Right Wing Nut House

Watching the Canadien press twist themselves into gordian knots trying to avoid violating the publication ban surrounding testimony in the Adscam scandal currently roiling the political landscape in that country would be comical if not for the deadly serious issue the ban raises for bloggers worldwide.

Captain Ed seems to be as puzzled as the rest of us about the idiocy of it all:

In order for a citizenry to remain at liberty, they have to know what their government is doing, and the press needs to report it without fear of government reprisal. The notion that Brault’s rights had to be protected over the rights of all Canadian citizens is not only ludicrous but a false choice at its heart.

Despite the efforts of both regulators and their allies in various reform movements to downplay the issue, it’s becoming increasingly clear that bloggers in America and other “free” countries have a great big bullseye painted on their back; and governments are starting to take aim.

In San Francisco, two laws were just passed to regulate campaigns; one of them put truly draconian restrictions on bloggers including requiring registration if the site experienced more than 500 hits a day and/or contributed in-kind contributions of more than $1000 to any candidate. I posted on the subject here, but was almost immediately put off by a commenter at the linked site who pooh-poohed the idea:

Could someone provide a source for that City Attorney comment? Because there’s nothing remotely like that in the bill.

Nor is there anything about “electronic communications” in that bill — just a lot about “electioneering communications”.

And news stories, commentaries, and editorials from any “recognized news medium” are exempt.

So, like, someone needs to do some fact-checking here, or at least source the allegations, because the bill doesn’t on its face do anything that’s been alleged.

Unfortunately, as with most legislation, the law of unintended consequences takes effect as soon as human beings get into the act. Whatever a piece of paper says pales in comparison with the capacity of the human imagination to come up with novel ways to interpret its meaning. Thus, we learn from Chris Nolan that while blogging did indeed receive an exemption (perhaps “reprieve” would be a better word) the fact that the idea of regulating blogs in this manner was even on the table is indicitive of much worse things to come.

The publication ban in the Adscam mess is causing our Canadien blogging friends numerous headaches while also revealing a spunky rebelliousness that should gladden the heart of American pajamahadeen everywhere. Despite threats from Canada’s Attorney General, some of our northern bretheren are not only ignoring the ban by linking to Captains Quarters for updates on the story, some are going so far as to post on the scandal themselves complete with scathing opinions of the shenannigans in general and the Liberal Party specifically.

In the wake of the FEC’s attempt to regulate blogs in the United States, we yanks should be well disposed to learn from our neighbors to the north the meaning of defiance. It may come in handy if the FEC goes off the reservation and begins to come after bloggers here.

Famed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, shouting “I’m just as sane as any other liberal,” was dragged off to Bellevue Mental Hospital this morning after it became clear he had gone stark, raving mad.

“If you want my professional opinion, he’s as loony as a June bug,” declared Dr. Ishmael Ahab, Director of Clinical Psychiatry at the famed institution. “Right now, he’s resting comfortably in our deluxe ‘rubber room’ where he’ll stay until his symptoms moderate.

Dr. Ahab said those symptoms included paranoid delusions, frothing at the mouth, excessive talking, and according to sources “barking like a sick puppy at the moon.”

Daniel Okrent, readers representative for the Times said that Krugman’s current column entitled “What’s Going On” in which Krugman posits the theory that Christian conservatives are going to start assassinating liberals will not be pulled from later editions.

“Just because he’s nuts doesn’t mean he’s wrong,” said Okrent. “We run stuff from loons all the time. Look at Maureen Dowd”

Okrent is referring to another well-known Times columnist who, while not declared officially insane, is reportedly under 24 hour suicide watch due to a lack of sex and a hatred of men.

Krugman’s column, which appears in newspapers nationwide, gives several clues as to how the famed liberal’s mind slowly degenerated into what Dr. Ahab calls “a persistent moonbat state or PMS.”

The Doctor points to these excerpts as classic symptoms of PMS:

One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo’s parents, hasn’t killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that’s going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right…

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism….

“Classic case of PMS,” said the Doctor. “Notice the wild charges made with no evidence to back them up. Also, note the distortions, the fantasies, and the general tone of danger in the disconnected and rather insipid prose.”

Ahab also pointed to this excerpt that shows where the columnist truly “went around the bend,” and “screwed the pooch:”

America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

According to sources at the Times, representatives in white coats from Bellevue were dispatched to haul Krugman away after he accused a co-worker of sabotaging his tinfoil hat by making the antenna pick up signals from Karl Rove’s office at the White House. While pummeling the co-worker - rumored to be Times house conservative David Brooks - Krugman was heard to scream “What’s the frequency, Kenneth,” time and time again while foam and drool oozed from the side of his mouth.

Another source reported hearing several dog-like barks coming from Krugman as he wrestled with the Bellevue attendants who were attempting to put him in a strait jacket.

Dr. Ahab did not appear optimistic about a quick recovery.” These things take time,” he said. “What Paul needs most is a lot of rest. Perhaps, in time, with the right mix of drugs and therapy, we can bring him back to reality.”

The Times claims that there are no plans to replace Krugman in the paper’s regular rotation of columnists. “Why should we,” said a source. “The fact that he’s crazy may make his columns more interesting. At least they’ll be unpredictable.”

UPDATE:

Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers! Welcome to the House. Are you a fan of “24″ and Jack Bauer? I post every Tuesday recapping the previous night’s episode. For the lastest speculation and body count…go here.

Apropos of my post below where Jeff Jarvis accused the MSM of caddying for the Christian point of view on the Schiavo matter, perhaps Mr. Jarvis missed this little exchange over the weekend between that well known shill for Christianity Howard Kurtz and Michele Cottle of that bastion of Christian conservatism The New Republic:

[HOWARD] KURTZ: Michelle Cottle, has the press ridiculed, or maybe I should say marginalized, religious people who believed the Terri Schiavo must be kept alive as a matter of Christian morality?

COTTLE: Well, it’s not that they get out there and make fun of them. It’s just you come with a ready-made kind of visual here. You have people on the streets praying. They’re, you have very dramatic and even melodramatic protests and things like this.

These people are very easy to kind of just poke fun at without even saying anything. You just kind of show these people. And the majority of Americans who don’t get out there and do this kind of, you know, really dramatic displays feel a little bit uncomfortable on that level.

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

Oh those comical Christians! Given that until recently, Christians were almost without exception portrayed by Hollywood and the rest of the cultural elites as evil, hypocritical, rabid dogs who go into trances and do strange things like pray in public and exhibit kindness to others, it’s a wonder we haven’t clapped these poor unfortunates into irons and sent them off to live in some re-education camp. And while this attitude is changing slowly with the advent of a few TV dramas where God is a central part of the plot and Christians are actually portrayed in a positive light, it doesn’t change the fact that in the newsrooms of the country, they are still objects of derision.

Malkin draws the obvious conclusion:

Oh, and if Cottle is willing to be this honest on national TV about her discomfort with people praying on the street, can you imagine what her colleagues in newsrooms and control rooms across the country are saying about “these people?”

We can imagine it because we see it all the time.

If you’re not reading Jeff Jarvis’ “Buzz Machine” at least once a day you’re missing out on the most insightful commentary of both the new and old media in the blogosphere. Jarvis has emerged as a spokesman of sorts for the new media appearing often on MSNBC’s “Connected” to discuss blogs and blogging.

That’s why it pains me to have to give Mr. Jarvis something of a well-deserved fisking for his outrageous post entitled “Jumping the Shark for Jesus.”

It could have been called “The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!”

I gather from reading Mr. Jarvis that he considers himself in the political mainstream and I’d be hard pressed to disagree with him. His positions on most issues tend toward moderate conservatism on fiscal and security issues with a healthy dose of libertarianism on social issues. This makes him no different than Glenn Reynolds, Bill Ardolino, Jeff Goldstein, and another half dozen or so of the larger blogs around.

Come to think of it, it makes him not much different than me.

But Mr. Jarvis’ over heated rhetorical smash against Christian conservatives claiming that “(t)he religious right is separating itself from the rest of America,” and “(t)he theocrats may have finally gone too far too often,” is, to put it mildly, bunkum. It’s the same load of horse manure I’ve heard for 25 years from both liberals and mildly religious Republicans who express a deep, underlying distrust of people who believe a lot of things that the libertarian’s secular outlook on life won’t allow them to accept.

Being something of an atheist, I can sympathize with Mr. Jarvis and his libertarian brethren about expressing a healthy skepticism when it comes to analyzing the motives and motivation of the “fundies” as the DU moonbats call them. But I cannot accept the notion that either their beliefs or their political activism represents a threat to the republic or any of its institutions.
(more…)

I’ve been sitting in front of my Wordpress Admin screen trying to think of something clever and witty to say about the latest flip-flop in Guiliana Sgrena’s account of her run-in with Americans in Iraq and drawn an absolute blank.

While it’s true a certain kind of Abbott and Costello comedy can be found in her tiresomely changing story (”Who’s on first” today?) it’s also true that once you realize that outside of a few blogs here in the United States, her lies and inconsistencies are receiving virtually no play in the European press. It’s as if a collective state of amnesia involving short-term memory loss has gripped the press so that this self-important, propagandizing lickspittle can say anything she likes, secure in the knowledge that her words will be faithfully transmitted via the leftist rags who’ve annointed Ms. Sgrena as their Anti-American Champion du jour.

Here’s Sgrena in an interview on March 12:

The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who was wounded by American fire last Friday soon after being released by kidnappers in Baghdad, has said that she does not think that the Americans were trying to kill her. “I never said that they wanted to kill me,” she said on a television talk show, “but the mechanics of what happened were those of an attack.”

And here’s Sgrena in an interview on March 13:

A joint American-Italian investigation is due to report within a month on the shooting, but Sgrena refuses to accept that it might have been simply a blunder. “This was an ambush. No sign was given for us to stop. We were going at a normal speed and we were fired at,” she insists.

At various times her story has included an armoured car, a tank, a patrol, a checkpoint, the car going slowly, the car going at normal speed, the car going so fast it almost went out of control, a light, no light, and on and on and…

It’s depressing. And Sgrena has given notice beforehand that she will not accept as truth any investigation by the Italian or American authorities:

What happened was just terrible. Our questions need to be addressed. And not only by the Italian government, but by Mr Bush himself. Sure, we won’t come to the truth, but let’s hope that at least this time around, they do everything in their power to have a plausible account.

Why she wants her “questions addressed” by “Mr. Bush himself” can only be construed as a propaganda ploy…and perhaps an unshakable belief in her own self-importance.

This hubris may in fact have led to her kidnapping in the first place. A Dutch journalist who flew to Bagdhad with Sgrena told her this:

‘Be careful not to get kidnapped,’ I told the female Italian journalist sitting next to me in the small plane that was headed for Baghdad. ‘Oh no,’ she said. ‘That won’t happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us.’

‘You don’t understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists,’ they said. The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear.

Was it hubris? Or just stupidity:

She has covered fighting in Algeria and Afghanistan, and on her seventh trip to Iraq this winter she had “of course” thought she might become the target of kidnappers. “I took precautions. I never fixed appointments in advance. I never stopped a long time in one place,” she says in a voice made weak by her difficulty catching breath. But she disobeyed those rules on February 4 with disastrous consequences.

It seems pretty obvious now that she has the attention of the entire world, Guiliana Sgrena is going to milk her notoriety for all that it’s worth. It remains to be seen whether her lies and distortions will have the intended effect of damaging Prime Minister Berlusconi politically and roiling Italian-American relations to the point where Italy feels it necessary to reduce its committment in assisting the US in Iraq.

Main Entry: sa·ga
Pronunciation: ’sä-g& also ’sa-
Function: noun
Etymology: Old Norse -more at SAW
Date: 1709
1 : a prose narrative recorded in Iceland in the 12th and 13th centuries of historic or legendary figures and events of the heroic age of Norway and Iceland
2 : a modern heroic narrative resembling the Icelandic saga
3 : a long detailed account

Not even the heralds who sang the songs of the great Scandanavian sagas could have dreamed up the long and torturous account of the tragedy in Iraq that Italian Communist journalist Guiliana Sgrena has tried to foist upon an unsuspecting world.

Her slanderous story has now come full circle. Her effort to slime the American military with charges that she was the target of an assassination attempt has backfired to the point that the Italian police are now questioning her.

Meanwhile, Italian prosecutors conducting their own investigation on Thursday questioned former Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena again in the Rome military hospital where she is recovering from a shoulder wound sustained in the March 4 shooting.

And her ever evolving, ever changing chronicle of events that led to the accidental shooting of the Italian Secret Service agent Nicola Calipari has gone from denying that the incident was a deliberate attempt to kill her, to her speculation that she was a target because of the Italian practice of paying ransom to kidnappers, to the ludicrous assertion that they wanted to kill her because she was anit-war, till finally coming full circle in her story to where she now says that she never said the American military targeted her!

Only someone hugely self-absorbed could believe that the rest of us would somehow forget her blood-libels of the United States military and accept her explanation that what she really said was that “the mechanics of what happened were those of an attack.”

Lest we forget what Ms. Sgrena has been saying over the last fortnight about the intentions of the US military, here are some quotes from the numerous interviews this publicity hungry propagandist gave to further her political agenda and damge both Prime Minister Berlusconi politically and weaken the alliance between Italy and the US:

I can’t say it was deliberate because we can’t say if there was a lack of information. But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.

“They told me to beware because ‘there are Americans who don’t want you to return’,”‘ Sgrena wrote in the article. When she was shot, her captors’ advice `”risked acquiring the taste of the most bitter of truths,” she wrote.

“The fact that the Americans don’t want negotiations to free the hostages is known,” the 56-year-old journalist told Sky TG24 television by telephone, her voice hoarse and shaky. “The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostage, everybody knows that. So I don’t see why I should rule out that I could have been the target.”

Pier Scolari, Sgrena’s partner who flew to Baghdad to collect her, put an even more sinister construction on the events, suggesting in a television interview that Sgrena was the victim of a deliberate ambush. ‘Giuliana may have received information which led to the soldiers not wanting her to leave Iraq alive,’ he claimed.

And now, Sgrena would have us believe that she never meant to slime the military. This via Captains Quarters (who has been on top of this story since it broke):

The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who was wounded by American fire last Friday soon after being released by kidnappers in Baghdad, has said that she does not think that the Americans were trying to kill her. “I never said that they wanted to kill me,” she said on a television talk show, “but the mechanics of what happened were those of an attack.”

In an interview with The Independent, her partner, Pier Scolari, said: “None of us is so stupid as to think the Americans did it on purpose. But the dynamic was that of an ambush and we want a convincing explanation of what happened, because the first American explanation was totally false.” …

Ms Sgrena was widely quoted as saying that the Americans may have wanted to kill her “because they dislike the Italian policy of negotiating with the hostage-takers”. But this week she rejected the idea.

And then we have this curious quote:

After the shooting, she said: “A soldier opened the door on the right-hand side. When he saw us, I had the impression that he was upset. I seem to remember him saying, ‘Oh shit!’ And when more turned up in an armoured car, I had the sensation that they were unhappy about what had happened.”

Riddle me this: If Sgrena had “the sensation” that the soldiers were unhappy (to put it mildly) about the accidental shooting, what other possible conclusion can you draw from her scandalous charges but that she was attempting to use her new-found public platform to stir up trouble for the Italian goverment and advance her anti war agenda?

Do you think that here attitude towards America expressed here had anything to do with her desire to damage this country, its military and by extension, the President?

It doesn’t sound very nice to be critical of a fellow reporter. But Sgrena’s attitude is a disgrace for journalism. Or didn’t she tell me back in the plane that ‘common journalists such as yourself’ simply do not support the Iraqi people? ‘The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind,’ the three women behind me had told me, for Sgrena travelled to Iraq with two Italian colleagues who hated the Americans as well.

The fact that Italian police are questioning her again may or may not be significant. But what’s undeniable is that Guiliana Sgrena has used her notoriety as both a hostage and victim of a horrible tragedy to propagandize against the war, the United States, the US Military and by extension, the American people.

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes and Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Sgrena may be backtracking faster than a defensive back trying to cover Randy Moss from her charges of being targeted, but that hasn’t stopped her from casting aspersions on the Italian and American investigations into the tragedy:

Ms Sgrena has repeatedly suggested US soldiers shot her on purpose and said today she had little faith in a joint investigation by Italy and the United States into the “friendly fire” incident.

“She has created enormous problems for the Government and also caused grief that perhaps was better avoided,” Justice Minister Roberto Castelli told reporters in Bologna.

In the words of Rusty Shakleford “Bolagna? Yeah, that about sums it up.”

The Sgrena saga continues.

The AP reports that the Italian story of Giuliana Sgrena’s release and later wounding at an American checkpoint, which also resulted in the death of intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, continues to fall apart. Two Italian newspapers now say that the general in charge of the Sgrena operation did not inform the US that Calipari’s mission was to free Sgrena, and one of them reports that General Mario Maroli didn’t even know it himself:

Sgrena’s slandering, libelous story that the American military deliberately targeted her for assassination continues to fall apart as well:

In a statement released after the shooting, the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which controls Baghdad, said the vehicle was speeding and refused to stop. The statement also said a U.S. patrol tried to warn a driver with hand and arm signals, by flashing white lights and firing shots in front of the car into the engine block.
In interviews published Friday, Sgrena said that no light was flashed at the vehicle and that the shots were not fired in front of the car.

“It’s not true that they shot into the engine,” she told Corriere della Sera, adding that the shooting came “from the right and from behind.”

Captain Ed points out the obvious:

That qualification changes the entire tenor of the story. Either one would have to believe that the checkpoint soldiers stopped the car and then shot it out — from behind! — or that the car never stopped at the checkpoint and traveled so fast that the soldiers could only catch up to it as it passed through. Think about the options for a moment. If a checkpoint successfully stops a suspicious vehicle, why would soldiers walk around behind it to open fire? They’d risk hitting their unit at the front of the car. Tactically, little gain would come from getting behind a potential VBIED in open space when one could get at least some partial protection from a potential explosion by the checkpoint barricades.

How can anyone believe what this woman says anymore? The Italian press-even the leftists-seem to be trying to get to the bottom of the ever changing, always shifting story of Guiliana Sgrena. I have no doubt that they would love to find evidence of something more than a tragic accident. So it’s to their credit that they are digging into the facts of the story and reporting things fairly straightforwardly.

That being said, where is this story leading? OC Chronicle has some thoughts on the Sgrena matter and how it might compare to the notorious Tawana Brawley affair:

After reading some details of conflicts in the story on Austin Bay’s blog, as well as some fishy foreshadowing fleshed out on LGF, I’m starting to sense a pattern.

The name of the terrorist group: “Mujahadien Without Borders”. Doesn’t that sound a lot like “Doctors Without Borders”? And doesn’t it sound a little too Euro? A little too touchy-feely to be a name of a terrorist group? (HT: Michelle Malkin)

Tawana Brawley was a young black girl who was found unconscious and beaten on a neighbor’s lawn. She told people that she had been raped and beaten by police. That’s when Reverend Al Sharpeton stepped in and led a campaign that accused so many people of the crime, he ended up charging the District Attorney himself with being part of the rape gang. Even after Brawley herself had recanted her story, Sharpeton kept at it. The DA sued Sharpeton and won a huge settlement.

Since the Italian media seems to be on this story like fleas on a dog, I feel pretty good about eventually getting to the bottom of Sgrena’s Saga.

UPDATE:

Rusty Shackleford blogs an NPR interview with il donna di menzogne and catches “the lying woman” in a (gasp) lie!

UPDATE II:

Commenter J.A. reminds us of the aftermath of the suit by the DA against Sharpeton:

The DA won his case against Sharpton, but the last I heard he had never collected a dime, as even Sharpton’s custom made suits are not really his — they are given to him (or so Sharpton says). Sigh.

Indeed!

I have to confess that I don’t remember much about the day that John Kennedy was assassinated. I was all of 8 years old and, as I recall, Sister Mary Athanasius came on the intercom and told us to pray for the repose of the soul of the first Catholic President the country had ever had. We weren’t let out of school early nor did our teacher Sister Mary Carol talk about what had just happened.

But when I got home, I realized something was terribly wrong. First, my mother was watching television during the day. In our house TV wasn’t turned on until 4:30 pm when “Garfield Goose” came on.

We were watching very serious looking men, tough looking guys smoking cigarettes talking in hushed, grave tones. And people were crying; men and women. I knew that the President had been killed but I didn’t understand what was going on with all these people on TV saying pretty much the same things over and over.

I got bored after a couple of hours and went up to my room.

I came down about an hour later to watch Garfield Goose only to find the same men talking about the same things. The same movie clips (this is in the days before video tape) were playing showing a smiling, handsome Kennedy with his kids, with his wife, in a sailboat, at a press conference. They kept showing these images over and over again.

In those days, we watched CBS, the network of the newsgod Edward R. Murrow whose reports from London during the war (less than 20 years before this horrible day) and post-war tackling of liberal causes endeared him to my parents. Murrow had only recently been supplanted by Walter Cronkite, another war reporter whose brusque, no-nonsense style was somehow comforting to watch.

Only when CBS went to Dallas for live updates did you get the feeling that things were a little out of control.

I remember Dan Rather pretty well. CBS would occasionally cut to this youngish looking reporter who was breathlessly talking about something important. Unlike Cronkite, Rather was a “hot” personality on television, a barely controlled volcano of energy that you felt was just waiting to erupt.

Rather made his bones that day with CBS news on a national basis. Within months, he was the CBS “goto” guy on a variety of stories including civil rights, Viet Nam, and eventually, making it all the way to the pinnacle of his profession as White House correspondent for CBS news.

My purpose of this retrospective is not to bury Dan but to praise him. Because despite his obvious bias Dan Rather was a good reporter. Can you be both? Of course! The best reporters of the 20th century including Scotty Reston, Murrow, Merriman Smith, Hugh Sidey, and Theodore H. White to name a few were all horribly biased, liberal to a fault. But hey all had one thing in common; World War II.

The Second World War shaped and molded these men as both Americans and journalists in a way that the current crop of reporters and anchors could never understand or duplicate. Those men were mostly combat reporters, accustomed to living and working with the guys who fought and died during that horrible conflict. Eric Severeid, William L. Schirer, and Cronkite were known as “Murrow’s boys,” a label they wore proudly their entire professional lives.

Rather (like Brokaw) was too young for World War II but cut his reporting teeth at the feet of these giants. A certain kind of gruff honesty permeated their stories along with a well concealed, but very real love of America. That patriotism plus Dan’s middle American small town values gave him a dignity and courtliness so lacking in the cable anchors and other blow-dried, chipmunk-cheeked news readers of today.

Dan Rather is probably the last of the big-time news people to have their reporting and worldview shaped by the Second World War. This generation coming up had their reporting experience and worldview shaped during Watergate and the Viet Nam war. Does that make a difference?

If you watched Dan’s coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 you know that it does make a difference. His emotions were there for all to see, a refreshing change from the monotonous coverage on CNN (save Judy Woodruff’s tearful prayer. Woodruff made her bones at CBS with Rather and Cronkite). And here’s what Dan told Howard Kurtz just prior to the war in Afghanistan:

“What I want to do, I want to fulfill my role as a decent human member of the community and a decent and patriotic American. And therefore, I am willing to give the government, the President and the military the benefit of any doubt here in the beginning. I’m going to fulfill my role as a journalist, and that is ask the questions, when necessary ask the tough questions. But I have no excuse for, particularly when there is a national crisis such as this, as saying - you know, the President says do your job, whatever you are and whomever you are, Mr. and Mrs. America. I’m going to do my job as a journalist, but at the same time I will give them the benefit of the doubt, whenever possible in this kind of crisis, emergency situation. Not because I am concerned about any backlash. I’m not. But because I want to be a patriotic American without apology.”

Can you imagine Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Anderson Cooper, Paula Zahn, Brian Williams, or anyone else in an anchor chair saying that today?

Trust me on this; in five years, we’re going to long for the days of Brokaw and Rather. This new crop of news stars and their advocacy journalism will remind us that the simple patriotism and hard headed reporting represented by the Murrow-Cronkite-Rather lineage that’s ending tonight will be sorely missed.

And for me, one more sign that the days ahead are fewer than the days I’ve already seen.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Wizbang has a link to the video of Dan Rather’s sign-off plus links to other commentary.

Any policeman will tell you that one sure way to tell if a suspect is lying about committing a crime is if his statement changes in the retelling of it again and again. Italian communist journalist Giuliana Sgrena’s story of the attack on her car by American troops has changed so often in the last 72 hours that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that she’s a bald-faced liar who is padding her story with falsehoods to advance her anti-war, anti-American political agenda.

Sgrena has made several statements about the incident; an interview with RAI Radio, the BBC’s World Today, an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera , an interview with the Italian wire service ANSA, an interview with Italian LA 7 TV, and interview with TG 5 TV, and Sgrena’s story in her own newspaper the Il Manifesto. In addition, Sgrena has been interviewed by an Italian prosecutor and has told the story to her boyfriend and her editor.

A common thread that emerges from these various statements is inconsistency. Here are a few examples:

HOW FAST WAS THE CAR GOING?

“We weren’t going particularly fast given that type of situation.” (RAI)

The vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. (Sgrena’s editor)

“She said the “regular” speed of her car did not justify the shooting (ANSA)

“The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them.” (Il Manifesto)

Somehow we go from “not particularly fast, to “not travelling fast,” to the car going “regular” speed” and ending up “almost losing control” they were going so fast.

Subtle differences? Yes, and significant.

WHO AND WHAT WERE FIRING?

“There was suddenly this shooting, we were hit by a hail of gunfire, and I was speaking with Nicola, who was telling me about what had been happening in Italy in the meantime, when he leaned towards me, probably also to protect me,” (RAI)

“The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.” (Her editor)

She also said her group had been fired on by an American patrol and not at a checkpoint.

“We thought the danger was over after my rescue. And instead, suddenly there was this shooting. We were hit by a spray of fire.” (RAI TV)

They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing. It was so immediate. I didn’t know how I was alive after all that attack.” (BBC World Today)

“It wasn’t a checkpoint, but a patrol that started shooting after pointing some lights in our direction,” (Prosecutor)

“We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us and he tried to cover me and he was shot. He died and, me, I was safe but he was dead. ” (BBC)

“They told me that we were less than a kilometer away…when…I only remember fire. At that point, a rain of fire and bullets hit us, shutting up forever the cheerful voices of a few minutes earlier.” (Il Manifesto)

Lights or no lights? Tanks, armoured cars, a patrol, a checkpoint? Finally, “I only remember fire.” Even if one gives the benefit of the doubt because of a life and death situation, is she trying to tell us she can’t remember if there were lights or not? Of course she would think there wasn’t a checkpoint because the car wasn’t stopping! And what happened to the bit about “the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour?” The only place that appears is in The Guardian, a notorious anti-American British rag.

WHAT DID THE TERRORISTS TELL HER?

The shooting was “without reason,” Sgrena said yesterday from a Rome military hospital, where she is being treated for her wounds. “I cannot find any justification for it,” she was cited as saying. (Corriere della Sera)

“I can’t say it was deliberate because we can’t say if there was a lack of information. But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information. ” (BBC)

‘Giuliana may have received information which led to the soldiers not wanting her to leave Iraq alive,” (the Boyfriend)

”I believe, but it’s only a hypothesis, that the happy ending to the negotiations must have been irksome,” she said. ”The Americans are against this type of operation. For them, war is war, human life doesn’t count for much.” (TG 5 TV)

“They told me to beware because `there are Americans who don’t want you to return’” (Il Manifesto) (Note: This is the first reference to anything the terrorists may have said to her more than 24 hours after her release.)

“When they let me go, it was a difficult moment for me because they told me, ‘The Americans don’t want you to return alive to Italy.’” (RAI TV)

I don’t know how much clearer it could be. I tried to place the above quotes in chronological order. However, since 3 of the interviews took place on Saturday, it’s impossible to tell which ones came in what order. It doesn’t take a genius to see the escalating anti-Americanism in her comments.

What to make of all this? Given that there have been other tragic incidents at military checkpoints, it’s very probable that both the Italian driver and the soldiers at the checkpoint made terrible mistakes. According to recently released documents this kind of tragedy has occurred approximately 30 times since the end of the war. Nor, I suspect, will it be the last.

The two questions on everybody’s mind would be; 1) Why would the US military want to kill some obscure leftist journalist, and 2) why didn’t they finish the job and leave no witnesses?

As to #1, no reason of course. Only in Sgrena’s fevered imagination would the US military care about anything a propogandist like her would write (Go here for review of her “articles”)

As for #2, the fact that she’s alive and well enough to postulate conspiracy theories gives the lie to the idea she was a target. Does she really expect anyone (besides the self deluded moonbats) to believe that if the US wanted her out of the way they wouldn’t hesitate to kill everyone and then blame it on the insurgents?

Communists believe that the rest of us are gullible sheep. Unfortunately, many in Europe and this country are proving them right.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE: HOW FAST WAS THAT AGAIN?

Michelle Malkin links to another story-this time from CNN that gives a different speed for the car yet again!

Not only is Sgrena a lousy journalist…she’s a lousy liar as well.

UPDATE II: WELCOME REV. MYKERU MOONBATS!

Welcome to all of you moonbats joining us from the Rev’s website. Believe me, I was honored and flattered to have the moonbat link to my humble abode.

Two rules to follow while you’re here, please:

1. Keep your dirty feet off the furniture.
2. Please use a coaster for your kool-aid glasses.

I’d mention that it’s not polite to wear your tin foil hats inside someone’s home except I know there’s no way you’re going to take any chances while in this House.

UPDATE III

Jeff Goldstien has some interesting thoughts and a pornographic challenge, that, if it pans out, will rock the DU moonbats’ world! And if it doesn’t pan out…well, I’d still love to see those pictures!

The still developing story of what exactly happened to freed Italian communist journalist Giuliana Sgrena got a much needed dose of perspective today as the Washington Post has published parts of an interview with an unnamed military source close to the Pentagon’s investigation of the incident.

One thing’s for sure; we can’t rely on Ms. Sgrena’s version of events. Or should I say “versions.” In an almost comical display of rapid-fire contradictions, Sgrena has changed her story every time she’s given an interivew. (More on this later as I read, digest, and collate the 4 entirely different stories she’s told of the incident to date)

The first problem occurred because of a lack of coordination betwen the US military and Italian intelligence service who was handling the journalist’s extraction from Iraq:

But the circumstances of Friday’s shooting of Italian military intelligence officer Nicola Calipari made it particularly vulnerable to calamity, a military source said as he divulged new details of how the car in which Calipari and a newly freed hostage, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, came to be attacked.

The automobile was traversing onto a route — the road to the airport — where soldiers have been killed in shootings and by roadside bombs. U.S. soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew a high-level embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road, and their aim was to support this movement.

But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena’s rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the source, who said he cannot be named because the military’s investigation into the incident is continuing.

This lack of coordination was deliberate on the part of the Italians. The reason is given in a Washington Times article:

But La Stampa also quoted diplomatic sources saying vital information was withheld from the Americans.

“Italian intelligence decided to free Sgrena paying a sum to the kidnappers without informing American colleagues in Iraq who, if they had known about this, would have had to oppose it, to have impeded the operation,” sources said.

“If this was the case, it could explain why American intelligence had not informed the American military commands about the operation and thus the patrol did not expect the car with the Italians.”

The American side of the story tells of an on-rushing car going close to 50 MPH on a road where insurgent attacks and suicide bombers have operated in the past:

Soldiers at the checkpoint have told U.S. military officers that they flashed lights, used hand signals and fired warning shots in an effort to stop the car, which they believed was traveling at more than 50 mph, a typical speed for that road. But Sgrena, who had just been released by Iraqi captors, recalled later that the car was not traveling very fast and that soldiers started firing “right after lighting” a spotlight — a decision she said was not justified. Sgrena was wounded by shrapnel in the U.S. barrage.

The absence of advance communication between the Italians and the U.S. soldiers at the checkpoint appears to have put the occupants of the car in grave jeopardy, given what many U.S. officials describe as the military’s standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in Iraq.

“In my view, the main contributing factor was a lack of prior coordination with the ground unit,” the source said. “If requested, we would have resourced and supported this mission very differently.”

Sgrena’s contention that the car was not travelling very fast is one of her earlier statements. She’s since changed her story on the speed of the car, whether the attack occurred at a checkpoint or whether it was an American patrol, whether or not their were armoured cars or “tanks” firing on them, when her Italian driver identified himself to the Americans, how many shots were fired, whether or not the attack was deliberate, and a host of other inconsistencies in the story of her abduction and captivity that call into question her veracity.

There’s also been some speculation about the nature of Sgrena’s “kidnapping” and whether or not it was staged or if it may have turned into a plan to embarass the Americans after her abduction. I wouldn’t go that far, especially since there’s no evidence to buttress such a fantastic charge. But did Sgrena’s sympathetic attitude toward the Islamic fascists have anything to do with the fact that she wasn’t murdered a month ago after the release of a video in which she was seen pleading desperately for her life? Others haven’t been so lucky.