"Let us now praise Barack Obama … Obama didn’t say we persist and we persevere [in Afghanistan] – but only until July 2011. Indeed, Obama never mentioned that date, and he never mentioned withdrawal,"- Bill Kristol.
Yes, neoconservatism is alive and well … and enabled by Barack Obama in Afghanistan.
I missed this – and it was in Frank Rich's column – but Politico removed an accidental revelation of truth from its website after the Dish noticed it. They claim there is nothing to the editing, but a tightening of the piece. The adjustment helps continue the Washington press's role of explaining why those in power are so terribly misunderstood. Or, as Lara Logan of CBS put it:
Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.
When will the Washington Post hire her?
Hat tip: Reddit.
"Obama is detached from the American experience. He just doesn’t identify with the average American because of his own background. Indonesia and Hawaii. His view is from the viewpoint of academics and the halls of the Ivy league schools that he went to and it’s not a love of this country and an understanding of the basic values and wants and desires of its people," – Rick Santorum.
“We can’t have any tolerance for the perception that people are conflicted or bring a bias to their work,” – WaPo editor, Marcus Brauchli, restating the view that journalists must have no intellectual conflicts, no opinions and no private life in order to be an MSM blogger.
Just when you think they might get it, you realize they don't. But the great thing about new buzz for Rolling Stone is that some editors somewhere might be more interested in speaking truth to power. Then there's this amazing quote from the alleged ombudsman for the Post:
“Mr. Weigel’s exit, and the events that prompted it, have further damaged The Post among conservatives who believe it is not properly attuned to their ideology or activities.”
Now notice how this quote encapsulates the total failure of nerve among today's newspaper editors. Their goal is not to find smart engaged reporters and bloggers to explore the world and tell what they see and find out; it is to preserve a "perception" of non-bias between ideological factions. If one side goes off the deep end, it is the role of journalists to move the goal-posts to wherever is now the center-line. And so Rush Limbaugh essentially has a veto over MSM coverage of "conservatives." And he also, it appears, has a veto over hiring policy as well. You wonder why the two bloggers who have left the WaPo were both war skeptics and torture foes? Wonder no longer.
A reader writes:
One of my all-time favorite lines by a sportswriter was published in 1966, the day before England met Germany in the World Cup final. If this isn’t exact, it’s very close:
“Tomorrow, Germany will attempt to defeat us at our national game. It would only be fair if they should do so, for twice in this century, we have defeated them at theirs.”
… and only now allowed to marry.
A reader writes:
I saw something real bizarre on the World Cup coverage of the English-German match on ESPN. The host talked about the English-German rivalry saying “Well after two world wars and many world cup battles…” WTF? Then the Brit-commentator next used “D-Day” as a metaphor to further comment on the rivalry. DOUBLE WTF? Then if that wasn’t freaky enough, German striker Jurgen Klinsman went on to speak (in broken English) that the German people are an “impatient people” especially after “being on the wrong side of two world wars,” and proceeded to talk about the German teams’ tendencies to attack and attack. TRIPLE WTF??!
Henry Porter chews over the war talk:
The very odd thing about modern Germany is that it appears to be almost entirely a mystery to the British, who are surprised to discover that the side fielded by Germany today hardly consists of the Aryan specimens on display at the Berlin Olympics. Men of Tunisian, Spanish, Bosnian, Polish and Brazilian ancestry form the German squad, together with the Turkish midfielder Mesut Ozil, who recites the Koran while the German national anthem is sung. To taunt players from the new Germany, freed since 2000 from the rigid nationality laws of 1913, with references to the Second World War is as weird as the stoning of dachshunds in Britain at the outset of the First World War. But the irrelevance of the jibes, and the taboo about mentioning the war, is precisely what makes it all so funny to the British, which I suppose says something about us.
Except it isn't funny when England loses to Germany.
Growing up, I was told of several key moments in British history: Trafalgar, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, and the 1966 World Cup final. The tone got extra reverent when it came to 1966. Maybe when Americans realize that World Cup football is not about football, it's about nationalism, they'll like it better.
Behold, the duplicity made manifest.
Speak no ill of the dead? Well, let me simply say that the racist, populist, larcenous bigot of a Senator – a man who robbed the American tax-payer to pave his state with baubles and bribes – is not going to be much mourned in these parts.
The Dish 