Category Archives: Anti-Military Bias

You would think that if there were one thing people could agree on, despite their politics, it would be cheering for the United States in a sporting event. But no, not for Jeremy Scahill.

Scahill, a regular contributor for left-wing The Nation magazine, has dedicated the past several years of his life to an obsession over the defense contractor Xe Services LLC, formerly known as Blackwater. But apparently Scahill can't overcome his politics and take pride in his country's World Cup soccer team. In a series of posts on his Twitter account, Scahill vented his frustrations over cheering for the United States in the World Cup:

I hate when people chant U-S-A. #FalseNationalistCrap

If a night raid in Afghanistan was televised, would these drunk asses chant U-S-A, U-S-A when civilians are killed?

I like the US players, I just think it's gross to chant U-S-A when we are killing people daily #worldcup

Obviously Scahill has a problem differentiating U.S. foreign policy from U.S. athletics, but it could make you question his motives in general as an esteemed member of the liberal media.

In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial "General Betray Us" ad from its website.

For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March's troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.

Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.

With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn's website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers:

It was there the last time Google cache took a screen shot of it (June 18th), so it was scrubbed sometime between then and today. If you try the link now (http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.htm) it goes to MoveOn's default page. 

I guess MoveOn couldn't possibly bash this General now that he's working for Obama.

To give readers an idea of the firestorm this created at the time, here are some NewsBusters articles published after this ad hit:

• CBS and NBC Morning Shows Ignore Dem Embarrassment Over MoveOn Ad
• Parroting MoveOn, Matthews Accuses Bush of 'Betrayal' 
• Keith Olbermann Coined General ‘Betray Us’ Not MoveOn
• Senator Hatch Lashes Out at MoveOn and ‘Nutroots’
• MRC's Bozell Slams NYT's MoveOn.org 'Betray Us' Ad Discount
• NYT Shares Plunge While It Deeply Discounts MoveOn's Ad Space
• NYT-MoveOn.org's 'Petraeus -- Betray Us' Ad Cited NYT's Own Reporting Wrongly
• NYT Rejected Advocacy Ads Like MoveOn’s From Conservative Groups
• How Will Media Report Senate Vote Condemning MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad?
• Michael Kinsley Defends MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad
• Senate Condemnation of MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad Receives Mixed Coverage
• NYT's Public Editor Says Paper Made Mistake Running MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad
• Russert Lets Hillary Off Hook Concerning MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad
• New York Times Admits Discount Rate for Moveon.Org (Blogosphere Roundup)
• NYT Confesses: Mistake to Grant MoveOn.org Deep Discount

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday claimed that for what General Stanley McChrystal allegedly said about the White House, he legally, morally, ethically, professionally ought to be canned.

Discussing the issue with colleagues Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie on "The Daily Rundown," Mitchell claimed McChrystal's alleged statement "crosses the line of insubordination, and it crosses the line of the military code of justice."

She later made a comment one can't possibly imagine such a liberal media member making when George W. Bush was in the White House, "There is a reason why the military code of justice says you don't diss the Commander in Chief" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, h/t HotAirPundit):

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, HOST: Do you think this walks up to the line of insubordination?

ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh I think it crosses the line of insubordination, and it crosses the line of the military code of justice. He has challenged the Commander in Chief, and legally, morally, ethically, professionally he ought to be canned. Question is whether practically you can fire the top commander at a time when the war is really, talk about inflection points. This war is in a very bad stage. 

A few minutes later, Mitchell said: 

The bottom line has to be the focus on what is the best for the men and women in the field, the troops. There is a reason why the military code of justice says you don't diss the Commander in Chief. It's because all the way down the line, this is a hierarchy. And this is telling troops in the field that they have to salute even when they don't agree with an order.

To be sure, I completely agree with her, and if it turns out that McChrystal and/or his staffers said what Rolling Stone magazine claims, he has INDEED been insubordinate and possibly should be fired or be forced to resign.

If the allegations are true, what McChrystal did is TOTALLY unacceptable regardless of who's in the White House. Plain and simple! 

However, isn't it extraordinary to hear a military-hating liberal like Mitchell -- who just a few weeks ago blamed war on testosterone as well as "male insecurity," and in January said the incursions in Afghanistan and Iraq have impeded our battle against terrorism -- suddenly quoting the "military code of justice" and claiming "you don't diss the Commander in Chief?"

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if she felt the President of the United States demanded such respect when George W. Bush held the position? 

After all, as NewsBusters reported Tuesday, during Bush 43's reign, America's press promoted military criticism of everyone associated with the White House.  

Now that there's someone in the Oval Office the press are in love with, military codes and what's in the best interest of the troops are suddenly en vogue.

What a difference a "D" makes, huh?

I'd say this was the height of hypocrisy, but that bar gets raised virtually every 24 hours with the sycophant activists pretending to be journalists these days. 

The last two presidents have been elected on the very dubious campaign promise of “changing the tone” of Washington. Either could have proven his sincerity by shredding the press credentials of the White House press corps Dean of Mean, Helen Thomas. Her tone was nasty, and her “questions” usually meant more as insults than as requests for information. Still, presidents and journalists alike bowed and scraped before her, as if she were the Queen of All Media.

Her reign ended with an implosion. A rabbi and two high-school kids in yarmulkes exposed Thomas as not merely anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic. Asked her opinion about the Jews at a Jewish heritage event at the White House, this daughter of Lebanese immigrants said they should “get the hell out of Palestine,” and when asked where they should go, she snapped “home” to Germany and Poland, where so many were massacred in the Holocaust.

Thomas apologized quickly, then retired from her Hearst column after these remarks. Whether it was voluntary or mandatory is unclear. What is clear, however, is that some in the press returned immediately to kissing her ring. “Few White House correspondents ever achieved her high profile and respectability,” raved Jeremy Peters in the New York Times. “From her coveted seat in the front row of the White House briefing room to her ability to cow even the most hardened White House press secretary, Ms. Thomas was a legend in Washington.”

The Helen Thomas “legend” devolved over the last decade after she left UPI, from annoying liberal Reagan-bashing scold to fire-breathing ogre. She bluntly admitted she was a hater in 2002: “I censored myself for 50 years....Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?’” Is that the sound of rarified respectability, New York Times?

She clearly hated anyone who would wage a war on Islamic radicalism. Thomas sneered at press secretary Ari Fleischer in December of 2001 about President Bush: “I’m taking note of his wide-swinging threats in speeches recently. What makes him think that he has the right to go into a sovereign country and bomb the people?” Before the Iraq war in 2003, she demanded to know “Why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?” In her questions, the Americans were always psychotic killers of innocent civilians.

Those who awarded her respect often did so because she was one of the first women in the press corps. But honoring this accomplishment came with a hefty price: ignoring the blatant bias of her questions and rudeness of her conduct. Media liberals offered her more than respect. They clearly enjoyed her ranting outbursts from the hard left. When she mocked Bush and American military action, this hater spoke for them, saying the ugly things they wanted said.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is a good example. He disparaged her hateful Palestine remarks, but then hailed Thomas for offering “a ferocity to her questioning that has eluded too many in subsequent generations. At a time when others were getting cozy with sources, her crabby, unrelenting hostility was refreshing.” Journalists cherish ferocity and unrelenting hostility – when it comes from journalists.

Milbank still fondly recalled how Thomas yelled at President Obama just two weeks ago. "When are you going to get out of Afghanistan?...Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism, 'If we don't go there, they'll all come here.' "

Milbank did not note the irony from his own newspaper on June 7, with the front-page story about the two aspiring jihadis who were nabbed by the feds in New Jersey as they attempted to travel to Somalia to join the terrorist group al-Shabab. One had said to an undercover cop he would be "doing killing here, if I can't do it over there." Helen Thomas thought her opponents were relentlessly dogmatic, but her unjust-war-on-terror narrative never acknowledged some jihadis want to kill us. In fact, they’ve already killed over 3,000 of us.

The coverage of her retirement was sickening. ABC, CBS, and NBC all marked her retirement in a very narrow way. There was the offensive clip, and CBS and NBC allowed Obama flack Robert Gibbs to distance the White House from those remarks. But beyond that, the only soundbites came from sympathetic media colleagues, wishing her well.

ABC reporter Dan Harris even suggested Thomas should get a break for her Jew-hating, because she’s approaching senility: “After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.” So we should feel sorry for this hater?

Helen Thomas is leaving the White House with all the hate she’s been bringing to the grounds for decades. Despite their ill-advised adoration, the White House press corps has been improved by her retirement.

The United States is fighting two wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - so it's natural that the nation's leaders have a solid understanding of what war is about. But President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court has no wartime experience and if she is confirmed, that would mean no member of the highest court would have served in the military in or near combat.

This is a major shift for a nation with a proud military tradition. In the past 100 years, the United States has fought two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Gulf War. American servicemen and women fought in the Philippines, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Bosnia and many more. Given the nature of the terror threat America faces, more countries probably will likely join that list.

The three major broadcast networks have ignored this issue since Obama's May 10 nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Kagan does not have any military experience and is considered by some as anti-military. Yet, out of 17 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC since Kagan was named, not one has even mentioned the issue of wartime experience.

This, despite liberal arguments that a judge's experience is key to his or her decisions, and that the most lionized of progressive Supreme Court justices was an emphatically proud veteran of the Civil War, whose tombstone lists his war service before his court tenure.  

Two current Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, have military service on their resume. Kennedy served in the National Guard "in 1961," according to his Supreme Court biography. Alito underwent Army ROTC training during the Vietnam War, and subsequently served on active duty and in the Reserves as a Signal Corps officer. Neither justice served in a combat zone.

While many in the media haven't noticed, conservatives have.

Eagle Forum founder and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly explained on Townhall that, "Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience."

Schlafly pointed out that even Justice John Stevens, who is retiring, agrees wartime service is important. Stevens is currently the only justice with war experience. He is a veteran of the Navy and served in the Pacific as an intelligence officer, earning a bronze star for his part in breaking the code that led to the killing of Japan's most important naval officer. Stevens said, "Somebody was saying that there ought to be at least one person on the court who had military experience. I sort of feel that it is important. I have to confess that."

Since Stevens announced his retirement, however, CBS and NBC have failed to even mention his quite notable war service. Only ABC's "This Week" on April 11 discussed it.

To the networks, a Supreme Court full of justices without wartime experience is nothing to report on. From May 11 to 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC ran 17 stories about Kagan on the morning and evening news programs. Not once did the networks mention that if Kagan were confirmed the Supreme Court would not have any war veterans.

The lack of coverage is puzzling, because liberals tend to emphasize life experience as a qualification for members of the judiciary. When considering replacements for Justice David Souter last year, President Obama said:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives - whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

His eventual nominee, Sonia Sotomayor rather infamously said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So, should Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court of the world's only remaining military superpower would be left without a single justice who can look beyond "some abstract legal theory" and channel "the richness of her experiences" in judging cases dealing with war.

Kagan's Past

Kagan has never served as a judge so her stance on many issues has been difficult to determine. But her record raises questions about how she views the military.

She has been serving as the Solicitor General since January 2009. A Harvard law school graduate, Kagan clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after graduation and later for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She practiced as a private attorney before becoming an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

She worked in the White House for part of President's Clintons' term as Associate White House Counsel. She was also the deputy director of the Domestic Policy and Council and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

After Clinton's presidency, Kagan became a professor at Harvard Law School and eventually the school's first woman dean. It was in that position that, in defiance of the Solomon Act, she supported not allowing military recruiters on campus because of her opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on allowing homosexuals to serve.

Kagan stated that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is "a moral injustice of the first order." Perhaps, but she may have violated the law in denying military recruiters access to Harvard Law School. Further, the nation is fighting two ground wars and a Global War on Terror, encountering many difficult legal issues. Kagan denied the military the opportunity to recruit some of the nation's brightest young legal minds.

Even the broadcast networks have noticed that this may hurt her in the nomination process. On "Good Morning America" May 11 during an interview, George Stephanopolus questioned, "And Sen. Sessions, you heard Vice President Joe Biden there. He sees nothing wrong with the actions Elena Kagan took at Harvard, banning those military recruiters from campus. You called it unacceptable."

On the same day, "Today's" Savannah Guthrie stated, "She's expected to again face tough questions on her decision as Harvard dean to continue the school's ban on military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.'"

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich has not being shy about expressing his dislike of Kagan's past anti-military actions. ABC's This Week" reported him stating on May 16, "She, as dean of the Harvard Law School, took an effort to block the American military from the Harvard campus all the way to the Supreme Court, during a war. And that is an act so unbecoming an American she should be disqualified from the beginning."

Kagan's actions on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," coupled with the impending lack of war experience on the Court, should have raised red flags - or at least interesting questions - for reporters.

Model Justice/Military Hero

Modern liberals owe their ideas about the role of empathy and experience in judging at least in some part to a man who was most influential Supreme Court Justice of the 20^th century and a lionized progressive judge. In his book "Common Law," Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841 - 1935) wrote that, "The life of the law not been logic; it has been experience."

However, the experience the "Great Dissenter" valued above all was his service in the Civil War.

Holmes served with the 20th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. (In a twist of historical irony, given Dean Kagan's attitude toward military recruiters in Cambridge, the 20^th Mass. was known as "The Harvard Regiment.") Holmes fought in some of the war's most famous and bloody battles, surviving three wounds. Eventually, he rose to the rank of Captain. Holmes also served as Brevet Colonel and aide-de-camp on the staff of Sixth Corps General Horatio Wright.

He was active in veterans groups the rest of his life, delivering several legendary speeches on the war, including an address on Memorial Day, 1884, in which he asserted that, "the generation that carried on the war has been set apart by its experience. Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire."

Evidence of the importance of his war service to Holmes can be found on his tombstone in Arlington Cemetery. "Captain and Brevet Colonel, 20^th Mass. Volunteer Infantry" appears above "Justice Supreme Court of the United States."

Since the left views the progressive Holmes as a forerunner of the ideal Supreme Court Justice for liberals, wartime experience should count for something - especially at a time when U.S. troops are fighting and dying overseas. 

The media, and particularly the networks, should show some curiosity about whether America's highest court can use the perspective of a former warrior in a nation at war.

The United States is fighting two wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - so it's natural that the nation's leaders have a solid understanding of what war is about. But President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court has no wartime experience and if she is confirmed, that would mean no member of the highest court would have served in the military in or near combat.

This is a major shift for a nation with a proud military tradition. In the past 100 years, the United States has fought two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Gulf War. American servicemen and women fought in the Philippines, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Bosnia and many more. Given the nature of the terror threat America faces, more countries probably will likely join that list.

The three major broadcast networks have ignored this issue since Obama's May 10 nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Kagan does not have any military experience and is considered by some as anti-military. Yet, out of 17 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC since Kagan was named, not one has even mentioned the issue of wartime experience.

This, despite liberal arguments that a judge's experience is key to his or her decisions, and that the most lionized of progressive Supreme Court justices was an emphatically proud veteran of the Civil War, whose tombstone lists his war service before his court tenure.  

Two current Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, have military service on their resume. Kennedy served in the National Guard "in 1961," according to his Supreme Court biography. Alito underwent Army ROTC training during the Vietnam War, and subsequently served on active duty and in the Reserves as a Signal Corps officer. Neither justice served in a combat zone.

While many in the media haven't noticed, conservatives have.

Eagle Forum founder and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly explained on Townhall that, "Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience."

Schlafly pointed out that even Justice John Stevens, who is retiring, agrees wartime service is important. Stevens is currently the only justice with war experience. He is a veteran of the Navy and served in the Pacific as an intelligence officer, earning a bronze star for his part in breaking the code that led to the killing of Japan's most important naval officer. Stevens said, "Somebody was saying that there ought to be at least one person on the court who had military experience. I sort of feel that it is important. I have to confess that."

Since Stevens announced his retirement, however, CBS and NBC have failed to even mention his quite notable war service. Only ABC's "This Week" on April 11 discussed it.

To the networks, a Supreme Court full of justices without wartime experience is nothing to report on. From May 11 to 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC ran 17 stories about Kagan on the morning and evening news programs. Not once did the networks mention that if Kagan were confirmed the Supreme Court would not have any war veterans.

The lack of coverage is puzzling, because liberals tend to emphasize life experience as a qualification for members of the judiciary. When considering replacements for Justice David Souter last year, President Obama said:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives - whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

His eventual nominee, Sonia Sotomayor rather infamously said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So, should Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court of the world's only remaining military superpower would be left without a single justice who can look beyond "some abstract legal theory" and channel "the richness of her experiences" in judging cases dealing with war.

Kagan's Past

Kagan has never served as a judge so her stance on many issues has been difficult to determine. But her record raises questions about how she views the military.

She has been serving as the Solicitor General since January 2009. A Harvard law school graduate, Kagan clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after graduation and later for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She practiced as a private attorney before becoming an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

She worked in the White House for part of President's Clintons' term as Associate White House Counsel. She was also the deputy director of the Domestic Policy and Council and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

After Clinton's presidency, Kagan became a professor at Harvard Law School and eventually the school's first woman dean. It was in that position that, in defiance of the Solomon Act, she supported not allowing military recruiters on campus because of her opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on allowing homosexuals to serve.

Kagan stated that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is "a moral injustice of the first order." Perhaps, but she may have violated the law in denying military recruiters access to Harvard Law School. Further, the nation is fighting two ground wars and a Global War on Terror, encountering many difficult legal issues. Kagan denied the military the opportunity to recruit some of the nation's brightest young legal minds.

Even the broadcast networks have noticed that this may hurt her in the nomination process. On "Good Morning America" May 11 during an interview, George Stephanopolus questioned, "And Sen. Sessions, you heard Vice President Joe Biden there. He sees nothing wrong with the actions Elena Kagan took at Harvard, banning those military recruiters from campus. You called it unacceptable."

On the same day, "Today's" Savannah Guthrie stated, "She's expected to again face tough questions on her decision as Harvard dean to continue the school's ban on military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.'"

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich has not being shy about expressing his dislike of Kagan's past anti-military actions. ABC's This Week" reported him stating on May 16, "She, as dean of the Harvard Law School, took an effort to block the American military from the Harvard campus all the way to the Supreme Court, during a war. And that is an act so unbecoming an American she should be disqualified from the beginning."

Kagan's actions on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," coupled with the impending lack of war experience on the Court, should have raised red flags - or at least interesting questions - for reporters.

Model Justice/Military Hero

Modern liberals owe their ideas about the role of empathy and experience in judging at least in some part to a man who was most influential Supreme Court Justice of the 20^th century and a lionized progressive judge. In his book "Common Law," Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841 - 1935) wrote that, "The life of the law not been logic; it has been experience."

However, the experience the "Great Dissenter" valued above all was his service in the Civil War.

Holmes served with the 20th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. (In a twist of historical irony, given Dean Kagan's attitude toward military recruiters in Cambridge, the 20^th Mass. was known as "The Harvard Regiment.") Holmes fought in some of the war's most famous and bloody battles, surviving three wounds. Eventually, he rose to the rank of Captain. Holmes also served as Brevet Colonel and aide-de-camp on the staff of Sixth Corps General Horatio Wright.

He was active in veterans groups the rest of his life, delivering several legendary speeches on the war, including an address on Memorial Day, 1884, in which he asserted that, "the generation that carried on the war has been set apart by its experience. Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire."

Evidence of the importance of his war service to Holmes can be found on his tombstone in Arlington Cemetery. "Captain and Brevet Colonel, 20^th Mass. Volunteer Infantry" appears above "Justice Supreme Court of the United States."

Since the left views the progressive Holmes as a forerunner of the ideal Supreme Court Justice for liberals, wartime experience should count for something - especially at a time when U.S. troops are fighting and dying overseas. 

The media, and particularly the networks, should show some curiosity about whether America's highest court can use the perspective of a former warrior in a nation at war.

The United States is fighting two wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - so it's natural that the nation's leaders have a solid understanding of what war is about. But President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court has no wartime experience and if she is confirmed, that would mean no member of the highest court would have served in the military in or near combat.

This is a major shift for a nation with a proud military tradition. In the past 100 years, the United States has fought two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Gulf War. American servicemen and women fought in the Philippines, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Bosnia and many more. Given the nature of the terror threat America faces, more countries probably will likely join that list.

The three major broadcast networks have ignored this issue since Obama's May 10 nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Kagan does not have any military experience and is considered by some as anti-military. Yet, out of 17 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC since Kagan was named, not one has even mentioned the issue of wartime experience.

This, despite liberal arguments that a judge's experience is key to his or her decisions, and that the most lionized of progressive Supreme Court justices was an emphatically proud veteran of the Civil War, whose tombstone lists his war service before his court tenure.  

Two current Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, have military service on their resume. Kennedy served in the National Guard "in 1961," according to his Supreme Court biography. Alito underwent Army ROTC training during the Vietnam War, and subsequently served on active duty and in the Reserves as a Signal Corps officer. Neither justice served in a combat zone.

While many in the media haven't noticed, conservatives have.

Eagle Forum founder and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly explained on Townhall that, "Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience."

Schlafly pointed out that even Justice John Stevens, who is retiring, agrees wartime service is important. Stevens is currently the only justice with war experience. He is a veteran of the Navy and served in the Pacific as an intelligence officer, earning a bronze star for his part in breaking the code that led to the killing of Japan's most important naval officer. Stevens said, "Somebody was saying that there ought to be at least one person on the court who had military experience. I sort of feel that it is important. I have to confess that."

Since Stevens announced his retirement, however, CBS and NBC have failed to even mention his quite notable war service. Only ABC's "This Week" on April 11 discussed it.

To the networks, a Supreme Court full of justices without wartime experience is nothing to report on. From May 11 to 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC ran 17 stories about Kagan on the morning and evening news programs. Not once did the networks mention that if Kagan were confirmed the Supreme Court would not have any war veterans.

The lack of coverage is puzzling, because liberals tend to emphasize life experience as a qualification for members of the judiciary. When considering replacements for Justice David Souter last year, President Obama said:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives - whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

His eventual nominee, Sonia Sotomayor rather infamously said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So, should Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court of the world's only remaining military superpower would be left without a single justice who can look beyond "some abstract legal theory" and channel "the richness of her experiences" in judging cases dealing with war.

Kagan's Past

Kagan has never served as a judge so her stance on many issues has been difficult to determine. But her record raises questions about how she views the military.

She has been serving as the Solicitor General since January 2009. A Harvard law school graduate, Kagan clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after graduation and later for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She practiced as a private attorney before becoming an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

She worked in the White House for part of President's Clintons' term as Associate White House Counsel. She was also the deputy director of the Domestic Policy and Council and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

After Clinton's presidency, Kagan became a professor at Harvard Law School and eventually the school's first woman dean. It was in that position that, in defiance of the Solomon Act, she supported not allowing military recruiters on campus because of her opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on allowing homosexuals to serve.

Kagan stated that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is "a moral injustice of the first order." Perhaps, but she may have violated the law in denying military recruiters access to Harvard Law School. Further, the nation is fighting two ground wars and a Global War on Terror, encountering many difficult legal issues. Kagan denied the military the opportunity to recruit some of the nation's brightest young legal minds.

Even the broadcast networks have noticed that this may hurt her in the nomination process. On "Good Morning America" May 11 during an interview, George Stephanopolus questioned, "And Sen. Sessions, you heard Vice President Joe Biden there. He sees nothing wrong with the actions Elena Kagan took at Harvard, banning those military recruiters from campus. You called it unacceptable."

On the same day, "Today's" Savannah Guthrie stated, "She's expected to again face tough questions on her decision as Harvard dean to continue the school's ban on military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.'"

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich has not being shy about expressing his dislike of Kagan's past anti-military actions. ABC's This Week" reported him stating on May 16, "She, as dean of the Harvard Law School, took an effort to block the American military from the Harvard campus all the way to the Supreme Court, during a war. And that is an act so unbecoming an American she should be disqualified from the beginning."

Kagan's actions on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," coupled with the impending lack of war experience on the Court, should have raised red flags - or at least interesting questions - for reporters.

Model Justice/Military Hero

Modern liberals owe their ideas about the role of empathy and experience in judging at least in some part to a man who was most influential Supreme Court Justice of the 20^th century and a lionized progressive judge. In his book "Common Law," Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841 - 1935) wrote that, "The life of the law not been logic; it has been experience."

However, the experience the "Great Dissenter" valued above all was his service in the Civil War.

Holmes served with the 20th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. (In a twist of historical irony, given Dean Kagan's attitude toward military recruiters in Cambridge, the 20^th Mass. was known as "The Harvard Regiment.") Holmes fought in some of the war's most famous and bloody battles, surviving three wounds. Eventually, he rose to the rank of Captain. Holmes also served as Brevet Colonel and aide-de-camp on the staff of Sixth Corps General Horatio Wright.

He was active in veterans groups the rest of his life, delivering several legendary speeches on the war, including an address on Memorial Day, 1884, in which he asserted that, "the generation that carried on the war has been set apart by its experience. Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire."

Evidence of the importance of his war service to Holmes can be found on his tombstone in Arlington Cemetery. "Captain and Brevet Colonel, 20^th Mass. Volunteer Infantry" appears above "Justice Supreme Court of the United States."

Since the left views the progressive Holmes as a forerunner of the ideal Supreme Court Justice for liberals, wartime experience should count for something - especially at a time when U.S. troops are fighting and dying overseas. 

The media, and particularly the networks, should show some curiosity about whether America's highest court can use the perspective of a former warrior in a nation at war.

The United States is fighting two wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - so it's natural that the nation's leaders have a solid understanding of what war is about. But President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court has no wartime experience and if she is confirmed, that would mean no member of the highest court would have served in the military in or near combat.

This is a major shift for a nation with a proud military tradition. In the past 100 years, the United States has fought two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Gulf War. American servicemen and women fought in the Philippines, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Bosnia and many more. Given the nature of the terror threat America faces, more countries probably will likely join that list.

The three major broadcast networks have ignored this issue since Obama's May 10 nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Kagan does not have any military experience and is considered by some as anti-military. Yet, out of 17 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC since Kagan was named, not one has even mentioned the issue of wartime experience.

This, despite liberal arguments that a judge's experience is key to his or her decisions, and that the most lionized of progressive Supreme Court justices was an emphatically proud veteran of the Civil War, whose tombstone lists his war service before his court tenure.  

Two current Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, have military service on their resume. Kennedy served in the National Guard "in 1961," according to his Supreme Court biography. Alito underwent Army ROTC training during the Vietnam War, and subsequently served on active duty and in the Reserves as a Signal Corps officer. Neither justice served in a combat zone.

While many in the media haven't noticed, conservatives have.

Eagle Forum founder and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly explained on Townhall that, "Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience."

Schlafly pointed out that even Justice John Stevens, who is retiring, agrees wartime service is important. Stevens is currently the only justice with war experience. He is a veteran of the Navy and served in the Pacific as an intelligence officer, earning a bronze star for his part in breaking the code that led to the killing of Japan's most important naval officer. Stevens said, "Somebody was saying that there ought to be at least one person on the court who had military experience. I sort of feel that it is important. I have to confess that."

Since Stevens announced his retirement, however, CBS and NBC have failed to even mention his quite notable war service. Only ABC's "This Week" on April 11 discussed it.

To the networks, a Supreme Court full of justices without wartime experience is nothing to report on. From May 11 to 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC ran 17 stories about Kagan on the morning and evening news programs. Not once did the networks mention that if Kagan were confirmed the Supreme Court would not have any war veterans.

The lack of coverage is puzzling, because liberals tend to emphasize life experience as a qualification for members of the judiciary. When considering replacements for Justice David Souter last year, President Obama said:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives - whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

His eventual nominee, Sonia Sotomayor rather infamously said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So, should Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court of the world's only remaining military superpower would be left without a single justice who can look beyond "some abstract legal theory" and channel "the richness of her experiences" in judging cases dealing with war.

Kagan's Past

Kagan has never served as a judge so her stance on many issues has been difficult to determine. But her record raises questions about how she views the military.

She has been serving as the Solicitor General since January 2009. A Harvard law school graduate, Kagan clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after graduation and later for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She practiced as a private attorney before becoming an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

She worked in the White House for part of President's Clintons' term as Associate White House Counsel. She was also the deputy director of the Domestic Policy and Council and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

After Clinton's presidency, Kagan became a professor at Harvard Law School and eventually the school's first woman dean. It was in that position that, in defiance of the Solomon Act, she supported not allowing military recruiters on campus because of her opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on allowing homosexuals to serve.

Kagan stated that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is "a moral injustice of the first order." Perhaps, but she may have violated the law in denying military recruiters access to Harvard Law School. Further, the nation is fighting two ground wars and a Global War on Terror, encountering many difficult legal issues. Kagan denied the military the opportunity to recruit some of the nation's brightest young legal minds.

Even the broadcast networks have noticed that this may hurt her in the nomination process. On "Good Morning America" May 11 during an interview, George Stephanopolus questioned, "And Sen. Sessions, you heard Vice President Joe Biden there. He sees nothing wrong with the actions Elena Kagan took at Harvard, banning those military recruiters from campus. You called it unacceptable."

On the same day, "Today's" Savannah Guthrie stated, "She's expected to again face tough questions on her decision as Harvard dean to continue the school's ban on military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.'"

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich has not being shy about expressing his dislike of Kagan's past anti-military actions. ABC's This Week" reported him stating on May 16, "She, as dean of the Harvard Law School, took an effort to block the American military from the Harvard campus all the way to the Supreme Court, during a war. And that is an act so unbecoming an American she should be disqualified from the beginning."

Kagan's actions on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," coupled with the impending lack of war experience on the Court, should have raised red flags - or at least interesting questions - for reporters.

Model Justice/Military Hero

Modern liberals owe their ideas about the role of empathy and experience in judging at least in some part to a man who was most influential Supreme Court Justice of the 20^th century and a lionized progressive judge. In his book "Common Law," Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841 - 1935) wrote that, "The life of the law not been logic; it has been experience."

However, the experience the "Great Dissenter" valued above all was his service in the Civil War.

Holmes served with the 20th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. (In a twist of historical irony, given Dean Kagan's attitude toward military recruiters in Cambridge, the 20^th Mass. was known as "The Harvard Regiment.") Holmes fought in some of the war's most famous and bloody battles, surviving three wounds. Eventually, he rose to the rank of Captain. Holmes also served as Brevet Colonel and aide-de-camp on the staff of Sixth Corps General Horatio Wright.

He was active in veterans groups the rest of his life, delivering several legendary speeches on the war, including an address on Memorial Day, 1884, in which he asserted that, "the generation that carried on the war has been set apart by its experience. Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire."

Evidence of the importance of his war service to Holmes can be found on his tombstone in Arlington Cemetery. "Captain and Brevet Colonel, 20^th Mass. Volunteer Infantry" appears above "Justice Supreme Court of the United States."

Since the left views the progressive Holmes as a forerunner of the ideal Supreme Court Justice for liberals, wartime experience should count for something - especially at a time when U.S. troops are fighting and dying overseas. 

The media, and particularly the networks, should show some curiosity about whether America's highest court can use the perspective of a former warrior in a nation at war.

In a Friday article for Yahoo! News, reporter John Cook revealed FBI documents that detail allegations that former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite offered CBS News resources to transport fierce Vietnam critic and Democratic Maine Senator Edmund Muskie to a Florida anti-war rally in November of 1969. (h/t TVNewser)

According to Cook, the FBI files describe how "Cronkite encouraged students at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., to invite Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie to address a protest they were planning....Cronkite told the group's leader that Muskie would be nearby for a fundraiser on the day of the protest, and said that 'CBS would rent [a] helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally.'"

While noting Cronkite's public condemnation of the war on air just nine months earlier, Cook rightfully observed: "such tight collaboration between a news organization and the anti-war movement — particularly the offer of CBS News resources to help ferry a sitting senator and future presidential candidate around in opposition to the war — was highly unusual and would presumably have been explosive if known widely at the time." Cook also noted: "It's unclear whether Muskie ever actually attended the event."

Cook got a response from the late Cronkite's son on the allegations. Chip Cronkite dismissed the FBI account as not credible: "It doesn't have the ring of a reliable story to me....Particularly at a time when FBI informants often told the FBI what they wanted to hear. I think it would be outside of what we know about Walter Cronkite and CBS News' practices."

Cronkite, of course, has long been held up as a media hero, touted as the model of objectivity and the "most trusted man in America." On July 20, 2009, MSNBC's Chris Matthews invited on ex-CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather on Hardball to mark Cronkite's passing. Rather praised his predecessor as a "beacon" of "straight news."
   
At the same time, many in the media have frequently celebrated Cronkite's bias against the Vietnam war. On the November 27, 2006 edition of Countdown on MSNBC, host Keith Olbermann opened the program by proclaiming: "It is civil war in Iraq. Not says the State Department. Not says the Iraqi government. But after long and painful consideration, it meets the technical standards for civil war, and we must call it that, says NBC News. Is this the ‘Walter Cronkite moment’ of the Iraq War?"

The Media Research Center's Profiles in Bias has detailed Cronkite's long career of liberal advocacy.

On Wednesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan didn't see any point to continuing the war in Afghanistan and slammed military air strikes against terrorist targets as: "kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly." [Audio available here]        

Ratigan began a panel discussion on Afghanistan with Democratic strategist David Goodfriend and Republican strategist Brent Littlefield by wondering: "Is there anybody in this administration on either side that can actually justify the American presence in Afghanistan at this point?" Littlefield attempted to explain: "we had the previous president, took the country in there because of the attacks on 9/11." Ratigan was dismissive: "That was almost ten years ago, right? I mean that was a long time ago."

Ratigan moved on to Goodfriend and referenced NBC correspondent Richard Engel's appearance on the show on Tuesday: "He is making the point that the Bush doctrine of fight them there and they won't get us here appears to be continuing to break down as we now default to just predator drone-them-to-death wherever they may be on remote control and an apparent, sort of, nonevent in Afghanistan. It's like a charade." Of course the reliance on predator drone attacks was significantly increased under the Obama administration.

Again, Ratigan saw no reason for the war and actually blamed it for creating terrorism: "I don't understand how this war in Afghanistan is protecting me from a car bomber in midtown. In fact, I'm concerned that the war in Afghanistan is creating more car bombers in Pakistan that want to come to midtown." He then asked Goodfriend: "Is there a rational defense that you have heard for America being in Afghanistan a decade after we went in to degrade the Taliban?" As Goodfriend began to answer, Ratigan interrupted and proclaimed: "And every soldier, every journalist, every person you talk to says, 'I don't know why we're in Afghanistan.'"

Goodfriend largely agreed with Ratigan's assessment and noted: "we actually supported the Taliban when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan." Ratigan interjected: "Of course, we armed them." Goodfriend added: "it's yet another example of you know, unfortunately, the United States feeling that we can sort of change the course of history in this part of the world that even Alexander the Great failed to change."

An exasperated Ratigan then whined: "why is anybody in this country safer because we're spending a lot of money and spending a bunch our soldiers and weapons to a land-locked mountainous nation in the Middle East for the past ten years, and appear to be doing – staying there for God knows how much longer?" Again, Goodfriend agreed: "I happen to believe that we spend too much money on the military as it is. $700 Billion a year is too much....I think this nation of ours would do better with half, 50%, the military budget we have today."

In concluding the segment, Ratigan again cited Engel's criticism of the war and ranted: "America's knickers are into a bunch to the point it's ready to throw everybody out because we're taking people to the Caribbean without giving them proper rights and putting them in prison but having kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly is a valid foreign policy, strikes me as if I've gone crazy....nobody's going to defend it, it's crazy."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

4:13PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: We begin, though, with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He's visiting the White House today, as you likely know. Karzai and the President spoke to reporters after private meetings on the war effort. Each leader downplaying highly publicized tensions between the two administrations.

BARACK OBAMA: Obviously, they're going to be tensions in such a complicated difficult environment. A lot of them were simply overstated.

HAMID KARZAI: There are moments that we speak frankly to each other. And that frankness would only add to the strength of the relationship.

RATIGAN: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying Karzai's meetings this week will determine whether or not she helps to secure congressional approval for a $33 billion war-funding bill, that of course being your money. Here to 'Mix It Up,' our panel, former Clinton White House staffer David Goodfriend and Republican strategist Brent Littlefield. Pleasure to see you both. Brent, I'll begin with you. Is there anybody in this administration on either side that can actually justify the American presence in Afghanistan at this point?

BRENT LITTLEFIELD: Well, look, we had the previous president, took the country in there because of the attacks on 9/11. And that-

RATIGAN: That was almost ten years ago, right? I mean that was a long time ago.  

LITTLEFIELD: That's right. That's right. And we have a current president that campaigned on and has continued to say that he's going to increase our presence and increase our activity in Afghanistan. I think what happened today was fascinating. At the end of the last administration, Hamid Karzai, in his last press conference with President Bush thanked the American people. And then since that time, we've had the White House press secretary fighting with Karzai, saying that he was making statements against the West that were tirades, that he was railing on the West.

RATIGAN: Sure.

LITTLEFIELD: Clearly Karzai hasn't been happy and now they're back there claiming that they're holding hands and there just were minor differences. I guess you just played a clip, the President said there were minor differences, but it was his own press secretary that was attacking Karzai about a month ago. So it's fascinating to watch what's happening there today.

RATIGAN: David, Richard Engel was on the program yesterday. He's in New York, obviously having spend a tremendous portion of his career, still, in the Middle East covering these wars in Afghanistan, on the ground. He is making the point that the Bush doctrine of fight them there and they won't get us here appears to be continuing to break down as we now default to just predator drone-them-to-death wherever they may be on remote control and an apparent, sort of, nonevent in Afghanistan. It's like a charade. I don't understand how this war in Afghanistan is protecting me from a car bomber in midtown. In fact, I'm concerned that the war in Afghanistan is creating more car bombers in Pakistan that want to come to midtown. Is there a rational defense that you have heard for America being in Afghanistan a decade after we went in to degrade the Taliban?

DAVID GOODFRIEND: Well, is there a rational defense, yes. Whether or not I agree with it is probably immaterial.

RATIGAN: And what is it? I mean, yeah, sure.

GOODFRIEND: Fair enough.

RATIGAN: What is – what's the rational defense to spending $10 there for every $1 we spend here. And every soldier, every journalist, every person you talk to says, 'I don't know why we're in Afghanistan.' The only reason we're fighting is because we're in Afghanistan.

GOODFRIEND: Well, I think that may be oversimplifying it. Look, let me give you the rationale and then, if I may, I'd like to answer your broader question.

RATIGAN: Go for it.

GOODFRIEND: Which is why should we spend it? So the rationale really has to do with the leadership of the Taliban, its location both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the Taliban now emerging – not Al Qaeda mind you – but Taliban now emerging as a hotbed of terrorist activity. And look, one of the things I was thinking about before coming on the show, and this gets more to your broader question of 'why are we there,' we actually supported the Taliban when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

RATIGAN: Of course, we armed them.

GOODFRIEND: And so – and so it's yet another example of you know, unfortunately, the United States feeling that we can sort of change the course of history in this part of the world that even Alexander the Great failed to change. So you know, look we're-

RATIGAN: But the question is, why am I safer? Why are you safer? Why is Brent safer? Why are our viewer – why is anybody in this country safer because we're spending a lot of money and spending a bunch our soldiers and weapons to a land-locked mountainous nation in the Middle East for the past ten years, and appear to be doing – staying there for God knows how much longer. Do you – do you have any-

GOODFRIEND: I mean, look, Dylan – look, Dylan, maybe I'm not the right guy for this – for this particular segment. I happen to believe that we spend too much money on the military as it is. $700 Billion a year is too much. I don't think that with a hundred bases overseas, our national security is better. I think what we need are jobs and more of that money for folks here at home. You are talking to a guy who agrees with you on that. Now, that having been said, is the President rational when he says we ought to be doing more to attack the bases of the terrorists? Sure. But you know what, he's even said in 2011, that's next year, that the number of troops, the American troops, starts to come down and we have other forms of support, economic support. So look, I think this nation of ours would do better with half, 50%, the military budget we have today.

RATIGAN: Yeah.

GOODFRIEND: Okay?

RATIGAN: And that's for another day, but what strikes me, again, is the Richard Engel comment. America's knickers are into a bunch to the point it's ready to throw everybody out because we're taking people to the Caribbean without giving them proper rights and putting them in prison but having kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly is a valid foreign policy, strikes me as if I've gone crazy. We'll save it for another day.

GOODFRIEND: Look, you're not going to get me to defend it. I wish-

RATIGAN: No I'm not, I know. I get it. No listen, nobody's going to defend it, it's crazy.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

On Monday’s Larry King Live on CNN, guest Jane Fonda portrayed herself as a victim of a "myth" that was "created" by "right-wingers" about her infamous "Hanoi Jane" visit to Vietnam to protest the Vietnam War. Without specifying what aspect of the "Hanoi Jane" story she considered to be a fallacy, though the "Product Description" at Amazon.com seems to shed some light on what she was referring to, she claimed that author Jerry Lembcke’s new book, "Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal," is "about the myth," and asserted that it is "sad" that some conservatives are "still stuck in the past":

JANE FONDA: No, it's about the myth, you know, why it is that 300 people went to North Vietnam, people, many people before me, why me, why have they created this myth? You know, when I came back from North Vietnam, there was maybe a quarter of an inch of media about it in the New York Times. Nobody made any big deal out of it. It was created, and some people are stuck-

LARRY KING: By critics?

FONDA: By right wingers. There are some people who are like stuck there, you know, they're still stuck in the past. I always want to say, "Get a life," or, you know, "Read what really happened," you know. The myths are now true.

Referring to people who sometimes protest against her, she continued: "But it makes me sad for these people who are stuck because they've not taken the time – if they're going to waste their energy on hatred, they should take the time in finding out what was really true."

The "Product Description" of the book at Amazon.com contends:

Hanoi Jane, the book, deconstructs Hanoi Jane, the myth, to locate its origins in the need of Americans to explain defeat in Vietnam through fantasies of home-front betrayal and the emasculation of the national will-to-war. Lembcke shows th t the expression Hanoi Jane did not reach the eyes and ears of most Americans until five or six years after the end of the war in Vietnam. By then, anxieties about America s declining global status and deteriorating economy were fueling a populist reaction that pointed to the loss of the war as the taproot of those problems. Blaming the antiwar movement for undermining the military s resolve, many found in the imaginary Hanoi Jane the personification of their stab-in-the back theories.

Ground zero of the myth was the city of Hanoi itself, which Jane Fonda had visited as a peace activist in July 1972. Rumors surrounding Fonda s visits with U.S. POWs and radio broadcasts to troops combined to conjure allegations of treason that had cost American lives. That such tales were more imagined than real did not prevent them from insinuating themselves into public memory, where they have continued to infect American politics and culture.

Hanoi Jane is a book about the making of Hanoi Jane by those who saw a formidable threat in the Jane Fonda who supported soldiers and veterans opposed to the war they fought, in the postcolonial struggle of the Vietnamese people to make their own future, and in the movements of women everywhere for gender equality.

When asked by host King what she thought of Sarah Palin, after asserting that "she should not be a politician, in my opinion," and that it is "sad when someone says I'm going to run for office and they can't answer basic questions, you know, about the world, about what they read, about history," the left-wing actress concluded that Palin’s popularity "worries me, frankly."

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Monday, April 5, Larry King Live on CNN:

LARRY KING: Twitter question, King's Things got a number of Tweets referring to you as "Hanoi Jane." There's a new book coming out, get this, "Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal."

JANE FONDA: Yes, it's a good book.

KING: You know the book?

FONDA: Yeah, I advertise it on my blog.

KING: It seems to be a book critical of you.

FONDA: No, it's about the myth, you know, why it is that 300 people went to North Vietnam, people, many people before me, why me, why have they created this myth? You know, when I came back from North Vietnam, there was maybe a quarter of an inch of media about it in the New York Times. Nobody made any big deal out of it. It was created, and some people are stuck-

KING: By critics?

FONDA: By right wingers. There are some people who are like stuck there, you know, they're still stuck in the past. I always want to say, "Get a life," or, you know, "Read what really happened," you know. The myths are now true.

KING: Do people still yell at you? People still yell at you when you walk down the street?

FONDA: No, no. I mean, when I did the play on Broadway last year, there would be, you know, for about two or three weeks, there was a small protest of four or five people, you know, outside the theater. Nobody paid any attention. But it makes me sad for these people who are stuck because they've not taken the time – if they're going to waste their energy on hatred, they should take the time in finding out what was really true.

KING: Some other things. What do you think of Michelle Obama and the obesity fight?

FONDA: I think it's great that she's staked this out as one of her issues, as has Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is sending me a greeting and a salute in the Georgia Dome on May 1.

KING: You keep saying that. We've repeated it a lot. I think we're getting it through to them.

FONDA: We know how to sell. No, but it’s important-

KING: WorldFitnessDay.org, one word.

FONDA: A lot of people are very obese in this country. One out of six youth are obese. And it's a huge medical crisis.

KING: What do you think of Sarah Palin? There was a little quick move. You went from crisis to huge crisis.

FONDA: You betcha!

KING: What do you think?

FONDA: You betcha. I think she could have a television show maybe.

KING: She’s got one.

FONDA: But she should not be a politician, in my opinion.

KING: What do you make of the feelings about her? What do you make of – I don't even to have ask you the question – Sarah Palin. What do you make of the story?

FONDA: Sad.

KING: Sad?

FONDA: Well, I think it's sad when someone says I'm going to run for office and they can't answer basic questions, you know, about the world, about what they read, about history, things like that. I mean, I think we should take our political, our political world, life, members who aspire to be elected officials more seriously, you know, they have to be grounded in some kind of reality.

KING: How do you account for her popularity?

FONDA: Well, I , I don't know. It worries me, frankly.

Ana Marie Cox on Sunday compared the Tea Party movement to the anti-war women's group Code Pink.

Appearing on CNN's "Reliable Sources," the GQer formerly known as Wonkette wasn't at all bothered by Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans disrupting Karl Rove's book signing last week.

"It's not infringing on Karl Rove's right to speak to have someone else interrupt him." 

She continued, "Code Pink was to Fox News, you know, what the Tea Partiers are to MSNBC now. I mean, Code Pink was the group that the Republicans and the GOP and Fox News wanted to have represent the Democratic Party" (video embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary): 

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: I want to turn back to this, what I call selective outrage. So, for example, Karl Rove was at a book signing about a week or so ago in Beverly Hills. And you all probably saw what happened.

Let's roll a little bit of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: No, no, no. I didn't say go ahead. I said you get away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: That signing was disrupted by Code Pink. And Fox played that up every other hour because obviously it fit the Fox narrative and obviously is an infringement of free speech.

ANA MARIE COX, GQ: Right. Of whose free speech?

KURTZ: Well, shouldn't an author be able to go and have a book signing without being shouted down?

COX: Well, I mean, I don't know.

KURTZ: You don't care?

COX: I go on either side. I prefer that everyone be sort of civil with each other, but I don't think -- it's not infringing on Karl Rove's right to speak to have someone else interrupt him.

CRAIG CRAWFORD, CQPOLITICS.COM: But, you know, here's the contradiction.

COX: But I want to get back to this. Code Pink was to Fox News, you know, what the Tea Partiers are to MSNBC now. I mean, Code Pink was the group that the Republicans and the GOP and Fox News wanted to have represent the Democratic Party.

Code Pink was to Fox News what the Tea Partiers are to MSNBC now? Really?

According to LexisNexis, since Code Pink's inception in October 2002, in programs transcribed by Fox News (mostly prime time), the anti-war women's group has been mentioned 135 times.

That's roughly thirteen times a year.

Not much, right?

By contrast, in the programs MSNBC transcribes (again mostly prime time), since Tea Parties became popular about a year ago, the movement and/or its members have been referred to in 77 shows. 

As such, it's a rather specious comparison by Cox, and just another one of those "government-run media" attempts to kill Tea Party messengers discussed by Dana Loesch Saturday.

With the recently announced end of Fox's hit series "24," many liberal pundits are parading the show as a false depiction of the notion that "torture works." Contrary to their accusations, the Jack Bauer interrogation methods bear exactly zero resemblance to any actual interrogation techniques used by American military, law enforcement, or intelligence agents.

"On '24,' torture saves lives," the New York Times's Brian Stelter writes, disapprovingly. James Poniewozik, writing on a Time Magazine blog, attributes the show's supposed approval of harsh interrogations to the "conservative politics of co-creator Joel Surnow."

Any American who has serious doubts that our military and intelligence officials would allow interrogators to, say, directly threaten the lives of a terrorist's family (let alone inflict tremendous physical pain) to elicit information has a better grasp of interrogation techniques -- and the integrity of our men and women in uniform -- than most of the liberal media.

The Times writes,

“On some level ‘24’ is just a big ole’ ad for torture,” David Danzig, a deputy program director of Human Rights First, a nonprofit group, wrote in an e-mail message. “Those of us who watch the show a lot — and there are tens of millions of us who do — know exactly what is going to happen as soon as Bauer starts to beat a suspect up. He is going to talk.”

The torture sequences were misleading, Mr. Danzig said, because they contributed to a “pervasive myth” that torture was effective. He recalled that Gary Solis, the former director of West Point’s law of war program, once called “24” “one of the biggest problems” in his classroom.

In an e-mail message this month, Mr. Solis said that when he would preach battlefield restraint in class, a “not infrequent cadet response” would be something to the effect of “Yeah? Well, did you see Jack Bauer last night? He shot a prisoner right in the knee, and that dude talked.”

The cadets knew right from wrong, and the comments were usually made with a grin, Mr. Solis said. Still, “24” presented a conundrum for the law of war professors, some of whom personally enjoyed the show but wished the torture scenes could be toned down if not eliminated altogether.

The Times's implied comparison of Jack Bauer to American interrogators is incorrect and irresponsible. As has been documented by, among others, former Bush administration official Marc Thiessen, the furious, unrestrained, and condemnable techniques used by Keifer Sutherland's fictional agent of the Counter Terrorism Unit bear absolutely no resemblance to actual enhanced interrogation techniques.

Thiessen noted the disconnect in the January 18 edition of National Review, where he also documented some of the more egregious instances of misinformation parroted by the liberal press:

The public view of interrogations had been shaped by the fictional Bauer, who captures a terrorist and proceeds to torture him — holding down his head in a bathtub full of water, using a Taser to shock him, lopping off his fingers with a cigar cutter — while screaming questions until the terrorist finally breaks and gives up the location of the nuclear bomb that is about to go off.

For some critics of U.S. interrogation policy, this is not fiction, but a depiction of reality. In Newsweek, Dahlia Lithwick has written that “high-ranking lawyers in the Bush administration erected an entire torture policy around the fictional edifice of Jack Bauer.” And Philippe Sands, author of the book Torture Team, has written that the show has been the “midwife” for torture’s “actual use on real, living human beings.” None of this is true.

Unlike these critics, I have had the chance to actually meet the real Jack Bauers — the CIA officials who questioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other senior terrorist leaders and got them to reveal their plans for new terrorist attacks. They explained to my why their approach has nothing in common with the methods used by Bauer on the fictional 24.

Read the entire piece, or Thiessen's recent book Courting Disaster, for more detailed accounts of the actual interrogation methods used.

Thankfully, most American media outlets stopped short of their British counterparts in proclaiming American intelligence officials a bunch of Jack Bauers. One writer for the British paper the Independent claimed that "the neocons" had "been itching to get their hands on a bucket of water and a fishy-looking foreigner since about 1987. 24 has simply caught up."

Of course any examination of the actual interrogation methods used demonstrates that there is nothing even remotely similar to Jack Bauer-esque techniques used by the CIA or any other American agency.

But the end of "24" has given the Times and other liberals in the media the chance to repeat once again these false charges.

Seven of the eight Marines charged in the alleged "massacre" of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha in 2005 have been acquitted or had their charges dismissed. Yet the cover of the New York Times's Sunday Book Review is splattered with the charge that Marines at Haditha committed a "crime."

Of all the crimes that sullied the record of the United States military in Iraq -- the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the killings of 24 Iraqi men, women and children by Marines in November 2005 in Haditha -- the murder of an entire Iraqi family in the village of Yusufiya may rank as the most chilling.

That casual smear is the lead sentence of former Newsweek reporter Joshua Hammer's review of Jim Frederick's book about an unrelated incident: "Black Hearts -- One Platoon's Descent Into Madness in Iraq's Triangle of Death."

For months the Times dwelled on the Haditha "massacre," with reporter Paul von Zielbauer filing 36 stories on the eight U.S. Marines accused of killing 24 unarmed Iraqis in Haditha as revenge for the death of a fellow Marine in a roadside bombing. Yet the eventual acquittal of all but one of the Marines has been almost completely ignored by the Times, which has contented itself with unbylined briefs, when the paper covered the acquittals or dismissals at all.

Apparently no one in the Times Book Review section (including Book Review editor and "The Death of Conservative" author Sam Tanenhaus) read those tiny stories, considering the assumption of guilt splashed across the cover of Sunday's Book Review.

Don Imus, for one, is not surprised by Tom Hanks' recent comments calling WWII and the War on Terrorism racist crusades undertaken by the United States.

First brought to his attention by "Imus in the Morning" producer Bernard McGuirk on the show, the remarks were news to the host - just not shocking news.

"Oh darn, what a surprise. We have another panty-wearing liberal dickweed from Hollywood - of course!" Imus told McGuirk.

McGuirk dubbed Hanks "Tehran Tom" for remarks the actor made March 5 on-set of MSNBC to promote "The Pacific," the HBO mini-series he helped produce.

"Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods," Hanks said. "They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

Imus then welcomed Hugh Ambrose, the noted historian and author who served as a consultant for "The Pacific." His take was far different than Hanks'.

Hanks, he said, was correct in one aspect of the comparison. "Certainly al-Qaeda is very different in most respects - I don't want to oversimplify the challenge we face - but in terms of being totally fanatical to the point of suicide, there is a parallel between that and what we faced in Japan. We won once and we're going to win again."

"Tom Hanks made some comments about the motive of American men, of regarding the Japanese. But it really was just a revenge for Pearl Harbor right?" Imus asked Ambrose.

"Certainly it began with revenge. And as I say it changes over time because what you see then is what's happening to the world under Japanese occupation and you realize that ..." Ambrose began. "Certainly racism is a part of it yes and that helps to fuel an anger. But as I've described, it has a deeper cause and one more fundamental."

Ambrose paid tribute to the valor and compassion of the them men that won the war in the Pacific.

"One of the things that make this compelling is that all of this ... we won the peace," Ambrose reminded everyone. "We won the war - the great courage of those men won that war - but the compassion of the United States won the peace. Japan is our great ally and as we face the challenges of the 21st-century, that is the kind of benchmark, that is the kind of leadership that the United States is capable of." 

 

Bloomberg News managed to pen a full obituary of the late Congressman Jack Murtha today, calling him a "Supporter of Troops" in the headline, without once mentioning his incendiary--and unfounded--claims that a group of Marines had murdered 24 Iraqis in cold blood (h/t Washington Examiner's Mark Hemingway).

Murtha, himself a former Marine, said in 2005 after two dozen Iraqis were killed in the city of Haditha, "there was no firefight, there was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Eight Marines were charged in the killings. Charges against six of them have been dropped, one has been found not-guilty, and the case against the remaining Marine is pending. Murtha was unrepentant about the slanderous accusations he leveled against these Marines. He even compared the Haditha incident to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War (see video below the fold).

Below is video of his appearance on "Hardball" shortly after his initial comments, followed by a clip of him dodging questions from an employee of Young America's Foundation (language warning).



Murtha's service to the country both as a Marine and a lawmaker was of course admirable, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the Murtha family for their loss.

But the fact remains that "Supporter of Troops" is a questionable label for the late congressman.

John Murtha, who represented the 12th district of Pennsylvania for 35 years, died Monday. David Stout's obituary in Tuesday's edition of the New York Times, "Representative John P. Murtha Dies at 77; Ex-Marine Was Iraq War Critic," focused on Murtha's influential anti-war turn and "history of hawkishness," but omitted Murtha's smear of the military -- his preemptory claim that Marines in the town of Haditha, Iraq had killed women and children ''in cold blood'' in a November 2005 incident. Of the eight Marines accused, only one still faces possible charges -- the rest were either acquitted or had the charges dropped.

Stout hit the sordid highlights of Murtha's legislative career, including the Abscam scandal, which he survived by the skin of his teeth, turning down money from an undercover FBI agent posing as a sheikh but said would be willing to talk about it later. Stout called it an "awkward moment." But Stout made Murtha's anti-Iraq war position a running theme of the obituary, while not once bringing up Murtha's smear of the Marines at Haditha.

Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a gruff ex-Marine who used his immense power in military spending to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to his hard-luck district and who became an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, died on Monday. He was 77.

He died at the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, where he was being treated for complications of gallbladder surgery, his office said. Mr. Murtha's death came two days after he became the longest-serving congressman in Pennsylvania history, his office said, surpassing the record of Joseph M. McDade, a Scranton Republican who served from 1963 to 1999.

Elected in 1974 and the first Vietnam combat veteran to serve in Congress, Mr. Murtha voted in 2002 to authorize use of military force in Iraq. But he evolved into a leading foe of the war as it was conducted under the administration of President George W. Bush.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised," Mr. Murtha said in November 2005 as he demanded an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He called the Iraq campaign "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

Mr. Murtha's long involvement in Pentagon issues and his history of hawkishness made the criticism all the more influential.

The Times, along with the rest of the media, made an enormous deal out of Murtha's alleged "turnabout" on Iraq, a story that led the November 18, 2005 Times.

Problem was, it was old news: Murtha had been criticizing the war long before November 2005, as captured by the Times itself in the September 17, 2003 edition, which quoted Murtha calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. Reporter David Firestone summarized: "Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Vietnam veteran, said that he had been misled into voting for the war by incorrect information from top administration officials and that the president had also been misled."

Stout implicitly chided Murtha for funneling federal money into his district through earmarks before returning to Murtha's war criticism, insisting the congressman was patriotic but leaving off a vital incident in which Murtha in May 2006 accused a group of Marines had murdered Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in the town of Haditha: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

When he drew fire from the political right for his shift on Iraq, Mr. Murtha said his criticism of the war in no way lessened his support for the Americans fighting in it.

"I don't take a back seat to anybody for my service to my country," Mr. Murtha said in a recent, profanity-spiced interview with his local newspaper, The Tribune-Democrat. But he said the killing of Iraqi civilians, even if accidental, and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners had undermined American efforts.

The Washington Post updated their own Murtha obituary when my MRC colleague Ken Shepherd called them out on the omission. Here's the Post's addition:

In 2006, he accused Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" at Haditha, after one Marine died and two were wounded by a roadside bomb. Critics said he unfairly held the Marines responsible before an investigation was finished. Eight Marines were originally charged with murder or failing to properly report or investigate the killings. Charges against six were dropped, and one was acquitted. A court martial for sole remaining defendant has not yet scheduled.

David Rogers glossed over the late Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-Pa.) Haditha Marines smear in an obituary published yesterday and updated this morning at Politico:

Rather than lie low, Murtha further made himself a target with public comments in the spring of 2006 pressuring the Marine command to investigate allegations of civilian casualties at Haditha, Iraq. This infuriated many Marines, and critics argued that the congressman had become more partisan himself out of loyalty to Pelosi.

But Murtha went beyond pressing for a formal military investigation, which is a legitimate call any congressman could and should make after an incident like Haditha. The former Marine practically declared the Marines at Haditha guilty by saying they have killed "in cold blood." 

Yet Murtha's baseless smear is not substantiated by the facts. As the Washington Post noted yesterday in an update to its obituary on Murtha:

Eight Marines were originally charged with murder or failing to properly report or investigate the killings. Charges against six were dropped, and one was acquitted. A court martial for sole remaining defendant has not yet scheduled. 

Updated: Washington Post adds mention about Murtha's Haditha comments, thanks me for me pointing out omission (see bottom of post).

Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) passed away earlier today, and the Washington Post has already published a 26-paragraph obituary.

Post staffers Martin Weil and Carol Leonnig don't gloss over some of Murtha's political controversies, such as his penchant as a pork barrel appropriator and his role in the Abscam scandal.

Yet oddly enough, Murtha's most profoundly jarring political scandal -- his insulting and untrue smear of U.S. Marines at Haditha as cold-blooded killers -- went unmentioned.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press, for its part, noted the controversy...:

Murtha's criticism of the Iraq war intensified in 2006, when he accused Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" at Haditha, after one Marine died and two were wounded by a roadside bomb.

Critics said Murtha unfairly held the Marines responsible before an investigation was concluded and fueled enemy retaliation. He said that the war couldn't be won militarily and that such incidents dimmed the prospect for a political solution.

...although it failed to mention that the Marine officers charged with a coverup of the supposed massacre have been acquitted.

Update (19:15 EST): The Post tweeted the following from their @PostPolitics account about two hours ago thanking me for noting the omission:

Good point, Ken; thanks for the heads-up. Obit is updated to include mention of "in cold blood" remark. http://ow.ly/15e7M

Below is the paragraph the Post added:

In 2006, he accused Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" at Haditha, after one Marine died and two were wounded by a roadside bomb. Critics said he unfairly held the Marines responsible before an investigation was finished. Eight Marines were originally charged with murder or failing to properly report or investigate the killings. Charges against six were dropped, and one was acquitted. A court martial for sole remaining defendant has not yet scheduled. 

It ain't easy being a laid-off hack leftist cartoonist with a penchant for slandering 9/11 widows and equating U.S. soldiers with suicide bombers. But Ted Rall got a big break on Friday when he got a chance to do a fundraising pitch for his planned trip to Afghanistan as an "unembedded" journalist.

On his January 29 program, MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan introduced Rall as "an award-winning cartoonist who caught our eye with cartoons like this one showing some Wall Street types chatting about President Obama's bank tax."

But Ratigan must be ignorant of or apathetic regarding Rall's penchant for soldier-smearing left-wing screeds. After all, he all but personally endorsed Rall's fundraising pitch (audio available here):

RATIGAN: You're also a writer and a journalist who's reported from places like Afghanistan. Newspapers and magazines no longer put much money up for this type of work, so you're now using public donations to finance your journalism? How does that work?

RALL: Well, there's a Web site called kickstarter.com that I've been using to ask for donations, pledges, to help send me back to Afghanistan this summer, to do some independent, unembedded journalism of the kind that I think is sorely missing, especially since so many magazines, as you said, just don't have the money anymore. 

RATIGAN: Alright, kickstarter.com.  Ted, a pleasure, thank you so much.

Less than two months after receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, the President is proposing a huge increase in war spending.

Despite his campaign pledges to the contrary, Obama's new budget calls for expenditures associated with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to increase to levels only ten percent below the average of former President George W. Bush's last two years in office.

Given the media's anti-war predilections, it's going to be fascinating to see how the following numbers revealed by Politico a few hours ago will be reported in the coming days:

President Barack Obama's new budget, to be released Monday, forecasts two consecutive years of near $160 billion in war funding, far more than he hoped when elected and only modestly less than the last years of the Bush Administration.

In 2011 alone, the revised numbers are triple what the president included in his spending plan a year ago. [...]

The president's 2010 defense budget a year ago requested $130 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and just $50 billion in 2011. The new budget ramps up 2010 spending to $163 billion and for 2011 requests $159 billion in overseas contingency funds for the military.

This reverses the drop in war-related spending seen in fiscal 2009, which ended last Sept 30th and was a transition year of sorts between the two administrations. When compared to the peak war spending of the Bush years, Obama is only about 10% below Bush's annual average of $176 billion in fiscal years 2007 and 2008-the time of the Iraq war surge.

This budget proposal comes just five days after Obama blamed current and future budget deficits on his predecessor "not paying for two wars."

With this in mind, and given how the media loved to ridicule Bush for what they felt was unnecessary military spending, it's going to be fascinating to see how they react to Monday's announcement.

Stay tuned. 

On Thursday’s The O’Reilly Factor, FNC host Bill O’Reilly used the show’s regular "Reality Check" segment to highlight comments made by Hearst columnist Helen Thomas in which she questioned whether terrorists really should be called "terrorists," and seemed to express a view of moral equivalence between the United States and the terrorists with which America is at war.

When asked in an interview with Mediaite what her point was in repeatedly asking Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan at a January 7 press conference why al-Qaeda terrorists are trying to kill Americans, as if to suggest that such behavior was provoked by wrongdoing by the U.S., Thomas responded:

I was trying to find out why, why, what’s, look, we’ve been in this war, eight, nine years, against this so-called terrorism. And I do say "so-called" because in the newspapers, if you read, you read about the militants, you don’t read about us bombing everybody, and never really explaining why, and going into three, four different countries, Middle East, Africa, and so forth. Who are we? And why are we doing this?

On Monday’s The O’Reilly Factor, the FNC host had previously highlighted Thomas’s bizarre exchange with Brennan from January 7:

HELEN THOMAS: What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm.

JOHN BRENNAN, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has perverted Islam and has corrupted the concept of Islam.

THOMAS: And you're saying it’s because of religion?

BRENNAN: I'm saying it's because of an al-Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.

THOMAS: Why?

BRENNAN: This is a long issue, but al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

THOMAS: But you haven’t explained why.

Below are transcripts of the relevant portions of FNC's The O'Reilly Factor from the Thursday, January 14, show, followed by the Monday, January 11, show:

#From January 14:

BILL O’REILLY: "Check" three, our pal Helen Thomas was asked by the Web site, Mediaite, about her hectoring of Obama terrorism guy, John Brennan.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN CLIP: You asked John Brennan about, you said, "Why are they trying to attack us?" A lot of our readers had questions about that, were critical. What were you trying to get at with that question?

HELEN THOMAS CLIP: I was trying to find out why, why, what’s, look, we’ve been in this war, eight, nine years, against this so-called terrorism. And I do say "so-called" because in the newspapers, if you read, you read about the militants, you don’t read about us bombing everybody, and never really explaining why, and going into three, four different countries, Middle East, Africa, and so forth. Who are we? And why are we doing this?

O’REILLY: Once again, "Check" will try. Helen, there are bad people who want to kill you. They lived in Afghanistan before 9/11, which is why the USA went in there. Saddam was also a very bad man. He killed hundreds of thousands of people, and defied the United Nations on weapons inspections. So we took’em out. Now, you may disagree with those policies, but you should understand them. I hope.

#From January 11:

BILL O'REILLY: "Check" six, 89-year-old Helen Thomas still working full-time at the White House and still very curious about al-Qaeda.

HELEN THOMAS: What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm.

JOHN BRENNAN, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has perverted Islam and has corrupted the concept of Islam.

THOMAS: And you're saying it’s because of religion?

BRENNAN: I'm saying it's because of an al-Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.

THOMAS: Why?

BRENNAN: This is a long issue, but al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

THOMAS: But you haven’t explained why.

O'REILLY: Okay, Helen, here's why, all right? Here it is. These people are haters. They are like the Nazis. Remember the Nazis? Heard about them on NPR. They hate Jews, Americans, infidels of all kinds. There is no reasoning behind it, Helen, none. "Check" hopes that is settled once and for all.

The media has frequently made the deplorable decision to present prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as innocent choir boys, wrapped up in the evil that is a U.S. prison system run by blood thirsty prison guards. Such is the case of a recent piece by the BBC, covering a love-fest reunion between the former Guantanamo guard who has seen the light, repenting for his evil ways, and two ex-inmates whose only goal in Afghanistan back in 2001 was to provide aid work, sight see, and smoke dope.

The BBC interview with the three individuals - former prison guard Brandon Neely and former inmates Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul - asks the question: "But what were the pair doing in Afghanistan in 2001?"

Ahmed's response goes unquestioned (emphasis mine throughout):

Mr Ahmed admits they had a secret agenda for entering Afghanistan, but it wasn't to join al-Qaeda.

"Aid work was like probably 5% of it. Our main reason was just to go and sightsee really and smoke some dope".

Indeed, a true to life Harold and Kumar.

But what were the benevolent ones, Ahmed and Rasul, really doing at the time that the BBC would rather whitewash in their reporting?

In a television program known as Lie Lab, in which programmers (who had already presupposed the two were telling the truth) used newly developed MRI techniques to see if their subjects were honest, a column in The Guardian notes the following about Ruhal Ahmed's appearance:

"...when confronted with results that suggested he was less than forthcoming with the truth, Ahmed confessed (Rasul had refused to go through with the test) not only to visiting an Islamist training camp but also handling weapons and learning how to use an AK-47."

Individuals with less than nefarious aspirations tend to shy away from jihadist camps and assault rifles. Yet, the BBC report fails to mention this in any capacity. In fact, they simply take the word of Neely who believes in his former captives wholeheartedly:

Does their former prison guard believe them? Yes, says Mr. Neely, who says he thinks it was a case of "wrong place, wrong time".

Case closed. The reasoning behind Neely's compassion towards Ahmed and Rasul is noble in and of itself:

"It was no different from me sitting at the bar with a friend of mine talking about women or music," says Mr. Neely. "He would say, 'you ever listen to Eminem or Dr Dre' and he threw off a little rap and it was just funny. I thought how could it be somebody is here who's doing the same stuff that I do when I'm back home."

It would seem that Mr. Neely's assessment eclipses that of the U.S. government because, well, terrorists simply don't listen to Eminem or Dr. Dre.

Brandon Neely is a controversial figure himself. He is a former member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), which is a clear indication of his leftist stance on the War on Terrorism. Additionally, the IVAW has had some other questionable members in its ranks, most of which are simply embellishing their role in the military to a drastic degree.

However, they have also had some domestic terrorists in their own ranks, including a wannabe bomber of the Gathering of Eagles, and another who made assassination threats against conservative author Michelle Malkin.

Neely on the other hand, falls into another category all together - army veteran who refuses a subsequent call to serve his country. Not only did Neely get away with his scheme to avoid his duty to country, he also advises others to follow his path, as author Andy Worthington recalls:

The Army attempted to recall Brandon from his Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) status to active duty in May 2007, but this is his explanation of what happened next: "I ignored all letters to my house. I refused to sign for anything at the house and refused to pick up mail at the post office. I was sent threatening letters and emails stating that my discharge would be changed if I did not respond. Well, I never responded and on June 23rd 2008 I received my honorable discharge from IRR in the mail. My advice would be: if you are recalled just ignore it, they never once came to my house or job."

Meanwhile, the tactic used by the BBC to treat Guantanamo prisoners as paperboys caught up in the militant American occupation is nothing new for an organization that feels compelled to place the word 'terrorists' in quotation marks, as if to express alarm that anyone could be identified as such.

In a report covering the release of five Guantanamo Bay Britons in 2004, the BBC again fails to mention a word about the reason the two were detained, instead focusing on Rasul's love of soccer, fashion, clubbing, and describing Ahmed as 'a very friendly boy' who was a keen kick-boxer.

Which begs the question, if feet are your weapons of choice, why the AK-47?

Photo Credit: BBC

Sometimes being such fans of President Obama makes liberal media types tie themselves into knots.  As I documented earlier today, the New York Times went to great lengths to insist America's rising debt is not the administration's fault.

MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann decided to try his hand at the absurd apologetics Tuesday by concocting a wild vision of intelligence officials who care nothing about the country's safety, and only about their bureaucratic "turf."

According to Olbermann, this quasi-conspiracy theory is a possible explanation for how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was able to board a plane bound for Detroit. (video and transcript below the fold - h/t Hot Air's Allahpundit).

OLBERMANN: ...are people thought to have been deliberately withholding information so that the dots could not be connected?

WOLFF: The question is, was this information that was shared -- remember, there was some sharing of information but it involves the father of this in the end terrorist who walks in to see the CIA officials in a foreign embassy. This is an american embassy in a foreign country. You know, that information, was it shared fully? Why wasn't it shared fully? The question there is, again, cork up or conspiracy? Was there a reason these agencies were at war with each other that prevented that intelligence from being shared?

OLBERMANN: Is the implication there that there is at least a possibility somebody understood how serious this could be and yet withheld information to make some other part of the counterterrorism system look bad?

WOLFF: That has got to be an area that the white house is looking into and, you know, motives can be hard to assess because it's not clear that this person was easily identified as a terrorist, even with the father coming forward saying they had concerns. Was that more of a family concern or were there enough fingerprints here about the radicalization of this individual to suggest that it should have been taken to a different level? At the very least, a security level beyond more than a nominal sharing of information. That's where this inquiry is, this internal inquiry for the moment, has to go.

OLBERMANN: Well, certainly, not to get too far ahead of what the information the white house doesn't have and presumably thus you don't have and certainly I don't have, but that seems to be what you're describing at least in theory is a far greater threat than a guy with explosives on an airplane whether or not he succeeds in blowing them up.

WOLFF: Well, it's the most important line of defense. I don't know that it's a threat in itself but you can defend every airport as much as you like. In the end the most efficient, safest borderline for security has got to be human intelligence. There seems to have been plenty of human intelligence in this case.

It seems that in an effort to shield the Obama administration from criticism--most notably his Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has been under pressure to resign after she initially (and puzzlingly) insisted that security measures worked as designed. Olbermann and Wolff attempt to divert the blame from security officials to intelligence officials.

This is hardly the first hint at conspiracy theory Olbermann has uttered on air. He came very close to suggesting that the Bush administration was complicit in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He seems quite willing to use attacks (successful and unsuccessful) on the United States for political purposes--to shield those who share his views and attack those who do not.

Following in comedian Jon Stewart's footsteps, Al Gore's Current TV mocked President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize ceremony Friday.

In a "SuperNews" segment, animator Josh Faure-Brac showed Nobel Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland getting uncomfortable with the idea of giving the President a peace prize while he's sending 30,000 more troops to war.

Frustrated by the exchange, Obama turned the tables on Jagland asking him to solve the problem in Afghanistan.

After fumbling for an answer, Jagland marvelously said, "Maybe if we found a charismatic leader who had the entire planet shouting, 'Hope' and 'Yes we can,' maybe then we would be in a position to change things. But where we going to find a guy like that?"  

This angered Obama, who said, "I am not the Messiah," and eventually grabbed his prize storming off the stage claiming, "I got s**t to do" (video embedded below the fold, h/t Story Balloon; pay particular attention to the changing chyrons in the bottom left of the screen):

In the end, much like Stewart's marvelous segment Thursday, Current was attacking Obama from the left.

When Jagland did his "charismatic leader" bit, the chyron read, "Thorbjorn Flips It: Wants 'Campaign Obama' back." 

Isn't that what most media members want? 

Which is what makes this kind of satire safe: folks can poke fun at Obama by saying he's not liberal enough, and that makes it okey dokey -- especially if you include a poke at the previous administration, i.e. "That feels very Bushy to me, you know, like Bush." 

Yeah...I know.

The coverage yesterday by the Associated Press's Stephen Bernard of payroll and human resources giant ADP's monthly jobs report for November focused on a relatively small reduction in the size of the decline in jobs lost and not on the fact that continuing to lose jobs is a bad thing.

That rhetorical sleight of hand enabled the AP reporter to tell us that ADP's reported private sector job loss during the month of 169,000 -- down from 203,000 in October -- was actually good news, because even though it was a decline in the number of people working, the decline of the decline "was not as much as forecast." The forecast was for 160,000 jobs lost.

Readers of a previous version of this post will note that I allowed myself to believe that Bernard had erred when he did not. I apologize for not getting that right. And here I thought I would make it through the whole year without a mistake. :--> 

What follows is a graphic of the first few paragraphs of Bernard's report:

Having disposed of that confusion, let's move on to the incredible bar-lowering in the final excerpted paragraph. Since when is "stabilization in cuts" part of what "is considered vital to a strong economic recovery"? Since when is "stabilization in cuts" part of a recovery at all? If the cuts "stabilize" at 150,000 - 200,000 a month, will we really be "recovering"? That would be roughly 2 million jobs lost per year, and we still supposedly be in the process of a "recovery." I suppose they could "stabilize" at a higher number and still be okay by Bernard's definition.

Bernard's bobble could be excused as an isolated incident if other similar mistakes weren't so rampant in other AP business reports. But they are. Just off the top of the head, their journalists think that:

• The national debt is the sum of Uncle Sam's reported annual deficits. We should be so lucky, but that's not the case.
• That the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were major contributors to the $962 billion increase in the reported fiscal 2009 deficit vs. fiscal 2008. As seen here (go to Page 2 at link), the entire Defense Department's year-over-year spending increase of $42 billion was less than 5% of that total, so the wars themselves couldn't possibly have been a major factor in the overall year-over-year increase.
• Seasonally adjusted job losses, which is what the government reports each month, represent real jobs lost in the real world. They don't. For example, job gains on the ground in October (subject to adjustment tomorrow) were 641,000:
  

  

  But because the reported on-the-ground gain was less than the gains in most previous years (the 2004-2007 average gain was a bit under 800,000), that led to a reported seasonally adjusted job loss of 190,000.

This level of ignorant and biased reporting from AP is why people are proactively seeking alternatives. As they should.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Charlie Daniels, the legendary country and rock musician, is NB's newest blogger.

Considering the condition of most of the media in this country, I can't say I'm surprised at their reaction to the murder of 13 and wounding of 30 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

They are trying to blame Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan's terrorist act on the stress of being in the Army and harassment by other soldiers because of his religion. In other words, trying to blame it on anything besides what it is. The fact is that he is a radical Muslim who hates the United States of America and wants to destroy it.

Hasan had never been to war anywhere, so that dog won't hunt. He was a major, and if he was under such heavy persecution why didn't he simply resign his commission?

People are going to say that the Army knew about his disapproval of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his radical Muslim beliefs, so why didn't they simply put him out of the Army?

The answer to that is simple; it's the accursed policies of political correctness. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Army had gotten rid of an officer because he was a Muslim? It would have been the biggest news story in the country. The justice department under Eric Holder would have ruined the careers of anybody who would have been a part of it.

So let's forget all the Dr. Phil B.S. about stress and strain and persecution and all the rest and lets look at the facts.

No matter how the media tries to spin it, no matter how many times the president tells us not to jump to conclusions, no matter how many psychiatrists and psychologists they bring on board, the fact remains.

Hasan is a radical Muslim.

According to a classmate, Hasan viewed the War on Terror as a war against Islam. One of the strongest clues to Hasan's mindset, prior to his rampage, was a post he made on a message board. On it, he tried to compare Islamic suicide bombers with heroic soldiers who would willingly jump on a grenade to save the lives of their fellow soldiers, implying that by blowing up themselves and their enemies, they were saving the lives of fellow Muslims. The thought of going to Afghanistan where he would be surrounded by soldiers who were killing Islamic terrorists was probably more than he could take.

Hasan hated America's War on Terror policies, and reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar" -which means "God is great" in Arabic- before he deliberately murdered and maimed 43 innocent Americans. He is a terrorist, plain and simple and there is no other was to define it.

I know that all Muslims are not terrorists. I have met some who seemed like fine people. However, radical Islam represents the biggest threat to the United States of America from without and within and if the Muslims of America truly care for this nation they need to start making a lot more noise than they have been.

If Islam is truly a peaceful or even a humane religion, this act should be totally condemned in all of the mosques of this nation. Instead of preaching jihad, the Mullahs should be steadfastly convincing their young people that what Hasan did is nothing more than murder.

On the other hand, it is up to the president and the powers that be to deal with this incident as what it is, an act of domestic terror.

And if anything should make Obama refute his order to close Guantanamo Bay, this should be what does it. Can you imagine bringing Islamic terrorists to the American mainland and putting them on trial knowing there are people out there who would be willing to murder the judge, jury and prosecutor before, during or after the trial?

I know Obama is supposed to be a smart man, but it is downright stupidity to even consider bringing these murderers to American soil and trying them in an American courtroom. They were captured on the field of battle and should be treated as military combatants and spies, falling under the auspices of a military tribunal.

If the prisoners at Gitmo are tried in America, the defense lawyers can demand and obtain the secret documents of the CIA and military intelligence exposing the names of our operatives and rendering them useless as well as placing them in danger of Islamic vengeance.

How many more Hasans are out there waiting to explode? How many deep cover crazies are in our society living as ordinary citizens and waiting for the time when they are activated to walk into the streets of America and shoot down our families.

How is the Obama administration going to deal with this? I know how they'd treat it if one of our soldiers went berserk in the marketplace in Bagdad and shot down 43 people.

This situation needs immediate and decisive action right now, not tomorrow, and to tell you the truth I don't believe that Obama has the guts to deal with it.

Only time will tell.

My prayers and condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood, and the ones who were wounded.

There's something about these big events that cause MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews to go off script and say something seemingly ridiculous.

Matthews has publicly admitted President Barack Obama has given him a thrill up his leg after a campaign speech in Feb. 2008, and uttered "oh God," earlier this year after an Obama address to Congress, prior to the Republican response from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal earlier this year. And on Dec. 1, he referred to West Point as "the enemy camp" in coverage following a speech from Obama announcing his intentions to increase troops in Afghanistan. And, later that night - Matthews took a shot at former Vice President Dick Cheney (emphasis added).

"The president said tonight that we're fighting in Afghanistan because al Qaeda is in Pakistan," Matthews said. "Is that what this is all about? Is that why we're fighting and some are dying in Afghanistan? To deliver the message to the government over in Pakistan to fight harder against al Qaeda. It sounds more Rube Goldberg than ‘Remember the Alamo.' Also try tonight to workout whether the president's goals in Afghanistan are achievable. Are they? And of course, there's always Dick Cheney who jumped it from under his bridge to bite the president's ankle even before he made the speech tonight."

Later in the broadcast, in a segment with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, Matthews backtracked on the claim he made earlier in the evening - the West Point was the "enemy camp" (emphasis added).

"He went up there to West Point, okay, and maybe earlier tonight I used the wrong phrase, ‘enemy camp,' but the fact of the matter is that he went up there to a place that's obviously military. People in the voluntary army that - and you have officers up there, people who have been tough," Matthews said. "McChrystal, Petraeus identified with the Bush strategy, much tougher, more hawkish. He went up there, it was almost like he telegraphed the fact that he was going to, what, change sides on the issue of dove versus hawk."

Either MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews let one slip tonight, or it was an extremely poor choice of words.

Following President Barack Obama's Dec. 1 speech, which he announced his intentions for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, MSNBC followed with wrap-up coverage of his speech with arguably three of their most prominent on-air personalities - "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann, "The Rachel Maddow Show" host Rachel Maddow and Matthews.

Matthews referred to a scene from "Gone with the Wind" about the American Civil War as an example of "excitement" going into a war. He said that was lacking in the room during Obama's speech.

"I think it's true of most wars," Matthews said. "They start with a lot of excitement. I remember the scene in ‘Gone with the Wind' where the rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can't beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage. They are going to lose that war eventually."

However, Matthews also said he saw a lot of skepticism among some of the older audience members at West Point, which he called "the enemy camp" and "a strange venue." (emphasis added)

"It seems like in this case, there isn't a lot of excitement," Matthews said. "I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."

Writing for Newsweek magazine’s feature on the top ten “startling scoops” of the past ten years, ex-CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather identified the most shocking: “Abu Ghraib has opened our eyes, serving as a dark icon that reminds us our fiercest enemies – hubris, cruelty, and ignorance – wage war from within.”

Rather went on to proclaim that the prisoner abuse scandal “is still the subject of debate and the source of despair, a shadowy gateway to learning how these wrong-headed practices became American policy.”

Early in the brief article, Rather claimed: “Many don’t know that the story aired in the wake of debate and delay. At the time, there were deep fears that all of us would face a blast furnace of criticism for taking on the administration, ‘undermining the troops,’ and possibly exposing our soldiers to fresh anger from the Muslim world.” Rather certainly was not concerned with going after the Bush administration with fraudulent documents later that same year.

Rather defended the decision to break the story by arguing: “It was only the American public that was in the dark, never consulted or considered when these policies were approved. Back then, we all needed awakening to what was being done in our names.”  He then alleged more widespread abuses by the U.S. military: “A couple of years earlier, when our team was in Afghanistan, we had heard whispers of abuse underway at Baghram Airport, where Americans were in charge of an unknown number of prisoners. We flat out didn’t believe it. Now we know better.”

The budget for "Brothers," per director Jim Sheridan, is $25 million, which probably doesn’t include marketing for promotion and … well, tell me again how Hollywood is driven by profit and not ideology? We’re a month away from 2010 so it’s hard to argue “Brothers” went into production before everyone was well aware that every single war film flopped miserably.

But who does the snob Sheridan choose to blame in advance should his war-themed film flop? Not his own bonehead decision to jump into a genre with a 100% failure rate, not the investors who dove in with him … no, he blames We The American People: 

Midway through a conversation with director Jim Sheridan about his latest film, “Brothers,” he abruptly asks, “Do you think anybody will go see this movie?”

I say what I think he wants to hear – that a cast led by Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal is sure to draw people. But we both know that movies that so much as touch on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be tough sells. …

“I think the American people just don’t think there is a war on, so why should they have to go to a movie about something that doesn’t exist? Their state of denial is hard to overcome,” Sheridan said.

Unbelievable.

The Leftist Hollywood Playbook:

1. Make movie no one wants to see.
2. Insult audience prior to flop.
3. Blame audience after flop.
4. Receive ”brave” tag by fawning entertainment media.
5. Position on Hollywood cocktail party circuit remains firmly in place.

But as is always the case with a Hollywoodist, you can take Sheridan at his word and still come to the same conclusion: If you’re a director who wants to make a profit – a film people will want to see — and you believe Americans are in denial over the war — why spend $25 million on a war-themed film?

Predicting what will hit and miss at the box office is a fool’s game. Maybe “Brothers” will be the genre’s outlier, who knows. But how tired and played does this description from the original Danish version of “Brothers” sound:

Then Michael comes home with a full-blown case of post-traumatic stress disorder…

The trailer tells the rest of the story.

Am I the only one who eagerly awaits the $25 million film — a serious drama like “Brothers” – where the screwed-up brother returns from a tour of duty transformed into a responsible, resourceful and mature man ready to take his place in the world? That would not only be an inspiring and more accurate story worthy of the brave men and women who serve our country … it would finally be a fresh idea from an industry drowning in their own leftist cliches.

Originally published on November 30, 2009, at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog, where Nolte serves as editor-in-chief.

Photo above of "Brothers" director Jim Sheridan, taken by Lorey Sebastian for the San Francisco Chronicle. 

It's a night and day difference between the media's scrutiny of former President George W. Bush and the current command-in-chief, President Barack Obama. And the coverage of three Navy SEALs now facing a court martial that captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, who allegedly was the mastermind of the murder of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004, is proof.

John Scott, host of "Fox News Watch" noted this story on the show's Nov. 28 episode and asked why there hasn't been more coverage about it.

"Pretty outrageous story came out, in my view, this week," Scott said. "These three Navy SEALs who were involved in capturing one of the most wanted bad guys in Iraq - the guy supposedly responsible for planning the execution of those four Blackwater contractors. The SEALs are now facing charges because the guy somehow wound up with a bloody lip. Is the media paying attention?"

Syndicated columnist and "Fox News Watch" regular Cal Thomas said there was a distinction between this and the coverage of the 2004 accounts of torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The difference he said was the ruling party in Washington, D.C.

"You know, it's an interesting contrast here with Abu Ghraib," Thomas said. "That's when George W. Bush was president and Republicans were pretty much running things in Washington. ‘This was a horrible violation of human rights. People should be brought up on charges. We put the pictures all over the place.'"

And he was right - Bush was repeatedly condemned in the media for Abu Ghraib. However, the scrutiny of the Obama administration's handling of these Navy SEALs has been lacking.

"Now you got a couple of Navy SEALs who allegedly give a bloody lip to one of these scumbags and where's the outrage?" Thomas continued. "You're only seeing into on Fox and on the New York Post. I haven't discovered it anywhere else."

(The following is satire -- I hope)

Forget Ford Hood and investigating the so-called "terror" connections of Nidal Hasan.

Yours truly has come across something the current crowd running our government might see as even more sinister. The Obama administration, the FBI, the Justice Department, and, most importantly, the White House's speech police simply have to get on this right away.

You see, General David Petraeus visited the Air Force Academy last week and may have uttered a word once thought to have been stricken from all speeches and discussions relating to military matters.

The word is .... v-v-v-v-vi .... well, I'd better let Tom Roeder of the Colorado Springs Gazette take it from here (bold is mine) in his November 5 report on Petraeus's appearance:

Petraeus tells cadets military will follow Obama's commands

Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Forces throughout the Middle East, said he’s continuing talks with the White House about strategy in Afghanistan, but in the end will do whatever he’s told.

Petraeus spoke to hundreds of cadets at the Air Force Academy on Thursday, telling them his secrets to leadership. He addressed Afghanistan when one cadet asked him how he would handle a disagreement with President Barack Obama on strategy there.

“We will support the decision that is made by the president,” said Petraeus, who heads U.S. Central Command.

The general signaled that any change is more about how troops are used rather than how many are sent to battle. He addressed his strategy in Iraq during the 2007 “surge” that sent troops into cities to enforce security, clearing out insurgents ahead of rebuilding work.

“The surge was more than 30,000 extra troops,” he said. “It was a surge of ideas.”

He cited the Iraq changes, including pushing soldiers into neighborhoods, as a key to victory in Iraq. That’s starting to happen in Afghanistan, as soldiers pull out of remote areas to concentrate on securing cities and towns.

I realize that the word "victory" in Roeder's last excerpted paragraph is not in a direct quote. If it was, there would be no need for an investigation. Petraeus would be taken directly to the woodshed and told in no uncertain terms that no one in the government, civilian or military, can ever again utter that despicable seven-letter word in connection with military matters again.

But since that terrible word is not in quotes, the administration needs to find the transcript, seize all audio, video and other evidence, interrogate the General and Mr. Roeder, and get to the bottom of this right now.

If General Petraeus lapsed into pre-Obama language, he must be disciplined, and be told in no uncertain terms to improve on his own personal discipline. After all, the President visited the Faw Palace at Camp Victory in Iraq back on April 7. The transcript of that speech reveals that he was able to avoid uttering that awful word. We would expect no less from the General.

That same day, administration spokesman Robert Gibbs, at the end of the Press Gaggle at the Faw Palace, accidentally mentioned "Camp Victory." His rear end is still red over that slip-up.

If the administration learns that Roeder used the term on his own, the matter will be turned over the American Society of Professional Journalists for further action relating to what would be self-evident Code of Ethics violations.

(end satire)

Victory Davis Hanson at FrontPage comments on the administration's aversion to the word that describes what has really taken place in Iraq:

.... (This administration's) moral equivalence is little concerned with any redress of pathologies that in fact led to 9/11: Western appeasement of, or indifference to, radical Islam, whose extremism was the natural dividend of a region torn by enormous oil wealth, and age old statism, tribalism, gender intolerance, and dictatorship. In the era of Obama, radical Islam and the West merely have different narratives, rather than a fascistic creed trying to destroy the notion of Western freedom and tolerance.

Abroad as both sides refocus on the Afghanistan theater, somehow Obama is more demoralized by our victory in Iraq than the Islamists are by their defeat; and we have forgotten in the Bush ‘reset’ button rhetoric that support for bin Laden and suicide bombing–given the terrible dividends they earned–had plummeted in polls in the Middle East. In addition, in the “Bush did it” Obama narrative there was no mention of the arrest of Dr. Khan, the Syrian exit from Lebanon, the surrender of the Libyan WMD stockpiles, or the absence of another 9/11.

The result is that many in the radical Islamic world–especially after Obama’s serial trashing of the Bush-era security protocols like retaps, intercepts, and Guantanamo– may well be emboldened to think that either America questions its successful efforts at thwarting another attack since 9/11, or in some strange way sympathizes with some of the writs against itself.

The Obama administration apparently doesn't need to worry about whether its establishment media apparatchiks will slip and use the dreaded word -- at least without qualifiers, sarcasm, or derision. In a Google News Archive search on [military "victory in Iraq"] (typed as indicated between brackets) returning 188 items, I didn't see a single establishment media result that actually declared the situation in Iraq as what it is and has been for a year -- a military victory.

Despite media avoidance and administration reluctance, to paraphrase Reagan before he and others toppled the Soviet Union: We won; they lost.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer offered commentary on the cause of the mass shooting at Fort Hood: “That doctor [Major Nidal Hasan] should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals....sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.”

Schieffer went on to argue: “And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.” In similar fashion, Schieffer “shuffled off” the responsibility of an overly politically correct media that continually denounces profiling of criminal suspects or terrorists.

Earlier in the broadcast, Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton: “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?”

Speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, Schieffer referred to Hasan’s Islamic extremism, but countered: “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:55AM

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, the President has asked the nation not to jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, which is usually good advice, but it’s also what government officials generally say when the government fouls up.

Good advice or not, I am jumping to an obvious conclusion. This should not have happened. That doctor should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals. A government psychiatrist with bad performance ratings who has been trying to get out of the Army and who had been saying what Dr. Hasan had been saying about the war on terrorism should not have been shipped off to Fort Hood to give grief counseling.

What do you suppose he was telling the soldiers? That after what they had done, they ought to feel bad?

Certainly no officer with his record would have been allowed to lead soldiers into combat. But sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.

And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.

Investigators confirm now that someone by his name had been posting messages on the Internet about how suicide bombers are as heroic as American soldiers who fall on grenades to save their comrades. But the investigators say it is not clear if Dr. Hasan actually wrote those messages. Based on what we found out so far, my question is, do you suppose anyone has even asked him?