Andrea Mitchell blasts staged Obama events

Last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews NBC’s Andrea Mitchell blasted the limited access reporters had to Sen. Obama and his activities during the Afghanistan and Iraq parts of his trip.

She used the work “fake” to characterize some of the Obama interviews; and said a lot more.

You can access a clip of Mitchell’s remarks here. (The clip, about 2 minutes long, may take 10 seconds or so to load up.)

It includes a follow-up question Matthews asks Mitchell about the high percentage of black soldiers appearing in video footage from Afghanistan.

Again, the clips here.

Hat tip: AMac

Obama’s grand European tour hits bumps

Excerpts from Der Spiegel followed by my comments below the star line.

According to Der Spiegel - - -

Barack Obama's visit to Berlin has upset officials in other European capitals who feel the presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate is slighting their countries. The French and British are feeling neglected.

Barack Obama is making Germany the major focus of his trip to Europe this week, a choice that is being viewed with some displeasure in Paris and London. One day after the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee officially announced his plan to hold a speech at the Siegesäule, or "Victory Column," in Berlin, SPIEGEL ONLINE also obtained information about his preliminary European agenda.

One-on-one meetings for Obama have now been confirmed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

But so far he is only including time in his stops in Paris and London for French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. A decision still hasn't been made on whether the Democratic candidate will meet with the foreign ministers of those countries.

The source said this had caused additional irritation in government circles in Paris and London.

High-ranking politicians there are already annoyed that the controversy about Obama's desire to hold his speech at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate had distracted attention from the purpose of his European visit -- to outline his vision for trans-Atlantic relations. …

“The French and British feel that Germany is getting too much attention," a source told SPIEGEL ONLINE. This could prove to be a prickly issue considering traditionally close British-American ties. The Brits are also an important part of the US-led alliance in Iraq.

Resentment has been stirred in London because Obama is no longer starting his Europe trip in the British capital as was initially planned.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for his part, has demonstratively pursued a path of political rapprochement with Washington following years of antagonistic relations between former President Jacque Chirac and George W. Bush.

Obama's team has left no doubts about the fact that it considers German Chancellor Angela Merkel to be the strongest leader in Europe at present. Their reasoning: Sarkozy hasn't been in office long enough yet and Brown has been swept up in a domestic crisis.

US Congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat, recently spoke on behalf of Obama on Germany's N-TV cable news channel, emphasizing that German-American relations were the "most established."

But not even the Germans are totally satisfied. They are calling for further one-on-one meetings with Obama -- conversations that, according to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE are not very likely to happen. …

The entire report’s here
********************************************************

Comments:

First off, I’m sure very few of you missed the report’s unspoken message: “Der Spiegel is very happy to be able to tell its German readers the French and Brits are feeling dissed.”

How many times did the mag have to say and then explain why Obama’s grand tour “is being viewed with some displeasure in Paris and London?”

Der Spiegel gets it wrong when it says “the purpose of his European visit [is] to outline his vision for trans-Atlantic relations.”

If that was Sen. Obama’s purpose, he could've accomplished it with a major speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York or at an appropriate venue in Washington. In October, 1963 President Kennedy used Washington's American University as the site for one his most important speeches.

If Obama had chosen to speak in either city, Ambassadors and the press from all the European nations could've been invited to witness and hear it.

In years past, that’s how presidential candidates have done things when they wanted to explain just a few months before the election their visions "for trans-Atlantic relations.”

The very presumptive Barack Obama’s grand European tour is, as even most Dems recognize, really a campaign swing.

Perhaps it would help the French and British feel less dissed and clear things up for all our European friends if Obama begins his Berlin speech with the sentence: “Mesdames et Messieurs, Ich bin ein typical politician."

The Pump ad is McCain's best to date

I think The Pump as McCain's best one to date. Take a look at it (30 seconds) and see what you think. Below the ad I explain why I think it will be effective




This ad catches your attention not with a "shout," but with the pump image and a reminder "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil."

That's followed with: "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"

If the ad had stopped there, it would still be very effective because by that point its gotten people thinking about a question Americans are worried about and to which most of them think Obama and the Dems are offering the wrong answer.

With "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" the ad's "teed it up" for Americans watching to say to themselves: "Obama and the Dems oppose more offshore drilling."

With a photo of Obama and the "Obama, Obama, Obama!" chants in the background, the ad immediately tells viewers they're right.

The ad's creators couldn't have come up with a more effective way of both highlighting Obama's opposition to offshore drilling and turning the orchestrated chanting at his carefully staged rallies to use against him.

The ad than uses a blackout moment to transistion to the positive, solution-focused, McCain-admiring remainder of the ad.

Obama and the Dems "in Washington ... still saying no to drilling in America" are left behind. We now see the attractive, heroic image of McCain who "knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets."

That's immediately followed by: "Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain."

The final image of a thin gold bar with a star in the center reminded me - as I'm sure it was intended to do - of McCain's military service.

All things considered, I think The Pump is McCain's best ad to date.

What do you think?

Hat tip: AC

The Churchill Series - July 21, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

The Great London Blitz began on September 7, 1940 and did not end until May 11, 1941 a night when a very heavy raid killed over 3,000 Londoners.

The Blitz presented Churchill and The Government with enormous and complex problems. One had to do with evacuating children. The Government was initially in favor or that. But where were they to go and with whom would they stay?

Families in rural areas were volunteered to take in children, but would they be suitable families? Was a family prepared to take in six brothers and sister ranging in age from 2 to 14, two of whom were what were then called "problem children?"

What about parents who refused to send their children to the countryside?

Then there was the problem of how to keep public morale high under the extreme duress of daily bombing? How do you convince people that when the "all clear" is sounded, they must not go to their homes to see if they are still standing and their families and neighbors all right, but instead stay at their jobs until their shifts ended?

Fighting the fires. Treating the wounded. Identifying and arranging burial for the dead. Clearing debris which blocked roadways. Getting safe water to areas of the city where water mains were broken.

All those problems and many more including the one Churchill felt compelled to deal with on Sept. 18, almost two weeks after the start of the German bombing:

18.IX.40.

Prime Minister to Postmaster-General,

There are considerable complaints about the Post Office service during air raids. Prehaps you will give me a report on what you are doing.

I’ve been accused of making up that memo, but you can find it in Churchill’s Their Finest Hour, vol. 2, pg 671 (Houghton Mifflin, 1949)

As for what was done with the children, initially plans were made and orders given for their evacuation. Some children even came to the States and Canada where they lived out the war or most of it. Churchill's official biographer Sir Martin Gilbert was one of them.

There was much resistance from many parents to evacuating the children as well as all the problems of settling the children in new locations. The Government soon adopted a “Whatever the parents thinks best; HM's government will help provide options” policy that it followed until the war's end.

McClatchy Watch & Times Watch blogs

JinC Regulars know about McClatchy Watch, an outstanding blog that keeps an eye on the liberal/leftist McClatchy news organization.

The blog reports on everything from McClatchy’s frequent slamming of America's military to McClatchy's exec board's decisions to richly reward top executives even as the company's stock price crashes (It's down more than 85% in just the last three years.) and it lays off workers.

Following today's news that the NY Times was trying to manipulate what Sen. John McCain could say on its op-ed page in response to a Times' op-ed by the paper's preferred presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, an Anon commenter suggested: “in addition to a 'McClatchy Watch,' there should be a 'Times Watch.'"

Thank you, Anon.

Now some great news. There is a Times Watch. You can access it here.

It's lead post tonight is: “The Times Disses McCain Op-ed After Running Obama's “

The post's subhead: “The Times isn't about to give John McCain a break, setting stringent standards before it will take a pro-surge op-ed from him, even though it printed Obama's pro-withdrawal op-ed last week.”

The post begins - - -

When Hillary dropped out under a wave of hostile coverage, she left John McCain the only person standing between Barack Obama and a history-making presidency. With Obama rocking waves of positive coverage overseas, the media tide is out for the Republican nominee, and the Times surely isn't going to give McCain any breaks now.

The same New York Times that endorsed McCain (albeit in hold-your-nose fashion) during the Republican primaries now refuses to run an op-ed by him that: laid out recent successes in Iraq; said Obama was wrong in opposing the surge; and accused the Democrat of having "learned nothing from recent history."

Times' op-ed editor David Shipley emailed McCain's staff: "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."

Yet the McCain op-ed was in response to one from Obama, "My Plan for Iraq," that had appeared in the Times on July 14. Did the Times at least invite the McCain camp to submit an op-ed in defense of the war and the surge (to accompany Obama's call for withdrawal) before Obama's op-ed appeared?

Shipley said he wanted something more forward-looking that paralleled more closely with Obama's piece, which mentioned McCain only twice while sketching out a vision of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The piece McCain submitted to the Times attacked Obama on his past statements on the surge and also went after points from Obama's NYT op-ed. …

The entire post’s here.

We're fortunate to have McClatchy Watch and Times Watch.

I hope you'll visit both often.

NY Times rejects McCain op-ed

Matt Drudge has just reported - - - NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA

His report begins - - -

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.] (Who's surprised by that? - - JinC)

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.' ....

The rest of the story’s here. Drudge follows his story with the text of McCain’s op-ed so you can judge it and the NYT for yourself.

I often refer to the NYT as Obama’s Times and the Anything for Obama Times.

I think I’ve got that right with Shipley providing one more example of that.

Your turn.

Duke-Durham defendant Linwood Wilson & attorney representation

If you don’t know much about Linwood Wilson, once referred to as disgraced and disbarred former Durham DA Mike Nifong’s “go-to guy,” see here, here and here.

Wilson, along with Wachovia CEO and Duke BOT chair Bob Steel and others, is now a defendant in massive civil rights violations suits brought by Duke lacrosse players. But unlike all the other defendants who are represented by attorneys, Wilson is representing himself.

Commenters have asked whether Wilson might be entitled to a court appointed attorney and other questions concerning Wilson's situation.

The Ex-prosecutor who has often provided helpful information and commentary on various aspects of the Duke hoax and frame-up attempt has provided the following concerning Wilson:

A civil unlike a criminal defendant has no right to a free lawyer. So, Linwood Wilson is on his own.

Here's some of what he faces. There will be many, many depositions taken in this case. Court reporters charge by the page for copies, and I'll bet that their charges for a single set of depositions will be many thousands of dollars, easily $25,000 or much more. This figure doesn't count getting copies of records, which also are expensive.

If I were Linwood Wilson, I'd attend just the depositions of those who could impact me, meaning I'd skip those of the Duke administrators. He'll need to hear what others are saying about him so he can get his trial testimony ready.

If Linwood Wilson simply ignores the lawsuit, because he knows that he could never pay such a massive judgment as is likely, the plaintiffs can take a default judgment against him in whatever amount they can prove he damaged them.

This may sound like heresy, but I think that Linwood Wilson may do better by representing himself that he would if he had a lawyer.

The cases against him and Mr. Nifong look to me close to slam dunks, and that’s why I think the judgment against him may be lessened by his self-representation.

There's always a danger that jurors will feel somewhat sorry for a defendant who represents himself. It's obvious the defendant can't afford to hire a lawyer, so a big judgment against him will be uncollectible.

Such a result is more likely when there are other defendants who can pay a big judgment, such as Duke and the city of Durham.

It also means that the plaintiffs' lawyers may have to take it somewhat easier in their treatment of him because his being alone in the courtroom contrasts with the other defendants and their hoards of lawyers.

However, I suspect that even if the jury feels somewhat sorry for Linwood Wilson, the judgment against him will far exceed his assets. Then he can hire a bankruptcy lawyer and see if the judgment is dischargeable.
___________________________________________________

I thank the Ex-prosecutor for his informed and helpful commentary.

John

MSM is not telling us about Michelle Obama

Writing in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ralph Reiland gives us his take on the articulate, accomplished woman who wants her husband to be President of a “downright mean country.”

Here's the first part of Reiland's column with my comments below the star line:

"We don't need a world full of corporate attorneys and hedge-fund managers," Michelle Obama told a crowd in a Baptist church in South Carolina in January. "But see, that's the only way you can pay back your educational debt!"

It's true, exactly 20 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, she's still complaining about her tuition payments, even while living in a $1.65 million house and with a household income that puts her firmly in the top 1 percent of U.S. families.

"The couple's combined salaries were more than $430,000 in 2006, according to their tax return," reported Los Angeles Times writer Robin Abcarian in February. "In addition, Barack Obama earned $551,000 in book royalties."

In 2007, the year prior to Mrs. Obama's perpetual bellyaching on the campaign trail about her tuition bill, Barack Obama was paid $4 million in book royalties, as reported on his financial disclosure report in June.

The philosophy? We wouldn't need "a world full of corporate attorneys and hedge-fund managers" -- i.e., a world full of self-seeking individualism and capitalist compromises -- if tuition were free and we could all be debt-free community organizers, working the streets to make everything "free."

As it now stands, according to Michelle Obama, we're stuck in a pre-Obama nation that's "just downright mean," a country of "broken souls" that never much made her proud.

And the salvation, the way to mend our mean and busted spirits? Times writer Abcarian reports Mrs. Obama's answer: "She talks about how brilliant he is and often implies that voters would be crazy not to vote for her husband, calling him 'the only rational choice.' She calls his candidacy a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to be graced with a man like him.'"

We will have "to sacrifice for one another to get things done," explains Mrs. Obama, and "Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that" -- not only the "only person" who understands, she says, but also "one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics."

The definition of "deign": "to condescend, to do something that one considers to be below one's dignity." One wonders if Michelle also thinks that Barack's 20 years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was below his level of elevated dignity.

Just as "our souls are broken in this nation," Michelle Obama claims that we've been going straight down economically for four decades.

"The life that I am talking about that most people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl," she asserts. "And this is through Republican and Democratic administrations. It doesn't matter who was in the White House."

And her challenge if you disagree? "If you want to pretend there was some point over the last couple of decades when your lives were easy, I wanna meet you!" …

The rest of Reiland’s column’s here. It includes information about the growth of living standards in recent decades. Reiland ends by recounting what happened to a man who passed on the corporate life in order to “minister” to Chicago’s South Side poor.
*********************************************************
Comments:

Americans need to hear more about what Michelle Obama thinks.

What makes America “a downright mean country?” What was it about Rev. Jeremiah Wright that convinced Michelle and Barack Obama to take their daughters to his church for their religious instruction?

Sen. Obama claims never to have heard any of Rev. Wright’s “controversial" sermons. What about Ms. Obama? Did she hear any of them? Did she ever discuss them with her husband?

We don’t have answered to those questions. Why? It's almost five months since Americans first began to learn about what Obama’s supporters call Wright’s “snippets.”

That those and other important questions about the Obamas remain unanswered gives us some idea of the extent to which the Obama campaign and a largely fawning press have combined to avoid telling the American people things we should know before deciding whether to elect Barack Obama President.

Some 1976 campaign lessons

Michael Barone talks about them at NRO [excerpts].

Barone’s in italics; I'm in plain.

Looking back over the last 40 years, the presidential campaign that most closely resembles this year's is the contest between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976. The Republicans were the incumbent presidential party that year, as they are now, but the Democrats had a big advantage in party identification — on the order of 49 percent to 26 percent then, far more than today.

I didn’t know the Dems in ’76 had an almost 2 to 1 party identification advantage over the GOP. That makes the Dems’ current party affiliation advantage the MSM keeps telling us is a strong indicator of Dem success in November seem like not such a strong indicator after all.

The Republican president who had been elected and re-elected in the last two campaigns, Richard Nixon, had dismal favorability ratings, far lower than George W. Bush's. His name could scarcely be mentioned at the Republican National Convention.

I remember ’76. President Bush will be nowhere near the drag this year Nixon was in ‘76. But you can be sure a day won’t go by between now and November without the Dems’ media flacks telling us what a drag Bush is followed by a litany of why he’s a drag.

The Democratic nominee was a little-known outsider, with an appeal that was based on the idea that he could transcend the nation's racial divisions. Jimmy Carter, a governor from the Deep South, had placed a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. in the state Capitol in Atlanta.

Obama’s claim that he’s the candidate who can transcend race is already fractured and will become more so as we get closer to the election.

Ford's political situation then was far more parlous than McCain's today. An early summer Gallup poll showed him trailing Carter by 62 percent to 29 percent.

We’re well past early summer with polls generally showing Obama and McCain in a statistical tie or Obama with a single digit lead. Carter’s early summer lead was 33% and Ford closed it to 2% on election day.

Barone goes on to discuss how that happened. He also has some advice for McCain.

Barone’s entire column is here.

Be sure to give it a look if you’re following the campaign.

Jay Leno on the Dems 10 Year Oil Plan

I'll bet Sen. McCain's campaign staff wishes he was as good at exposing the folly of the Dems opposition to offshore drilling as Jay Leno is in this 16-second clip.



Remember when President Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR?

1976.

Raddatz, ABC News targets of bogus claim

This past Friday I posted a bogus claim that ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz and the network suppressed almost all the information Raddatz gathered in April in Iraq from 60 U. S. soldiers concerning their presidential candidate preferences. (Raddatz was there covering a trip by Vice President Dick Cheney)

In an April 7 ABC News story Raddatz reported on interviews by my count with 4 soldiers who favored Sen. Obama, 1 "leaning" toward Sen. Clinton, a number who favored no candidate, but talked about their concerns including multiple deployments, the economy,etc., and a few who said they weren't following the campaign closely. The story’s here.

Subsequently a bogus claim began circulating on the Net. The claim is Raddatz and ABC suppressed the news that 54 soldiers she interviewed all expressed a preference for Sen. McCain. There's zero evidence to support the claim, and a great deal of evidence that leaves no doubt the McCain-54 claim is bogus.

I’d like to tell you how I came to post the bogus claim and how – with help first from commenter Tarheel Hawkeye, then from others of you commenting on- and offline, another blogger and Martha Raddatz herself – I learned the claim is bogus.

Many of you know Mike Williams has aggregated here outstanding WOT reporting we rarely get from MSM. Mike’s also provided his own superb military analyses.

Mike’s work has always been so reliable that when he passed on the McCain-54 claim, I didn’t do the fact-checking I should have done in fairness to him, you, Raddatz and ABC.

Within a few minutes of my posting Friday on McCain-54, Tarheel Hawkeye let me know it might be an urban legend or worse. (See his comment on the thread here. His comment links to a site he directed me to.)

At the site I read that the sole “starter” for McCain-54 – an email supposedly from a retired USAF Maj. Gen. who’d learned about the supposed 54 pro-McCain soldiers Raddatz had interviewed from his military-serving niece in Iraq who “witnessed” the interviews – was disowned by the general said to be the email's author.

I began to question what I’d posted, but I felt I didn’t know enough yet to say McCain-54 was bogus. I added a Readers Alert to the head of the post letting people know of Tarheel Hawkeye's comment.

Friday evening I emailed Mike to let him know what was happening. I told him that Saturday morning I was going to put aside the question of whether Raddatz-ABC suppressed news of interviews with 54 pro-McCain soldiers, and instead post on what I see as a pro-Obama tilt in Raddatz's report.

Saturday morning while working on that post, I received the following comment on the thread here:

John,

I respect your love of history...but the email you have up slamming me is pure fantasy.

[USAF Maj. Gen.] Buckman denies he authored it and would like it taken down. I have spoken directly to him and he has emailed me as well.

I know it is easy to mistrust the media. But don't throw us all under the bus.

I have been to Iraq 17 times and have covered the military for decades. I respect the military enormously---and I know that I have great respect from those who know me, as well.

I wrote a book, published last year called "The Long Road Home" that profiled the brave soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division and the families who support them. The book was praised as one of the few about the Iraq war that was "non political". The "praise" on the back of the book comes from General David Petraeus among others.

For more about this email I suggest you check out this blog:

http://therewillbetruth.blogspot.com/2008/07/major-general-buckman-did-not-author.html

I would also ask that if you have forwarded the email, you let people know it was false. And if you would like to contact me directly, please don't hesitate.

Respectfully,

Martha Raddatz

The comment seemed genuine, but you can’t always be sure.

So I called ABC News and explained the situation. They helped me get in touch with Raddatz whom I emailed:

I wish to confirm the email below was sent by you. I'll post the email once I've confirmed it's from you.

I'm trying to reach MG Buckman, but that may take a few days.

I will work to give JinC readers the full, true story concerning your report. When I have sufficient facts in hand, I'll correct and apologize, if necessary.

In the meantime, I'm letting readers know of the legend concerns.

Raddatz emailed back:

It was indeed sent by me. If you could go to the post I sent you, you will see that MG Buckman is tired of being called (he is 75)__I could send you the email he sent to me if that will convince you (but please don't publish his email address)

I replied

Dear Ms. Raddatz:

Thank you for a prompt and helpful response.

I would like the email MG Buckman sent you; not because I doubt what you say but to allow me to speak to JinC readers with greater authority.

I will certainly respect the confidentiality of his email address.

It's always good to correct a wrong and it looks like I may be on the verge of having another chance to do so.

Sincerely,

John

In reply, Raddatz sent a copy of Buchman’s email:

Martha-the referenced e-mail about the reaction of our men and women in Iraq was not authored by me. I would not send or forward an e-mail that I knew to be bogus or untrue and would appreciate it not being associated with me.

You can read at Let There Be Truth the experience of a blogger who directly contacted Buckman and, like Raddatz, received an unequivocal denial of authorship from Buckman.

Searching the Net I've found plenty of places that are passing on the bogus McCain-54 story. They all rely solely on the debunked Buckman email. I could find not one instance of a U. S. military source who has stepped forward to confirm McCain-54.

Like the Duke Hoax, McCain-54 is improbable on its face. The bogus email claims Raddatz:

"asked 60 GI’s who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama, and 2 for Hillary."

But what are the chances that in April in Iraq the following would all happen: Of 60 soldiers interviewed, none would say they were undecided; none would express a preference for Rep. Ron Paul; just 2 would express a preference for Sen. Clinton and 4 a preference for Sen. Obama, while 54 of the 60 would express a preference for Sen. McCain?

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said there was no credible evidence to support the charges in the Duke Hoax. The same is true for McCain-54.

I would have realized that if I’d done some fact-checking before posting.

I apologize for not doing so. I’ll work to do better in the future.

While I believe the Raddatz-ABC story has a definite pro-Obama tilt – something I let Raddatz know during our email exchanges – I no longer plan to post concerning it.

That’s because what I most needed to do was explain and correct my error which I began doing yesterday with the update of Our "unbiased" MSM in action (Update - contains error) and have sought to do here.

If I posted at this time something about “on the other hand, what Martha Raddatz and ABC did in terms of Obama …,” it would muddy the clear explanation and unequivocal apology I want to provide.

I’d wind up sounding like the boy who said: “Ma’am, I’m so sorry I stole your cookies that weren’t very good.”

I’m copying this to Raddatz today.

Tomorrow I’ll send an apology note to her and ABC News which I’ll post here.

From past experience I know I can rely on the understanding and decency of almost all of you.

For that, you have my thanks.

John

That New Yorker cover

First, an excerpt from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift's most recent column. Then my comments below the star line.

Clift begins - - -

When Democratic strategist Mark Siegel first saw this week's New Yorker cover with Barack Obama in Muslim garb and wife, Michelle, with a huge afro looking like '60s Black Panther activist Angela Davis, he could imagine a million of the satirical images distributed on flyers around the country.

This would not be good for a presidential candidate just now introducing himself to a whole new set of voters who didn't participate in the Democratic primaries, and who have heard little about him beyond the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

It's not The New Yorker's job to elect Obama. Still, what were they thinking? The cartoon cover image pictures the Obamas in the Oval Office with a framed portrait of Osama bin Laden over the mantel and an American flag burning in the fireplace.

If these same depictions appeared on a white supremacist site, the FBI and the Secret Service would monitor the purveyors.

If a conservative magazine like The National Review or The Weekly Standard put these images on their cover, we'd all be outraged, and rightfully so.

The New Yorker expects all of us sophisticates to understand they're poking fun at the politics of fear. A banner headline across the cover saying just that might have lent some clarity to the exercise. Without it, even people familiar with The New Yorker's satirical sensibility were offended.

One reader shared with me this e-mail that she fired off to
themail@newyorker.com. "Your embarrassing attempt at satire is disgraceful in this climate of fear and ignorance. There is no journalistic freedom to justify this cartoon that could have easily been generated by the merchants of hate and fear and will certainly be used by them to justify their own moronic diatribes against this most American family. Shame on you New Yorker for this blatant attention grabbing exercise!"

The rest of Clift's column's here.

*************************************************************

Comments:

Where has Clift been this past week? There's been a great deal of outrage expressed by many people and organizations. Sen. McCain has spoken out. So have many Independents and Republicans.

And the Dems and their MSM allies have been in loud cry.

The outrage has been so intense the New Yorker editor's been doing more explaining and apologizing than Jesse Jackson.

What Clift and others outraged by the New Yorker cover need to explain is where's their outrage has been all these years cartoonists have caricturtured President Bush as Hitler?

Farenheit 911, Michaal Moore's libel claiming President Bush knew of the impending 911 attacks and did nothing to stop them, didn't provoke any outrage from most liberals and Democrats.

In fact, Moore was seated at the Dems' 2004 national convention in something called "The Honor Box."

When a California Democratic Member of Congress recently said on the House floor that President Bush liked to see soldiers in Iraq get "their heads blown off," I don't recall hearing any outrage from Clift and others among the Dems' MSM media flacks.

We all know what their reation would be if a GOP House Member said their President-presumptive Barack Obama liked to see our troops get "their heads blown off. "

Clift's column is one more example of the double standard that's done so much in recent years to hurt our country.

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Why don't we hear more about surgeon Bill Frist

Most people don't know former Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Frist is an outstanding surgeon who for many years has gone to some of the poorest parts of Africa to provide medical care to those who'd otherwise be without it.

I'm on Frist's email list. I think many of you will be interested to learn what he's doing now so I'm sharing his latest email with you. It's a shame Frist's lifesaving work doesn't get 1/10th the attention Al Gore's speechifying and Jesse Jackson's odious whispers get.

Here's Bill Frist - - -

For the next ten days, I will be traveling throughout Mozambique and then into Rwanda visiting the worksites of great, lifesaving work being done by various groups with whom I hold a leadership role. These include Africare, Save the Children, the MCC, The ONE Campaign, Samaritan’s Purse, and the Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project.

Yesterday, I flew from Arusha, Tanzania into Chimoio, Mozambique to observe a housing project, Project COPE, in Vanduzi town, where over 30 houses had been built largely for widows and orphans, those who had been left behind after their spouses and parents had died of HIV/AIDS.

One young widow with whom we met was a mother of three. She cried with joy at the newfound dignity she held from owning her new home. After living in a terrible, cramped hut with her young family, she was overwhelmed with their new life. Her four year old began to cry as well because his mother was so happy.

Africare not only is leading in the building of good, modern homes from local materials, but they also support a Community Care Committee who provides food, mentoring, education, and guidance for those in need. There was also a hospital in this community supported by Africare, training indigenous volunteers to teach the community about nutrition.

Africare and others with whom I will be visiting are leaving a lasting footprint on thriving communities in Africa.

I’m excited to have the opportunity to share these stories.

Please go to www.hopethroughhealinghands.com/blog for a daily update complete with anecdotes, observations, and photographs to learn more about the good stories of Africa.

We’d love for you to join our mailing list to keep in touch!

Bill Frist, MD


Hope Through Healing Hands
2033 Richard Jones Road
Nashville, TN 37215

If you do not wish to receive email communications from Hope Through
Healing Hands, please email unsubscribe@hopethroughhealinghands.com.

The Churchill Series - July 18, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

After a long absence from the series, Scotland Yard’s Detective- Inspector Walter Thompson is back today with an amusing Churchill anecdote.

In case you’re new to the series, Walter Thompson was Churchill’s principal bodyguard for most of the 1920s and 30s. He retired in 1937 and became a greengrocer.

On September 3, 1939, Britain entered the war against Germany and Churchill was aksed to join the government as First Lord of the Admiralty.

The following morning, Thompson received a phone call and heard the familiar voice. He remained with Churchill until the end of the war.

Among many incidents during the Blitz, Thompson recalled one very cold night when Churchill, as he often did, insisted on leaving the safety of his bomb shelter in The Annexe to go up to its roof to watch the German bombing raid.

Churchill had been on the roof for some time when he decided to sit down for a few minutes and smoke a cigar. Thompson, always concerned when Churchill exposed them both to increased risk by being on the roof during a raid, was this night also concerned that Churchill was exposured to the cold.

But Churchill reassured him about the cold. In fact, he said he really felt almost warm.

About that time a sentry came up to the roof and asked the PM if he’d mind standing up.

Churchill asked why.

”You are sitting on the chimney, sir. You’re smoking them out below.”

I hope you all have a nice weekend and are back Monday.

John
____________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill’s Bodyguard: The Authorised Biography of Walter H. Thmposon. (p. 127)

Our “unbiased” MSM in action (Updated - contains error)

Readers Alert: After I published the post below, a commenter suggested the claim ABC's Martha Radditz and the network suppressed news of 54 soldiers expressing a perference for Sen. McCain in the story referenced below was very likely bogus. The commenter linked to www.snopes.com.

I did follow-up fact-checking I should have done before publishing the claim.

Bottom line: I'm convinced the claim is bogus.

In a separate post I'll detail the evidence that effectively refutes the claim. I'll place a link to that post here later today. I'll also be sending an apology to Raddatz and ABC News.

Right now I just want to let you know where things stand and tell you I'm sorry for my error.

John
_____________________________________________________

From Mike Williams' latest electronic letter without further comment - - -

Martha Raddatz was in Iraq recently asking soldiers who they planned to vote for in November. According to ABC News, four said Obama and two said Clinton. Left out – the 54 who said McCain.

APS says "Position Remains Unchanged"

Yesterday I posted Cool news about "human-induced global warming."

Today at its web site the American Physical Society posted the following statement:

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

I'll post at Cool news about "human-induced global warming" a Readers Alert and link to this post.

When I make a mistake I say I'm sorry. In this case, however, I reported correctly yesterday and today. So I offer no "Sorry." I just updated to keep you informed.

I hope before too much time has passed I'm able to report the APS has in fact reversed its position.

Message to APS: Ideology is not science.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Lax suit sanctions hearing transcript and order

This posted yesterday at Duke Lawsuit:

Back on April 15, Chief Judge James A. Beaty, Jr. of the US District Court in Winston-Salem held a hearing to consider a motion for sanctions by Duke University’s and the City of Durham’s against lawyers for the 38 Duke lacrosse players for holding a news conference and maintaining this Web site about their lawsuit.

Judge Beaty denied the sanctions motion and issued an order which included guidance to both the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ attorneys about their relations to the news media.

We are now able to post the transcript of the hearing. ...

The post continues with a reproduction of the transcript of Chief Judge Beaty's order as issued from the bench. It begins on page 47 of the transcript to which the post links.

In an email informing of the post, Robert Bork Jr, who maintains Duke Lawsuit, said:

We are now able to post the complete transcript of the sanctions hearing from April 15. We were unable to do so until now because it was the property of the court reporter until 90 days after the hearing.

A "thank you" to Bork for the explanation and for providing the hearing transcript and Judge Beaty's order.

Previous posts concerning the motion include:

Duke's Motion a Stumble (3/7/08)

More on Duke's Motion to Suppress (3/9/08)

Court Rules Against Duke (4/15/08)

Obama’s “larger canvas”

Charles Krauthammer today:

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn.

President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation.

When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop?

What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Who is advising Obama?

Can't his campaign staff gently tell him asking for the Brandenburg Gate as a prop for what is effectively a campaign appearance puts the German’s in an awkward position, to say nothing of highlighting Obama’s towering ego?

Can’t even one of the former secretaries of state and defense from the Carter and Clinton administrations enlighten him?

Krauthammer tries to:

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.) …

That’s the least of it.

What if some far-left, anti-American candidate for the premiership of a European country wanted to use the Lincoln Memorial as a prop for a campaign speech? Could a President Obama object?

He wouldn’t want to offend the potential head of a European nation, would he?

But after using the Brandenburg Gate as one of his campaign props, how could President Obama object to foreign leaders using our national monuments as props for their campaigns?

The rest of the world would rightly view that as arrogance.

Krauthammer notes, “Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself,” and closes with:

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal."

As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

The entire column’s here.

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

The Churchill Series - July 17, 2008

( One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Readers Note: In recent days there have been some generous comments made. My sincere thanks to the commenters.

John
____________________________________________________

With the help of Wikipedia, let’s recall today F. E. Smith, the man Churchill biographers consider to have been his closest friend. I’ve planned the post so we'll end it doing what Churchill and Smith often did when they were together: laughing.

From Wikipedia:

Frederick Edwin Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead, GCSI, PC (12 July 1872–30 September 1930) was a British Conservative statesman and lawyer of the early 20th century. He was a skilled orator, noted for his staunch opposition to Irish nationalism, his wit, pugnacious views, and hard living and drinking.

He is perhaps best remembered today as Winston Churchill's greatest personal and political friend until Birkenhead's untimely death at age 58.

After Birkenhead’s death, Churchill said he’d never once been with him without leaving better informed or wiser on at least one important matter. That’s quite a tribute coming as it did from one of the best informed and wisest men of the time.

Now to the laughter.

Again from Wikipedia:

About Bolshevism Smith observed:

"Nature has no cure for this sort of madness, though I have known a legacy from a rich relative works wonders."

On Winston Churchill:

"He has devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches." (When Churchill heard the remark he laughed, and afterwards would quote it to others. - JinC)

And in court as a barrister:

Judge: "I have read your case, Mr Smith, and I am no wiser now than I was when I started."

Smith: "Possibly not, My Lord, but much better informed."
________

Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court, Mr Smith?"

Smith: "No, My Lord. I am attempting to conceal it."
_______

Judge: "Have you ever heard of a saying by Bacon — the great Bacon — that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions?"

Smith: "Yes, I have. And have you ever heard of a saying of Bacon — the great Bacon — that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?"

Judge: "You are extremely offensive, young man!"

Smith: "As a matter of fact we both are; but I am trying to be, and you can't help it."
__________

Judge: "Mr Smith, you must not direct the jury. What do you suppose I am on the bench for?"

Smith: "It is not for me, your honour, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence."
_________

Smith to witness: "So, you were as drunk as a judge?"

Judge (interjecting): "You mean as drunk as a lord?"

Smith: "Yes, My Lord."

___________________________________________
Smith's Wikipedia biography is here.

Could you blame Obama?

Those who work to keep guns away from law-abiding citizens – “the anti-gun advocates” -- regularly lobby legislators in places like Montana and Iowa to pass the kind of “tough anti-gun” laws that places like -- - oh, Chicago, for instance - - have.

Well, how's it all working out in the Windy City?

This today from the Chicago Tribune:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday raised the possibility of bringing in state troopers or even the Illinois National Guard to help Chicago combat a recent increase in violent crime -- an offer that Mayor Richard Daley didn't know was coming.

Appearing at signing ceremony for a bill that toughens the penalty for adults who provide guns to minors, Blagojevich said "violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control."

"I'm offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help ... stop this violence," said the governor.

Blagojevich said Daley had not asked for help and he had not talked to the mayor about offering it, adding he would call Daley after he met later in the day with the state police, National Guard and others. ...

I’m wondering: Do you think Sen. Obama’s going to Iraq to get away from Chicago’s violence?

Just askin’

The CT’s entire story’s here.

Hat tip: Instapundit.com

Cool news about “human-induced global warming”

Readers Alert: Following publication of the Daily Tech post referenced below, the American Physical Society issued a statement saying it had not reversed its position on "human-induced global warming."

You can read it here where I also offer some brief comments on the matter.

John
______________________________

Daily Tech headlines: Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

DT’s story follows with my comments below the star line - - -

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. (all emphasis added)

The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,

"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.

A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors."

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says,

"I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

*****************************************************************
Comments:

A hat tip to Mike Williams who called the DT story to my attention. Somehow my local liberal/leftist newspaper, the Raleigh News & Observer, missed it.

I suspect most of MSM will ignore or grossly underreport this most important story.

A really big hat tip goes to frequent commenter Jack in Silver Springs. He’s been spot on about “human-induced global warming” and has in many detailed, well-written comments here informed JinC readers on the subject while the Al Gores, Nancy Pelosis and Barack Obamas have been misinforming the broader public.

What’s most important about the APS’s reversal for those of us who value Western Civilization and the scientific method based on free inquiry is this: The APS’s reversal is an overdue step back by APS from a possible embrace of fascist-like ideologues who’ve proclaimed “human-induced global warming” a settled matter and, in some instances, actually advocated punishments for those scientists who challenged it.

Copernicus and Galileo would approve of what the APS has just done.

Your turn.

In praise of JinC’s editors

On July 9 I posted Questioning a NY Times McCain story. It reported on a NYT story concerning the contents of a TV attack ad the Times said a McCain-leaning 527 was running against Sen. Obama.

Based on the Times’ description of the ad, I questioned whether the Times was accurately portraying the ad’s actual content. I regretted the Times hadn’t linked to the video or at least a print transcript.

Within minutes Zonga commented noting that I’d missed a link to the ad the Times had provided on the same web page as its story. Zonga also provided a link to the ad at YouTube.

Thank you, editor Zonga. And thanks to all of you who point out my errors so I can correct them.

In this case, within an hour I was able to add an "Update" to the post title and a Readers Alert and link to the ad at the head of the post.

Alert and informed editing makes that sort of thing possible. (BTW – The ad’s contents confirmed what I’d suggested about the Times’ spinning for Obama.)

Once more: to all of you who put forth the time and effort to help edit JinC, my sincere thanks for helping me correct errors and better serve JinC readers.

How can those MSMers keep telling readers and viewers bloggers don’t have editors?

The Churchill Series - July 16, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It's November 14, 1940.

London's enduring the Blitz. In the North Atlantic, the British and Canadian navies are fighting a desperate battle to keep open Britain’s vital supply line from North America. It will be more than a year before the U. S. enters the war.

Churchill hears there's talk in government circles that perhaps it would be in Britain’s interests to draw closer to French Vichy. He decides to send his cabinet colleagues a note. It follows in full:

“Although revenge has no part in politics, and we should always be looking forward rather than looking back, it would be a mistake to suppose that a solution of our difficulties with Vichy will be reached by a policy of mere conciliation and forgiveness.

The Vichy Government is under heavy pressure from Germany, and there is nothing that they would like better that to feel a nice, soft, cozy, forgiving England on their other side.

This would enable them to win minor favours from Germany at our expense, and hang on as long as possible to see how the war goes.

We, on the contrary, should not hesitate, when our interests require it, to confront them with difficult and rough situations, and make then feel that we have teeth as well as Hitler.” (emphasis in original)

When was the last time you read an important government policy document that was so brief, to the point and wise?
_________________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, Their Finest Hour. (pgs. 525-526)

Washington Post: Obama’s “irrational” on Iraq

Here’s today’s Washington Post editorial, "The Iron Timetable," with my comments below the star line.

WaPo begins - - -

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency.

Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan.

After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013.

Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government.

The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do.

Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence.

Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge."

How will that "true success" be achieved?

By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable. (emphasis added)

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy."

However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership.

American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill.

Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies.

If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences.

That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves.

Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

***********************************************************

Comments:

When I finished WaPo’s outstanding editorial, here’s some of what I thought:

There’s nothing factual mentioned in the editorial that isn’t true; there’s nothing asserted as likely that isn’t very plausible.

The editors lay out the facts and their consequences or likely consequences as clearly as possible for Senator Obama and the rest of us.

Millions of Americans already get at least most of what the editors are saying.

It’s clear the editors think Obama doesn’t get what they’re saying. That’s why he views Iraq in “an irrational and ahistorical way”

The editors called Obama’s view of Iraq “irrational” when they could just as correctly have used a synonym that rhymes with “cupid.”

They used “ahistorical” as a polite way of saying he doesn’t know the basic recent history of Iraq.

The editors knew Obama would either read the editorial or be given a summary of it. With that in mind, it’s worth taking a second look at how the usually Democratic-leaning WaPo ended its editorial:

Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

So the best the WaPo is hoping for is that “sooner or later” a President Obama will learn enough “to tailor his Iraq strategy” to the “reality” that “Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest.”

That’s a hopeful thought, but shouldn’t people know at least that much before they run for President?

Making sense of Iraq and the WOT

Like many of you, I’ve read a lot in the MSM about the Iraq War and the War on Terror that’s been wrong, foolish and sometimes so defeatist I’ve wondered whose side the reporters and news organizations were on.

On the other hand, two great independent reporters, Michael Totten and Michael Yon, have time after time gotten it right on the Iraq War and much else.

Today Totten at commentarymagazine.com posts Is the War Over? Here’s the start of Totten’s post with my comments below the star line:

Independent reporter Michael Yon has spent more time in Iraq embedded with combat soldiers than any other journalist in the world, and a few days ago he boldly declared the war over:

Barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

I’m reluctant to say “the war has ended,” as [Yon] did, but everything else he wrote is undoubtedly true. The war in Iraq is all but over right now, and it will be officially over if the current trends in violence continue their downward slide. That is a mathematical fact.

If you doubt it, look at the data.

Security incidents, or attacks, are at their lowest level in four years. Civilian deaths are down by almost 90 percent since General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency “surge” strategy went into effect. High profile attacks, or explosions, are down by 80 percent in the same time period. American and Iraqi soldiers suffer far fewer casualties than they have for years. Ethno-sectarian deaths from Iraq’s civil war plunged all the way down to zero in May and June 2008.

Yon is braver than the rest of us for declaring the war over, but it’s important to understand that there are no final battles in counterinsurgencies and it’s impossible to pinpoint the exact dates when wars like this end. The anti-Iraqi insurgency – a war-within-a-war – really is effectively over. As long as another such war-within-a-war doesn’t break out, Yon will appear more perceptive than the rest of us in hindsight when the currently low levels of violence finally do taper off into relative insignificance.

None of this means terrorism and violence in Iraq are over. Violence is never over in the Middle East, and Islamist terrorism will be with us for years, if not decades. ….

The rest of Totten’s post’s here.

********************************************************

Comments:

I’ll also say some more about the post later tonight.

Right now I just want to call it to your attention and say I’ll sign on to everything Totten says.

How about you?

McCain, Obama both face racial divide

Today the NY Times reports:

Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.

After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans’ perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.

Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing.

And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks. ….

The rest of the Times’ story’s here.

Comments:

The Times’ story is headlined:

Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race

But if you read the story, you see that Sen. Obama does much better among whites on favorability and voter preference questions than Sen. McCain does on those same questions among blacks.

A headline like:

McCain, Obama both face race divide

would have much more accurately conveyed the poll results which – no surprise – found that on questions concerning the candidates, public issues and social perceptions, there were significant differences between the responses of blacks and whites.

I think the Times didn't use a headline like that because it wants the public thinking only Obama faces and is disadvantaged by a racial divide.

Why’d McClatchy’s N&O change its ID policy for Crystal Mangum?

The McClatchy newspaper chain has a policy of generously rewarding CEO Gary Pruitt and other top executives.

McClatchy’s stock’s plunged more than 90% in just a few years but Pruitt continues to receive his $1+ million base pay and various bonuses, including an $800,000 “performance bonus” last year.

While McClatchy’s hasn't changed its policy of generously rewarding Pruitt and other top executives even as its stock price crashes and it cuts its work force, McClatchy in one notable instance suddenly changed its policy regarding identifying alleged victims of sex crimes. And its never explained why.

For years McClatchy’s Raleigh News & Observer had followed the policy almost all news organizations follow: don’t ID a woman who reports she's a victim of a sex crime(s).

Instead, refer to her as “the alleged victim” or “the reported victim” until there’s been a legal determination a crime occurred; or until the person(s) accused admits to the woman’s charges.

But without any announcement or explanation to readers, the N&O in March 2006 suddenly changed its policy in response to a woman’s wildly improbable and unsubstantiated allegations she was a victim of sex crimes, allegations subsequently proven to be false.

In response to Duke hoaxer Crystal Mangum’s bogus allegations, the N&O dispensed with the use of terms such as “alleged” and “reported.” It told readers a young black mother was “a victim” who’d been gang-raped as well as beaten, strangled and robbed by three white members of the Duke Men’s lacrosse team while their teammates stood by and did nothing to stop the crimes.

In a March 25, 2006 front page headline The N&O said the crimes occurred during a night which ended in “sexual violence.”

In the story following the lurid, unqualified headline, the N&O told readers:

It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the victims of sex crimes.

The N&O came under terrific criticism from fair-minded readers angry at the N&O’s racially inflammatory and unsubstantiated casting of some Duke students on the lacrosse team as vicious criminals and the other students on the team as abettors of their criminal teammates.

Perhaps in response to reader criticism or the transparent absurdity of what Mangum was charging or, more likely, some combination of the two, the N&O soon returned to using qualifiers such as “alleged” when referring to a woman charging a sex crime.

Just today senior editor Dan Barkin tells readers at the Editors’ Blog about a woman “who claims that she was raped.” Barkin informs readers:

And The News & Observer has a policy of not identifying people who allege sex crimes.

Well, OK. Glad to see the "allege" in there.

But that doesn’t explain why the N&O changed its policy in response to Crystal Mangum’s lies and dispensed with the use of terms such as “alleged.”

The N&O has never told readers why it did that.

Why not?

And shouldn't it do so now?

Hat tip: Anon commenter

The Churchill Series - July 15, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In early September, 1918 Churchill, then Minister of Munitions in Lloyd George’s Government, crossed the Channel to meet in France with military leaders. Instead of sailing across, he flew.

On Sept. 8 he wrote Clementine from France about his flight. Some of his language might lead you to believe he sailed, but in those days it was common to use the language of the seas rather than land when speaking about flying: planes were airships and civilian pilots who flew passengers were captains, a usage which persists to this day.

Letter excerpts:

My Beloved,

We sailed across the Channel through a fierce storm and were over the other side in about 11 minutes. …

It was so nice on the beach with you and [the children.] …

I do hope you were not cold going back in the car, or were not worried at my method of travel. It gives me a feeling of tremendous conquest over space, & I know you would love it yourself.

The Canary [his pilot, Cyril Patterson] is much alarmed by motor cars & thinks them far more dangerous than aeroplanes. …

I am very happy to be married to you my darling one, & as the years pass I feel more & more dependent on you & all you give me.

With tender love
Your own
W

Far from coming to “love” flying in those years, Clementine was greatly worried by Churchill’s flying. After he was involved in two crashes while attempting to earn his pilot’s license, she along with many friends persuaded him to cease taking flying lessons.

Churchill greatly regretted not getting his license. During WW II on long flights he’d sometimes go into the cockpit and with a pilot beside him would, as the British say, “have a go at it.”

N&O's “lacrosse scandal” spares Steel, others, & itself

The front page of yesterday’s Raleigh News & Observer carried the headline “Wachovia's new CEO is pro in crisis control” followed by an almost 1400-word “rah-rah” story which began:

As investment bank Bear Stearns imploded in March, Bob Steel was among the financial titans making an unappetizing choice: Let the company's demise possibly unravel the global financial system or engineer a rescue sure to be labeled a bailout.

From his New York hotel room, Steel, then a top U.S. Treasury Department official, dialed in to a 5 a.m. conference call where he, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the New York Federal Reserve Bank president and others finalized steps to prop up Bear Stearns. Later that day, it was Steel's job to brief President Bush.

It was a memorable moment, Steel acknowledged: "I didn't talk to the president every day."

Named Wachovia's new chief executive last week, the 56-year-old will need these crisis-management skills if he is to restore the tarnished bank.

"He thrives under adversity," said Paulson, who met Steel at Goldman Sachs when they both worked there. "I watched him at Goldman Sachs when we went through tough times. I watched him deal with others on the team, people inside and outside. He is cool under fire. He is measured. He knows how to pace himself, how to motivate others around him."

His resume isn't spotless. As chairman of Duke's board of trustees, he has faced criticism for the university's handling of the lacrosse scandal that rocked the campus for a year. Analysts also have questioned his lack of experience in retail banking, an area that provides 70 percent of Wachovia's profits. (emphasis added)

But by many accounts, the Durham native stands out for his intellect, work ethic and people skills.

You can’t miss the “rah-rah” treatment Steel receives from McClatchy Company reporters at the N&O (including Anne Blythe, bylined on some of the most discredited Duke hoax and frame-up attempt stories) and the Charlotte Observer.

And you can’t miss the N&O’s reference right at the top of the story to “the lacrosse scandal.”

But what “lacrosse scandal” is the N&O talking about 15 months after NC attorney general Roy Cooper said there never was any credible evidence with which to indict the three lacrosse players and without qualification declared them “innocent?”

There was certainly a Duke lacrosse hoax and frame-up attempt: Duke, led by Bob Steel, threw the lacrosse team under the bus; there were death threats against the players; Wanted and Vigilante posters were circulated at Duke and in Durham; the N&O withheld news exculpatory for the players; and the N&O deliberately promulgated what it knew was the “wall of solidarity” lie which within a day morphed into the “wall of silence” lie.

All of that is certainly scandalous; some of it may well involve criminal activity. But none of it is “a lacrosse scandal.”

There was a stupid, obnoxious party lacrosse players hosted and attended. It was much like many parties Duke students host and attend; with faculty and townies sometimes hosting similar parties, even attending some of the ones the Dukies host.

But the lacrosse party isn’t what the N&O meant by “a lacrosse scandal.”

The N&O’ used “lacrosse scandal” as a euphemism in order to avoid correctly labeling the scandalous conduct of Duke under Steel; the scandalous conduct of certain Durham officials and police who are defendants with Steel in two major lawsuits; and the N&O’s own scandalous coverage of events which resulted from Crystal Mangum’s lies.

The N&O said:

As chairman of Duke's board of trustees, he has faced criticism for the university's handling of the lacrosse scandal that rocked the campus for a year.

because it didn’t want to say something like:

As chairman of Duke’s board of trustees, Steel led Duke’s response to the false rape charges against three lacrosse players. Duke’s settled a number of suits relating to its response. Steel remains a defendant in two suits brought by lacrosse players and their families.

That the N&O would would resort to using the euphemism "a lacrosse scandal" (it uses it again later in its story) to spare Steel, others and itself from more truthful descriptions of the events of Spring 2006 and the suits which resulted from those events, is shameful but not surprising.

The entire N&O story's here.

Duke’s attorney Gorelick's ties to Fannie Mae and more

Northwestern University Law professor Jim Lindgren blogging at Volokh Conspiracy takes a critical look at former Clinton administration deputy attorney Jamie Gorelick’s service as Vice Chairman at Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003 as well as other matters. He ends with a link to DIW which has reported on Gorelick's role as an attorney for the Duke Defendants.

Lindgren begins - - -

In reading this article about Crony Capitalism at Fannie Mae (tip to Instapundit), I noticed that Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting. She was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003 (Fannie’s fraudulent accounting scheme was made public in 2004).

This is the same Jamie Gorelick who was Deputy Attorney General in the mid 1990s and was reported to have been the author of the Clinton Administration’s WALL against sharing intelligence data between foreign and domestic agencies. Without the policies instituted by Gorelick still in place in 2001, officials might have learned more about the 9/11 attacks before the planes hit the buildings. . . .

Lindgren’s entire post is here. Be sure to read the thread. Some commenters are very critical of Lindgren but he comes back on the thread twice to defend his post and other commenters help make his case.

The Churchill Series - July 14, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Both Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt were possessed great physical courage. Churchill had proven his in battles on three continents. Roosevelt's heroic struggles to overcome the effects of polio are legendary.

Less well-know, really now all but forgotten, in FDR's case is the extraordinary courage he displayed on Feb. 15, 1933 when, while still President-elect, a would-be assassin fired five shots at him just as he'd finished delivering a speech in Florida. The bullets all missed FDR, but one killed the Mayor of Chicago whose hand Roosevelt was shaking.

Throughout the firing, Roosevelt never ducked; and afterwards he sought to comfort others.

All of that is background to a small incident that occurred in January, 1943 in Casablanca where Churchill and FDR were conferencing. They were staying in villas very near each other. Their villas’ grounds were, as you can imagine, very heavily guarded.

Both men were amused by the extensive security. So you can imagine their mutual laughter one morning when Churchill told Roosevelt about something that had happened the night before involving Churchill and Mike Reilly, the head of Roosevelt's Secret Service detail.

As Jon Meacham tells it in his book, Franklin and Winston,

"Mike Reilly was on patrol one evening when he glimpsed someone walking in the darkness near Roosevelt's villa.

'The old bloodhound in me took charge and I stalked the intruder,' Reilly recalled. ‘I stepped from behind a bush, directly in his path, only to have Winston Churchill look up and inquire blandly, ‘What’s the matter, Mike, did you think I was some person of evil Design?'"

____________________________________________________
You can read more on the assessination attempt on FDR here.

Obama delivers on change

Sen. Obama isn't just promising change.

He's already acted to seal his change promise.

Take a look here.

Then pass the syrup.

Hat tip: McClatchy Watch

McClatchy’s N&O’s revealing Sunday circulation numbers

If you’re a Raleigh News & Observer reader and you’ve believed the editors and publisher’s “rah-rah” claims in recent years about “positive” N&O circulation numbers, fasten your seatbelt.

Last week I posted N&O’s McClatchy stock: then and now , which had to do with the stock's crash. Within the past five years McClatchy's stock’s traded in the mid-70s. In March 2006 it traded in the mid-40s. It now sells around $5.

A commenter noted the Daniels family, which owned the N&O for a century, was smart to sell it to McClatchy in 1995. The commenter included a link to a site where the N&O has posted milestones in its history including this one:

September 1993 - - - Sunday sales of The News & Observer top 200,000 every week this month.

Now look at what public editor Ted Vaden reported in his May 28, 2008 column:

The N&O's total average circulation this year is 172,029 daily, 210,185 Sunday

Assuming the September 1993 and Vaden’s 2008 Sunday circulation numbers are accurate, the N&O’s Sunday circulation increased between Sept. 1993 and May 2008 by about 10,000 paper, a 5% circulation increase over about a 15 year period.

Now the N&O being the N&O, I don’t doubt that kind of increase is just the sort of data editors and the publisher have been relying on for their “rah-rah” claims about how well N&O circulation is doing. In recent years the N&O “masthead people” have also noted how well the N&O’s doing compared to other newspapers which are losing circulation.

But if you’re sure your seat belts are fastened, look at the following U. S. Census Bureau population numbers for Wake County which contains the City of Raleigh (numbers rounded to nearest thousands):

1990 - - - 423, 000

2000 - - - 628, 000

2007 - - - 833,000 (estimated)

So in the 17 years from 1990 to 2007, the Census Bureau estimates Wake County’s population increased from 423,000 to 833, 000, an almost a 100% population increase.

Those Census Bureau numbers really put the N&O’s 5% Sunday circulation increase from 1993 to 2008 in perspective, don’t they?

They certainly help us understand why current N&O employees and former ones who’ve recently lost jobs there say they’re not just victims of recent tough times in the newspaper industry.

They insist they’re also victims of mismanagement by McClatchy's N&O “masthead people” who failed to face up to obvious and major problems at the paper, including circulation which for many years has failed to keep pace with population growth.


Hat tip: Locomotive Breath