Trouble accesing JinC? Stiemeter explains

Starting last evening, those of you using Internet Explorer 7 had trouble accessing John in Carolina and certain other blogs which use Sitemeter.

Some of you found ways around the problem, and a few of you helped me to work a solution from my side by about noon today.

Now the best of all outcomes: Sitemeter says its got the problem fixed for all of us. (I hope so. Fingers crossed.)

Thanks to all of you for your understanding, and an extra "thank you" to those who sent "here's how to fix it, John" emails.


Now it's all Sitemeter's - - -

Dear John,

We apologize for the problem this has caused on your website. We became aware of a compatibility issue with our SiteMeter tracking code and IE 7 (possibly IE 6) browsers that started last night.

The problem was related to some work we were doing on the backend system for our upcoming website launch.

We’ve identified and resolved two separate but related issues -

1 - IE Users viewing pages - There was a problem with users who placed their SiteMeter tracking code outside of their HTML Body Tag. Because of the changes we made this created a failure for visitors viewing sites using Internet Explorer 7.

2 - Accessing SiteMeter and Stats - Individuals trying to access or view their SiteMeter stats by clicking on their SiteMeter logo/icons were unable to gain access. This again appears to have affected only individuals using IE7.

At this time both problems have been fixed and our services are fully operational.

If you have any additional questions please let me know.

Sincerely,
Andy
SiteMeter Support

Guess who Obama’s Times blames for “injecting race”

Excerpts in italics from an Aug. 1 article (“McCain Camp Says Obama Is Playing ‘Race Card’” ) in Sen. Obama’s New York Times, with my comments in plain.

Senator John McCain’s campaign accused Senator Barack Obama on Thursday of playing “the race card,” citing his remarks that Republicans would try to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

The exchange injected racial politics front and center into the general election campaign for the first time, after it became a subtext in the primary between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. (all emphasis added)

The claim that this is “the first time” “racial politics” have been “injected” “into the general election campaign” is, as the Times knows, absolutely false.

Who doesn't recall Rev. Wright’s racist remarks at the National Press Club? Has anyone forgotten Sen. Obama injected race into his recent speech in Jacksonville? And who can forget Rev. Jackson, while waiting to appear on Fox News, using the N-word when criticizing Sen. Obama?

It came as the McCain campaign was intensifying its attacks, trying to throw its Democratic opponent off course before the conventions. …

The purpose of the sentence above is to begin casting the McCain campaign as the people who began the exchange.

In fact, the McCain campaign was responding to Obama's raising the race issue with his now famous claim that he's being attacked because “ he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.”

Obama hasn’t said who, besides himself, has been making the dollar bill references. Maybe he heard them during his recent grand European tour.

Later in the story Obama’s Times leaves its faithful readers in no doubt as to who it wants them to believe "started things" and who “the bad guys are.”

With his rejoinder about playing “the race card,” [McCain campaign manager] Davis effectively assured that race would once again become an unavoidable issue as voters face an election in which, for the first time, one of the major parties’ nominees is African-American.

And with its criticism, the McCain campaign was ensuring that Mr. Obama’s race — he is the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas — would again be a factor in coverage of the presidential race. On Thursday, it took the spotlight from Mr. Obama when he had sought to attack Mr. McCain on energy issues.

And so goes another day of “news reporting" at Obama’s Times.

The entire article’s here.

The Churchill Series – Aug. 1, 2006

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

Readers Note: Prompted by a readers thoughtful comments and question concerning Churchill and King Edward VIII, I'll post on their early relationship before the Prince of Wales became King, the abdication crisis and their subsequent relationship.

Now to today's post - - -

Scotland Yard’s Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, Churchiill’s principal bodyguard for many years, including all of WW II, tells us:

Mr. Churchill did not always respect the rules created for his own protection. One of my duties was to ensure that photographs were not taken of him with landmarks in the background that could be recognized

[During WW II while] he was [still] at the Admiralty, we were walking over one day to 10 Downing Street when a press photographer intercepted us. This was not a suitable place for a photograph and I waved the pressman aside.

Winston, however, had other ideas. He called to the cameraman, “Do you want to take a photograph?”

“Yes, please, sir," was the reply.

The photograph was taken and I was not pleased. I turned to Churchill and said, “I thought that photographs were forbidden here, sir?”

“Ah, well,” came the answer, with that irresistible boyish grin. “After all, he is one of God’s children, Thompson.”

By then he saw that I was not mollified, and in the garden of No. 10 he returned to the subject. “They have to do something to get a little copy, you know.”

Churchill had his share of faults, as do we all. But at his core he was just what one of his secretaries told an historian he was: "such a nice man."

I hope you all have a very pleasant weekend.

John
_________________________________________________
Ex-Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, Beside the Bulldog:The Intimate Memoirs of Chrchil’s Bodyguard. (pg. 83)

Talking to Regulars and Commenters

( A post in the old web log tradition of “notes at the end of the day” meant for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for links in this one and be ready for something that looks like it got only a quick reread. If you’re OK with all of that, read on. - - - JinC)

There’s an awful lot on the comment threads I want to comment on or bring to the main page.

Thanks to all of you who are sending in heads-up.

I’ve posted on the video (3 minute history of Edwards-Hunter affair) but not posted on another video which appears to be one of the “Webisodes” which vanished from Edwards campaign site when the news of the affair first broke. I’ll post it later tonight.

Bob Wilson’s column has caught national attention, especially from journalists and news executives.

Jim Romenesko is a widely followed news media columnist and when he posted and linked it meant thousands of his readers would see Bob’s column.

Some of those readers have contacted me. I’ve had a number of conversation I’ll write about over the weekend.

Another outcome from Bob’s column is the possibility he’ll be a guest on Bill O’Rielly’s show early next week. I’ll keep you posted.

I’ve also had a conversation with N&O exec editor for news John Drescher. It will take time to write that up and share it. I want to be fair to both of us.

I just tell you the foregoing to let you know why I’m running before the wind and not posting on some things I need to post on very soon – eg. – today’s N&O story on Edwards-Hunter.

A lot has happened regarding the bogus McCain-54 story which smeared ABC News & Raddatz. Look for a post on that tomorrow.

I've not posted this week on the Duke hoax, frame-up attempt and on-going cover-up. But I'll be back to it all very soon.

I finished reading the New Yorker article on Obama. I'll reread it and make notes this weekend. Then I'll post some comments I've not seen mentioned by anyone.

I’ve got to end now.

I’ll be back later tonight.

Thank you all who’ve made comments that are civil, thoughtful, critical but informed and in other ways contribute to this blog.

Often the best that's here is on the thread.

John

Edwards - Hunter 3-minute video

An Anon commenter sent a link to a Death By 1000 Cuts video which it says covers the "entire John Edwards Love Child Scandal from October 2007 to July 2008 in 3 minutes."

It's extremely well done and IMO captures "the essential Edwards." It works cuts of Rielle Hunter speaking about Edwards into the swift-moving narrative. The satirical use made of that is devastating.

The video ends with a few graphics concerning MSM coverage of the affair and a challenging question for the news media.

And oh yes, you will hear a mirthful Edwards refer to Hunter as "camera girl."

Thanks to Anon for sending the link. And congratulations and thanks to Death By 1000 Cuts for an outstanding video on a very important matter.

Now I hope you all give the video a look.



John Edwards, Rielle Hunter Love Child Scandal - video powered by Metacafe

Some thoughts about Elizabeth Edwards

In reporting and commenting on various aspects of the Edwards-Hunter affair, I’ve given most attention to the reluctance of the liberal MSM to cover it and the fact that left unreported by media and unexplained by Edwards, the affair leaves him vulnerable to blackmailers.

Among many aspects of the story I’ve ignored or barely mentioned is anything having to do with Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth.

But I want to share some thoughts about her today in connection with the currently unfolding story.

Many of those reporting and/or commenting on the story mention that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer, something she’s discussed publicly. Then some go on to say, “She’s dying.”

Well, so are we all. It’s just that some of us will go sooner than others.

Among those making the “quickest exits” will be some who are very healthy right now or at least think they are. But they won’t last the day.

Others, including those battling various forms of cancer - even ones considered incurable - will be here for quite a while, and do much that is good and important.

I don’t know the current state of Elizabeth Edwards’ health. Whatever it is, we can all be sure she’s facing a lot right now.

I wish her well and will keep her in my thoughts and prayers, as I'm sure almost all of you will, too.

John

The Churchill Series - July 31, 2008

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

On the evening of December 7, 1941 Churchill and the American Ambassador, John G. Winant dined the the PM's official country home, Chequers. In his Churchill and America, historian Martin Gilbert records the following:

”I turned on my small wireless set shortly after the nine o’clock news had started,” Churchill later wrote. “There were a number of items about the fighting on the Russian front and on the British front on Libya, at the end of which some few sentences were spoken regarding an air attack by the Japanese on American at Hawaii, and also Japanese attacks on British vessels in the Dutch East Indies. …

Winant later recalled the ensuing scene. “We looked at one another incredulously. Then Churchill jumped to his feet and started for the door with the announcement, ‘We shall declare war on Japan’”

Gilbert’s account continues:

Winant added: “There is nothing half-hearted or un-positive about Churchill – certainly not when he is on the move. Without ceremony I too left the table and followed him out of the room. ‘Good God,’ I said, ’You can’t declare war on a radio announcement’

He stopped and looked at me half-seriously, half-quizzically, and then said quietly, ‘What shall I do?’

The question was asked not because he needed me to tell him what to do, but as a courtesy to the representative of the country attacked. I said, ‘I will call up the President by telephone and ask him what the facts are.’ And he added, ‘And I shall talk with him too.’”

Roosevelt and Churchill did talk. Roosevelt confirmed the attack (“We are all in the same boat now.”) and said he would ask Congress the next day to declare war. Churchill promised Britain would declare war “within the hour” of Congress’ war declaration.

A few minutes after their conversation ended, Churchill’s principal private secretary informed him the Admiralty had just confirmed that Japanese forces were attacking British bases in Malaya.
_________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (pgs. 240-244)

Why didn’t Edwards “get in front” of his scandal?

Smart politicians know when a scandal begins to break involving them, they “get out in front” and spin whatever it is the public’s about to learn.

“I’d just come in to the house. I still had my gloves on and I wasn’t wearing my glasses. My wife hollered from upstairs: ‘Quick! Put the pistachio ice cream in the freezer before it melts.’ It never occurred to me someone for whatever reason might’ve left a stack of $100s on our kitchen table.”

Former Sen. John (“I want people to know who I really am”) Edwards is a smart politician.

So how come he didn’t “get out in front” of the National Enquirer’s July 22 report about his Beverly Hilton Hotel tryst with Rielle Hunter while a friend watched their "love child" in another room in the same hotel?

People will begin asking that question in the next few days when it becomes obvious Edwards and the MSM have lost control of the story.

Nine days after the story broke, McClatchy’s Washington bureau’s put a story on its wire reporting Hunter’s baby’s birth certificate lists no father.

Other news services and networks will now be forced to report on the growing scandal.

I’ll be reporting and commenting on some of that tomorrow.

In the meantime, we can ask ourselves why Edwards went 10 days trying to pretend the Beverly Hilton tryst never happened.

Did he think he could get by with silence?

Sure, he was right to think almost all of MSM would do back-flips to avoid reporting the scandal.

But didn’t he learn anything in 2004 when Sen. John Kerry failed to get by with claims he’d released all his Navy records, never smeared our military who’d served in Vietnam, and spent that Christmas in Cambodia?

Almost all of MSM went along with Kerry, while they chased after anything in President Bush’s military background that might damage him.

But when a lot of the “new media” refused to go along with most of MSM, Kerry got exposed and so did the phony Dan Rather/CBS TANG story.

What could Edwards have been thinking?

Obama injects race. Again!

For a candidate who keeps saying he doesn’t want people bringing race into the campaign, Sen. Barack Obama sure does a lot of it himself.

The AP reports his latest:

Democrat Barack Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Stumping in an economically challenged battleground state, Obama argued Wednesday that President Bush and McCain will resort to scare tactics to maintain their hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."…

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit comments:

Er, all those other presidents? Isn't there just one President on the dollar bill?

And have you noticed that it's always Obama who's actually injecting race into the campaign, under the guise of warning about what those Evil Republicans will do? And is it really likely that John McCain would be out there saying "don't vote for Obama, he's black?

Yes, I have noticed.

Senator Obama's continually bring up references to those "injecting race into the campaign" reminds me of the 1960 campaign when then Vice-President Richard Nixon “promised” at a campaign appearance in the Deep South he wasn’t going to make an issue of then Senator John Kennedy’s Catholicism.

Kennedy saw right through what Nixon was doing: “I bet he'll says that at every campaign stop in the South.”

Why’s Obama using a Nixon tactic? I thought he was supposed to be like Kennedy.

The entire AP story's here.

N&O finally touches Edwards affair story – sorta

That’s the way an Anon commenter described today’s Raleigh News & Observer’s first story ever reporting on former Sen. John Edwards' affair with his filmmaker friend Rielle Hunter.

The N&O put the story in the “B” section on pg. 3 with a print edition headline: “Facing questions, Edwards evades reporters.” At newsobserver.com the story’s posted a few clicks back from the main page beneath the headline: “John Edwards ducks questions on tabloid story.”

And what about the "sorta?"

The story refers to “a former campaign videographer,” but doesn’t name Rielle Hunter.

It says nothing about the “Webisodes” she made for Edwards’ presidential campaign for which she was paid more than $100,000. The “Webisodes” were supposed to show Edwards as just “a regular fella” voters could relate to and trust.

Because the N&O didn’t mention the Edwards-Hunter “Webisodes,” it couldn’t tell readers the “Webisodes” suddenly vanished from Edwards' campaign Web site just at the time last year when the National Enquirer first disclosed the affair. (I’ve been told one of the “Webisodes” shows Edwards tucking in his shirt as he hurries to a campaign appearance before a group of teachers. And yes, I'm thinking the same thing you are.)

The N&O makes absolutely no mention of Hunter’s stays at the gated Governors Club, just a few miles from Edwards home and the N&O’s Chapel Hill office.

You'll find more examples of the N&O's "sorta" reporting in the story.

I can’t commend the N&O for finally reporting a story that’s played out for more than a year during which time Edwards was first running for President, and then angling for the Vice-Presidential spot on the Dems ticket with Sen. Obama or a Cabinet post should Obama be elected.

All that while, the N&O knew Edwards' affair, if not publicly and fully exposed, left him subject to blackmailers.

Yet the N&O choose to say nothing about the affair until the day after the publication of former Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Wilson's column here and Poynter's Jim Romenesko's posting on and linking to Wilson's column.

What a newspaper.

To give the N&O its due, its story today is strong on press efforts to get Edwards to talk about the affair yesterday. Here’s some of what the N&O reports:

…On Wednesday, Edwards apparently exited through a side area used by the kitchen staff at Washington's historic Hotel Monaco.

Edwards emerged near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a reporter, Edwards said, "Can't do it now, I'm sorry" and quickly walked past.

Asked about the Beverly Hilton last week, Edwards said "sorry" and got into a waiting car with the other men. Asked twice more to address the Enquirer story, Edwards was silent until the car doors were closed. …

”Sorry” is an appropriate, if understated, descriptor of Edwards' affair and the N&O’s decision to tell readers nothing about it until today.

The entire N&O story’s here.

Coulter skewers Beverly Hilton “poverty fighter”

If you believe Monica really stalked Bill or that "something happened" that night at the Duke lacrosse party, read no further. Go directly to the liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer's Website here. You'll love it, especially the Editors' Blog.

The rest of you don’t want to miss Ann Coulter’s column which begins - - -

For those few Americans without an Internet connection and to whom I have not faxed the National Enquirer stories: Evidence is accumulating that John Edwards is right -- there really are "two Americas."

There's one where men cheat on their cancer-stricken wives and one where men do not cheat on their cancer-stricken wives.

To put it another way, it would appear that ambulances aren't the only things John Edwards has been chasing lately.

Last year, the National Enquirer broke the story about New-Age divorcee Rielle Hunter, formerly Lisa Druck, telling friends she was having an affair with Edwards and that she was pregnant with his "love child."

Who knew that "my father was a mill worker" could be such a great pickup line? In his defense, Edwards had to do something to kill time between giving $50,000 speeches on poverty. . . .

The rest of the column’s here.

Now today's A Little Advice column:

Don’t ever buy a used car with bullet holes in it.

Don’t trust “poverty fighters” who get $400 haircuts, even if the price includes coloring and a blow dry.

The Churchill Series - July 30, 2008

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

If you could ask Churchill one question, what would it be?

Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, was asked that question a few years ago during an interview conducted by Canadian Broadcasting Company news anchor Peter Mansbridge.

Mansbridge prefaced his question by reminding CBC viewers that Gilbert’s written not only a multi-volume life of Churchill, but more than a dozen other Churchill books. What’s more, Mansbridge said, it’s been estimated the total of Churchill documents Gilbert’s read weigh 15 tons.

So what question would Gilbert ask Churchill?

”It would be a question he asked [in his lifetime] and I'd like to know what his answer would be. He asked a friend, ‘Do you think I spent too much energy on the German question and not enough on the Soviet question toward the end of the war?’ “

I don’t know anything about Mansbridge other than what I learned from reading a post by Canadian blogger Mike Campbell who quoted from Mansbridge's interview but we can be grateful Mansbridge followed Gilbert’s answer with the question that was on most viewers minds: “What do you think [Churchill’s] answer would be?”

Gilbert responded:

”I'd like to feel that it would be 'No,' that he did his best but he was a very self-critical person so he probably feels that he did fail in that regard.”

What Gilbert said is, we know, speculative, but it’s very informed speculation by the person now alive who “knows” Churchill best.

Now some work for all of you: If today you could ask Churchill one question, what would it be; and what do you think his answer would be?

If Presidents Obama and Ahmadinejad meet – a parody

The Dems’ presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, says he’ll meet with anyone, even leaders of organizations most Americans view as terrorist.

Suppose Obama Come to Save Us is elected President, and he’s as good as his word.

So without preconditions he sits down with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad Come to Destroy the Zionist Entity.

What do they talk about?

I’m sure it won't be a plan for the destruction of the Zionist Entity.

Well then, what?

The start of this article in the Jerusalem Post might give the two leaders an idea for starting their “historic meeting.”

Iran's president on Tuesday blamed the US and other "big powers" for nuclear proliferation, AIDS and other global ills and accused them of exploiting the UN and other organizations for their own gain and the developing world's loss. ...

That's it!

Ahmadinejad: “The U. S. started AIDS.”

Obama: “That’s just what my former pastor kept saying for 20 years. Michelle and I were so impressed by him, we took our children to his church for religious instruction.

"And now you say the same thing.

"That's so cool.

"This must mean now is the time and we are the leaders.

"Let's fist bump at the start of the press conference."

The Post's entire story's here.

N. C. Editor Decries Raleigh N&O’s Edwards Affair Blackout

Robert (Bob) Wilson is a retired North Carolina journalist. For many years he was editorial page editor of the Durham Herald Sun when it was one of the Tar Heel State’s most respected newspapers. He speaks out today about the Raleigh News & Observer’s news blackout of the affair involving former Sen. John Edwards and his filmmaker friend Rielle Hunter. Edwards calls the N&O “my hometown newspaper.” - - - JinC
_____________________________________________________


When is a news story not a news story? When The National Enquirer smokes out former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' double life.

It's been a week and a half since a squad of Enquirer reporters nailed Edwards in Los Angeles. The paper reported that Edwards visited his alleged paramour, Rielle Hunter, and their child at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, describing the public aspects of the tryst in stunning detail.

Chapel Hill resident Edwards, who made his stash as a trial lawyer, knows truth is the only defense against libel; tellingly, he has not threatened to sue the Enquirer.

Edwards has three children by his wife Elizabeth. Although weakened by incurable cancer, she has until recently gamely accompanied him on political trips, often introducing him to audiences.

As a prominent public figure with national political ambitions, elected or appointed, Edwards was, and remains, fair game for the Enquirer. In a July 22 story ( "Sen. John Edwards Caught With Mistress and Love Child" ) the scrappy king of the supermarket tabs let him have both barrels on its Web site and in its print edition.

So why haven't you read about Edwards' picaresque adventure at the Beverly Hilton in The News & Observer, his hometown newspaper, or in such news hounds as The Washington Post and The New York Times?

Because the Enquirer don't get no respect in the mainstream media, even though the tab has a record of accuracy that many a mainstream newspaper should envy.

The Enquirer often left the MSM coughing in its dust with the O.J. Simpson story a decade ago. Press critic Jack Shafer, who writes for the online journal Slate, is one of the few people with a national audience who defends the Enquirer, noting that it was preparing to reveal the Rev. Jesse Jackson's love child several years ago when Jackson got wind of what was coming down and went public to soften the impact. It worked.

Meanwhile, the liberal-leaning MSM gave Jackson a pass.

Interesting thing about Slate. The Washington Post Co. owns it. Apparently, Shafer can write about Edwards, Rielle Hunter and their love child until the cows come home -- but nary a word about Edwards' escapade has sullied the Post. Presumably, it is above such trifles.

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (the latter forbids its staff bloggers from even mentioning the Edwards affair, much less writing about it) can do as they wish with this story, which is to blithely ignore the whole thing. No one can force them to acknowledge it.

However, it's much harder for the N&O to justify non-coverage. The Old Reliable has been a worker bee in Edwards' hive from the start of his political career, but if the paper is as fair and honest as Executive Editor John Drescher proclaims in his weekly column, his staff would be all over this story.

If nothing else, the N&O should be able to recognize as nationally significant a tragic-comic news story when it sees one. A hotel security guard interviewed by Fox News, one of the few domestic news organizations to acknowledge the story, described Edwards as fleeing in panic when confronted by Enquirer reporters at 2:40 in the morning as he was about to leave through a basement door.

The guard said an ashen Edwards scurried into a men's room, where he held out for 15 minutes while the reporters yelled questions at him. Hotel security officers later gave the shaken Edwards safe passage out of the hotel.

This was news, real and unalloyed. Still, a newspaper that downplayed a gang-related brawl Saturday night that shut down Triangle Town Center, a major shopping venue in East Raleigh, isn't likely to sling ink at a big political story, whether in Raleigh or in Beverly Hills, that doesn't mesh with its institutional liberalism.

If the mainstream media don't bestow their self-defined legitimacy on a story, it isn't news. The New York Times boasts, "All the news that fit to print." Except of course, when a supermarket tab breaks the story about a national figure who just happens to belong to a protected class: leftist Democratic politicians.

Ah, Johnny Reid Edwards, the Two Americas hardly know ye! But the one that goes to “new media” sources for its news is starting to learn about you, one tryst at a time.

Al-Qaeda shifting to North Africa

I comment below the star line following extracts from Amir Taheri’s op-ed in today’s London Times.

Taheri writes - - -

… [Al-Qaeda jihadists beaten in Iraq and] looking for new places to pursue their holy war against “Zionists and Crusaders”, ended up in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Thailand and helped to reignite the fires of jihad.

However, North Africa appears to have attracted the largest number of returnees.

According to the buzz in jihadist circles, confirmed by officials and analysts, a new arc of terror is taking shape in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania - the five countries of the so-called Arab Maghreb in North Africa. …

By all accounts, Algeria may be facing a new round of the War against Terror as it faces mounting political and economic problems. In the first phase of the war, Algerian jihadists never used suicide tactics. In recent months they have carried out at least four such operations, indicating total adoption of al-Qaeda tactics. They have also tried to kill President Bouteflika on at least four occasions. The latest plot was uncovered last week, 24 hours before a provincial visit.

Last month the President invited Ahmed Ouyahya, the architect of Algeria's victory against the terrorists, to assume the premiership again. His return acknowledges that the policy of cuddling the Islamists, preached by the former Premier, Abdulaziz Belkhadem, has failed.
While Algeria is well prepared to face a resurgence of jihadism, Morocco, long recognised as one of the most moderate and peaceful countries in the Muslim world, may prove more vulnerable.

Visitors returning after three or four years would be struck by changes in the urban scenery. The number of al-Qaeda-style beards has grown along with the number of neo-hijab headscarves designed to identify women as partisans of jihad. Women in jeans or mini-skirts have all but disappeared from public, along with all females who favoured the colourful dress of the Berber.

One sees countless women draped in black that remind one of Hitchcock's The Birds. Jihadist propaganda is sold on the streets in stalls provided by the municipal authorities.

Fewer and fewer places serve alcohol, and parts of the main cities are becoming no-go areas for foreign tourists. Over the past year, almost 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with terrorism after attacks that claimed at least 60 lives.
Few of the jihadists come from the poor and illiterate slum-dwelling masses. Most of those arrested are graduates, often from well-to-do middle-class families.

While Algeria is well prepared to face a resurgence of jihadism, Morocco, long recognised as one of the most moderate and peaceful countries in the Muslim world, may prove more vulnerable.

Visitors returning after three or four years would be struck by changes in the urban scenery. The number of al-Qaeda-style beards has grown along with the number of neo-hijab headscarves designed to identify women as partisans of jihad. Women in jeans or mini-skirts have all but disappeared from public, along with all females who favoured the colourful dress of the Berber. One sees countless women draped in black that remind one of Hitchcock's The Birds. Jihadist propaganda is sold on the streets in stalls provided by the municipal authorities.

Fewer and fewer places serve alcohol, and parts of the main cities are becoming no-go areas for foreign tourists. Over the past year, almost 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with terrorism after attacks that claimed at least 60 lives.
Few of the jihadists come from the poor and illiterate slum-dwelling masses. Most of those arrested are graduates, often from well-to-do middle-class families.

More disturbing is that dozens were army, police and security officers. According to a senior official, the jihadists used the Army to obtain military training and the Government had to abolish the conscription system that obliged all male Moroccans to join the Army for two years. The Government has also banned military personnel from attending mosque congregations. …

Taheri’s entire op-ed is here.

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

Comments:

It’s no surprise al-Qaeda, beaten for now in Iraq, is shifting its attention to North Africa. We should expect many such shifts, which amount to strategic redeployments, to occur until the global war on terror is finally won.

Americans and the rest of the civilized world must remember al-Qaeda lost the battle in Iraq; the global war goes on.

Our military recognizes what Al-Qaeda’s doing as abandoning a position it can’t hold and moving terrorist-fighters into new locations where they’ll be trained and equipped for the next battles.

I didn’t include one of the most informative and worrying parts of Tehari’s op-ed. It deals with a linking of Turkish and Moroccan Muslim extremists who in both countries are putting on their “civil masks” and seeking to advance jihad through political means until such time as they’re strong enough to use force.

I hope you give Tehari’s op-ed a read.

The Churchill Series - July 29, 2008

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

Readers Note: Yesterday, outside the series, I posted a few Churchill book recommendations, including three by one of the 20th century's greatest historians, Sir Martin Gilbert. I thought, therefore, you might be interesed to read a bit about Gilbert. So I "dusted off" the following post which first ran in Dec. 2006.

John
__________________________________________________________________

Frequent readers of this series know I often quote passages from the works of Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert. I thought it might be interesting, therefore, to offer something today about Gilbert himself.

So here are excerpts from an interview a writer for an Ottawa, Canada newspaper conducted shortly after the publication of Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life.

Everyone asks Gilbert if he ever actually met Churchill. Regrettably, no. But as a schoolboy he regularly went to the House of Commons and watched him in action, and one night stood outside No. 10 ("You can’t do that now of course") when Churchill gave a dinner party on his resignation.

Gilbert had, of course, met Clementine. "I used to read chapters to her once a month. She insisted I look at all their private letters. . . . She imposed no censorship whatsoever and let anything be used. . . . She felt he was a large enough man to survive things that were not so creditable. You did not need to whitewash someone like him."

The sheer volume of their correspondence amazes even Gilbert. "When he came to Canada, in 1929, every night he would write eight or nine pages to her, and in the trenches during the war, while his fellow officers were sleeping, he would write her five or six pages every night."

Gilbert himself did not have an official assistant for years — "I couldn’t afford one" — until enough money was sprung loose for a graduate researcher on a three months’ trial. He married her.

"We both read all the documents (most of which are photo-copied because of the risk of loss). I write my next chapter and she reads it and points out anything I may have left out. Sometimes she suggests re-writing." The eighth volume is dedicated to her; the new book, to his two children. It was Suzy, his wife, who recently made a drastic alteration to Gilbert’s writing habits.

Over the years a total of 40 books, which include definitive works on the Holocaust and 12 historical atlases, Gilbert has always written longhand, in pen and ink on the right-side pages only, leaving space for alterations on the left. But two years ago when he started on Churchill: A Life, his wife presented him with a personal computer.

The entire interview is here.

Hat tip: The Churchill Centre

My favorite Obama-in-Berlin one-liner

On July 22 I posted Obama’s grand European tour hits bumps.

The short of it: Der Spiegel reported with not very well-disguised glee that the Brits and French were put out by all the attention Sen. Obama would be paying to Germany.

I took a light approach to the report and suggested tongue-in-cheek Obama Come to Save Us could soothe the hurt feelings of the Brits and French by beginning his speech with:

“Mesdames et Messieurs, Ich bin ein typical politician."

I thought that was pretty good until an Anon commenter said:

Or: “Ich bin ein Beginner.”

I haven’t seen a better Obama-in-Berlin one-liner so it’s my favorite.


What about you? Do you have one you like more?

Or do you think we shouldn't be kidding about something as serious as a major Obama campaign speech?

Could McCain benefit from Obama’s trip?

Gallup’s Frank Newport and Jeffrey Jones say, “Several observations from the just-completed USA Today/Gallup poll suggest that this is a possibility.”

The explain why. It’s all here.

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Edwards’ “hometown” N&O continues tryst blackout

Former Sen. John Edwards calls the McClatchy Company’s liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer his “hometown” newspaper.

Other’s here in the Tar Heel State say the N&O's Edwards’ “back pocket newspaper.”

Among other things, the “back pocket” folks point to the N&O’s complete news blackout concerning John Edwards affair with his filmmaker friend Rielle Hunter. For more about that see this post - TIMES: "EDWARDS CAUGHT IN SEX SCANDAL" - which includes excerpts from an extensive, bylined Times of London story.

Yesterday in – Raleigh N&O's Edwards-Hunter news blackout – I reported a search of the N&O’s archives going back to Jan. 1, 2004 revealed the N&O has been totally silent about the affair a good deal of which has occurred within a few miles of Edwards Chapel Hill home and the N&O Chapel Hill office.

The archives search produced only one story mentioning Hunter, a little puff piece by Edwards-friendly political reporter Rob Christensen about “Webisodes” filmmaker Hunter made for then presidential nominee candidate Edwards.

Today I went to the N&O’s political blog, Under the Dome. The N&O touts it as the place North Carolinians should go for comprehensive, up to date, tell-it-like-it-is reporting.

I searched back through every Under the Dome post going back to July 21, 2008, the day before the National Enquirer broke the story of the latest public Edwards-Hunter “Webisode” - oops - I meant episode.

Nothing on the episode.

Yet between the July 22 NE publication and today a number of news organizations - including The Times of London, Fox News, the Hartford Courant and Slate – have reported and/or commented on the story.

But as of today at 3 PM ET you'll not find at Under the Dome or anywhere else a mention of that story in John Edwards’ “back pocket” newspaper which circulates in his hometown.

Gawker on why MSM's covering for Edwards

Gawker posted this a few days ago. I meant to call it to your attention. It begins - - -

If you want an efficient, capsule summary of why you haven't read anything in newspapers or seen anything on major network news about how John Edwards ran from National Enquirer reporters in a hotel parking garage, about how he hid in a bathroom for 15 minutes, and about how he was holed up overnight with his alleged mistress and love child — an awesome, amazing story — parse these three revealing sentences from Washington Post "gossip" columnist Roxanne Roberts, in response to one of many persistent questions about the scandal in an online chat yesterday:

“The Enquirer is not going to sell papers with nuance or sensitivity. I need more reporting from a credible source before I'm prepared to pass judgment. I'm not sure Edwards is a real candidate for the VP job, but if so will have to address this one way or another.”

It's important to keep in mind, when reading this odd answer, that traditional news media used to have something of a lock on the dissemination of information, and allowed themselves to be convinced that they had a bizarre duty to filter even accurate information of interest to their audiences, and to do so in the service of reinforcing various social institutions and norms, even though their jobs, their Constitutionally-protected jobs, were to do just the opposite, to disseminate information and challenge long-cherished moral codes.

This self-shackling, this corruption of a trade, has become fundamental to American news media, and in the quote above we see Roberts concisely showcasing her own deep-seated instincts.

First, there's a dig at the Enquirer, the implication that the publication threw aside the nuanced truth to sell newspapers. This sort of reflexive swipe itself lacks nuance, and ignores history. In 1994, the Times declared that, on the OJ Simpson story, the Enquirer "stands heads and shoulders above [any other publication] for aggressiveness and accuracy."

Slate's Jack Shafer in 2004 offered support for the tabloid's standards, if not its presentation, in "I Believe The National Enquirer/Why Don't You?," noting, "if you correct for stylistic overkill, you find a publication that is every bit as accurate as mainstream media."

Granted, the supermarket tabloid has stumbled, including with a 2006 libel case involving Kate Hudson, which it lost, and a retracted story involving false allegations that Cameron Diaz was cheating. But so have plenty of other publications, many with fewer than the Enquirer's 1 million readers. …

The rest of Gawker's post’s here.

Comments:

I’ve posted before refuting the “It’s in the National Enquirer” MSM excuse for covering up a story concerning a prominent Democrat. See, for example, my post NE's Edwards-Hunter tryst story's verifiable.

How much legwork does it take to confirm with police that NE reporters filed a criminal complaint accusing Beverly Hilton Hotel security of roughing them up while protecting Edwards and spirting him out of the hotel?

What does it take to ask the police whether they’re investigating the complaint?

If yes, can they say what they’ve learned so far? Have they interviewed John Edwards, the principal witness to the alleged roughing up?

If yes, what did he say?

If the police aren’t interviewing Edwards, why not?

Folks, I’m sure you can think of many other questions reporters could ask to verify or refute the story including, “Hey, why don’t we call John Edwards and ask him some questions?”

Hat tip: Walter Abbott