The popular classifieds website Craigslist may not have a legal liability when it comes to use of its services for sex trafficking and prostitution, but they have a social responsibility to address the issue, Culture and Media Institute Assistant Editor Nathan Burchfiel told CBN's "Newswatch" Sept. 9.

The site recently shut down its "Adult Services" section after 17 state attorneys general sent a letter to the company outlining its role in illegal activities including child prostitution and sex trafficking. The section is no longer available to U.S. users, but Burchfiel pointed out that the change doesn't seem to have had much effect.

"What they've done is blocked off this one section of the site in the United States only, it's still available internationally, and these companies, these businesses that have been advertising essentially prostitution, some of them underage prostitution, illegal sex trafficking, have just moved those ads to different parts of the site," he told anchor Wendy Griffith. "They're still getting up there. They're still really easy to find, frankly."

A Sept. 8 Culture and Media Institute reportnoted that while Craigslist appears to have addressed the issue, ads for brothels and other "adult services" are still readily available across the site. Dozens of listings appeared in other sections of the Washington, D.C., Craigslist, including numerous ads for business under investigation by local authorities.

When asked if there would be a change from the company, Burchfiel expressed skepticism.

"Given their history, the way that they've addressed this issue in the past, it's not really likely," he said. "It's unfortunate, because in spite of the fact that they might not have any legal liability on the issue, they really have a social responsibility as a company of the size and influence that Craigslist is to do something about this.

Burchfiel added, "Not only is it an issue where they're helping people commit illegal acts and in often cases making people victims of horrible crimes, but they're doing this on a forum that's really easily accessible to anyone, including kids. It's not a site where you have to register or prove that you're a certain age to get access to. So there's a lot of social responsibility issues that trump the legal issues that aren't really there."

 [Links]

The ABC, CBS and NBC evening new shows have yet to notice Fidel Castro's astonishing admission that Cuban Communism does not work. But non-journalist Jay Leno brought the news to his Tonight Show audience on Thursday, joshing:  "Most Cubans heard this announcement on a 1954 RCA Deluxe console TV -- beautiful black-and-white, all mahogany...." (Video at right)

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg recounted Castro's confession in a September 8 post:

During the generally lighthearted conversation (we had just spent three hours talking about Iran and the Middle East), I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, "Never mind"?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Despite the fact that communist Cuba has been a key foreign policy issue for the U.S. for more than 50 years, none of the three evening newscasts thought that worth mentioning either Wednesday night or Thursday. NBC's Today show, however, gave it a few seconds on Thursday -- a news brief read by Ann Curry: "In a rare interview, Cuba's Fidel Castro was strikingly candid about his nation's economy. Castro reportedly told Atlantic magazine that Cuba's state-dominated economic system no longer works and is in need of change."

MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement to address the broadcast networks’ lack of interest:

“Jay Leno knows more about current events than do the “news” networks.  Newsflash to the liberal media: Communism Fails! Period. You’ve had 50 years to report the abuses, suffering and oppression in Communist Cuba. But instead, you “journalists” were so infatuated with Fidel Castro thatinstead you did his bidding, continuously feeding Americans a steady diet of disgraceful propaganda. Aren’t you thoroughly ashamed it took the dictator himself to admit what you should have been reporting all along?”

 [Links]

In what had to be the ultimate in condescension and elitism, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" brought Pastor Terry Jones on the show merely to lecture him on Christianity, cutting him off before he could even respond. Co-host Mika Brzezinski explained to him "we don't really need to hear anything else, so thanks." Newsbusters' Mark Finkelstein first briefly reportedon this segment this morning.

Panel member Jon Meacham, the departing editor of Newsweek, briefly preached to Pastor Jones on Jesus' New Testament message of love and forgiveness and then appealed to him "as a fellow Christian" to not follow through with his threats to burn the Koran. Then, before Pastor Jones responded, his live feed was cut and co-host Mika Brzezinski continued with the show, saying that they did not need to listen to Pastor Jones.

"The central message of the New Testament is forgiveness, and to put oneself in the place of another," Meacham lectured Pastor Jones on planning to burn copies of the Koran. "And so I would simply appeal to you, as a fellow Christian, that the course you suggested is going to be incredibly dangerous, and would ask you to desist in the name of New Testament theology."

After Jones' feed was cut, Mika remarked "Well said, Jon Meacham. And Pastor Terry Jones, we appeal to you to listen to that. And we don't really need to hear anything else, so thanks."

The show featured a bizarre segmentearlier on Pastor Jones' threat, which he retracted from Thursday and now is not sure whether he will follow through on his plan. Both conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Donny Deutsch agreed with each other that President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, needs to step in and arrest the Pastor before reactions in the Middle East by militant Islamists result in the death of American troops.

Donny Deutsch was still fuming over an hour later, when the Pastor's feed was cut. Deutsch said he wanted to confront Jones as a "terrorist," calling him "scum" and saying that "seeing his face is disgusting enough."

"I don't think there should be a peaceful message," Deutsch said in dealing with the pastor. "Sometimes screaming is okay."

A transcript of the segment, which aired on September 10 at 7:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: We've really been debating whether or not to do this. Joe says "no," he doesn't think it's a good idea at all. He might be right. The Florida pastor, threatening to burn copies of the Koran tomorrow, is now saying his plans are "on hold," after a local Imam told him that the proposed New York Islamic center near Ground Zero would be moved. And joining us now from Gainesville, Florida, is pastor Terry Jones. And the reason we're doing this is my worry is that the pastor's going to have blood on his hands if he goes forward with this plan. So Jon Meacham just has a quick message for you, sir. Jon?

JON MEACHAM, Editor, Newsweek: Pastor, I just wanted to – this is Jon Meachem. I just wanted to suggest that Jesus said the night before he was handed over to suffering and death that he ordered his disciples to love one another as he had loved them. That was his central commandment, and as he died, he said that "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." The central message of the New Testament is forgiveness, and to put oneself in the place of another. And so I would simply appeal to you, as a fellow Christian, that the course you suggested is going to be incredibly dangerous, and would ask you to desist in the name of New Testament theology.

(Cut Live Feed)

BRZEZINSKI: Alright, well said Jon Meachem, and Pastor Terry Jones we appeal to you to listen to that. And we don't really need to hear anything else, so thanks. Alright, moving on. Donnie, you disagreed. You wanted to talk to him.

DONNY DEUTSCH, Chairman, Deutsch, Inc.: Yeah, I think, and I understand why you guys don't want to give him a platform. I mean, seeing his face is disgusting enough. But a lot – this kind of reach out, that we've come to a country where sometimes action needs to be taken. We're at war, to – in the previous segment, this is obviously a bigger issue of, you know, Islamic hate running amuk. And we need to make a stand. And this guy, he's scum, he is not a man of God –

BRZEZINSKI: Now what productive nature would saying that to him have?

(Crosstalk)

DEUTSCH: Yes, everybody's pussyfooting around with this guy!

BRZEZINSKI: I'm not. We're giving him a very peaceful message that (unintelligible)

DEUTSCH: I don't think there should be a peaceful message. This is a terrorist of a different form. He is no different than terrorists that are holding this country hostage.

DAN SENOR, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations: You confronting him the way you want to confront him will build him up, get him even more ___ than he already is? Or is it actually going to make him less relevant? I think you will make him more relevant.

DEUTSCH: He's relevant! He's relevant there, and I think 99 percent of this country feels the way I do and wants some action, and I just – I really believe that. And he's already –

SENOR: What you want to do is not action!

DEUTSCH: The toothpaste – the toothpaste is out of the bottle. No, I want our President, our Commander-in-Chief to act like a Commander-in-Chief and say "This is putting our country in harm's way right now." We have the General of our troops over there saying that. Act like a Commander-in-Chief and stop this from happening. Somehow, someway. That's all I'm asking.

BRZEZINSKI: Okay. You know what? Screaming at him –

DEUTSCH: Sometimes screaming is okay. Yeah. Sometimes screaming is okay.

SENOR: Donnie, can I – the principle of the President stepping in is a principle you would be committed to if this were President Bush in a time of war saying "I need to take action against say the Imam, Imam Rauf. The mosque he's building is going to inflame people, it's going to be viewed as a monument of military victory, and we need to shut that down. Would you be comfortable with that?

DEUTSCH: The video of burning the Koran around the world –

SENOR: That's not for you to decide. The question is are you for the principle of the President on these grounds to step in?

BRZEZINSKI: Pat, before we go to a break, your thoughts?

PAT BUCHANAN: Mika, the mosque is a matter of the culture war. This thing down in Florida is a matter of the real war. And let me say that if Gen. Petraeus, as he has done, tells his commander-in-chief "My men are in danger, they will die if this thing goes forward, and you as Commander-in-Chief do not act, and then men die as a consequence of that, men are lynched in the Middle East, Americans are killed, you are not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief in my judgment if you cannot act to save the boys you sent into battle.

BRZEZINSKI: Meachem?

MEACHAM: There's got to be a way through this that is not going to violate the Constitution, and can preserve some sense of our culture of liberty, which is the message we have to send around the world. This is what we're fighting for, this is what the country is about. And it's repulsive what's going on in Florida, but we unfortunately – repulsive things happen here. And we just can't –

BRZEZINSKI: And around this table, by the way, we all love each other very much, and a lot of us disagree. But we do, as you say Jon, have to find our way through it.

 [Links]

Washington Post staff writer Anne Kornblut used her question at a White House press conference on Friday to worry that, despite Barack Obama making it a "priority," anti-Muslim "suspicion" still existed in America.

She queried the President, "Nine years after the September 11th attacks, why do you think it is that we are now seeing such an increase in suspicion and outright resentment of Islam, especially given that it has been one of your priorities to improve relations with the Muslim world?" [MP3 audiohere.]

Obama's response seemed to echo his infamous 2008 comment about Americans being "bitter" and "clinging" to their guns. He proclaimed, "You know, I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then, you know, fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. And, so, I think that plays a role in it."

On April 11, 2008, the then-Senator condescended, "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Of course, Kornblut had no follow-up and didn't challenge Obama on his latest assertion.

A transcript of the September 10 question and answer can be found below:

11:32

ANNE KORNBLUT: Thank you, Mr. President. Nine years after the September 11^thattacks, why do you think it is that we are now seeing such an increase in suspicion and outright resentment of Islam, especially given that it has been one of your priorities to improve relations with the Muslim world?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then, you know, fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. And, so, I think that plays a role in it. One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was after 9/11, him being crystal clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam. We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out its outrageous acts. I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion that we are not going to be divided by religion. We're not going to be divided by ethnicity.

We are all Americans and we stand together against those who would try to do us harm. And that's what we've done over the last nine years. We should take great pride in that. And I think it is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of the American people to hang on to that thing that is best in us, a belief in religious tolerance, clarity about who are enemies are. Our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us, but have killed more Muslims than just about anybody on Earth.

You know, we have to make sure that we don't start turning on each other and I will do everything that I can as long as I'm President of the United States to remind the American people that we are one nation under God and we may call that god different names. But we remain one nation and, you know, as somebody who, you know, relies heavily on my Christian faith in my job, I understand, you know, that the passions that religious faith can, can raise.

But I'm also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don't subscribe to the exact same notions that I do. And that they are still good people and they are my neighbors and they are my friends and they are fighting alongside us in our battles. And, you know, I want to make sure that this country retains that sense of purpose. And I think tomorrow is a wonderful day for us to remind ourselves of that.

 [Links]

"The more Ronald Reagan was attacked like this, the stronger he got," Media Research Center (MRC) founder and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell explained on the September 10 Fox & Friends. “The more conservatives are being attacked this way, the stronger we're getting."

Referring to insults directed at Americans who oppose the construction of a mosque close to Ground Zero, Bozell excoriated the liberal media for dismissing conservatives as bigots: "There are a lot of serious debates you can have, but to do this name calling...this is all the Left has left."

For the full segment's MP3 audio, click here. To watch the segment, click hereto download the WMV video file or click the play button in the embed above. [Links]

Chris Matthews on Thursday accused Sarah Palin of aiding and abetting Pastor Terry Jones, the man threatening to burn Korans on Saturday's ninth anniversary of 9/11.

For days, Matthews and his colleagues on MSNBC have been calling upon Republicans to speak out against Jones.

On Wednesday, the former Alaska governor did exactly that at her Facebook pageand at Twitter. 

But this wasn't enough for Matthews who repeatedly on the 5PM installment of "Hardball" attacked Palin for being too "soft" in her admonishment of Jones, and actually accused her of giving the Pastor the linkage between burning Korans and the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque.

Matthews also included House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) in his pathetic plot (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Democratic strategist Steve McMahon joins us now, along with Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez.

You know, this is one of those moments where, OK, I`m going to take you on, Leslie, here. Ready?

LESLIE SANCHEZ, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: All right.

MATTHEWS: I think that people like Boehner and Sarah Palin are the first people in the news cycle to put out the word there`s some linkage between burning the Koran on national -- international television and the mosque a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers.

Honestly, was Matthews being intentionally naive or lying? The whole reasonmedia have given Jones all this attention is because of the Ground Zero mosque. Any suggestion to the contrary is absurd: 

MATTHEWS: And now these people down there, this minister, discovered, hey, this is handy. I will trade one for the other. It turns out the trade wasn`t real, but at least he`s pretending.

Your thoughts about accomplices before -- accessories before and after the fact here.

SANCHEZ: I think that`s a stretch.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Why is that a stretch?

SANCHEZ: Because --

MATTHEWS: Have you ever heard these ministers talk about a link with the mosque before Mr. Boehner or Sarah Palin mentioned it?

SANCHEZ: Well, I don`t read everything with the mosque.

But let`s look at the realities. You have got 50 people in a garage that say these crazy things and, all of a sudden, we have all the networks, the president, and everybody responding to them.

Look at it for what it really is.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, is Sarah Palin one of the 50 crazy people in the mosque, or what?

How disgraceful! 

SANCHEZ: I think what is interesting is that Sarah Palin is brought up again. She puts a tweet out there. She starts talking about it, and everybody wants to say she has directed and shaped this debate.

MATTHEWS: "People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive" -- I would say it`s more than insensitive -- "and an unnecessary provocation."

That`s pretty soft language compared to the way she talked about the mosque.

Actually, why don't we look at Palin's entire posting at Facebook:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive. 

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don't need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn't that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about? 

That seems like a pretty strong condemnation of Jones's plan, doesn't it? Yet Matthews never once read the entire thing to his viewers. Instead, he continued with his pathetic plot: 

SANCHEZ: They`re -- not judging her, it`s the fact --

MATTHEWS: It`s insensitive? We have a travel alert.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But why pick out Sarah Palin? I guess that`s my point.

MATTHEWS: Because I`m looking at the news that came in this morning. And, all of a sudden, she`s getting her fingers into this thing.

Your thoughts, Steve.

I think it`s incredible that she would be so soft -- taking such a soft line on this guy burning the Koran, because you never attack to the right when you`re on the right. That`s what I think is going on here.

Excuse me! Matthews and his network have been criticizing Republicans for not speaking out against this guy. Now that some have, he accuses them of aiding and abetting the Pastor!

How pathetic: 

SANCHEZ: But for what political purpose? That`s what I`m saying.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: -- with as far out, with as far out with the fringe as she can, because that`s her base.

(CROSSTALK)

STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That`s right. It`s not just her base. It`s the people that are taking over the party. It`s the Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh --

MATTHEWS: You can`t hurt by being friendly with the right.

MCMAHON: --. base of the Republican Party.

Exactly. You cannot be too far right, because especially if you`re thinking about running for president or if you want to have a controversial talk show on FOX, you need to do these things. And they generate headlines. They get people like us talking. And it works for Sarah Palin, who wants to be an entertainer and a provocateur.

I`m not sure it works very well if she wants to be the president of the United States.

MATTHEWS: Do you think that`s a statement you could live with, Leslie, people have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to? Do you like the phraseology there? People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to? Do you like that --

The hypocrisy on display here was astonishing. For weeks, folks like Matthews have been telling the American people that the backers of the Ground Zero mosque have a Constitutional right to build it there, and this supersedes the public's overwhelming opposition.

By contrast, the conservative position has been to recognize the Constitutionality in play while questioning the wisdom of doing something that would offend so many Americans.

As such, Palin - and Boehner as you'll see in a bit - were making the exact same argument concerning Jones: he has the right to burn these Korans, but they wish he wouldn't.

Not only didn't Matthews see the consistency in these positions, he was the one being inconsistent by now claiming Jones's Constitutional rights were irrelevant and represented a "soft" position on Palin's part.

The net result is that the Constitution in Matthews' mind must only protect those involved with the Ground Zero mosque but not Pastor Jones: 

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: First off, I`m not going to put Sarah Palin`s words in my mouth. Let`s put it that way.

MATTHEWS: OK. Good.

SANCHEZ: I can speak for myself.

But I will say this much. I think you play too much into this game that Sarah Palin wants you to do, which is -- talking from a conservative Republican perspective, I think we were very clear, both bipartisanly, from a bipartisan perspective, of how people felt about how ludicrous his statements were and his actions to be.

MATTHEWS: Whose were?

SANCHEZ: The reverend in this case.

MATTHEWS: Sure.

SANCHEZ: And I think why can`t we talk in solidarity about that?

It`s all this -- this ruse that it`s Sarah Palin pulling the strings - -

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I just want to know -- I will go back to my question -- why did she throw him the life jacket and say, put this on, tie it to the mosque? Why did she do that? Why did Boehner do that?

Nobody else was doing it in the media. I wasn`t drawing the connection.

Then you're either an idiot or a liar, Mr. Matthews, for there not only is a connection here, but also people like you and the rest of the media would have totally ignored Jones if the Ground Zero mosque wasn't currently an issue: 

SANCHEZ: She --

MATTHEWS: These characters were sitting, were on the show right here, talking to me, both these pastors, Sapp and Jones -- neither one of them mentioned the mosque. Both long interviews.

I said, is there anyone who could appeal to, we could appeal to you to stop this? Or any -- nobody mentioned the mosque until today, after these stories moved by your -- people on the far right. Not on the right. People like Boehner, just a Republican golfer.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Well, the tan is important. But to be fair to that point, I think a lot of people were talking about it. If you want to see that`s a lifeline, I think you`re going to see it regardless of anything that I have to say.

MCMAHON: It`s interesting -- it`s interesting here, though, if people continue to draw a connection between the actions and the words of John Boehner and Sarah Palin and suggest that somehow the leaders of the Republican Party and the woman who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president -- I mean, that`s why this makes so much news -- if there`s some suggestion that the Republican Party is sort of behind this guy, and manipulating this guy, I think it furtheralienates the Republican Party --

SANCHEZ: Further.

MCMAHON: -- from the majority of Americans who feel differently about this.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: There`s a big difference between the difficult question of building a mosque a couple blocks from the World Trade Center, which I`ve always said on this program is a difficult question. I`ve admired Michael Bloomberg for the courageous position he`s taken given the fact of his job up there. But I think there`s two sides of that argument.

Can we agree there`s no two sides to the argument about burning religious books on world television? Can we agree on it?

No, we certainly can't agree for they both involve folks exercising their Constitutional rights in a fashion that the majority of citizens find offensive. They are indeed the exact same issue, and any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates ignorance, willful dishonesty, or both: 

MCMAHON: Yes. Yes, we can agree.

MATTHEWS: OK. We just got the word that Gates -- Secretary Gates did make a call to the reverend to try to smooth this thing out or end this thing. Maybe that was influential.

Here`s John Boehner making the point I was trying to relate to here, conflating -- there`s a word I don`t like, but it`s big these days on the right -- conflating Koran-burning with the Islamic center near Ground Zero.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: To Pastor Jones and those who want to build the mosque, just because you have a right to do something in America, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Exactly. And this is the same position the Right has taken concerning the Ground Zero mosque. Not surprisingly, Matthews was having none of it: 

MATTHEWS: That was healthy. We call that in the NBA, an assist.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: That`s called an assist.

SANCHEZ: No, I mean --

MATTHEWS: Or an alley-hoop actually.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

MATTHEWS: Get it near the top of the rim so the other guy can put it in. 

I ask you: do you need a better example of liberal media bias?

Matthews and his colleagues complain for days that Republicans aren't doing anything to stop Jones from burning Korans on Saturday. Two top GOP figures do, and they're accused of helping the Pastor.

Makes you want to throw your television set out the window, doesn't it? 

 [Links]

Former ABC Nightline anchor Ted Koppel may have taken his pomposity off-camera, but it certainly remains. In a gassy op-ed for Sunday's Washington Post, Koppel announced that that "canny tactician" Osama bin Laden has won the War on Terror by pressing America into a series of wild overreactions. He began:

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, succeeded far beyond anything Osama bin Laden could possibly have envisioned. This is not just because they resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, nor only because they struck at the heart of American financial and military power. Those outcomes were only the bait; it would remain for the United States to spring the trap.

The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another. Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams.

It's important to remember that Koppel was not a measured critic of Bush foreign policy. Before the Iraq War, as Brent Bozell noted, he devoted a show to conspiratorial anti-Bush crankswho compared neoconservatives to Nazis and alleged that America was bent on global domination: 

He began with a Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow Sunday Herald, breathlessly announcing a "secret blueprint for U.S. global domination" that included Iraq. But then, he added, "a similar, if slightly more hysterical version" from the Moscow Times claimed "Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow." Koppel added: "Take away the somewhat hyperbolic references to conspiracy, however, and you're left with a story that has the additional advantage of being true."

Bozell also reported Koppel also was quick to lie about how the Reagan administration was behind Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction: 

Koppel set the tone for the meeting by undermining America's moral authority: "There's a sardonic two-liner making the rounds in Washington these days: ‘‘How do we know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons? We have the receipts.' Nasty, but there's an element of truth to it." He added "there wasn't a great deal of outrage from the Reagan-Bush White House" when Saddam gassed his own people in 1988. That's misleading.

President Reagan condemned it, Secretary of State George Shultz condemned it. What we forget is that the media barely covered it at that time, making our lack of memory easy to exploit. They didn’t have "a great deal of outrage," either.

Koppel is still slashing conservative foreign policy for leading to an "existential nightmare" based on "unsubstantiated assumptions." (That's funny: Koppel's whole embarrassing attempt to push the conspiracy theory that the 1980 Reagan campaign delayed the release of U.S. hostages was a series of "unsubstantiated assumptions," but he put them on the air anyway, just like a reckless partisan.) Koppel even attacked himself for liberals and media stars offering "flaccid opposition" to the war: 

But the insidious thing about terrorism is that there is no such thing as absolute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration convinced itself that the minds that conspired to turn passenger jets into ballistic missiles might discover the means to arm such "missiles" with chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" at that time. But the political climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq, and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intractable and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned.

Koppel sneered that perhaps Osama bin Laden had more foresight than our disastrous American architects of war, and even today, we are "so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy's intentions" that we still haven't absorbed the wisdom of Ted Koppel and all his liberal foreign-policy buddies like John Kerry: 

Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished principles, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, "black sites,"extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it -- more than $1 trillion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military so overstretched that one of the few growth industries in our battered economy is thefirms that provide private contractors,for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence.

We have raced to Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently to Yemen and Somalia; we have created a swollen national security apparatus;and we are so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy's intentions that we inflate the building of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan into a national debate and watch, helpless, while a minister in Florida outrages even our friends in the Islamic world by threatening to burn copies of the Koran.

If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. "All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses."

Through the initial spending of a few hundred thousand dollars, training and then sacrificing 19 of his foot soldiers, bin Laden has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized international franchise since McDonald's. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less?

Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish -- and how we have accommodated him.

Next up: Koppel is taking this acidulous commentary to BBC America. 

 [Links]

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal pointed out in his "Best of the Web Today" review on Thursday how Mark Halperin of Time seems to disagree so vehemently with himself about how the Obama presidency was supposed to unfold this year. Why would Obama delay business-tax-cut talk until the fall, for example:

It is fair to ask (and many Democrats have) why the President is only now proposing such critical measures, rather than offering them up earlier in his term, before election-season politics brought governing to a standstill.

It's fair to answer, too. While Americans were anxious about the economy, Obama was obsessed with wrecking our health care. He was urged on by cheerleaders in the media like the one who wrote an article on March 22, the day after the House passed ObamaCare, which began as follows:

In the 7½ months between now and November's midterm elections, millions of Americans will be whipped into a frenzy over the purported evils in the Democrats' health care bill, egged on by Fox News chatter, Rush Limbaugh's daily sermons, threats of state legislative and judicial action and the solemn pledgeof Republicans in Washington to make the fall election a referendum on Obamacare. But in doing so, they may be playing right into the Democrats' hands.

The author of that paragraph: Time magazine's Mark Halperin.

It would be unsporting to dwell on Halperin's lack of prescience. After all, anyone who makes political predictions is going to get it wrong sometimes. But in his March 22 piece, Halperin went beyond prognostication:

Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press.For Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream media have been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans, for déjà vu all over again. The coverage through November likely will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his law and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been improved by access to health care (pushed, no doubt, by Democrats from every competitive congressional district and state).

The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major delivery of candidate Obama's promise of "change." The focus on the weekend's alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by opponents of the Democrats' plan should be a caution to Republican strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this year.

Halperin is a member of the press, and as the first paragraph of the March article makes clear, he was among the ObamaCare cheerleaders who, as he accurately observed, made up "much of the press." Thus, that last excerpt is not just a prediction but a promise: Don't worry, Mr. President, we in the press will propagandize relentlessly for you and turn this into a political winner.

We think that was an unwise promise to make, not only because the press is supposed to be independent, but also because it was impossible to deliver the goods. The liberal media monopoly has long since been broken. Halperin and his colleagues were never going to be able to put lipstick on the ObamaCare pig by slandering opponents or producing puff pieces on "real Americans whose lives have been improved." Yet having promised to do just that, Halperin isn't even trying. Instead, he is chastising the president -- for inexplicably following Halperin's advice!

 [Links]

Talk about your strange bedfellows . . .

Both Pat Buchanan and Donny Deutsch have advocated the arrest of Pastor Terry Jones to prevent his possible burning of Korans and the danger to US troops such act would threaten.   The paleo-conservative and the New York liberal made common cause on today's Morning Joe.  They were outnumbered by Mika Brzezinski, Dan Senor and John Heilemann, all of whom opposed the arrest-the-pastor proposal on First Amendment grounds. Buchanan and Deutsch expressed disregard for the First Amendment implications.

Buchanan asserted that if Pres. Obama were to follow his advice, conservatives would support him and his popularity would zoom 10% overnight.

I encourage readers to view the video, weigh the arguments, and weigh in on our comments board.  My two cents say the move would be as impractical as it is unconstitutional, converting the current quandary into a fiasco.

Strange Sequel:  During the 7:30 half-hour, Morning Joe brought Pastor Jones in via a live feed from Florida.  However, after Jon Meachem, citing the New Testament, pleaded with Jones as a fellow Christian to desist from his plan, Mika abruptly ended the interview without giving Jones the chance to reply.  "We really don't need to hear anything else," said Mika, as the Florida feed was cut.

 [Links]

CNN offered a sneak preview of their upcoming Parker-Spitzer program on Wednesday's Anderson Cooper 360 with the new hosts, pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker and "Client Number Nine" Eliot Spitzer agreeing that the "well-spoken" Imam Feisal Rauf changed few minds with his recent interview. The two also forwarded their network's charge that "Islamophobia" is growing in the U.S.

Anchor Anderson Cooper began the segment by asking the two about Soledad O'Brien interview of Rauf, which took place the previous hour. Parker, the "Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator," as Cooper called her, endorsed his appearance and went on to characterize the two sides of the debate over the planned Ground Zero mosque. In her view, those who oppose it "were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was...trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist." On the other hand, the supporters of the mosque "understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who's well-spoken and has something important to say."

The former New York governor agreed with his future co-host:

SPITZER: I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in...Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don't create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe.

Later, the CNN anchor brought up some of the wider controversies involving Islam in the United States and raised the "Islamophobia" charge: "We've seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, 'Look, this is Islamophobia.' Do you buy that?"

Spitzer went further than just accusing people of "Islamophobia." He all but said that the country has always had a streak of bigotry:

SPITZER: I think there's a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said.....I dug out George Washington's letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do.

The Democrat actually erred with his history, as the U.S. wasn't three years old in 1790, but fourteen years old, if you date it from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

His future co-host raised another common liberal argument, that many were just ignorant of Islam and Muslims: "We keep hearing this, 'they're going to do this, if you let them get in.' You let them do this, then they're going to demand, demand. Who is the 'they'? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim?...I think we've got to stop thinking of Muslims as being 'them.'"

One might surmise from this appearance, given the former governor's liberal credentials, and Parker's swipes at conservatives, as she did earlier in September against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, that CNN's upcoming program is going to be less like Crossfire and more like an Amen corner.

The full transcript of the segment from Wednesday's Anderson Cooper, which began 38 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour:

COOPER: Joining me now are Elliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, and Kathleen Parker, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator. In October, their new program begins right here on CNN at 8 pm. Welcome, thanks very much for being with us- good to have you here.

KATHLEEN PARKER: Thanks, Anderson. Thanks for having us.

COOPER: What did you think of the imam tonight?

PARKER: You know, I thought it was very good that he came out and spoke and that people could see him in person and hear his voice. I think he probably changed very few minds. I think people are going to see exactly what they were already prepared to see. If you're against it, you were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was playing some role- you know, in trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist. And then, if you were for it already, then you understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who's well-spoken and has something important to say. I doubt that he really changed many hearts and minds, but maybe, it's a start, as he says, toward a conversation that needs to take place.

COOPER: Elliott, do you think he changed minds?

ELLIOT SPITZER: No, I don't think. I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in, and you saw that on your panel earlier in the show. Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don't create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. And I think he was well-spoken, but-

COOPER: The lines are so clearly drawn, right?

SPITZER: The lines are so rigid, and the views about this are so deeply ingrained and the passion- when you've lost somebody on 9/11, and the pain is so real, it's very hard to change minds.

COOPER: So, are we beyond a place where there is dialogue or possibility of coming together to- you know, David Gergen talked about some sort of solution of having- you know, a multi-faith center, is it- or are we beyond that?

PARKER: I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I don't think we're beyond that. But I do think we have to be so careful as we give attention to these people who are, essentially, crackpots, okay? Let's talk about this fellow-

COOPER: You're talking about- not the people who oppose the mosque?

PARKER: No, no, no. Not, not- certainly not. I mean, look-

COOPER: The Koran burners?

PARKER: There is some crackpot-ism involved in this. I mean, there was a time when the headlines were fairly rational and straightforward and news-oriented, and you can see that was last December, as he said. And then, if you look at the headlines beginning last May, then they get increasingly inflammatory. And so- you know, I think that the rhetoric has been highly exaggerated in many cases. The media- you know, we all have a role in that and we have to be so careful, because when we do give attention to people like- for example, this fellow in Gainesville who's threatening to burn the Koran.

I was talking to a friend of mine earlier tonight who lives in Gainesville. And I said, 'Do you know this character?' And she said, 'Yeah, my church is about a quarter mile down the road from his.' His church is a metal building. He's got approximately 50 followers.

COOPER: And sells used furniture on eBay.

PARKER: Yeah, and I would like for the Muslim world to understand that this is just one individual who doesn't represent anyone but- you know, a handful of folks. That's just- and that feeds, though, and builds this sort of- the sense that this is an awful thing going on.

SPITZER: We need for time to pass. When emotions are this raw, you cannot address the issues rationally, because emotion overwhelms rationality. Andy [Sullivan], in your prior panel, said something very interesting and very important. He said this was the last straw for a middle class that is disenfranchised. Now, this issue is one of many that has led to an outbreak of anxiety, anger, venom- in many cases, legitimate because of emotions that derive from 9/11. In other instances, it is just a focal point for an upset with the way our economy and our national politics is playing out. And so, we need to understand this in that context, and I think when you view it that way, you understand how hard it is to bridge this chasm right now.

COOPER: There's- you know, we've seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, 'Look, this is Islamophobia.' Do you buy that?

SPITZER: I think there's a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said.

COOPER: This is just the newest group?

SPITZER: This is (unintelligible)-

COOPER: From Catholics to Jews to the-

SPITZER: Precisely, the newest incarnation- and, in fact, before I came on the show, I dug out George Washington's letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do and what David Gergen spoke to, which is to get people together and say, 'wait a minute, let us not'-

COOPER: But that's not what our political life is about now.

PARKER: But we keep hearing this, 'they're going to do this, if you let them get in.'

COOPER: Pat Robertson saying that (unintelligble)-

PARKER: You let them do this, then they're going to demand, demand. Who is the 'they'? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? You know, there seems to be- I just feel like this has become a misunderstanding on a broad scale. And while- absolutely, when you talk to people whose families died in this and- you know, on 9/11, you can't not take that seriously. I mean, that emotion is real, and it's still raw. But I think we've got to stop thinking of Muslims as being 'them.'

COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. Elliot Spitzer, Kathleen Parker, appreciate you being with us. Thanks very much.

 [Links]