclusions as evidence that we need socialized medicine. In true form, they ignore the parts of the study that conflict with their assertions. Despicably, they're using veterans and their families as their vehicle of choice to advance their socialist agenda. Don't be surprised if this becomes the replacement for SCHIP in the Democrat's march to socialism.

Funny how much they love the troops when it advances their agenda, isn't it?.

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

This online film from Nickelodeon has to be seen to be believed. I can't understand the mental process that drove them to feature children being utilized as unwitting tools by the anti-American World Can't Wait (WCW).

While it's to be expected from WCW (they've targeted young impressionable minds before), for Nickelodeon to glorify this kind of disgusting propagandizing of children is beyond reprehensible.

Goodbye, Nickelodeon. You're no longer welcome in our home.

BTW, I don't place all the blame on Nickelodeon. Simple decency prevents me from expressing my feelings about this child's parents - he surely didn't sink into the WCW cesspool on his own.

h/t Michelle Malkin and ArmyWifeToddlerMom

Via Instapundit, this from the American Thinker:

Two days after the mid-terms, the New York Times discovers that Democrats can be corrupt, too. Who knew?

If the NYT had their heart in it, though, shouldn't they have written "Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, the disgraced former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges and removed from the bench"? You know, like they do for all the Republicans?

Just asking...

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

If something that even hints at a success for the administration rears it's ugly head, count on our supportive MSM to cast it in the worst possible light. Via CBS News:

(CBS/AP) In a world sharply divided on Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in 2003, Saddam Hussein's death sentence Sunday unleashed fears of fresh violence and new questions about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Underscoring the fault lines that split the international community and widened the divide between Muslims and Christians, Islamic leaders warned that the verdict could inflame those who revile the United States — undermining U.S. policy in the volatile Middle East and inspiring terrorists to strike.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Stepping up to the plate for their pals.

Dan Rather is on Fox News as I write this, he's questioning the timing. Hope someone got video - I'll link if it's out there.

Like it would be a surprise to anybody:

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

Pulling out the stops for their pals.

That's what the headline should be. But instead, we get:

US military newspapers to demand Rumsfeld's resignation

As if the military runs the papers and reflects the views of the troops. It does not, and yet the story has already found the most ignorant and gullible to prey on:

– The US military — every branch — is asking that Donald Rumsfeld be fired. Now. And so are the pro-military newspapers that serve them.

News to you folks: These are civilian papers. They are not written, edited, or published by the U.S. Military. Editorial content like this, this, this, and this are not reflective of the views of the actual military members that the papers are marketed to.

Instead of reading something into this story about the troops that simply isn't there, you should be asking instead why the premier publications marketed to a military audience is willfully trying to undermine the troops' chain of command. That's the real story. And if you missed it, then you just didn't want to see it.

Update: Bryan at Hot Air finds another gullible soul - though I think Sullivan is being gullible by choice.

Early yesterday morning I emailed another blogger on an unrelated topic, but included my thoughts on the NYT's story:

I'm staying away from the NYT nuke story for now. The article was clear that the documents were pre-gulf war, I think some of the arguments being made on the right are a little thin. More info is sure to come out, maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope so. Right now, though, I see this as a negative, albeit a minor one that probably won't have much effect on the election.

I think the Times' story hasn't even lived up to my mild prediction, as apparently the story hasn't gained much traction. Indeed, Dan Riehl notes:

More than 12 hours after the New York Times dropped perhaps what they thought was a nuclear bomb on the Bush administration four days before the coming election, a look at Google News puts the story at second tier status with no more than 265 additional stories linked to the breaking news.

The argument from the left that this somehow helped Iran will sway few outside the BDS echo-chamber. Iran has worked on their program for years with plenty of help, it's unlikely these old Iraq documents will help them.

As for the right side, while I feel that there should now be some increased attention to all the captured documents, the notion that the Times has somehow validated all 48,000 boxes of them is somewhat silly. I would like to think we can come up with a better vetting standard than the New York Times. (yes, I know, Ed isn't being entirely serious with this. But he was among the first to say it, and many other blogs are flogging this as if it's a big "gotcha", and I simply don't think it is.)

Folks on my side are also hyping the fact that the documents place yet another dagger in the heart of the "BushLied" meme. ""Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war."

True, but there were more than enough daggers in that heart already, and yet the "BushLied" meme is still alive and well. It's a comforting and fun rallying cry for the anti-Bush/anti-war crowds, they're not going to stop beating that drum no matter how much truth they ignore. Just this week, Kerry repeated it:

John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Dick Cheney for misleading America. He ought to ask for an apology from the president for lying about the nuclear program in Africa.

Of course, when the higher levels on the left still say it, the low will follow. For example, this deserter:

"The whole story behind it, it all feels like a big lie," Glass said. "I ain't fighting for no lie."

Hmmm. Kerry might have been right about this particular fellow - he's obviously not applied himself to his studies. Point is, though, the article in the Times turned out to be a big, fat, hairy zero.

If this is the best the NYT can muster, maybe Tuesday won't be such a disaster after all.

Oh - something struck me as I read the response to the article by Rep. Hoekstra, specifically this paragraph:

"With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

Am I the only one who thinks Rep. Hoekstra isn't waxing rhetorical? And could the media be sedate in their coverage of this because they fear being thrown off track by that "60 percent"?

Just asking...

When Lynne Cheney was ambushed last Friday on CNN, she make Blitzer look like an idiot. So it should be unsurprising that CNN would retaliate:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynne Cheney is deflecting talk of the sexual content in her novel "Sisters," a 25-year-old book that resurfaced in a campaign Friday and is stirring up controversy.

The novel, featuring a lesbian love affair, was brought up Friday amid a contentious Senate race in Virginia. Soon a Democratic committee and Cheney herself -- in an interview on CNN -- were weighing in.

This is probably one of the weakest hit jobs ever, though. The author of the article clearly has not read the book "Sisters", makes no quotes to back up the assertion, and is confident that you won't be able to either:

Readers will have a hard time judging the content of the book for themselves. The few copies available are selling for hundreds of dollars each.

On Amazon.com Sunday, four used copies of "Sisters" were being sold, ranging from $695.95 for one in "acceptable" condition to $999 for a copy in "collectible -- good" condition. Ebay had two copies available, with requested opening bids of $200 and $500. Froogle.com, on Sunday afternoon, found the cheapest copies available barely under $300.

Some of these prices were set before the latest blow-up over the work of fiction. It was not immediately clear what impact the last few days have had.

So where does CNN expect you to get the information to judge for yourself? The Democrats:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release listing sexual passages in books by Cheney and other GOP conservatives, including Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The DSCC said Cheney's books featured brothels and attempted rape.

'Cause we all know the Dems would never say anything mean or untrue about a Republican, right? And after all, that seems to be where CNN gets much of their news nowadays, so why shouldn't you?

The NYT today wrote an endorsement of Ned Lamont that strangely mentions almost nothing about Ned Lamont. For the NYT, it all boils down to one thing:

He and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

Save for the war, Ned Lamont's positions are not mentioned. For that matter, Leiberman's aren't either. The entire endorsement is a nutty wild-eyed "Leiberman = Bush so vote Lamont because he's not" rant.

It's so pathetic and narrow I'd be surprised if it wasn't taken as an insult by Connecticut voters.

BTW, I cheer for neither. Lieberman, despite his views on the GWOT, is a liberal through and through. Ned Lamont is simply an empty shirt who apparently can't form complete sentences without his handlers flapping his lips. I just think it's a pity that the NYT apparently thinks the voters in Connecticut are that one-dimensional.

Update: What does Ned Lamont's biggest fan and full-time cheerleader think of the Times belittling the voters of CT as sad one-dimensional comic-strip characters mindlessly blinded to all but the NYT's BDS-driven hatred for Joe? No surprise here:

"I think this rocks."

And from the comments, a somewhat dark and disturbing reason to vote for Lamont. Well, what apparently passes for one from this FDL commenter:

...Joe has a lot of nose hairs and that really bothers me.

Hmmm. Is that what it really sounds like?

Gee, I sure hope not. Such tolerance. Very, very sad.

Update 2: Here's an example of an endorsement that actually considers the candidate being endorsed.

Update 3: Come to think about it, I can't imagine this spurring a whole lot of high-fiving over at Lamont headquarters. Lamont can't be happy about getting an endorsement based on nothing more than "we hate Joe". Kinda like being the next to the last guy picked at a sandlot game - nobody wants him, but they want the last guy even less....

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

A terrific column about the Harry Reid real estate scandal by Ed Morrissey (of Captain's Quarters fame): Reid's Smelly Windfall.

Anchoress: "…something is not sitting just right with me."

I tend to agree. As I theorized yesterday, the House's investigations will lead nowhere. Unless Hastert buckles under pressure and resigns, the damage will be limited to one Republican gone in shame, and a few points lost in the polls. There's still plenty of time for the numbers to recover, so what did the Dems purchase with all this effort?

Anchoress thinks the current Democratic vapors about the Foley mess might be a diversion to keep the GOP busy while they prepare something else. I considered that too - the question is what? Voter fraud occurs every election cycle, I can't imagine how this could provide cover for it. But I won't rule it out, either.

Of course, this may not be the "true" October surprise we've all expected, and the Foley thing was meant just to tank the career of a single Republican. The story subsequently grew much longer legs than anyone anticipated, thus encouraging more attention from the Dem leadership than originally planned - hence the ham-handed and hypocritical rantings from the left that we've all been exposed to.

So is there another shoe yet to drop? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what it might be?

in Larry Margasak's AP article:

WASHINGTON - The House's investigation of a page sex scandal has only one certainty: Former Rep. Mark Foley will escape punishment by his peers.

Escape? He's under investigation by Florida and the feds. He resigned in disgrace. He's become the poster child for a variety of ills that Americans passionately despise. I'd say that so far he's escaped little. And while I feel he deserves far worse than he'll ultimately receive, he'll get the maximum our laws and our society can dish out. It'll have to be enough.

Unfortunately, the optimism in the article about the ethics probe won't pan out:

Unlike the committee's usual practice of identifying the investigative target at the outset, this probe is wide open. Anyone who knew of Foley's salacious messages before the story broke at the end of September has reason for concern.

Larry's (and apparently AP's) optimism is that Republican leadership will be shown to have known all the graphic details from the very first IM and turned a blind eye or even actively enabled Foley. I'm confident that this will not be the result, as it's become obvious that the early emails were unactionable and Hastert and crew's reactions were appropriate. But it's unfortunate that the damage will already have been done long before that result is reached.

Also unfortunate because it appears that those who knew (and hid for months) the true nature of Foley's disgusting advances towards young men weren't in Congress, therefore beyond the reach of the ethics committee. Democratic leadership may have been aware, but the trails the emails and IMs followed to the media were sufficiently distant from the House that no prominent Dem will be successfully called to task. Such a small number of Americans pay close enough attention to politics that few will connect the dots to see that a political party desperate for power is more than willing to place children at risk while they patiently bide their time for the moment with the most political effect.

It's a pattern we've all seen before in politics. Rarely does an elected official have to dirty his/her own hands, there are plenty of folks willing to do it for them. As a result, the ones responsible almost never face consequences. Does anyone really this will play out otherwise? I have a bridge for sale if you do...

From this morning's AP coverage of the video of the two mutilated soldiers:

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

I don't know about you, but when I see this, I have a hard time thinking of those that did it as "fighters".

Via AP/Yahoo, in an article that tries to blunt the message as best as possible:

WASHINGTON - The federal deficit appears on track to register less than $300 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30, as surging tax revenues continue to signal significant improvement over White House estimates released in February — though only modest gains over last year.

Modest, eh? Later in the article:

Indeed, tax collections are surging at a 13 percent growth rate, reflecting particularly strong growth in taxes paid on corporate profits and income taxes paid by wealthier people and small businessmen who pay taxes quarterly instead of having them withheld by employers.

Since when is 13 percent "modest"? For those of you in the "we can't afford tax cuts" club, please stop lying about the effect of tax cuts. Spending is the problem.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added a disappointing 121,000 jobs last month, wary of bulking up payrolls with the economy slowing and energy prices rising. Wages rose sharply, fanning inflation worries.

We're still at near-historic lows in unemployment, and for months the complaint was that wages weren't keeping up. Now wages are increasing, and that's suddenly a bad thing?

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

The NYT is exposing yet another classified program (H/T Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

Similar to other programs, expect the Democrats to start yelling loudly about this just before we find out that a number of them had been briefed and raised no objection.

Will Feingold dust off his resolution calling for Congress to ignore Article III of the Constitution?

I'll have more on this later. But in the meantime, I've started the countdown for the reflexive and robotic automatic declaration that it's illegal from the left blogosphere.

10... 9... 8...

Update (8:50am EST): First entry is this breathless headline at the Huffington Post: "Bank Data Secretly Reviewed By Bush Admin. Without Warrants Or Subpoenas..." - here's a screenshot:

Yet the NYT article that Arianna links to says subpoenas were indeed issued:

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

I suppose reading the article was too much to ask.

Apparently Andrew Bridges at AP wants military families to have more to worry about:

WASHINGTON - Families of veterans who die during a bird flu outbreak shouldn't count on burying their loved ones in any of the 120 national cemeteries. The Department of Veterans Affairs foresees closing the military graveyards in a pandemic because of staffing problems.

Later in the article, he alludes to the fact that if the scenario he's writing about occurs, there's going to be lots of very understandable shortages:

As much as 40 percent of the national work force could be off the job in a pandemic, according to federal estimates.

I would think it's a given that the VA would experience personnel shortages as well. The article could have been written to simply be informative, but Mr. Bridges apparently felt compelled to add some gratuitous gruesomeness:

During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the dead were sometimes buried in trenches, Fells said. Should another pandemic strike, it could take days to bury the dead, and perhaps only then in mass or temporary graves, he added.

**snip**

"If there's truly a catastrophic kind of thing — whether it be a bird flu pandemic or a massive, terrorist-instigated attack that would claim tens or hundreds of thousands of lives — a lot of that frankly involves bulldozers," said Mike Duggan, the American Legion's deputy director for national security and a Vietnam veteran.

**snip**

As for the dead, the VA said it may have to store bodies in refrigerated warehouses or trucks outfitted as temporary morgues.

**snip**

Those burials could stop or be put on hold during a pandemic, presumably even as the tally of dead surges, according to a VA plan that lays out how it will cope with an influenza outbreak.

I'm sure thousands of military families will feel comforted by this article, thanks to the "sensitivity" of Mr. Bridges and Associated Press.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.

He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information."

When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."

"We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in "pretty bad shape," politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.

"Now we have the upper hand," he said at a news conference in Baghdad. "We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, pressed forward with his initiative to crack down on violence in Baghdad. Government forces fanned out across Baghdad for a second day, setting up checkpoints and frisking motorists.

I discussed the potential cascade effect stemming from Zarqawi's death here, and it appears to be coming true. AP's reporting is a welcome change from their usual fare. While I hope they keep it up, the reality is that bad habits are difficult to break.

I wonder how the rest of the media will treat this?

The headline of this story drips of it:

Rove avoids being charged in CIA leak case

The text of the article says that the "ruthless" Rove "escaped" being charged. In her disappointment over the cancellation of Fitzmas, Jennifer Loven (the author of the piece) also makes this odd claim:

Still, the White House has not emerged entirely from the cloud of the CIA leak investigation. Cheney and Rove, along with other past and present administration aides, have been identified as possible witnesses when Libby goes on trial, probably in January.

If you're Rove, just being a witness at a trial is apparently a negative.

I recommend counselling.

Maybe I'm just tired, but it really seems that Michael Georgy of Reuters is hoping for the worst:

Iraq's Diyala region could be spark for civil war

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - If there is one place that suggests Iraq's sects and ethnic groups can't live together, it is blood-stained Diyala Province.

Well?

DragonFlyEye visited this morning to comment on yesterday's fake news story. Since he raises some legitimate questions, I've decided to elevate his comment to this post and address it here. First, his entire comment:

LB,

Due respect, but what about what's actually going on? You make a lot of critcisms about the left, myself included, for not being entirely accurate but you gloss over the entire issue of the legitimacy of the VNR's. Truth be told, this is actually a trend started by the Clinton and not the Bush Administration. I say that to forstall the inevitable "Clinton started it" rant. The fact is that they're out there and becoming more commonly used by the Administrative Branch; irrespective of what issue or policy they are being used to support, don't you think that the trend alone is worth fighting against?

Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics. Presidential politics are generally cumulative in this way. We can, therefore, make a strong case that the next presidential administration ~ be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever ~ will undoubtably employ these types of tactics if they are not squashed. President Bush has seen fit to use signing statements to go around the Constitution and around the Congress, what makes you think he won't go around an organ *of the adminsitrative branch* which he controls?

We almost certainly disagree on a wide swath of our politics, but surely you cannot be so cavalier about institutionalizing propaganda?

DragonFlyEye raises some issues that should be discussed, but first, to clarify, my original post on the VNR story in the Independent was not intended to raise those issues. The post was simply to cover a case of dishonest journalism and it's effect. I'll agree that I wasn't particularly nice to left blogs in general. DragonFlyEye was quoted simply for his contention that Fox was the leading abuser of VNRs when the report that prompted the investigation showed that ABC clearly deserved that title - if indeed, a title should be awarded, since even the Center for Media and Democracy were reluctant to opine on that issue as their sample size precluded such a determination. If my post appered to infer any other criticism of DragonFlyEye, it was unintentional.

Many of us on the right use the catchall BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to describe the reflexive assignment of evil intent to the administration. "Bush lied" continues to be used widely by the left in spite of the evidence to the contrary and serves as the most famous example. While it applies to a lesser degree to the blogs I quoted - for example, claiming "Bush Investigated For Propaganda" when the story, as bad as it was, made it clear that was not the case, I saved the label for Hume's Ghost exclusively. He earned this because he made it clear in his post that he had performed sufficient research to know the truth yet still chose to portray the story as "the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration."

Surely there are examples of this kind of autoresponse on the right - ask any of us, I think most will freely admit it. Probably the best example is the reflexive claim of aiding the enemy that the right often hangs on the left. I've been guilty of that on occasion myself - it's unfortunate that we as humans can't more readily access the thoughts, passions, and motivations of others.

But I do see a distinct difference between various groups on the left. And it's not difficult to see a small faction that is so driven by their passions that they will go "scorched earth" on folks who least deserve it in order to make the administration look bad. Several very good examples immediately come to mind - Murtha's premature conviction of Marines at Haditha, folks leaking or printing certain classified items, for instance. There is a growing contingient on the left that applauds and encourages that harmful behavior and there's no doubt in my mind that this contingient is over-represented on the web. This makes makes such generalizations not only possible - they're awfully hard to resist.

Again, this isn't intended to be an indictment of DragonFlyEye, who seems genuinely interested in starting a dialog in which I'll engage in part two. I just think it's helpful to let all know where I'm coming from so the conversation isn't misunderstood.

Tomorrow, in part two - an honest discussion of the Bush administration's relationship with the press, and I'll answer DragonFlyEye's questions surrounding VNRs. Am I disturbed by them? Are they propaganda? Are they ethical? Are they legal? I may not please either side with my opinions.

A reader (name kept private by request) emailed to direct my attention to a followup post on Unclaimed Territory and asked if I thought my post from yesterday had anything to do with it. First, let's look at the latest, where Hume's Ghost issues a correction on his "Faux News" post:

Well, I don't call my blog The Daily Doubter for nothing. Looking at my first post here, it has come to my attention that sloppy writing on my part in the post on the widespread infiltration of faux news reports is misleading and needs to be corrected. I'm not sure what the blogging ethics of this are, so I'm going to identify the corrections here and then add this Addendum onto that post.

The way I have it written, it sounds as if the bulk of the VNR's being investigated by the FCC are government sponsored. That is not the case. The vast majority of video news releases are created by corporations (the VNRs tracked in the CMD's report were corporate sponsored ones).

*snip*

But here is the most misleading part of my post

But here is what bothers me about this story. We already knew this. Back in January of 2005, the New York Times reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that these undisclosed VNR's constituted illegal "covert propaganda."

Ok, we already knew that the press had been corrupted by fake news, but the GAO had not found that "these" VNRs constituted covert propaganda. It could not have, because the GAO was only commenting on the use of government sponsored VNRs. Obviously, what I had written makes it sound if all the VNRs in the CMD's report were government propaganda. This should have been written as:

... We already knew that the press had been corrupted by fake news. Back in January of 2005, the New York Times reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that the creation of undisclosed VNR's (by the federal government) constituted illegal "covert" propaganda.

Credit where credit is due - Hume's Ghost does acknowlege that his original post gave the impression that the majority of the VNRs being investigated are from the government. However, none of the VNRs being investigated are from the government, and Hume's Ghost stops a little short of saying that.

The heart and soul of Ghost's post (bashing the administration over VNRs) was based on a dishonest piece in the Independent (which was the focus of my post), and had he believed that none of the VNRs being investigated were from the government, then his entire post would have merited retraction starting with his tone-setting opening remark:

Allthough it hasn't managed to garner much attention, the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration.

And ending with:

Why is it that the American public seems to not mind the manipulation of the truth in an effort to subvert democracy?

Also, Hume's Ghost doesn't credit anyone for his correction, and there's no indication that it's the result of anything other than his own introspection. And since planted stories shilling cadillacs, candy and chondroitin quite obviously present little threat to democracy, it appears to me that the thrust of his message remains intact.

So, the answer to my reader's question is no - I had nothing to do with it.

As far as the other blogs that I linked, I know a couple of them read my post (from the referral list on my stats page), and one of those squelched my trackback. And a couple of whois searches popped up as well, but I see those frequently after linking lefty blogs. No surprises here.

And DragonFlyEye has entered the room - I'll promote and address his comments in my next post.

Of putting fake stuff into news to make thing look worse than they really are, go check this out at Michelle Malkin's blog.

Apparently, embellishing news for negative effect in the UK extends beyond the dingy back rooms of the Guardian and the Independent. Normally being the type to give most folks the benefit of the doubt, in this case I have to go with the opinions expressed by Michelle and her readers - whoever placed the image knew exactly what they were doing and should have been aware of the incindiary nature of their actions.

Considering the feeding frenzy in the media over the Haditha story, I expect that this kind of opportunistic sensationalism will become more common. While some will be driven by ambition for ratings and sales, others will be driven by ideologies that view our military and their mission with contempt and loathing. It matters little which motivation is at work - the effects will be the same.

Considering the potential for increased danger to our Armed Forces and to Americans in general that this kind of dishonest reporting incites, this should be a career-ender for the person(s) responsible. Period.

Previous: Fake news or fake story about fake news?

There's a bit of controversy about whether P.T. Barnum really said "There's a sucker born every minute". No matter - whoever said it was right.

Andrew Buncombe of the Independent knows it. And he artfully used that principle to stir up the left by livening up this Bloomberg story about corporate video news releases (subscription required, full text quoted here) with some old news, fake news, and innuendo.

Here's the thrust of the original Bloomberg article:

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin ordered a probe of dozens of television stations after a report found they aired advertisements as if they were news reports, people familiar with the inquiry said.

The April report by the non-profit Center for Media and Democracy found at least 77 stations, including 23 affiliates of Walt Disney Co.'s ABC network and seven Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. stations, ignored an FCC warning to disclose sponsors. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500, rising to $325,000 for multiple infractions, said FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin.

Got that? It's about TV stations and corporate-made Video News Releases (VNR). Nothing else. But as we've seen so often in the media, anything can and will become a Bush-bashing story.

The Independent's headline:

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

Buncombe provides a reference to an administration-produced VNR and infers that it's part of the investigation:

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

This particular example occurred prior to the FCC issuing it's warning on the use of VNRs last year, and was not part of the report that prompted the FCC investigation. The report can be found here, and here's an interesting snippet from a NYT writer on its contents:

Three of the 88 releases in the report were done for government agencies but were not broadcast, the report said.

Of course, we've seen this kind of thing before, so there's nothing really unique about this story. I'm documenting it mostly because of the effect this kind of dishonest reporting has. A small but growing amount of buzz has been generated on the left side of the blogosphere, and all of it based on the parts of Buncombe's article that are fake. And while it appears that few bloggers bothered to read the report referenced in the article, a surprising number apparently passed on reading the article they cut and pasted into their own posts. For example, Jason at My Observations quotes most of the Independent article and adds the headline:

Democracy At Work? - Bush Investigated For Propaganda

Which is a claim that Buncombe, even as distorted as his article was, didn't make. And had Jason actually read the very first sentence of the article, he'd know that.

Sean (he's a Libra) introduces the quoted article with:

In the following case, the "corporation" in question is the Bush Administration... and apparently our trusted media outlets didn't feel obliged to make clear that distinction for their viewers.

Sean should worry less about his teeth and more about shaken Libra syndrome when he sees that b-ball coming for him. Another breathless and uninformed headline:

More Media Whores for Bushitler

Barkeep, I'll have some of what he's having... There's also the occasional embellishment - most on the left seem to dislike Fox News, so this seems to be a natural for the dragonflyeye.net blog:

But back to these so-called VNR’s (Video News Releases). That the Administration and Corporate America seem to be engaged in exactly the same types of deception ~ and by all accounts, primarily through the collusion of Fox media outlets ~ is the kind of thing that should give even those cynical of media independence reason to pause.

Never mind that the report's top offenders were ABC affiliates - it's so much fun to bust on Fox, right?

Here's one that obviously had time to get creative with font sizes and animations, but no time to read the article.

I know, the above examples are not the larger mainstream lefty blogs. Okay, How 'bout Digby?

And about that disinformation and propaganda, I think we have a little hint about where that's going in this era as well...

Hook, line, and sinker - if it's anti-Bush, it must be gospel, right, Digby?

When I want the rabid anti-constitutionalist view from the left, I always trot over to Glenn Greenwald's blog. And there's no disappointment here, as Glenn is out on his book tour and Hume's Ghost fills in with a magnificent BDS inspired rant:

Allthough it hasn't managed to garner much attention, the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration.

What's stunning is that he links several of the same sources that I use above, and still manages to conclude that the FCC is investigating an administration scandal. And on the left, this is apparently what passes for an influential blog - another blog called Outside the Spectrum links the post and comments:

More news today about the administration’s continued efforts to subvert the media from Glenn Greenwald’s blog. Apparently 77 different broadcast stations have used pre-packaged “news” items without identifying them as such, concerning subjects like how well the Iraq War is really going.

Um, barkeep? Maybe I should pass after all. Blindness and delusions aren't desirable side-effects.

What's sad is that in another month this will be likely become established "conventional wisdom" among the left, taking its place among such intellectually bereft gems as "Bush Lied", and "Domestic wiretapping". No critical thought applied. No research. As ubiquitous as it is dishonest.

Hume's Ghost closes his post with a question - "...why are we still even discussing this?". Because, Ghost, you and all the others want to believe. You went into the light - and ignored the signs that said "Bug Zapper". On one point I do agree with Hume's Ghost, though. No one could possibly mistake him for a pedant.

P. T. Barnum would have loved the modern left.

Update: If you really want to see fake news, try this instead. Michelle has a roundup with lots of real examples.

That is, the "May Day" pro-illegal immigration protests.

This is the currently the first picture in the slideshow at Yahoo:

I'm sure they meant this to be symbolic in some other way than the one I took it. To me, it's a reminder of what folks ignore when they choose to enter illegally.

Update (8:33 PM EST): Hot Air has the best roundup so far here.

in that it was much more busy than most.

Protests from the left that there is too much war in Iraq, followed by protests from the left that there isn't enough in Darfur.

Colin Powell confirms that different folks have different ideas, and the left goes nuts because the President followed the Pentagon's plan instead of the State department's.

Bush gets lots of laughs from the press, and a lefty comedian's jokes are answered with the sound of chirping crickets.

Iran is starting to fear the UN Security Council, so they're now sqirming to avoid them.

And we've still got tomorrow's May Day to get through as the illegals and their supporters protest for something they had a better chance of getting if they hadn't.

And in spite of all the negativity from the press and the left, we're still winning in Iraq. The goal of having the Iraqis take over their own security isn't yet achieved, but is in sight. And Al Qaeda in Iraq is running out of nutcases willing to blow themselves up.

Next week will have to be busy indeed to top it.

isn't necessarily new news:

Supreme Court Justice Reveals Death Threats

Sounds serious and urgent until you read the story:

WASHINGTON (March 15) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have been the targets of death threats from the "irrational fringe" of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.

"apparently"?

Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa last month that she and O'Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate "patriotic" killing of the justices.

Oh, so it was a year ago. Not news. And obviously, no one acted on the "immediate" part of the call, so also not very serious, either.

Hang on, maybe it is news. Someone on the left smearing conservatives while overseas. Oops, never mind, that's old hat too.

Jokes are apparently threatening as well:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.

The story just breaks down from here:

Ginsburg said the Web threat was apparently prompted by legislation in Congress, filed by Republicans, that would bar judges from relying on foreign laws or court decisions.

"It is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support. And one not-so-small concern - they fuel the irrational fringe," she said in a speech posted online by the court earlier this month and first reported Wednesday by LegalTimes.com.

According to Ginsburg, someone in a Web site chat room wrote: "Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week."

So one person in a chat room constitutes "sizable support". And if you're wondering who the "they" is, the story is written to suggest she's talking about Republicans:

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., a sponsor of one of the congressional proposals, wrote about the legislation on his Web site and in bold letters featured a quote from O'Connor predicting the Supreme Court would probably increasingly rely on foreign courts.

I suppose that many in public life get periodic threats of harm - I imagine that many are probably not serious, such as Ms. Coulter's statement. The ones that truly are serious are likely from a variety of ideologies. File this one under "what liberal media?".

Oh - here's the headline Huffington Post tagged the story with (complete with photo of armed guards protecting the Supreme Court from the Republican horde):

Justices Say They Are Targets Of Death Threats From The "Irrational Fringe" Spurred By GOP Criticism...

Is "irrational fringe" the left's equivalent of "unhinged"?

Here's a screen shot in case it changes.

If you didn't catch it live yesterday (I didn't) this is the must-see video from the weekend. John Hinderaker discusses classified leaks with Lucy Dalglish (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press) and Michael Isikoff, (reporter for Newsweek) on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz. The transcript is here.

It's easy to imagine the press component of the discussion believing that they are somehow like narrators in a documentary, unable to have an effect on the events they describe - therefore unaccountable. And it's impossible to miss the contempt shared by all but Hinderaker for the law and the administration. For example, their dismissal of the Espionage Act:

Kurtz (in transcript, not on video):

"But first, it's no secret that the Bush administration is trying to choke off the leaking of secrets to the press. CIA employees are being given lie detector tests, according to "The Washington Post," and the Justice Department is talking about using a

World War I Espionage Act

to prosecute reporters for receiving classified information."

Dalglish:

"And there's a reason why the 1917 Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute journalists. It would be an absolutely ridiculous proposition."

Isikoff:

"And using statutes like the Espionage Act, which is so vague and open for -- you know, the number of investigations that could conceivably flow from this strategy is enormous and, you know, it's hard to see how it could not but have a chilling effect on doing, you know, standard reporting on what the government is up to."

"Just one point on what Mr. Hinderaker just said. He was -- selectively quoted from a portion of the National Defense Act. There's other -- there's other language in there talking about communications relating to national defense which are incredibly vaguely worded, nowhere defined, and can be used to prosecute just about anything."

"One of the recommendations of the September 11th Commission is that there was way too much classification in government, and that was hindering national security."

The inclusion of "1917" and "World War I" as descriptors is telling. The law is old. Antiquated. Obsolete. How arrogant. There are laws against murder, theft, and rape that are much older - should these laws be placed in the same category due to age alone? I guess keeping secrets was somehow more relevant during WWI than it is today.

Another good dodge is the "too much classification" line. Would Mr. Isikoff argue that since a duty roster may have been over-classified as confidential during WWII, the press should have published the attack plans in advance of D-Day?

But the undertone of the conversation is the fear sweeping news offices over this issue. And Lucy Dalglish illustrates nicely the abject terror felt by the MSM during this exchange:

KURTZ: Lucy Dalglish, why should journalists be shielded if it's a crime to leak it, classified information, when they're on the other end of that transaction?

LUCY DALGLISH, REPORTERS COMMITTEE, FREEDOM OF PRESS: Well, you know, I -- theoretically, you know, "The Washington Post" probably this morning in my newspaper broke the law 45 times. I mean, you cannot pick up a newspaper without reading classified information.

KURTZ: In other words, you could find the illegal justification to prosecute reporters every day of the week?

DALGLISH: You could find the -- absolutely you could. And there's a reason why the 1917 Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute journalists. It would be an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

Why, if the government enforced the law, we'd all go to jail! And wouldn't that be silly?

But certainly the threat of prosecution alone wouldn't frighten the stalwart defenders of free speech out of doing their noble duty to the public? John expertly tosses out the bait, but the panel pointedly ignores it:

The NSA program was capturing lots of international terrorist communications. That's dropped off drastically since "The New York Times" published the story. So they've -- they've damaged our security.

Sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. Even more than prosecution, the press fears prosecution using the dreaded "T" word. And that law is old, too, Lucy.

H/T PowerLine.

Added note: Ian at Expose The Left does a terrific job of making these videos available to everyone, if you agree, drop him a note of thanks for the service he provides. A hit to his tip jar wouldn't be unwelcome, either.

Hillary's past connection with Wal-Mart. Do you think it might be because of this guy?

As I said over a month ago when Tasini started using Wal-Mart as a club to whack other liberals with - Chuckle, hell. I'm laughing.

H/T Jayson at Polipundit.

On a side note, this Tasini fellow is so far to the left he actually makes Howard Dean look good in comparison (As an example, he's proud to have Cindy Sheehan as a supporter). No small feat indeed.

John over at Powerline calls this AP post by Toni Locy the Dumbest News Story Ever. He says of the reporters involved:

"...either AP reporters are too lazy to spend 30 seconds on Google to educate themselves as to what happened during the ancient history of 2003, or they write articles that are deliberately misleading."

Ancient history it may be, but I'm sure that most of you will recognize this as another sign of the AP's laziness or desire to rewrite history:

Wilson's revelations cast doubt on President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon as one of the administration's key justifications for going to war in Iraq.

Now I'm never going to be more than an amateur historian, but even I can remember that Bush didn't make that claim.

In my assessment of the History Channel's Lincoln documentary earlier this week.

The History Channel has a viewer forum, scrolling through the comments, it appears that lots of folks were offended. Here are a few:

"i was intrigued until the Gore Vidal's snipe at the war on terror. Completely uncalled for. An important historical topic ruined by over-the-top political banter that should have been edited out."

"That was just terrible about the snide "War on Dandruff" comment. Thank goodness my children weren't in the room, so I did not have to explain to them about this hateful remark."

Hmmm... I wonder how many students were asked to watch this?

"Disappointed is an understatement. Having gathered the family to watch "Lincoln", we went from being made dizzy by the bizarre film movement to being disgusted by the commentary which presented Lincoln as a mentally ill pervert and homosexual."

"This show evoked utter disgust and disappointment - it pandered to the current PC indulgences of revisionist history and sensationalism. Gore Vidal's comments comparing the war on terror to a war against dandruff were appalling and revealed the author's tenuous hold on reality."

"If my complete knowledge of President Lincoln was limited to your 1/16/06 broadcast I would have to conclude that he was gay, suicidally depressed, married a woman he never loved for purpose of political gain, fixated upon his own death, couldn't handle more than one term in congress due to his "issues"..."

Congrats to the History Channel. Lincoln was assassinated twice. Once on April 14, 1865 and again on January 16, 2005.

There are lots more. I wonder if the gratuitous remarks from Gore Vidal will be edited out of the Saturday re-airing based on the complaints? I predict not.

The despicable Ted Rall must have been drooling on himself in his fervor to attack the administration about the missile strike last week targeting Al Zawahiri:

U.S. Drone Planes Have a Nearly Perfect Record of Failure

If only he had waited a couple of days:

Top al-Qaida Operatives Believed Killed

This morning's AP/Yahoo article about the visit of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to Syria included this paragraph:

Iran's insistence to proceed with its peaceful nuclear activities have raised great concern in the European Union and the United States, which have been pushing for referring the issue to the Security Council, a first step toward possible sanctions.

I guess AP has once again decided that the US, Europe, and just about everyone else on the planet is wrong....

Last night the History Channel aired a special on Abraham Lincoln. We only watched a little of it - the part I saw was as dark and negative as I've seen. We changed the channel when Gore Vidal came on and made comparisons between Bush and Lincoln, suggesting that Bush is only "pretending" that he's a wartime President. Then he followed with (and I didn't tape it so the wording may not be exact):

"The ‘War on Terror’ is like a war on dandruff. It’s a metaphor, it's nothing. The Civil War was real.”

He didn't actualy mention Bush by name, but it was clear from the context who he meant.

How utterly inappropriate to use a documentary on Lincoln to showcase your BDS. Can the left get any lower?

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this, the latest battle cry from the BDS afflicted. Maybe I'll dismantle it later. Right now, I'm writing this to express my view.

It's mentioned frequently by politicians and pundits that we live in a nation of laws. Although it's stupid of them to repeat this so much (most other nations have laws too), it's also true. Laws represent boundaries - much the same as the fence that many of you had to restrict your movements as a toddler, or the edge of your yard (along with your Mother's voice) if you had no fence.

It appears from the discussions on the talking head circuit that there are indeed some gray areas here. If the President exploits those gray areas to further the mission of national security, I'm for it.

As the President of the United States, I expect George Bush to respect and follow our laws. But as the man responsible for protecting our country (which includes my family), I expect him to be bold enough to test the absolute limits of those laws. Bush gets no award for being a shrinking violet in my view. I expect him to walk all the way to the edge of the yard, not slow down or stop when 5 or 10 feet away. If there are gray areas, I expect him to occasionally stick his toes over that gray area - if it saves American lives, it's worth the risk.

Actually, I don't expect it. I demand it. There's just too much at stake.

As for the gray areas - If the laws weren't sufficiently clear, the President doesn't deserve impeachment for testing them. Rather than arbitrarily draw a fresh line where politicians and scholars alike couldn't agree on before, then apply it to the President after the fact, Congress needs to take a look at the ambiguity of it's own product. And take corrective action.

And as for those who have known about this for months, took no action, and now express shock over the President's "illegal" actions (like Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc.)- I'm sure there's a legal term for someone who witnesses a "crime" and does nothing (which would have continued had their inaction not been exposed). If they want to press the issue, I hope someone makes room for them in the hearing schedule. At the low altitude table.

Once again, AP/Yahoo gives us a glimpse into their hearts:

Presidential Christmas Message

The article is fine. But look at the inappropriate and unflattering photo they companioned to the story:

No class at all.

Note: The photo (from AFP) was taken at yesterday's presser.

From AP/Yahoo comes this misleading gem:

Cheney Visits Iraq; Attacks Kill 19

Of course, the minority of surfers who actually read the story will realize that Cheney isn't behind the deaths.

about domestic spying has Drudge and others speculating that the 11 month delay (or rather, the ending of the delay) in publishing is timed to coincide with James Risen's book (Due out Jan 06). I think the reason is somewhat more ominous than a bunch of journalists trying to make a buck. No, the reason is nothing short of trying to influence the Senate - and it worked, too:

Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

This makes much more sense to me - it the timing was to support the book, I think they would have waited until a few days prior to the release, when it could have had the most effect.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, I've always been kind of a fence rider. Although I recognise the need for such powers to fight terrorism, I'm not sure where to draw the line between homeland security and individual rights. Perhaps it's drawn where it should be, but I'd be a lot happier if there were severe penalties spelled out for any that abuse it. That said, I would still be on the fence even if there had been wide-spread abuse from law enforcement. There will always be the chance for abuse due to the inescapable fact that humans are involved.

Next week should be busy as the pros & cons in the Senate duke it out.

disenfranchise:

Via AP/Yahoo:

Illinois Lawmaker Convicted of Fraud

CHICAGO - A state lawmaker who didn't live in the district she represents was found guilty of using fake addresses on re-election paperwork and voter registration cards, and must resign.

Rep. Patricia Bailey was found guilty Tuesday of election fraud and perjury after a one-day trial.

"You never had a heat, electric, a telephone, a cable bill," Cook County Judge Diane Gordon-Cannon told the Chicago Democrat. "You never lived for 30 minutes inside your district."

Bailey, 52, first elected in 2002, faces up to five years in prison when sentenced Dec. 21. She wouldn't comment as she left the courtroom.

State law requires her to give up her 6th District House seat on Chicago's South Side, but prosecutors were working to determine whether she had to do so immediately or could wait until she was sentenced.

Bailey also will have to leave her job as a Cook County probation officer. She will be ineligible to hold a government job for five years after her sentence is completed.

Bailey testified that she had been a victim of identity theft and repeated miscommunication about her residence, saying she had intended to move to an address she provided to the state when she filed for re-election.

Robert Sawicki, an assistant executive director of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, outlined six voter registration documents with various addresses Bailey had filed — some just a few days apart — since she first registered to vote in 1995.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan called Bailey's actions "a serious breach of the public trust" and said those who "voted for or considered voting for Ms. Bailey believed that she lived in the 6th District. The fact that she did not is unethical and illegal."

When you fraudulently run for office, and legitimate candidates are pushed aside due to that fraud, you have disenfranchised each and every voter. Period.

I didn't post on the horrid Ted Rall cartoon yesterday. Nick at Conservative Dialysis addressed it pretty thoroughly, and I couldn't add to his analysis.

Today Ted dredges up a little more bile in his weekly op/ed subtitled "How Ragtag Insurgents Beat the World's Sole Superpower"

He wants to rewrite history on the Afghan war - something not even Nancy Pelosi would dare do. He claims the Afghan was not only lost, but claims our troops, to the last man, acted dishonorably and even criminally:

Banditry and looting soon made the average Afghan nostalgic for the security that accompanies tyranny. On the other hand, since U.S. soldiers quickly gained a reputation for shoving, kidnapping, robbing and even torturing innocent Afghans, perhaps their small number was a good thing.

If any of you reading this are veterans, this is what Ted Rall thinks of you. He doesn't stop there, however. He moves on to describe our Guard and Reserve:

As inexperienced weekend warriors shot up carloads of civilians from rooftops above invisible checkpoints, it soon became apparent that our forces were undereducated, poorly trained and excessively preoccupied with their own safety. The Americans' cultural insensitivity, often beyond the point of brutality, transformed people grateful to be liberated into insurgents in a matter of months.

If you ever served as a weekend warrior, that's what Ted Rall thinks of you. Oh - by the way - below the fold is another one of his cartoons in which he accuses our troops of homosexual rape. Just in case the above wasn't enough.

Linked with:
Conservative Cat
bRight & Early
Don Surber - then again, maybe not. No, I don't know why. MT 3.2 isn't as good with trackbacks as I would like.
Basil's Blog

If I didn't have to sleep, I'd never miss anything. Take, for instance, the flap over the "X" CNN flashed over Dick Cheney during his speech yesterday.

Naturally, our hero Michelle Malkin has the best roundup.

I weigh in on the side of unfortunate glitch. Even the most rabid lefty would think twice before doing something like that on purpose - risking career, reputation and potentially placing the network in a very bad spot.

That said, we've seen some pretty brazen stuff from the left the last few years, and it's easy to see how some folks would assume the worst...

Terrance Hunt, AP's White House Correspondant apparently thinks so:

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

The suggestion that the President has somehow changed his tone on the Iraq war debate is a specious assertion by Mr. Hunt. Each and every time Bush has spoken on the topic, he has acknowleged that disagreement with his policies wasn't a problem, but being dishonest about it was. This is even illustrated later in the same article through a quote fom the President:

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

Of course, if the media were more responsible in their reporting, President Bush wouldn't have to address his critics at all.

Yesterday, I posted about the DNC's attacks on Republicans with potential ties to the Abramoff scandal. In concert with the DNC's theme of ignoring the elephant in the living room, the New Yok Times covers the story today:

Corruption Inquiry Threatens to Ensnare Lawmakers

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.

The article weighs in at 1254 words, but not one of them is "Reid" or "Landrieu" or "Breaux". In fact, Democrats aren't mentioned anywhere in the article save for this one vague hint:

Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom.

One really has to wonder - if the worst actually happens and all of the players are indicted, will the NYT acknowlege Harry Reid in its coverage? Will the DNC still be able to maintain their own effrontery, brashly shouting "Culture of Corruption" at conservatives while ignoring the involvement of their own?

Seems to me that this isn't a scandal the Democrats would want to wecome so openly.

Update: Here's another from the NYT today with no mention of Democrats involved (emphasis added):

What may be equally troubling for Republicans is the filing on Friday of a criminal conspiracy charge against a former senior Republican House aide, Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon was once a spokesman for Mr. DeLay and was a partner of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who is the subject of a federal investigation and had close ties to some House Republicans. The charges hint at potential legal exposure for lawmakers who were wined and dined by the two, adding to Republican ethics cases.

The DNC is flinging feces again. And this time it's splattering back at them. Yesterday evening, they rushed out a slew of press releases to try and deflect some of the attention away from their hypocrisy on the Iraq war:

DNC: Rep. Hart Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Sen. Grassley Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Rep. Shadegg Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Rep. Ryun Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: North Carolina Republicans Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To- Play Scandal

DNC: Texas Republicans Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Rep. Aderholt Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Speaker Hastert Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

Sen. DeMint Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

Mississippi Republicans Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

Majority Leader Blunt Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

Reps. Cantor and Goode Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

To: State Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Damien LaVera of the DNC, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Associated Press reported yesterday on the startling number of Republicans in Congress, including Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who are embroiled in one of the worst pay-to-play scandals to ever rock the nation's capital. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigating the dealings of scandal-plagued Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff has learned that Hastert is among the more than 30 Congressional Republicans who signed letters on behalf of Abramoff clients just days after Abramoff gave them money or hosted fundraisers for them.

According to the Associated Press, "Rep. Dennis Hastert, R- Ill., the Speaker of the House, along with other members of the House Republican leadership, signed a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on June, 10, 2003, that helped lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients. The lawmaker received about $103,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, including roughly $25,000 in the period around which the letter was sent. Rep. Hastert also used Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures, for a fund-raiser or other event, records show." (Associated Press, 11/17/05)

Democratic National Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera today issued the following statement:

"It is deeply troubling that Speaker Hastert has dragged Illinois into the same culture of corruption that Congressional Republicans brought to Washington. By engaging in one of the worst pay-to-play scandals in decades, Speaker Haster turned his back on the values and priorities of the people of Illinois.

"Illinoisans deserve better. That is why Democrats are committed to promoting honesty and ethics in government. The American people deserve a government as good as them, and Illinoisans deserve leaders who represent their values and interests in Washington. Since, Speaker Hastert clearly is not interested in providing that leadership, Democrats will."

Whoever came up with this stunt has got to be either blind or incredibly stupid or both. When Damien Lavera says things like "That is why Democrats are committed to promoting honesty and ethics in government", and "Since, Speaker Hastert clearly is not interested in providing that leadership, Democrats will", I suppose he means Democrats like Harry Reid:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, that also was signed by Sen. John Ensign (news, bio, voting record), R-Nev. The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.

Or maybe he means Mary Landrieu:

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who was engaged in a tight re-election race in 2002, sent her letter March 6, 2002. That same day, the Coushattas sent $2,000 to her campaign and she received $5,000 more by the end of that month. By year's end, the total had grown to at least $24,000.

Or Jon Breaux:

Then-Sen. John Breaux (news, bio, voting record), D-La., wrote Norton on March 1, 2002. Five days later the Coushattas sent $1,000 to his campaign and $10,000 to his library fund, tribal records show.

I'm not going to comment on the potential improprieties, except to say that I'm all for equality. If any of the parties involved did something wrong, Republican or Democrat, I want action taken.

But to slime the Republicans over this while ignoring the exact same thing in their own party is simply another indication of the systemic hypocrisy of today's Democratic party.

Update: Added three more press releases that weren't available when the post was first written.

Update 2: Linked with Euphoric Reality

Update 3: See additional here.

comes this headline:

Foreign contractors killed as US pursues offensive:

If that's all you saw, who would you think killed the contractors? If you read the article, though, you'll find out that:

"In the first roadside bomb attack, two South African private security contractors were killed by a roadside bomb..."

"In other violence, six civilians died when a similar roadside explosive device hit two passenger coaches in Ramadi..."

Perhaps the headline was an unintentional mistake. It could happen. No, really...

Just caught this article by AP's White House CorrespondentTerrence Hunt:

Bush to Fire Parting Shot at Iraq Critics

He was expected to defend himself against Democrats' criticism that he manipulated intelligence and misled the American people about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as he sought grounds to go to war against Saddam Hussein in 2003. In a speech on Friday, Bush said his critics were "deeply irresponsible" and were making "false charges.

So the Democrats revise history, lie about events leading up to the war, levy nasty, dishonest smears against the President, and they're "critics". If Bush responds, he's "taking shots".

At lunch today, I turned the car radio to NPR (No. I don't have a good explaination.) and it appears that they're in full attack mode as well. Interviews with some guy who wrote a book about Bush's "lies", etc., and the interviewer simply accepting everything the fellow said as true. Soryy I didn't get names, will try and find out later.

Wonder how long before folks start to notice the change in tone amongst the media?

Update: Reuters has updated the story: Bush Takes Fresh Shot at Iraq War Critics

New name, same old gas.

I know it's been out for a couple of days, so forgive me if you've already heard about Jimmy Massey, the Marine Sgt who wrote a book about alleged atrocities committed in Iraq. I first heard about it from Gateway Pundit. Michelle Malkin is also covering the story and has a terrific roundup.

Being retired military, this disgusts me far beyond what folks who haven't served are likely to experience. Actions like this embolden our enemies and cause American lives to be lost.

I wonder if he was still on active duty (or inactive reserve) when he started writing his book? Maybe the Marines could call him back for a lawyer party.

By the way - I work with several retired Marines who are quick to tell you that there's no such thing as a "former" Marine. I wonder if they'd entertain an exception in Mr. Massey's case?

More "dignity" and "objectivity" in reporting from the Philly Daily News:

That the left spends it's time celebrating indictments and soldier's deaths should tell you all you need to know. Perpetually bereft of any ideas, this is all they have left.

As if we don't have enough scandals already, there's this:

Noe indicted for laundering money to Bush campaign

Not good for us. I hope he really didn't do it, but if he did, send him to jail and good riddance. We're having enough problems with witch hunts and false accusations without having this added to the equation.

Via the Toledo Blade.

I wonder how long before someone on the left ties this to Bush and screeches, "Culture of Corruption?

Evidently, not long.

The liberal media can hardly contain their glee in anticipation of possible indictments in the Valerie Plame affair. For example, here's the front page of today's Philadelphia Daily News:

Don't these people have any dignity at all?

If you haven't heard about the new grave-dancing commercial from MoveOn.org, Michelle Malkin has the link here.

I don't know if it's a coordinated effort, but another one has sprung up here from a bunch called Operation "Truth". It's about as you might expect, with lots of gratuitous images of flag-draped coffins. I thought the emphasis on the word "dead" was interesting.

It's obvious that these ghouls have been tracking the numbers and carefully planning so that they could exploit the memories of these heroes for cheap partisan political gain.

Another post from AP/Yahoo. It's mostly a rewrite of previous stuff except for this:

"I'll be laying down and not getting up," Sheehan said Tuesday to a small crowd in which the number of journalists exceeded the number of protesters. "When they let me out, I'll do the same thing if I get arrested."

While it may be amusing to see that the Broad of Bitterness can't draw a crowd, there's another message here. Make no mistake about it, the liberal media supports this demented and pathetic woman 100%. If no other protesters show up, it won't be because the press didn't try.

Via Polipundit.

Update (26 Oct 2005, 0500): Here's a visual:

Via AP/Yahoo:

BBC World Service to launch Arabic TV channel

The Arabic TV service will compete with the popular Arab TV channel Al Jazeera, which has been accused by Washington of biased reporting on Iraq.

Just when you thought that BBC couldn't be more pro-terrorist...

The "collective" is swarming over Kay Bailey Huchison's remarks yesterday on Meet the Press. Some examples from the left-wing blogs:

Kos: "This Sunday we got a preview of the GOP post-Fitzmas spin -- that perjury isn't a crime."

Atrios: "Republicans to Americans: It's Okay to Lie Under Oath in a Criminal Investigation!"

John in DC: "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has a soft spot in her heart for traitors."

Democratic Underground: "Bat Boy Spotted in DU Comment Area!"

Several on Huffington Post:

Alec Baldwin: "Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit?"

Trey Ellis: "It’s Only a “Technicality” in a Culture of Corruption"

Robert Schlesinger: "Hutchison didn’t always feel this way."

Interestingly, some right wing blogs have joined the fray. Examples follow:

Michelle Malkin: "...I found Hutchison's pooh-poohing more than a bit disturbing."

BullDogPundit: "A Memo To Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: Please Shut Up"

John Hawkins: "That is not the sort of behavior Republicans should engage in..."

It bothers me a little to see some of the critisism from the right side. I don't think Sen Hutchison was saying that perjury or obstruction should not be prosecuted. I'm not even sure that she was attacking Fitzgerald directly as some have indicated, although I think she could have been clearer with her remarks.

Controversy over those two issues aside, I do agree with her remarks in general. The left would love to have an indictment on the "outing" of Plame. Given only perjury, they will try to make the charge just as serious in their attacks anyway by dragging in peripheral issues. To them, this is about a wider issue on the war itself, and they will use any straw they can grab.

Look for Sen Hutchison and others who understand this to try and deny them that straw. Yes, perjury should be prosecuted. But put it in perspective. If there was no "outing" of a CIA agent, then perjury should stand alone without any attachment to peripheral issues. That is, unless the left goes unchallenged when they suggest otherwise.

The administration gets a black eye either way. This is about how long it will take to heal.

Perhaps I'm just being hopeful to interpret her remarks this way. Hopefully she'll find an opportunity to clarify her remarks.

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

"Suggest"? "Appear to differ"? The NYT is normally not cautious or shy when it comes to throwing negatives at this administration. Sounds like the NYT is taking some interpretive license here, and I "suggest" not getting wrapped around the axle on this unless something more substantial comes out.

Also, note that there's no suggestion that Cheney directed Libby to do anything with the information. I don't think the Times would have passed up on even a vague hint in that area.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Howard Dean was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, and the DNC made a press release from it:

Excerpts of Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean on 'This Week'

Quoting excerpts wouldn't do this justice. Go read the entire moonbatty thing.

This deserves a brutally thorough fisking, but I'm too tired to do it right now. Screamin' Dean manages to sqeeze more dishonesty and hatred into five minutes than most moonbats can in a year. I just wish the mainstream media would give stuff like this the scrutiny it deserves. If the left was subjected to just one or two day's worth of what the right has to endure from the MSM, they would find themselves so unpopular that no amount of dead voters would be enough to get them elected.

Via PoliPundit.

A group that calls itself "Free Press" has this posted on their website:

Don't FOX with local news

Fox News Channel's political agenda is coming to a television station near you.

Roger Ailes, the architect behind the right-wing tilt of cable news, is now remaking 35 local television stations -- broadcasting to nearly 40 percent of America's homes -- in Fox News Channel's image.

Media consolidation made Ailes' takeover of local news possible. We need to break up the big media conglomerates and get higher quality news and information in return for free use of the public's airwaves. To protect local media from corporate consolidation, millions of Americans need to stand up and be counted.

Free Press Basics

Free Press is a national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector.

We believe that a more democratic US media system will lead to better public policies — at home and abroad. As our world becomes more and more interconnected, it is imperative that any kind of development takes into account basic environment, economic, and human rights, while defining corporate and personal responsibilities. Free Press considers information to be among the most important resources to any society. We strive to open up the media system to allow more diversity of opinion to be expressed, to present a broader perspective, and to increase the caliber of information available to everyday people. This, in turn, will lead to a more participatory and accountable government and to more sustainable policies and practices regarding national and global development.

Talk about low hanging fruit...

I know some folks put a lot of stock in this stuff. I just think this is wholly inappropriate.