Neighbors to the North (Bomb!)

Normally I don't pay any attention to what our neighbors to the North have to say about us, particularly politically speaking. But this editorial from the Toronto Star just really irked me. Ms. Zerbisias is entitled to her opinion. But when she starts throwing around the word "Fact" in all caps, then chances are that it's time for a good fiskin!

FACT: U.S. Marine Lt.-Gen. James T. Conway, the outgoing commander in western Iraq, told reporters on Sept. 12 that he protested what seemed to be a political decision to attack Fallujah last spring. But he followed orders, sending the troops in. Three disastrous days later, with hundreds dead, another decision, apparently originating in the White House, was made to pull out. Conroy opposed that too but to no avail.

In that same interview that Ms. Zerbisias refers to, Mr. Conway claimed that the civilian and military casualties were terribly overstated. Six Marines are all we lost. And while any death is regrettable, in combat it's hardly a disaster for the coalition. That's coming from the L.A. Times, babe. Not only that, but the insinuation that the orders came from the White House is just that, an unfounded insinuation. The article stated that the order to attack came from the commander on the ground - Sanchez. No claim was made as to where the order to withdraw came from.

FACT: Last month, Bush told NBC that the war on terror could not be won. Then he clarified himself, by saying this was an unconventional, different war. And then his spokesperson Scott McClellan clarified the clarification, explaining that, while the U.S. couldn't "win," it could "prevail" against terror.

Now, transcripts don't do much for tone, which I'm sure played a factor here. First, Lauer had asked if the war could be won in four more years. And Bush responded by saying that he had never claimed it could or would be. Who knows where the emphasis in the "I don't think we can win it" statement came from? Could it have meant that his administration wouldn't be able to win it in the four years of another term? Could it have meant that this wasn't the kind of war that has an end, with a big ticker-tape parade, so we all know that's the end? The fact of the matter is that there are people out there who are using terror to achieve their own political ends. Who knows how many of them there actually are? And how will we know if we've caught or killed all of them? "Winning it" is different in this war than any other we've ever had.

Plus, as soon as Bush said what he did, it seems like every paper on the planet immediately jumped on a supposed flip-flop. Clarification at that point seems like a rational response.

FACT: In 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam but only, as he said then, "To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

Bet that's awfully hard to square with more recent statements he's made that he would have still voted for the war even if he knew then what he knows now about WMD. Of course, now he says he wouldn't have done it, and that it's the wrong war,etc... and... what's his position on Iraq again?

Now, of course, conservative pundits and their acolytes in the cybersphere are calling for Rather's head, because he has destroyed his credibility.

And this is what really set me off. Personally, I worship at the altar of no man, and to call bloggers like the Instapundit, the gentlement at PowerLine, and LGF acolytes to conservative pundits when all of them have at one time or another posted messages that criticized the current administration is nothing more than a lazy hack job. Beyond that, what Rather has done is more than just destroy his own credibility. He's been caught demonstrating a contempt for his viewers, first by running the story without vetting the documents thorougly, then by claiming that the memos were valid, and we should just take him at his word. How can we trust someone who has shown such utter disregard for the intelligence of his audience? He apparently thinks we're idiots, and that we'd buy it. And then when we didn't, he was surprised. He stonewalled. And then he finally made an apology, and admitted that the documents hadn't been checked thoroughly.

Moreover, guess what? A lot of bloggers are partisan. (Shock!) I'm pretty sure at this point who I'm voting for, and it has nothing to do with what typeface you can get in a circa 1972 IBM Selectra typewriter, or whether or not Dan Rather gave a convincing enough apology. I write for no editor. I write for no pay. I don't advertise. I'm not actively seeking to make this a means of livelihood or to create a cult of personality (although that'd be cool, I've got to admit). The only thing I get out of this is time spent that I could be studying, and the opportunity to get my thoughts out there where someone might see them and nod a little. And there's always the occasional satisfaction of tearing a stupid, inane, lazy, fact-twisting argument into little itsy-bitsy pieces, and most days that's enough. Am I biased? Maybe so. Am I an acolyte? No way. And we can be partisan. It's not our job to report the news. That's the MSM's job. It's not our job to be impartial. That's the MSM's job. It's not even our job to watchdog the MSM. That's just fun. And maybe that's the real reason we blog in the first place. (That and the inherent "cool" factor).

Oh, BTW, aside from insulting bloggers by claiming that we're intellectually subservient to "conservative pundits" (we're used to that), insinuating that the American public will vote for Bush simply because CBS tried an unsuccessful hack job that distracted the U.S. from "real issues" is an insult to our collective intelligence. On behalf of all of us,