Richard Dreyfuss, the actor/activist (not necessarily in that order) who said that he had to channel his inner Hitler in order to portray Dick Cheney in Oliver Stone’s slapstick comedy “W” is heading up The Dreyfuss Initiative. The organization purportedly aims to improve civics education and promote civility in political discourse. Why is Dreyfuss the one leading the “new tone” effort? Because Rob Reiner and Alec Baldwin had prior commitments.

Our new chief of toning down the rhetoric was asked if MSNBC’s Ed Schultz crossed the line of civility in violation of “the new tone” when he called Dick Cheney an “enemy of the country,” a “dirtbag,” a “freakin’ loser” and wished Cheney would go to the “promised land” — in other words, just die already. Rather than denounce it, Dreyfuss said Schultz’s opinion was “beautifully phrased.”

To paraphrase one of Dreyfuss’s co-stars in Jaws:

“New Tone” update: I’m almost positive that if Dreyfuss had been in attendance at this play, he’d have thought the scene in question was “beautifully phrased.”

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Some of the stars of the new movie “Inception” are hitting the promotional circuit, hell-bent to insult public figures who are respected by a good portion of the American movie-going public.

The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page.

In the clip below, Levitt and Page refer to Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin as evil and stupid respectively, while offering as proof nothing but blank stares and rhetoric about mind-expansion plagiarized from quotes on antique LSD blotters.

But first up, Leonardo DiCaprio knocks BP and its CEO Tony Hayward, which under the circumstances I’d be fine with until the Titanic-sized enviro-hypocrite speaks of our earth-destroying lust for oil, completely oblivious to the fact that his private jet — one capable of helping back up air traffic on entire continents by the way — is not powered by potatoes and a watch battery. Accept your larger-than-most portion of the blame for oil demand, Leo.

I saw a preview of “Inception” this morning — too bad these vacuous, hypocritical doofuses have already talked me out of giving them a dime:

It’s my sincere hope that everyone who would have paid to see “Inception” instead sends the money, in the name of Leonardo DiCaprio, to any number of non-profit organizations assisting in cleaning the Gulf of the spilled oil that otherwise would have ended up in the enormous fuel tank of environmentalist Hollywood.

Breitbart.tv quotes John Nolte at Big Hollywood: “Well, here’s one way to entice Middle America into your film, insult them by having your three main stars hit the promotional circuit and savage Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin as stupid and evil.”

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Associated Press:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was admitted to the hospital Friday after experiencing discomfort, the latest health scare for the 69-year-old Republican leader who has a long history of heart disease.

Cheney was expected to remain at George Washington University Hospital over the weekend, said spokesman Peter Long.

It was not immediately clear whether Cheney’s health concern was related to his previous heart troubles. He sustained his last heart attack, deemed a mild one, in February.

Cheney was not feeling well on Friday and went to see his doctors at George Washington University. On their advice, he was admitted to the hospital for further testing.

Reports I’ve heard so far say that testing revealed a “mild heart attack,” although I’m not sure there is any such thing as a mild heart attack, especially with Cheney’s history of heart trouble.

Get well soon, Mr. Vice President!

Update: Tests show that Cheney did not suffer a heart attack. Good news.

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

It’s now being reported that former VP Dick Cheney suffered a mild heart attack last night. He is expected to be released from GWU Hospital in the next few days.

Please join me in sending your best thoughts, prayers, and well wishes his way. In case you missed it, here’s VP Cheney’s surprise appearance at CPAC last week:

It’s the Obama-Cheney showdown this morning. I, for one, am gratified to see this White House forced to put national security on the front burner. If not for the forceful public defenses by Vice President Cheney of the aggressive, proactive measures the last administration took to keep us safe, the current commander-in-chief would be happily gabbling about solar panels and weatherization subsidies or somesuch.

National security is and always will be the Democrats’ soft spot. And they know it.

Which is why Team Obama scrambled to preempt Cheney’s AEI speech.

Which is why the same Senate Democrats who cheered so lustily when Obama declared his Gitmo closure date turned around and denied him the funds to implement it.

Which is why Obama is embracing the very same principles of preventive detention that the Left went bananas over for the past eight years.

And which is why you woke up this morning to news of one of countless terror busts whose results were, ahem, inherited by the Obama administration.

The men and women who worked tirelessly the past eight years to prevent and disrupt jihadist plots at home and abroad aren’t the ones who’ve “lost their way.”

It’s the unreality-grounded civil rights absolutists, grievance-mongers, and 9/10 juveniles who have been and remain, in Andrew McCarthy’s apt description, willfully blind.

***

Related thoughts from Meghan Clyne in the NYPost on national security and the SCOTUS wars:

A poll released this week shows Democrats have closed the gap with Republicans on national security. There are few media circuses like Supreme Court hearings — and if the GOP seizes the spotlight to focus attention on some of the left’s more bizarre and dangerous legal theories on the War on Terror, it can only work to its advantage.

After all, by placing terrorism center stage, they might just accomplish one more thing: reminding Washington, and the American people, that we are still at war. With a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, it’s unlikely that Republicans will be able to block Obama’s nominee, no matter how unappealing. Yet if they can use the Souter vacancy to show that the War on Terror isn’t just about preening lawyers, but a real battle fought by real Americans whom a lot of judges are endangering . . . well, there are worse things to get out of a confirmation hearing.

***

Update: Here is the text of Cheney’s speech.

Cliff Notes’ version of Obama’s speech: I blame Bush (but, uh, I will follow his “lost way” on preventive detention. Just in a kinder, gentler, more, uh, moral way).

Update: I second Kathy Shaidle on Dick Cheney’s speech:

“Cheney’s speech was the best speech of the Bush administration. Too bad it was months/years late.”

Doing some multi-tasking tonight, I half-listened to coverage of the annual media lovefest-the Washington Radio and TV Correspondents’ Dinner. Comedy Central’s Mo Rocca gave a cringe-worthy performance. No, not cringe-worthy for any notable left-wing diatribes. Just cringe-worthy for its awfulness. He seemed to have just given up by the end and fizzled out. Mumbled a complaint that one of the other speakers had told one of his jokes and that was the price of going second.

By contrast, Fox News showed remarks from Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney, who were both a hoot.

Cheney recounted how he had met the Pope earlier in the day. Paraphrasing: “I’ve had quite a day. I met one Infallible Authority this morning. And I get to meet 1,000 Infallible Authorities here tonight.”

Snort.

Romney had a charming and self-deprecating top 10 list–reasons he dropped out, I think. Including (and paraphrasing again): “I want to get fat, grow a beard, and win a Nobel Prize,” “I fell down and broke my hair,” and “My wife, Ann, gave up on the campaign and all my funding dried up.”

***

Update: Allah’s got the video.

The Romney top 10 list:

No. 10: There weren’t as many Osmonds as he thought.
No. 9: Got tired of the corkscrew landings of his campaign plane while under fire
No. 8: As a lifelong hunter, I didn’t want to miss the start of varmint season.
No. 7: There wasn’t room for two Christian leaders in the presidential race
No. 6: I’d rather get fat, grow a beard and try for the Nobel prize.
No. 5: Got tired of wearing a dark suit and tie, and I wanted to kick back in a light colored suit and tie.
No. 4: When his wife realized he couldn’t win the GOP nomination, my fundraising dried up.
No. 2: I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
No. 1: His campaign relied on a flawed campaign strategy that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.

THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party’s leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest. And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children’s health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush’s supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn’t attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn’t hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year — a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government’s weakness. It doesn’t explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world’s second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself.

***

Doing what they do best: Dems abandon war authority provision.

Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush’s authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.

The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they “are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.”

It’s not just Republicans balking:

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

“It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,” she said of the now-abandoned provision.

“I didn’t think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you’re trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

And here’s another Dem with sense:

“This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and providing what they need,” said Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., on Monday upon returning from a trip to Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.

Cheney’s full remarks, btw, are here.

From my column today:

How many times have you sat in front of the TV over the last four years, watching anti-war activists march on Washington, chase the ROTC off your local college campus, vandalize war memorials, insult the troops and wreak havoc under the surrender banner?

How many times have you thought to yourself: What can I do?

Here is the answer: Get off the sofa and join the Gathering of Eagles on March 17 in Washington, D.C.

On that day, well-funded, celebrity-studded anti-war groups plan to march to the Pentagon on a protest route that will take them past the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and climax in calls for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, destruction of America’s “global military machine,” shutdown of the enemy-detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (plus an end to “colonial occupation” in “Palestine, Haiti and everywhere” for good measure).

Last time the left-wing, peace-loving fun bunch came to town, their minions gone wild threw rocks at a military recruitment office in D.C’s Dupont Circle neighborhood and at a local Fox News van, broke through a Capitol Hill police security cordon, spray painted the Capitol Grounds with impunity, desecrated the Lone Sailor statue that stands watch at the U.S. Navy Memorial and reportedly spat at disabled Iraq war veteran Josh Sparling as he voiced his support for his fellow troops.

Tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators were at that event last month. How many showed up with Sparling to counter the far Left? Forty.

Now, imagine our troops getting word of that count. They’re walking the talk, committed to the long, hard mission of counterinsurgency in Iraq and abroad, risking life and limb – and only 40 of their fellow Americans bothered to represent them in the nation’s capital?

Don’t get mad. Get moving.

March 17, 2007
7 AM to 4 PM
The Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Wall, Washington D.C.

For West Coast readers, check out the Move America Forward caravan leaving March 8 for the gathering.

Rolling Thunder will be there. If you want to coordinate something in your state, go here. Hot Air will be there.

***
Participating Military Blogs

* “Doc” Riojas, HMC (Ret), US Navy SEAL
* 1964 Vietnam 1975
* A Soldier’s Mind
* A Soldier’s Perspective
* Agent Orange Quilt of Tears
* Americans Working Together
* Archangels and Witticism
* Bill’s Bites
* Blue Collar Republican
* Bookworm Room
* Boot Murtha
* Cap Veterans
* Captain’s America
* Crosshairs
* Democracy Project
* Dump Turban Durbin
* Ed Lemp’s 1st Air Cav
* Euphoric Reality
* Ex-Liberal in Hollywood
* Facts and Substance
* Faes2000
* Flopping Aces
* Free Republic
* God Bless America and Our US Troops
* Grunt Forum
* Gunner’s Blog at Armed Forces News Service
* Heart Verses of Faye Sizemore
* Jake’s USS Hancock CV/CVA-19 Memorial Brow
* James Hooker
* Jim’s Place
* Michael in MI
* Military Retiree Grass Roots Group
* Military Travels
* Mudville Gazette
* My Pet Jawa
* My Tours in Vietnam Class of Feb.67-Sept.68
* Nancy’s Tribute to Our Veterans
* News Of The Force
* Noisy Room
* Old Blue Jacket
* Old War Dogs
* Oliver Jackson’s USMC Homepage
* Patriot Files
* Psycmeistr’s Ice Palace
* Remembrance
* Retired Military Advocate
* Rocket’s Brain
* Simply Southeast Asia
* Soldiers of Today and Yesterday
* tgslTakoma
* The Gray Dog
* The Montagnard Photo Gallery
* The Patriot Files
* The Promise Kept
* The Vietnam Era (60s, 70s Music)
* U.S Veteran’s Dispatch
* US Special Forces in SE Asia
* USMILNET
* Veteran-American Voices
* Veterans Tribute
* Veterans’ Info
* Viper’s Vietnam Veterans Pages
* Warchick
* Welcome To Our World
* Wildgun’s 11th Cav C Troop

Veterans Groups

* 101st Airborne, 327th Infantry Regiment
* 169th Engineering Battalion, C Co.
* 2/502nd Strike Force Widow Makers
* 3rd Recon Bn/ Vietnam Harborsite
* 604th Transportation Co.
* American Legion MANNY BACON POST 1758
* Army Divers
* AX2USN
* Charlie Co, 2nd/28th INF
* Charlie Co, 6th/31st, 9th Infantry
* Delaware Valley Vietnam Veterans
* Docs of the 3/26 Marines
* Fox Co, 2nd BN, 9th Marines
* Gunners Net Old Comrades Association
* K Troop, 11th ACR Vietnam
* Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Rally, Washington DC
* Screaming Eagles 326 ~ 101st AIRBORNE
* Special Forces Association, Chapter 67
* Swift Boat Sailors Association
* The Virtual Wall Vietnam Memorial
* U.S. Veteran’s Dispatch Eagle’s Nest Message Board
* United American Patriots
* USAF Redhorse CES
* Veterans Wives and Families
* Vietnam Veteran’s 9th Infantry Division, 6-31st
* Vietnam Veterans of America, Western Mass. Chapter One-Eleven
* Yankee Air Pirates

***update ii: exclusive photos from the operating room at Bagram added below***

***update iii: i’ve been notified by military officials that DVIDS should not have released the photos. i’ve taken them down***

The Vice President of the United States was reportedly targeted by Taliban jihadists in Afghanistan. Jonathan Karl of ABC News reported from the scene:

A suicide bomber struck at the main entrance to Bagram air base in Afghanistan today, as Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting.

Immediately after the attack, a red alert traveled throughout the base — a red alert that we heard saying that the base was under direct attack.

At least nine people were killed, officials tell ABC News. Associated Press reporters at the scene said that they had seen the bodies of at least 12 people, and that they had been carried in black body bags and wooden coffins from near the base into a market area where hundreds of Afghans had gathered to mourn.

A Taliban spokesperson has claimed responsibility, saying the intended target was in fact Cheney. The bomber never got near Cheney.

Maj. William Mitchell said it did not appear the explosion was intended as a threat to the vice president. “He wasn’t near the site of the explosion,” Mitchell said. “He was safely within the base at the time of the explosion.”

However, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a purported Taliban spokesman, said Cheney was the target of the attack.

“We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base,” Ahmadi told AP telephone from an undisclosed location. “The attacker was trying to reach Cheney.”

Whatever your partisan leanings, an attack planned on the Vice President of the United States is an attack on America.

Some of our fellow Americans, however, can’t put their sneering hatred of the White House aside.

The Huffington Post headlines the story this way–with sneer quotes:

The very first comment at HuffPo that set tone:

Plenty more where that came from:

AJ Strata finds more left-wing patriotism and compassion at the Daily Kos:

Well gosh (18+ / 0-)
As long as Dick is “safely inside” we can all heave a huge sigh of relief. Big Time’s safety is of utmost importance, of course. To hell with anyone else who died in order to save his pasty hide.

My local news just lead with his safety…as if we were all waiting for that particular news. No, I thought of the young man I know is over there as a medic. I sure hope HE is safe. This time.

…

should have called [the post] (2+ / 0-)
damn, they missed!

…

So unnecessary (0 / 0)

Cheney must know that he is a magnet for attack. Unfortunately, other people (U.S. troops and Afghanis) are the collateral damage.

He should go to a permanent undisclosed location, preferably one with iron bars that allows one hour per day of exercise or interaction with others. The other 23 hours should be in solitary confinement so he will have time to think about the death and destruction he’s created.

…

Good point (13+ / 0-)
I want him to rot in jail not die in a way that could in any way be construed as bravery, honor or decency.

More from the Democratic Underground. And more.

Which side are they on? Don’t ask.

***

Update: Ken Noland of the Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System, Supporting Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom with U.S. Army Central, sends photos of Task Force Med at Bagram. Keep them and the victims of the terrorist attack in your prayers.

[PHOTOS REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF US MILITARY]

Dean Barnett commends the Kossacks for being less unhinged than the Huffpostians.

Charles Johnson: “This kind of sick, twisted thinking is everywhere in the “progressive” blogosphere…And it’s even sicker than it appears at first glance, because many of these freaks want to see Cheney dead so that he can’t become president if someone assassinates President Bush.”

***

Previous episodes of Cheney Derangement Syndrome:

Moonbat watch: Wishing Cheney ill
On the hunt: media feeding frenzy

Related: Assassination chic

Sen. Patty Murray and Congressman Jay Inslee are lobbying legislators to cancel this week’s hearing on a resolution calling on Congress to investigate and consider impeaching President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Inslee and Murray, both Democrats who voted against the war, think state lawmakers holding hearings and voting on impeachment is a distraction from what Democrats are doing in Congress, including their efforts to end the war.

…”Jay called and he said, ‘Darlene, don’t do this,’” said Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park. She is chairwoman of the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee, which is scheduled to hold a hearing on two measures Thursday. One is Sen. Eric Oemig’s joint memorial calling for Congress to investigate and consider impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The other is Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles’ measure opposing Bush’s troop increase in Iraq.

“I said, ‘Jay it’s all over YouTube. I can’t un-ring that bell,’” Fairley said. There are a number of videos posted to the site featuring Oemig and the impeachment measure….

…The hearing at 3:30 p.m. Thursday is looking to be a major spectacle. The Washington Legislature’s anti-Bush moves have become, at least temporarily, a center of attention of anti-war forces around the country. At an impeachment forum in Olympia last week where Oemig spoke, according to reports, the audience included Rachel Corrie’s parents, Lt. Ehren Watada and James Yee.

Coming to Olympia to testify in favor of Oemig’s impeachment resolution are Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a growing voice in the anti-war movement, and Mary Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel who resigned from the U.S. State Department in 2003 to protest the invasion of Iraq. She has since worked closely with Cindy Sheehan and others in the peace movement.

Kohl-Welles told me she invited retired Chairman of the Joint Chief Gen. John Shalikashvili, who lives near Gig Harbor, and actor and activist Sean Penn. She said she was waiting to hear back from Penn’s publicist.

The hearing is turning into just what Democrats in Congress worry about.

Yep. More on that in today’s Washington Post, which has a parallel article on the Dems’ Murtha headache.

***

Dan Riehl has background on the impeachment drive.

~^~

Patterico says he “just doesn’t get it,” referring to AP’s ever taller tale of Jamil Hussein Ghdaab Gulaim Ghdaab Redacted.

Specifically, he objects to the conclusion that AP knew “Jamil Hussein” was a pseudonym:

UPDATE: Let me make clear what I’m confused about. Everyone is running around screeching that the AP knowingly used a pseudonym.

What is the proof?

The problem is that Patterico — being a first-rate trial lawyer (prosecutor) — tends to think like a lawyer… which is extremely useful in his chosen profession (and is probably one reason why he chose that profession in the first place), but which can lead to unnecessary demands. Specifically, I believe Patterico is waiting for actual evidence — some AP reporter testifying that they knew it was a nom de guerre — that will never materialize, for obvious reasons. In this case, we can get farther by just being logical about the question.

What are the possible cases?

1. There really is a Police Captain Jamil Hussein — under that name — working at the Khadra police station in Iraq, and he was AP’s source, just as they claimed;
2. There is a human working at the Khadra station who was AP’s source, but his name is not Jamil Hussein, and he may or may not be a police captain;
3. Or else AP had no source at all at Khadra, and who cares whether someone named Jamil incidentally works at there?

I think that even if Eric Boehlert himself read this post, carefully sounding each word out, he would have to agree this covers all bases: either AP has a source at Khadra or not; and if they did, either he was named Jamil Hussein or not. So let’s go through them. Under which of these circumstances is AP acting honorably?

Let’s take the easiest cases first:

Case 1: Jamil Hussein (under that name) works at Khadra and was AP’s source

This would be the best-case scenario for AP (and for Eric Boehlert and others of his ilk). Alas for them, it seems very unlikely at this point: so far, the only news agency which has reported that Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said that “Police Captain Jamil Hussein” worked at Khadra police station — thus ever so slightly vindicating AP — was (drum roll) AP itself!

This is like shooting craps in the street: the dice roll down the gutter-drain; so you climb down to check, and you announce from the sewer than you made your point and won all the money.

Even if true, as Patterico himself has pointed out a number of times, this still would not be evidence either for AP’s “burning Sunnis” claim or its “burning mosques” claim. But so far, AP cannot even surmount the “existence” hurdle… other than by shouting up from the sewer that they made their point.

Case 3: The AP simply had no source at all at Khadra

We already covered this possibility (puckishly) over at Big Lizards, in our post Solvalogging: Jamil Hussein… Baghdad’s Own Lieutenant Kijé. Visit, read, return (wash, rinse, repeat).

For the elite media to make up sources out of whole cloth is not common, but it’s not unheard of either.

Now we get to the more interesting case…

Finally, case 2: AP has a source at Khadra, but his name is not Jamil Hussein

This is the case that Patterico implicitly assumes to be the only plausible alternative to case 1 (though I still haven’t entirely given up on the “Lieutenant Kijé” scenario!) There are two possible “subcases” here, which is the llama on whose horns Patterico sticks:

1. Steven Hurst and his editors at AP were aware that their source’s name was not Jamil Hussein

If this is the case, then AP was complicit in passing along a false name to the Ministry of the Interior, causing them to erroneously (in this scenario) report that the source did not work at the Khadra police station. At the very least, this is devious practice.

Did AP just forget that “Jamil Hussein” was actually “Mohammed Achmed al-Fruitbat?” Was the purpose to make the MOI look foolish, forcing them to make a statement then correct it later? Or did they not give the real name because there is a problem with the source, and they didn’t want anyone looking too carefully?

If the reason for the pseudonym was entirely honorable — Hurst worried about death threats against the man — then why not simply say “said a souce who would only speak on condition that we not name him, due to fear of reprisals”? That would have been honest. Thus, I think we can rule out this honorable reason; and all remaining reasons are disreputable and dishonorable.

2. Steven Hurst and his editors at AP were completely unaware that their source had given them a nom de guerre

If anything, this is even worse for AP than sub-scenario (a) above. If Hurst and his editors were blissfully unaware that their source was giving them a false name — then that can only mean they did not even make a minimalist check on his veracity… not even so much as verifying his identity!

What does this mean? Basically, that anyone can call up an AP reporter in Iraq, claim to be a police captain with a story to tell… and that story — propaganda — will wind up in an AP war dispatch without the slightest checking. Rumor central — and a lovely example of the big-box media’s “multiple layers of editing” in action.

And of course, if they couldn’t even bother to verify “Jamil Hussein’s” name, why trouble to verify any other piece of the 62 stories he told them? The source could have said that Dick Cheney personally few to Baghdad and shot some kids, just for fun… and AP would have run with it that evening.

Bottom line

Thus, of all the possibilities, the only one that means AP acted honorably, responsibly, and professionally is case 1, where there really, really is a police captain, stationed at Khadra and actually named Jamil Hussein, and that this fellow was actually a source for the Associated Press.

Under any other scenario — a source for AP at Khadra but who isn’t named Jamil Hussein, or even no source whatsoever — AP has acted despicably, dishonorably, and has forfeited whatever shreds of trust remained in news consumers after 87,339 Iraq horror stories that turned out to be complete fabrications… and it doesn’t make a lick of difference whether they knew he wasn’t named Jamil Hussein but taunted us with the name anyway, or whether they were so incompetent (or venal) that they deliberately did not even inquire into the matter.

So far, AP has been completely unable to demonstrate that case 1 is true; the closest they have come is to assert, themselves, that the MOI verified it — only to see that assertion itself disputed.

What’s not to understand?

Comments on this post here.

Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times investigates the Minneapolis Six and gets feedback from air marshals.

We take a closer look at Omar Shahin over at Hot Air. Discussion on O’Reilly last night here.

HA affiliate Charles Ryder has more video and spotted another hate-spewer at the praying imams’ protest yesterday at Reagan National.

Scott Johnson at Power Line examines the safety threat of seatbelt extenders.

Bruce at GP asks:

We know now, based on evidence, that a Republican President will err on the side of security and preemptive action if there is a perceived terrorist threat. We also know, based on repeated statements by their leaders that the Democrats favor a post-attack posture. For Democrats, Terror = Law Enforcement Response.

So I ask my fellow Americans…. if you were on this US Airways flight and this suspicious behavior by the Imams began, who would you want as your pilot and flight attendants? George Bush, Condi Rice and Dick Cheney? Or Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Alcee Hastings?

Allah notes that “there hasn’t been a single media inquiry thus far about the goings-on at the conference of North American imams that Shahin and co. were in town to attend. Curious, especially since America’s first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, was also in attendance. You’d think that might pique some journalist’s curiosity, but so far it hasn’t.”

Rick Moran:

The professional victimologists at CAIR think that they can put on this idiotic production and rally the American people to their cause. They have, as usual, miscalculated badly. And if this Muslim “civil rights” organization spent 1/10 the time it spends on weeping about “Islamaphobia” as it could on denouncing without reservation or qualification the madmen who seek to destroy us, people would probably listen more closely to what they had to say.

I think these people have finally worn out their welcome. Yes, they’ll always have their apologists in the media. Yes, they have their water-carriers in Congress. But their incessant victim politicking–combined with their shady ties and their refusal to condemn jihad at home and around the world–has eroded America’s good will.

I don’t like to mud wrestle, but sometimes the slime-flingers need to be held accountable. All week, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and his left-wing vassals have tried to blame female conservative commentators for one nutball’s fake anthrax letter attacks. Reportedly, the suspect was a Free Republic.com member whose pseudonymous profile noted that he “worshipped” Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and me. Ergo, we’re to blame. Olbermann lies about my work and props up a clueless Radar Online stooge who accuses me of “introduc[ing a kind of thuggish, sort of intimidating tone into the political debate, this kind of, 'Let's not let them boss us around anymore.' She's got a very combative, kind of truculent rhetorical pose."

Truculent. I like that.

My video response, a new ocassional segment at Hot Air called "Return Fire," is here. As I note, speciously blaming conservative pundits for domestic terrorism is old hat. Remember when the left blamed Rush Limbaugh and talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing? Anyway, do watch the whole thing. (And see Newsbusters and Olbermann Watch for all the background, including mention of the left-wing nutball indicted last week for sending fake anthrax letters to President Bush and conservative talker Tom Sullivan.)

Unbelievably (or rather, completely believably), Olbermann turned up on an ESPN radio show yesterday to engage in exactly the kind of rhetoric he and his ilk have falsely accused me of all week. You can listen here. I've transcribed the relevant part:

Host: Would you ever go on "Dancing with the Stars?"

KO: Uh, possibly to do a cameo and introduce someone. [unintelligible] I would escort someone onto the stage, that’s as far as I would go, and hope I wouldn’t trip doing that.

Host: People still upset that I’ve had the audacity to criticize Emmitt Smith…

KO: How about Bill O’Reilly on “Dancing with the Stars?” Then you could get some real e-mails.

Host: I don’t think Bill would do that.

KO: I’ll go on it if he will. I’ll challenge him to a “Dancing on the Stars”–”Dancing with the Stars”–dance-off. How’s that?

Host: I would have to side with Bill O’Reilly on that.

Olbermann: Not if I get him in the hamstrings. You know, one of those little doctor’s tools. The small knives, right in the hamstrings kind of thing. Nancy Kerrigan kind of stuff.

Host: Nice, nice.

Olbermann (muttering): Joke

*Commercial break*

Olbermann: Can I do a correction?

Host: Just one?

Olbermann: Yeah, just one.

Host: Ok.

It would actually broadly fall into the category of an apology to Bill O’Reilly, if you can believe that. The joke I made on the way out there if we were on “Dancing with the Stars” was about me. If we were both on “Dancing with the Stars,” I’d go after him with like a pen knife to try to sever his hamstring. It’s about me. It was a joke at my own expense. But…it’s beyond the pale. You shouldn’t, you can’t joke about physical stuff no matter what you think of somebody politically, broadcasting-wise, reputationally. It’s just beyond the pale.

Host: Ok.

Olbermann: So, I apologize. [Grunts.] I apologize. You know, we gotta draw the line somewhere and the line is: You wanna criticize, be critical, be humorous, be sarcastic, yell stuff, great. But physical stuff is out of bounds. Even joking about it. Thank you. Okay.

Host: Ok. You feel better?

Olbermann: [Sighs dramaticallly.] Yeah, I suppose.

Host: It’s pretty tough for you to do right there, wasn’t it?

Olbermann: Yeah, well, it’s more in the spirit of everybody involved in public commentary, we have to gear it down a notch…

***

Speak for yourself.

***

Oh, and in case you get the mistaken impression that Olbermann was sincerely sorry (as opposed to sorry for getting caught on tape), here he is joking on his TV show about other acts of physical violence against his opponents–sticking Rush Limbaugh’s face in the middle of gunfire and highlighting John Edwards joking about wanting to accidentally shoot Dick Cheney.

I am sure that the New York Times public editor, Byron Calame, is hoping we will all go away now.

Fat chance.

Three months after defending his paper’s decision to blow the cover of a top-secret terrorist banking data surveillance program, he issued a weasel-worded retraction yesterday in his Sunday column.

You may have missed it–and who could blame you? It was buried in a column titled “Can ‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?” As reader Mike Z. commented:

Just think how many people probably read this “apology” in print! To do so, they would have had to have been interested in a piece by Calame entitled “Can ‘Magazines’ of the Times Subsidize News Coverage?” Then they would have had to read 15 paragraphs of that particular snooze-fest. And then they would have had to have been enticed to read still more Calame drivel by the obfuscatory sub-headline, “Banking Data – A Mea Culpa.”

…I’m a political junkie and if I had read those words in print I would have assumed the text that followed was going to be some boring crap about our nation’s banking system. I estimate the number of print readers who read Calame’s “apology” at, approximately, his mother.

My first response to Calame’s bombshell admission yesterday is here.

Now, I have a follow-up question, which I have e-mailed to Mr. Calame. His e-mail address is public@nytimes.com. As I noted yesterday, Calame’s lame rationalization for his blindness is that the Bush administration engaged in “vicious” attacks on the Times:

I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

What, exactly, is Calame referring to when he criticizes “vicious criticism?” Yesterday, I hyperlinked a June 27, 2006 Washington Post story on the Bush administration’s response after the Times blabbed about the banking surveillance program. Let’s take a closer look:

President Bush offered an impassioned defense of his secret international banking surveillance program yesterday, calling it a legal and effective tool for hunting down terrorists and denouncing the media’s disclosure of it as a “disgraceful” act that does “great harm” to the nation.

The president used a White House appearance with supporters of troops in Iraq to lash out at newspapers that revealed the program, which has examined hundreds of thousands of private banking records from around the world. His remarks led off a broader White House assault later amplified by Vice President Cheney and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow.

“What we did was fully authorized under the law,” Bush said in an angry tone as he leaned forward in his chair and wagged his finger. “And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America.”

Bush defended the program as lawful, which Calame now admits is true. From his column yesterday:

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws.

Bush called the disclosure disgraceful. Does Calame disagree? From his column yesterday:

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base…

……The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight…

…In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism.)

I repeat: What, exactly, is Calame referring to when he cites “vicious” Bush administration attacks? Is he talking about Dick Cheney? Here’s what the vice president said back in June:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday vigorously defended a secret program that examines banking records of Americans and others in a vast international database, and harshly criticized the news media for disclosing an operation he said was legal and “absolutely essential” to fighting terrorism.

“What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,” Mr. Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Republican Congressional candidate in Chicago. “That offends me.”

Is that it?

Or perhaps Calame is talking about the vigorous and informed defense of the program by Stuart Levey, Under Secretary, Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, at the US Treasury Dept. Here’s what he said:

The benefits of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program have been incalculable. This program provides a unique and powerful tool that has enhanced our efforts to track terrorist networks and disrupt them. That is the opinion of experts familiar with this program, both in and out of the government, irrespective of political orientation. It is also the view of those closest to the data, who are in the best position to know. I have on my staff a group of intelligence analysts who spend their days in a secure room poring over information to unmask the key funders and facilitators of terrorist groups. If you spoke with them, they would point to this program as one of the most important and powerful tools they have to follow the money.

They value this program because it leads to results. The details remain classified, but the program has been instrumental in identifying and capturing terrorists and financiers and in rolling up a terrorist-supporting charity. The program played an important role in the investigation that eventually culminated in the capture of Hambali, Jemaah Islamiyya’s Operations Chief, who masterminded the 2002 Bali bombings. The program supplied a key piece of evidence that confirmed the identity of a major Iraqi terrorist facilitator and financier. Because we were able to make this data available to an ally, this facilitator remains in custody. But the program has also proven its worth in many less dramatic, but equally significant ways. Anyone who has tried to piece together a complex terrorism investigation over months or years of sweat and dead-ends knows how important it can be to uncover a previously unknown link or fact. This program generates just such connections and leads nearly every day, which are then disseminated to counter-terrorism experts in intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

In short, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been powerful and successful, grounded in law and bounded by safeguards. It represents exactly what I believe our citizens expect and hope we are doing to prosecute the war on terror.

Much has been said and written about the newspapers’ decision to publish information about this program. As a government official, I must first point out that the newspapers almost certainly would not have known about this program if someone had not violated his or her duty to protect this secret.

At the same time, I do very much regret the newspapers’ decision to publish what they knew. Secretary Snow and I, as well as others both inside and outside the government, made repeated, painstaking efforts to convince them otherwise. We urged that the story be held for one reason only: revealing it would undermine one of our most valuable tools for tracking terrorists’ money trails. We were authorized to set these arguments out for the relevant reporters and editors in an effort to convince them not to publish. In a series of sober and detailed meetings over several weeks, we carefully explained the program’s importance as well as its legal basis and controls. We strongly urged them not to reveal the source of our information and explained that disclosure would unavoidably compromise this vital program.

These were not attempts to keep an embarrassing secret from emerging. As should be clear from my testimony above, I am extremely proud of this program. I am proud of the officials and lawyers in our government whose labors ensured that the program was constructed and maintained in the most careful way possible. And I am proud of the intelligence analysts across our government who have used this information responsibly to advance investigations of terrorist groups and to make our country safer. I asked the press to withhold the story because I believed – and continue to believe – that the public interest would have been best served had this program remained secret and therefore effective.

Is that the kind of “vicious criticism” that caused you to so blindly defend the Times, Mr. Calame?

If anything was vicious, it was the unhinged attacks from Democrats–attacks that were both false and disgraceful. Where’s the apology, for example, from Rep. Ed Markey:

Critics said Bush was trying to divert attention from his own actions. Bush, Cheney and other Republicans “have adopted a shoot-the-messenger strategy by attacking the newspaper that revealed the existence of the secret bank surveillance program rather than answering the disturbing questions that those reports raise about possible violations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. privacy laws,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Where’s the apology from Calame’s boss, Bill Keller, or LA Times editor, Dean Baquet, who justified their disclosure of the SWIFT program in a joint op-ed that cited bogus “questions about its legal basis and the issues of oversight?” (I remind you that Baquet conceded in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that his decision to expose SWIFT alongside the NYTimes may have aided terrorists and damaged counterterrorism efforts.)

Where’s the apology from the ACLU, which viciously blasted the Bush administration the day the Times story appeared:

The revelation of the CIA’s financial spying program is another example of the Bush administration’s abuse of power. The invasion of our personal financial information, without notification or judicial review, is contrary to the fundamental American value of privacy and must be stopped now. It seems the administration feels entitled to flip through all of our checkbooks. How many other secret spying programs has the Bush administration enacted without Congress, the courts or the public knowing? We need a full accounting of what information has been demanded by the U.S. government, how they have used it, with whom it was shared, and how they intend to repair this grave breach of trust. This program is a glaring example of how this government thinks nothing of widespread abuse of power.

The government contends that the program is legal since Swift is ultimately a messaging service and not a bank, exempting it from U.S. banking laws. However, Swift is established and owned by banks to assist directly in banking activities. Swift is subject to both U.S. and European law, and it is wrong for the U.S. to demand information without following the established channels.

Once again, this administration has performed an end-run around the legislature, allowing for no Congressional approval or oversight, and violating the freedoms Americans falsely believed they could take for granted. Congress should call them to account.

Blaming the White House ain’t gonna cut it, Mr. Calame. If you’re going to write a mea culpa, write a mea culpa.

Haven’t the front-page Busha culpas embarrassed your newspaper enough?