The Anchoress

:::UPDATED:::Scroll down for original post:::
Bizzy Blog has some very interesting information (confirmed by phone, it must be said) up at his blog. The AP apparently doesn’t know 5 victim names. This on top of the “4 burning mosques” seeming to be only 1. (H/T Larwyn)
:::END UPDATE:::

Yes, I did! As Red Skelton would say, “I dood it!” I finished the stupid book today (it’s dun-diddley-done) and will do one more proofread and ship it out.

Working on it nonstop as I have, I don’t even want to look at or touch the thing for a while, but I have to. Deadline, etc.

But finally I have been able to raise my head and look around a bit, so here’s a round-up of things Iraqy-and-Murky and Pope-y but Perky. And some other stuff, too.

Let’s start with the Pope, because I missed all the tv coverage.

I am in love with this picture of Benedict disembarking from his plane, which Sissy Willis captured. He looks like The Man in White (even White Hair!) Come to Dodge City! I like the fact that the picture is a little fuzzy and the face is indistinct. I like the way it emphasizes that the man, Joseph Ratzinger, is not the focus here and not recognizable…all that is recognizable is “The Vicar of Christ.” Sissy also points out that Benedict is now encouraging Turkey’s admission into the EU, which - like Sissy - I think is a good thing and long overdue.

Gerald over at Closed Cafeteria (who is having one of those weeks where he just has one great post after another) points out that while the Pope faced East while he prayed (why not? I always try to, when I can) there was no Koran-kissin’ going on, which is as it should be.

I always thought JPII, who for all that he was a holy man was also trained in theater, sometimes got a little carried away with the theatrical aspects of a moment, and I think that’s what happened when he kissed a Koran so long ago. Papa Ratzi is not inclined to drama. He put on some comfy clean socks, respected where he was at, but kept his lips to himself.

The pictures of the mosque show some beautiful arcitecture. The pictures from Hagia Sophia should be remarkable, too.

Benedict seems to be getting some thoughtful and nice coverage in the secular press and in the Turkish press. Since I have not seen televised coverage, I have no idea if they are reflecting any of the substance of what Benedict is saying - images are so much more powerful for broadcasters, than words. I like this story about his celebrating Mass at a Marian Shrine in Ephesus.

Rocco has gorgeous photos and excellent excerpts of remarks by both Pope Benedict and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I that are really good reads.

Jim Geraghty is updating his running commentary on the pope and takes issue with an Oliphant cartoon. Yes, Oliphant is being an adolescent again. Still. Perpetually.

American Papist has yet another great picture. I got an email from someone who, watching the pope on EWTN was very moved by the singing and reverence of the Turkish Christians. Wish I’d seen it.

The pope may not be everyone’s cuppa tea, but he’s a great theologian…or at least he’s better than this fellow, who says Christians should give up some of the stuff they believe, so the Muslims will like them better. Yes, he’s a “Christian theologian.” And, apparently a pretty confused one. H/T Dr. Melissa Clothier, who points to some amusing news about a nativity set up.

The Murk in Iraq:

It wouldn’t have to be so murky if the press was differently inclined, I guess, but bloggers are following up on this story about the dubious sources involved in the “burned alive” story. The press is even starting to pay heed and ask (careful) questions.

The AP is digging in, of course, and insisting that one un-named source and a fellow that can’t be found is plenty convincing to them! Curt at Flopping Aces is not backing down, either.

While Gaius rightly notes that the AP is refusing to retract or correct their story, Seedubya is noticing that the AP is amending it a little. They’re probably hoping a little amendment will make Curt and everyone else go away. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

And as ever, Michelle Malkin is breathtaking in her ability to roundup and update on a story. She follows through and picks up some interesting and thought-provoking tid-bits from many sources.

Classical Values rips the press, while Ace sums up the AP’s position in a sentence and credits Michael Fumento with creating a new buzzword: Virtual Reporting.

A soldier accuses the press of fanning the flames, and Democracy Project is starting a letter-writing campaign.

Ed Driscoll is wondering why, allasudden, the press seems to be enthusiastically reporting that Iran is -gasp- training terrorists for Iraq and might not be trustworthy. I’m wondering why, too. I do not suspect altruism or a burning desire to report truth, truth, truth.

Gateway, meanwhile, points out that AP sources also told them about a 60-mile trench, and the AP believed that, too!

Rusty Shackleford brings us an important arrest in Iraq which you probably missed. The other day I wrote:

If she continues to fight, America will continue to weaken AlQaeda. If that weakness can be sustained while Middle Eastern liberty is allowed to gain a foothold, it will eventually break AlQ and de-glamorize terrorism as a means of movement. If America folds, if she “stops” the war, because the NY Times and NBC don’t like it, what do you think will happen next? Think hard. The answer is important.

We are weakening AlQaeda.

On other topics:
Jules Crittenden points our attention to a heroic little girl.

Laura Lee writes about another, long ago, little girl.

And Newton writes of a little girl waiting to be born. Egad, Newt, it feels like you’ve been pregnant forever! What is the name gonna be, already???

Dr. Sanity points to and expounds upon this insightful piece by Selwyn Duke on how we will lose our freedom of speech. A must-read.

There isn’t much free speech on college campuses lately, that’s for sure. And those are bastions of liberalism, right?

Finally, Siggy says someone has found the Holy Grail. Well, the someone is Gagdad Bob and the Grail is another psychologist. But it’s like the same thing, right?

Oh! And the very excellent Richard Miniter has joined Pajamas Media - here is a multi-parter on the Flying Imams and it’s really good.

From the NY Times, of course: Anti-Clinton Donor Reported as Donor to Giuliani.

Not just a donor to Giuliani but - gasp - an anti-Clinton donor!

The writer, the ever-obsequious Raymond Hernandez has had his head remarkably far up Mrs. Clinton’s backside for years. But this headline, and the story, just cracked me up.

Have you ever read George Soros described as an “anti-Bush donor?” Nah. He was simply a donor! A concerned guy with money! And if he compared Bush to Hitler and stuff - well, that was just politics, right? He didn’t mean nuthin’ by it!

But this fella, Richard Collins…he is much different than Soros, or Jeffrey Epstein or Steve Bing or any of the other profoundly rich people who donated heavy cash to the Democrats specifically because they detested President Bush. They were just making political donations. This Collins, however…he is a nefarious anti-Clinton donor!

It’s one of the things that has fascinated me over the past ten years - the press’ seeming perspective that there are Clintons and Clinton supporters…and then there is the rest of the world, which contains - among other things - anti-Clintites.

Those are very, very bad people, the anti-Clintites. The don’t simply dissent, they actually focus their dissent on the god and goddess in particular. Let them be identified!

All you anti-Clinton people - thou anti-Clintites - come forth, and be so labeled! Your branding will begin after lunch!

And get this, I love this part of the story: While the Giuliani camp has no direct connection to Stop Her Now, some Democrats argued yesterday that Mr. Giuliani — who seems poised for a possible presidential run of his own — should disavow the personal nature of the criticisms that the group is leveling at Mrs. Clinton.

Awwwww…that group says mean things about Mrs. Clinton! Giuliani must publicly disavow them! “Some Democrats” (aka, “we in the media”) say so!

Those aren’t the rules for any other politician but for Rudy (or whoever ends up running against Hillary) this will be the additional requirement: all donors must be screened to make sure they haven’t said anything bad about Mrs. Clinton and if they have, they must be disavowed by Giuliani and his whole team. And probably, if he really wanted to prove that he is a good guy and all, Giuliani should return checks to anyone who checks out as a rabid “anti-Clintite!”

This over-protectiveness of Hillary Clinton is not new, by the way, reporter Andrea Mitchell was doing it ‘way back in 2000 when Rudy dared to make a mild joke about Clinton, Mitchell said he was “in Hillary’s face.” You decide:

In a July 6 NBC Nightly News profile of Mayor Giuliani Andrea Mitchell asserted: “His friend and enemies agree he’s brash, arrogant, aggressive — the ultimate New Yorker. A perfect opponent for the First Lady. And today after she opened her exploratory committee he’s already in her face about being a carpet-bagger.”
Giuliani: “You should always explore. Exploring is a good thing. Who can have anything against exploring.”
Mitchell: “Still an undeclared candidate he’s raising money, traveling the state and ridiculing the First Lady’s newfound interest in New York.”
Giuliani joking on the Late Show with David Letterman: “I’m going to get off the plane in Little Rock and I’m going to say ‘I’ve never lived here, I’ve never worked here, I ain’t never been here, but I think it would be cool to be your Senator.’”

Dear God, what a monster is Rudy! Brand him too! Anti-Clintite!

Because you can’t have ugliness in politics, no sir! Saying anything remotely not-positive about Mrs. Clinton, why that’s just…’way over the top, unconscionable. That would be as bad as say, politicians referring to George W. Bush as Alfred E. Neumam or, you know, someone going too far and calling a politician “a nazi” or, you know, nasty stuff like that.

Hillary Clinton has been treated with kid gloves by the press for as long as she has been in the public eye. Remember the Oprah-esque presser she threw where she wore the hot-pink skirt suit and she and various news babes sat in a chummy circle while Hillary said, “honestly, I have no idea how I made $100,000 in cattle futures in one week, from a teensy $1,000 investment. I just gave the check to the guy and he did the deal! I am just a simple woman! No, it never occured to me to ask how I got such a return! Isn’t that silly of me? Us girls are so silly! You know, I never did think to ask that smart man to make me more money like that, since he did so good the first time! Isn’t the world mean to even ask me about this silly subject?

And the presswomen around her sighed and said, “yeah, Hillary, it’s silly and we shouldn’t even be listening to those old time-wasters, should we? They’re just mean and they don’t understand how great you are, like we do. But don’t worry, Hillary, we’ll protect you! But you know, the hot pink suit, that’s got to go! Let’s have a makeover! From now on, whenever you want to soften your effect, just wrap a cashmere cardigan around your shoulders! Yeah, right over your suit jacket, that’s fine! Boy, you’re great, Hillary!”

I think it was just about at that point that I began to heave up my lunch and one of my lungs in revulsion at the whole Cult-of-Clinton thing, and took a big step center.

Oh, no! Can it be I too am an “anti-Clintite?” Now that I’ve written that will Rudy (or whoever runs against Hillary in ‘08) have to publicly disavow me and return my piddly-assed check to me, to keep politics from getting too mean?

Our Hillary! She’s bringing decency, sweetness and light back to our poisonous political process! How’d she get to be so damn great? Then again, maybe some of us wouldn’t be so tempted to “mean-ness” if the press weren’t so incredibly deferential as to almost dare us to sneer.

I’m going back to work…

The next Iraqi or American official to be asked about “civil war” might want to reply by asking the journalist who, precisely, is fighting whom, and why Iraqi security officers of all backgrounds continue to risk their lives for the elected Baghdad government. The truth is that the enemies of Mr. Maliki’s government are terrorists and thugs. Mr. Bush could help give Mr. Maliki the confidence he needs for the tough fight ahead–first against the Sunni terrorists, then against the Shiite revenge killers–by assuring him that U.S. policy will be based on this fact. - Today’s WSJ Editorial

Whenever I see a reporter earnestly scrunch up his or her brow and preface a question with, “Mr. President (or whoever), people say…” I always find myself wishing that the one being questioned would stop the reporter and ask, “who? Who are the people saying that?”

Reporters have used “people say…” to get away with, “we in the press think…” or even, “I, Helen Moran Gregory, think…” for a very long time. No wonder they’ve decided that if they want to call a thing a Civil War they can just go ahead and do that. They want their Walter Cronkite moment wherein they “stop” a war, by “turning the nation against it.”

Because some think bugging out of Iraq, to leave the Iraqis to their fate and further embolden Iran, Al Qaeda and the rest would be a very good thing…because…because…lemmee think.

Oh, right! I remember now! “Because war is bad for children and other living things and although we spend more on education than we ever have, we long for the day when schools have all the money they’ll ever need and the military has to have a bake sale to afford a tank!”

Very forward thinking! Very responsive to the times…if the time is 1972. Bring those troops home! We care about the troops, we’re really compassionate about those troops! Put them in Okinawa until we need them for something real, not this fake war!

It must be a fake war! American soil and American interests have not been attacked in 5 years!

How can you have a war if you’re not being attacked! It’s not like back in the 1990’s when our embassies and naval vessels were being attacked an average of every 18 months or so and we were losing, typically, the usual average of about 500 military personnel a year from simple accidents and training mishaps. (Did you know that? The US military tragically loses about 500 men and women a year due to accidents. When you remember that, then this war’s sad toll of losses suddenly comes into perspective a little. We are, after all, at war. We are, after all, trying to destabilize and defang a monster called Islamofascist terrorism, whose adherents have been attacking us or holding us hostage since…why, since the 1970’s, that ever-present decade!)

But, oh, wait. That was was “peacetime.” I remember that. Except for Kosovo (not really a war, we just bombed the crap out of things from the sky, but that was all…and those troops were “out of there and home by Christmas,” right? Ummm…right? Oh, wait, that was what we heard when we sent troops to Bosnia, in 1995.

We’re still in Bosnia, btw, (and yes, the press was putting a “Vietnam,” spin on that too, but a much milder and meeker spin. Vietnam is all they know about war, and all they care to know.)

We’re still in Bosnia because when you commit troops to an area, you don’t bug out simply because the work is hard (war is supposed to be easy?) or because the know-it-alls in the press say you should. Back in 1945, after VE day, people understood that. President Clinton seemed to understand it in Bosnia.

Bush has done his job too well. It bears repeating: we have not been attacked since 9/11 - even though AlQaeda used to regularly bust on us. He took the war to the terrorist’s own nest and is trying hard to keep his promise to America - that he would protect her people from harm - and to Iraq, that he would help them to live in freedom, not under the jackboot of a tyrant, not prey to the opportunist’s who would bear down upon them to replace Saddam.

He’s done his job so well that after attack, hurricane, flood and more, unemployment is 4.4% (sorry if Clinton got praise for 5.6%, then Bush gets the credit for 4.4…) and against all the dire predictions the economy is growing and all the “terrible” doomsaying doesn’t seem to be emptying the stores or restaurants. He’s done his job so well that we feel safe enough to criticize, which is a good thing. But he’s also done his job so well that the idea of war is something obscure to us - we think we can sit around in comfy chairs and settle everything.

President Bush’s biggest mistake regarding our action in Iraq (and there have been plenty of them - wars are notorious for not going as planned, and no perfect one has yet been fought) was in not asking much of the American people. When we were in Vietnam, the military took all the risks while the citizenry indulged themselves in “flower power” and “love beads” and “consciousness raising.” Unlike their parents before them, they were not asked to gather scrap metal and rubber tires to outfit the military (the “military industrial complex” took care of that stuff). They were not asked to inconvenience themselves at all, and that seemed to result in a great deal of navel-gazing, lots of “noble-sounding” rhetoric, and an attitude that said, “bug out, maaaan, why do we have to watch this stuff every night at supper? Makes me feel bad. Stop it.”

We “stopped” Vietnam, and millions of people were slaughtered and a nation was lost to a communist ideology which suppresses human freedom, human creativity and human potential, an ideology that shrivels the spirit and succeeds only in spreading the misery. What did we care, it still didn’t touch us. All that stuff happened “over there, somewhere…”

If our sense of distance from Iraq leads us to “stop” this time, people will be slaughtered and nations may well be lost to a theo-fascist ideology which will suppress human freedom, human creativity and human potential. And this time…it’s gonna touch us. Because unlike the communists of Vietnam, who stayed where they were…these Islamofascists are already here. They’re in America. They’re in Canada. They’re in Europe. And they’re just waiting.

They’re waiting to see what America and her allies will do. If she continues to fight, America will continue to weaken AlQaeda. If that weakness can be sustained while Middle Eastern liberty is allowed to gain a foothold, it will eventually break AlQ and de-glamorize terrorism as a means of movement. If America folds, if she “stops” the war, because the NY Times and NBC don’t like it, what do you think will happen next?

Think hard. The answer is important.

Related: Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard points out (via Doug Ross) that the Department of Defense has had to design a website to counter the misinformation and distortions to which the military and the war are daily subjected. You’ll want to go visit it and see what they’re up against.

Gaius asks: What are the “defenders” of freedom of the press going to do when the war comes to them? And it will. If the people they have been promoting over their own country’s welfare ever win, the cheerleaders will be the first against the wall.

Speaking of which, Ed Morrissey points out that The Privacy and Civil Liberty Board has expressed some delight in how hard the American Government has worked to protect the privacy of American citizens. Writes Ed: Once again, the public’s support for a tough but necessary program has been reinforced by its careful execution by the NSA. This should not surprise anyone, as even the New York Times acknowledged that they had no information that the agency broke any laws or violated anyone’s civil rights when they broke the story. All they had were “concerns” about the program’s legality from their anonymous tipsters.

So, once again…sound and fury signifying nothing. And we’ll see the NY Times with a big headline on this assessment on page one, above the fold, right? Brian Williams will lead with this story, right? Maybe at least Jon Stewart will bring it up?

:::UPDATE:::Scroll down for original post:::
The AP has responded to bloggers insisting that they stand by their story, although they won’t name their sources and won’t advise as to whether they’re relying solely on local “stringers” for their information. CENTCOM stands by its own investigation. Of course, we can’t expect the press to believe CENTCOM, can we? So, it’s still unclear just how true the whole “burned alive” story is. Powerline, Malkin, Flopping Aces and Kesler seem unimpressed. I think their follow-up questions are good ones.
:::END UPDATE:::

Bruce Kesler points out that CBS Public Eye’s Brian Montopoli (an official journalist - thank God - we can all relax now) has checked out Curt’s work at Flopping Aces and Patterico’s work and he’s getting the feeling that we “right-wing bloggers” are a mite distrustful of the press, and darn it, that’s not really fair.

Full disclosure: I’ve exchanged email correspondance with Brian several times and he has always struck me as a genial and pleasant fellow; I have no animus toward him or the folks he works with over at Public Eye. But, still. CENTCOM is saying “this didn’t happen” and Brian is saying, “now, this is premature, you know…and, and the press usually gets it right!”

It’s important to remember that we don’t actually yet know if the AP’s stories are “bogus.” They may well be. They may not. Reporters face unique challenges in a war, and it’s worthwhile to question the way they operate in Iraq, on everything from the necessary-but-risky use of stringers to the reliance on named and anonymous sources that may not be trustworthy. But because of their instinctive distrust of the mainstream media, some bloggers have drawn conclusions that, at this point, strike me as premature.

You know, I can see that Brian is trying to be sort of even-handed here, but was he absent during the “right-wing bloggers” tutorial on fake photos (”fauxtography”) being reported as real? Did he forget the time Newsweek made things very difficult for our troops by running a cover story absent of credible sources, which cost 15 lives?

Fer cryin’ out loud, is the whole world suffering from short-term memory loss? Has Brian, and others, forgotten that the NY Times (”the paper of record” and the shining jewel in the increasingly tarnished crown of journalism) just last month spun John Kerry’s “botched joke” into something completely dishonest? Has he - and everyone - forgotten that on November 3 - just a few days before the elections the same paper hauled out the news that the Stoopit Bushies (prolly Dumya hisself) had posted Saddam’s Nuke Plans online for everyone and Iran to see, only to realize (oops!) that in doing so they were also revealing that Saddam was a year away from having nukes which ummm…sorta validated Stoopit Bush. That story quickly went down the memory hole and I don’t believe it was picked up by a single wire-service or network, and I’m pretty sure a Nexis-Lexis search won’t turn up much, either. Nah. Only premature, hot-headed right-wing bloggers followed that episode of Timestanic-meets-another-Iceberg. And crap, probably some of us have even forgotten it, already.

I suspect the press relies quite a lot on the fact that most Americans no longer have the attention span of a single news cycle. I find it a little terrifying, frankly.

So, who are the rubes here, the folks in the press who use questionable information and pictures to tell their stories, or the bloggers who check this stuff out at the risk of being called “partisans” (snort! Hello, Kettle? Black!) and being lectured to about making “premature” assertions.

Premature. You know. Like all year we read that Bush’s prescription plan is…a fiasco. but yesterday we read Success of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats and some in the press suggested that the Dems don’t need to fix what works well and is cost-efficient. Was the press premature in describing the plan Bush signed “a fiasco” and more?

I have never forgotten Evan Thomas pronouncing that the press would give Kerry/Edwards “ten to fifteen percent” more votes than they would have ordinarily gotten. And they did it, too. John Kerry was such an awful candidate the 2004 election should never have been as close as it was, (and the dubious vote in Wisconsin and elsewhere never were really scrutinized). We heard the press talk to everyone, right down to the ANG Dentist, about Bush’s “fake” service (although little of his moronic skill in flying the notoriously difficult F102 fighter jets), but never anything on the legitimate questions surrounding John Kerry’s own (”heroic”) service.

Gee…why would those “right-wing bloggers” be so damn suspicious of the press? The press is getting almost everything right…just a few little oopsies and boo-boos here and there…right?

I a meeean old right-wing blogger, to bring all this up, I know. Except I still believe I am a classical liberal at heart, searching for a home. And I’m still an idealist. I still want to believe that our free press is indeed free and not encumbered by agendas, partisan-hackery, laziness and some malicious intent. I want to believe that when someone like Vaughn Ververs (a good writer whom I like very much) writes, “at least the media is focused on Iraq” that this might be a good thing, holding some promise, and not a shudder-inducing moment helping to create a real fiasco.

I want our press to be healthy and honest and accountable. Our country will not survive with sick, BDS-infected media that only tells what it wants to tell, instead of what it damn well should. Is it really asking too much?

I didn’t mean to write so much. I have to get back to work. Freaking press always gets me riled. Hence, you might want to check out my clarification here.

Even if you don’t like them, it’s a good day to pray for the pope and the president - both of whom are headed into hostile and dangerous territory.

And our troops…well, our troops are basically being lied about by the Associated Press which Jimmie Bise accurately notes puts them in danger:

Writes Jimmie: I’m not necessarily willing to say that the MSM is sabotaging our soldiers on purpose. I am willing to say that it’s obvious to me that the MSM has built a narrative for our fighting the war we’re in and they are willing to use anyone willing to help them advance that narrative, even if that help comes from the people who are murdering our soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

At this point I don’t care whether the MSM is intentionally sabotaging our war effort and helping to murder our soldiers. Intention or not, that is exactly what they are doing. Every story they print from a dubious source emboldens the murderers and their bosses in Tehran and Damascus. Every time they decide to push their own narrative instead of doing their job as journalists, they are pushing us farther toward the hideous immorality of retreat and abandonment…We should not allow them to help the people who are murdering our brave soldiers, no matter their intentions.

When the press isn’t misreporting on the troops, well…the Dems are harming them with their defeatist rhetoric which is costing our troops the aid of the local Iraqis, who are believing the Democrats when they say “cut and run” and now fear taking any positive action that might come back to bite them if America leaves.

Thanks, AP. Thanks, Dems.

Meanwhile, the pope is talkin’ Brotherhood. Jim Geraghty, our pal in Turkey, has a great piece up in the NY Sun about the Pope’s Turkey visit:

Secular and elite Turks are bracing themselves for a likely black eye for the country, unless the pope’s visit goes off without a hitch.

A columnist in the English-language Turkish Daily News, Mehmet Ali Birand, predicted that the headlines during the trip would include, “Turkish government turns back on pope,” ” Turkey shows it is not European,” or “pope booed.”

Interestingly, the man who tried to assassinate JPII has tried to warn Benedict away from Turkey for fear of another attempted papal assassination.

Gerald has pics from the trip. Uncomfortable-looking ones. Gateway’s got some, too.

Geraghty also is blogging the pope’s visit at NRO, and he’s going to be the guy I check back to repeatedly.

Victoria, meanwhile notes some malicious wiki about the pope by people who can only be referred to, kindly, as asshats.

Finally, now that the election is over and President Bush has pretty-much been neutralized, we’re allowed to know that President Bush did something really good, that works. We’re sort of allowed to know that. Which is a lot better than when we weren’t allowed to know that Saddam was a year away from having nukes. And you know…we’re never allowed to hear about the great news on adult stem cell research.

God help us. I read the news and see the out of control press and the clueless, idealess Democrats and the rudderless GOP and all I can say is God help us.

I’m back to work. May post more when I need a breather, later.

Related: For Popes and Presidents, it feels like 1981 out there

This was sent to me by reader Mark Mck. I don’t know anything about the blogger who is showing it, but you know what? It’s about time someone wrote something to and about the president. This is apparently written by an attorney in Manhattan. Excerpts here - go read the whole thing.

When President Bush first went to Washington, he understood that the American people expected their government to work and, having worked with both parties in Texas he tried to work with and build relationships in Washington with Democrats at the national level. We conservatives chafed in frustration, but it was good that the President did so. The 2000 election ended in rancor, and the President understood the need for reconciliation, for our Nation as much as for our elected officials. That it didn’t work is due mainly because Washington’s Democrats had then, as now, only their best political interests in mind. That situation changed only after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and even then only briefly.
[…]
His conservative critics are right: President Bush is no President Reagan and in December 2000 he didn’t go to Washington promising a great conservative vision. But President Reagan was elected in two landslides that gave him a definite mandate, and was blessed with a personality that…overcame his liberal Democrat opposition and helped him achieve most of his agenda. It is extremely important to understand that President Bush did not have this advantage. Even so, he was able to win the tax cuts so that American workers could keep, save, and invest more of what we work so hard to earn. Even in the aftermath of a horrible terrorist attack (the only terrorist attack against Americans since he took office which, it must be emphasized, is something that his predecessor cannot say) and the aftermath of a devastating hurricane we are enjoying a robust economy and the lowest unemployment rate in years. The Gipper himself might comfort President Bush with the words “Not bad. Not bad at all.”
[…]
Yes, I’m angry with the results of the midterm elections. But I’m angrier still with the shrill, hateful voices that have plagued this man and his family for over six years now. It is easy to be angry with President Bush for not fighting harder for his judicial nominees or for his agenda but it is also irresponsibly lazy to blame him alone. It must have been hard for him to be singled out to shoulder the responsibility for the reported horrors of Hurricane Katrina alone. (I never understood how Floridians could make it through four to five hurricanes in rapid succession in 2004, or how the people of Mississippi and Alabama, white and black, could survive Katrina and even come together to immediately begin the recovery, and how at the same time New Orleans became such a basket case, but such is politics.) It must have been terribly hard for him…at Coretta Scott King’s funeral in February of this year, an event that was supposed to honor the memory of a civil rights icon that turned into an orgy of hate. And it must have been tremendously hard to advance any agenda when so many members of his own party stood so resolutely against him. The morning after President Bush won the 2004 election and gained solid Republican majorities in both houses, Rush Limbaugh named several prominent liberals during a morning broadcast and proudly proclaimed, “You lost.” But the furtherance of a conservative agenda was not to be. Had there been no John McCain’s, no Lincoln Chafees, no Lindsay Grahams and a few more Tom DeLays in both Houses, perhaps more could have been accomplished. In the end, it was a constant beating by the Democrats, aided and abetted by the media and a total reluctance on the part of Republican senators and representatives to fight back, and to fight hard for a conservative agenda, that led to last Tuesday’s “thumping.”
[…]
but I am angrier-infinitely angrier-with the drumbeat of hate that has been pounded throughout the terms of this genuinely decent man. I remember when Bill Clinton suffered his heart attack in September 2004 and as much as I despise Clinton’s character and demagoguery (hell, as much as I despise him) , despite whatever relationship he and his wife share or tolerate, I never once hoped that he would die. My first thought when I heard of his attack was of his daughter, who certainly must have been very frightened, and to pray earnestly for his recovery. Nor did I ever once read or hear of any conservative commentator or friend pray or wish otherwise. Bush and his family, in disgusting, utter contrast, have had to endure insults, accusations that he is evil, and finally, the sick, disgusting, perverted masturbatory fantasy of his assassination committed to film.
[…]
President Bush has not been perfect. But neither was any of his predecessors and he has served and continues to serve in a manner that amazes me. That he has endured so much, and has done so with humility and a genuine appreciation of those whom we have sent in harm’s way, reminds me that I would not be able to meet this visceral hatred with such grace and serenity as he has and that he has faced these challenges with courage and with more composure than I ever could. He alone led us through the most terrifying moment of our lives, kept us safe in the aftermath, and has been a careful steward of our economy. If he deserves anything from us it is not the sick, disgusting hatred of the Left and Right, but the heartfelt thanks of a grateful people.

Yup. I hold in particular contempt those conservatives who stamped their feet and derided Bush, calling him terrible names (and sounding a lot like DU’ers) for not bringing them 100% of their conservative agenda.

President Reagan didn’t like them much, either. And yes, they played a very big part in the last election, and everything that is happening - around the world - as a result of the “thumpin.’”

:::::UPDATE::::::UPDATE:::::::

I am informed that Mr. Eric Boehlert has (for the third time) referenced this post in his unending series of rants about rightwing “warbloggers” and their supposed irresponsibility in (gasp!) questioning the Associated Press about a report and it’s source. At least this time he has quoted me correctly, so that’s a nice change from earlier.

Boehlert uses the quote to huff that I think there is no need for a press (!) and cites the The Iraq Study Group Report (that bastion of enlightenment I do believe he is the only person still referencing) as evidence that, indeed when it comes to the US Military it might be best to take the uncorroborated word of Iraqi locals and stringers who lack evidence over our soldiers. Raise your hand if any of that surprises you.

Boehlert still apparently maintains that because Jamil Hussein exists, this AP report is true. As I wrote here:

Let’s test that logic with a syllogism, shall we?

No, that doesn’t work. The logic fails.

It seems odd to me. How does someone being extant automatically mean his uncorroborated story is simply true? Why are people in a free country not allowed to question the press without having to face the rambling wrath of Eric Boehlert?

These seem like simple questions and yet the answers are slow in coming. Seems strange.

Whatever. I’m bored, and this will be the last time I write about this issue or Boehlert’s columns, at least until we get some more information (something beyond “Jamil Hussein exists”) on the initial AP report, which has been changed (four mosques are now one, etc) but never corrected. All of the ranting and railing against “right wing warbloggers” has not managed to provide any sort of verification of the incident - but it has thrown up a nice smokescreen, and for some it has managed to obfuscate those questions we keep asking: What really happened? Is the report real? Four mosques or one? Six people burned alive or none? Where is the evidence, pictures, interviews?

To that question there answer seems to be: sound and fury, signifying nothing. And oh yes, a whistling and chill, chill wind. Do not question the press.

I did have to chuckle when I read this line of Boehlert’s:

To date, the warbloggers’ admissions of errors have been grudging and brief, despite the fact they wrote enthusiastically and freely while lodging their nasty allegations..

Heh. Where to start? Given his singularly cranky and ungracious acknowledgement that he’d um, selectively quoted Seedubya, and his complete inability to admit that he also - by omitting part of one of my sentences - mischaracterized my meaning, I’m not sure Boehlert has room to talk. He also implied that I hold “contempt” for the first amendment, a charge to which I do not take kindly.

And does Boehlert really want to talk writing “enthusiastically and freely while lodging…nasty allegations?” My sides hurt.

And I’m still not a “warblogger.”

Related:
Sir, that is not quite what I wrote
Sigh. This is getting dull.

:::::::END UPDATE::::::::

Flopping Aces is making a very serious charge against the mainstream media. If what he is laying out proves to be more than a suspicion, well…then the “mediating intelligences” and “high priests” in the press need to address it, for the sake of their “church,” their credibility and ummmm…yes, dammit, the sake of our soldiers and our nation.

I’m not holding my breath for that, but still.

Whoops, hold on, Curt’s got an update: Centcom says it never happened. Of course the press will believe anonymous sources over Centcom, but I’m still willing to take the word of an officer in the US Military over others.

I’m linking to his backup site because the main site is super busy with this.

Police Capt. Jamil Hussein seems to be the Greg Packer of the Middle East. Has the press been relying on a bogus spokesperson since…last April???

Go read it all. seedubya and protein wisdom have taken Flopping Aces start and run with it. (Note: Seedubya updates here)

Could it be this easy? Get your information from a dubious source and use it to declare “civil war?”

Well, why not? The press has done everything else it possibly could to undermine our troops and the president, since 2003. It’s all about honor, you know. Honorable withdrawal and stuff. [Clarification - I was writing angry when I posted this and that’s never a good idea. Brian Montopoli at CBS Public Eye has rightly found my overgeneralized language objectionable, and I want to take this opportunity to say that no, I do not believe that ALL journalists are actively working to undermine the troops or the president. But SOME are…I think most in the press just don’t like the Iraq story or Bush and wish both would go away, but they are not working from a place of active malice…but some are. And they’re really not that hard to find, if you look. The NY Times does, I think, actively work at undermining. Leaking that SWIFT banking information hurt us, and then we got the “public editor’s” late and lame declaration: “I discovered there was no crime…we shouldn’t have published that information…but I just hated Bush so much I couldnt’ do my job!” Yes, I think there are some in the press who perhaps do not realize how far out they have gone. - Admin]

Further, check out this: AP makes a terrible charge against our troops with unnamed sources. The military denies it, the press says, “yeah, sez you, we’re running it and not naming a single source, because we believe anyone but you guys…”

How long does this get allowed to continue? And how are blogs supposed to overcome something like this, when the press won’t cover it? Heck, even Drudge doesn’t have this.

UPDATE I:
Also writing:
Wizbang
Michelle Malkin
Gateway Pundit
Blue Crab Boulevard
Powerline
Newsbusters
Democracy Project
AllahPundit
BizzyBlog

Related: Iraq: Bloggers “premature”, press “focused”

I wonder how many of our troops are being further endangered by the fakery we’re discovering here? I wonder how many of their deaths in the coming weeks will be due to this sort of stuff?

As usual with stories like this the fake story - and the impressions it has made on the minds of the public - is out there, damage done. I don’t see how alternate media can win against a major media that fabricates crap and puts it out there knowing that even if they correct the story a week later, they’ve done their damage. It’s a sneakly lawyer’s trick, actually - like putting an idea in a jury’s head and then having the judge tell them to “disregard” it.

I frankly don’t know how the president had endured this non-stop game, the incessant lying and leaking, distortion and hate-mongering in the press. I don’t know how anyone can endure it and not lose heart. Perhaps he has. The press is literally trying to not simply destroy the man but take down his government and surrender a military action that is important to the survival of our identity, and the West’s. And, sadly, they seem to be succeeding.

This cannot end well. The government needs to slap down the press and demand some accountability. They’ve needed to do it for a couple of years now. They won’t.

Taking a very brief break here, to clear my head.

I have looked forward to only two films this year, Happy Feet, (I’m a sucker for penguins) and Apocalypto.

The trailers are both amazing…you can’t help but smile at the penguins, and you can’t help but feel awestruck at the beauty of Apocalypto, even as its message chills and feels all-too-familiar, all too much like a warning.

Mel Gibson is probably both mad as a hatter and a bona fide genius. Perhaps what he is about to let loose from his fevered brain will help us to look closely at ourselves, at what is happening in our world, and what it all means.

As the film concerns ancient Mexico, it was surprising that Gibson didn’t try to release it on December 12, the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but perhaps he had something else in mind.

Gibson released both Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ on a Wednesday, if I remember correctly, because he likes to have the extra two days in his boxoffice count…I’m betting it’s no accident that Apocalypto is being released on December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception - the utter beginning of the pageant of salvation, not - as too many erroneously believe - celebrating the conception of Christ via the Holy Spirit, but commemorating conception of Mary, his mother, as the beginning of the construction of the Ark of the New Covenant.

In an age where theories of eugenics are gaining hold, where post-modern wars are fought badly and retreat-and-surrender is considered more noble than victory, when civilizations are clashing, with one side baldly proclaiming its intention to utterly destroy the other…no, I don’t think it’s an accident at all that Gibson is releasing this film about endings and beginnings this particular day.

Morning Prayer for today, in the Liturgy of the Hours, was disturbing. It was endtimes gloom and doom, “raise your hand against the heathen” very apocalyptic. Very much the prayers of people who have kept the faith and been beaten down, who have looked for deliverance, who are ready for the passing of an age. The canticle was from Sirach:

Come to our aid, O God of the universe,
and put all the nations in dread of you!
Raise your hand against the heathen,
that they may realize your power.

As you have used us to show them your holiness,
so now use them to show us your glory.

I’ve read that hundreds of times. Today is the first time it ever chilled me and seemed so completely timely. I didn’t like it.

Advent is coming. It cannot come too soon. Then, we wait in purple, with a certain hope. Now…we simply wait, with Jeremiah:

Remember me, Lord, visit me,
and avenge me on my persecutors.
Because of your long-suffering banish me not;
know that for you I have borne insult.
When I found your words I devoured them;
they became my joy and the happiness of my heart,
because I bore your name,
O Lord, God of hosts
Jeremiah 15:15-16

Ever wonder what prayers a president prays? Or a prime-minister or head of state? Between now and Advent, I think I will pray for them all, for government leadership on every side, with stepped up prayers. Seems like it would be a good application of time.

UPDATE: Oh. Yeah. I guess I’d like to see The Nativity, too. But penguins first.

I’m trying to deliver this hated book by THURSDAY because I’m out of town on Friday…so, posting will be sporadic (check back) and emails may go unanswered until sometime next week…a quick round-up for toda