Wednesday, July 12, 2006

MSM strikes again!

How much more blatant can you get?

Robert Novak says today that he learned Valerie Plame's identity from a source he refuses to name and from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who.

He called a number of people in Washington to confirm it, amonth them Karl Rove and an official at CIA. Both confirmed the information. (Presumably, if the identity was secret, the CIA contact would have said, "no comment.")

But look at the AP headline: Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

Not "Novak: I got Plame's name from Who's Who" or "Novak confirms Rove was not Plame leaker" or even "Novak: Rove, CIA confirmed Plame's identity".

How can you trust people who spin so blatantly and transparently?

25 comments:

JH said...

Hi Corrie,
Perhaps a headline reading "Novak: Rove was a confiming source" would be most accurate. Obviously, the headline was written in a way that would trigger people's interest in reading the article. Technically, I do not think it is incorrect. "A source" means "one of many sources". So the headline is essentially saying that Rove was one of many sources Novak used to learn Plame's identity. The second paragraph says that Rove was a confirming source so I do not think anyone who reads the article will get the wrong idea.
As you know, most newspaper headlines are written in a way that will get people to read an article even if it is bland. As teachers, it is important to teach students to always read the fine print of the news before jumping to any conclusions. If teachers in the US are doing their job, then I do not think anyone will misunderstand the article.

tim said...

JH,
Why would you ever look at something 'objectively' and somewhat rationally? That's just not the American way anymore and Corrie and his ilk want to make sure that never happens again, just as he accuses the NYT of doing this. It's more important to get mad and point out meaningless injustices than to actually try making a real difference in the world. Let's get all worked up about this!!

Every interaction has we have be a winner and there's nothing in between, no discussion of issues, no trying to understand another viewpoint - it's just cheering when somebody can "absolutely shred" someone's argument that is not in line with ours or even better "expertly slice, dice, julienne and puree" and hand them their ass on a platter (Okay Corrie was politer than that, but that's what he clearly meant). (There are probably more Christians upset I used the word ass than they are about anything else I've ever written).

The heck with trying to really engage people, to love them in thier misunderstanding with God's love that if we believe God's word will ultimately impact them and change them, to meet the culture head on with that. Yes, I'll even go to the ultimate taboo, take you to task for saying you rejoiced that Zarqawi was burning in hell and glibly ending with 'burn, baby burn'. He was as evil as they come, but if God's desire is that no one, not one, should see the fires of hell, what right do I have to rejoice that somebody, God's creation, got so misguided that that's where he ended up. Deserving yes, but something to rejoice about? Hardly, it should grieve us that a human life was wasted as he wasted his, as it grieved God.

But we're not about grieving for lost people are we? We're too busy concocting clever arguments to prove we're right and so we can dice them up and shred them to bits. Yeah - go for it.

tim said...

pssst... hey, you know if we ignore him maybe he'll go away and then we can get back to just reacting and not really thinking about things and issues and stuff. I hate it when my traditional values are challenged, especially by misguided so called 'christians'. Let's get back inside the church and the republican party where nary a peep or a question or heaven forbid, a doubt is ever allowed. Okay good I think he's gone now.

NOW about those godless public schools let me tell you........

Corrie said...

Tim, I don't know what your point is. Do you have one? Your claim that I don't think about issues, that I just react, is laughable. I think a lot, I just think differently than you do. Somehow that makes me some kind of evil hypocrite in your mind. Isn't diversity of thought allowed in your world? Are persons entitled to have their own opinions? Is it a crime if my opinions happen to be similar to those of other people?

I understand other viewpoints just fine. The radical Islamists say that they want you and me dead. You liberal appeasers do not believe them. You seem to think that if we just give them what they want and say, "nice doggy", they'll go away. I tend to take people at their word.

A person carrying a sign reading, "Cut off the heads of blasphemers" I assume is not engaging in metaphor. Not when I know that Christian schoolgirls have had their heads sliced off.

Now, perhaps your viewpoint is that the proper Christian response to Islamist terrorists is to line up for the blade. IIRC Rev 13 that says that those who are to die by sword will die by the sword; this calls for perseverance on the part of the saints. Maybe Rev 20; I'd have to check.

I disagree. It's one thing to walk two miles carrying another's burden or to turn the other cheek when insulted. It's another thing entirely to volunteer for the knife.

And IMHO, liberal appeasers are doing exactly that. Because they don't understand the viewpoint of the jihadis. They think that everyone thinks just like them - that we can all link arms on the hilltop and have a Coke in peace and harmony.

News flash for you, sunshine - Hezbollah and Hamas DON'T WANT peace and harmony. Not if there are any live Jews in the Middle East.

Now please excuse me, I have work to do.

Corrie said...

JH, let me respond to you, since you were actually on topic.

The purpose of a headline is to summarize the article, so you don't have to read it. The lede paragraph has the job of drawing the reader in. Many people just skim headlines.

This headline was misleading, and IMO deliberately so.

tim said...

I don't think you can find any evidence anywhere in my writing for sympathy for radical islam (other than I mentioned I find it offensive to rejoice and be glib about anyone's descent into hell). I'm all for dealing with them in a manner that will be effective and for the right reasons.

Afghanistan and Bin Laden deserved our full forceful hand on them and it should still be strangling them. The world was with us on that and would still be. How did we ever get to the point where President Bush would say "I don't even worry about Bin Laden", which he did.

But then of course we wouldn't have the middle east situation 'stabilized' as it is now and the world a much safer place than it was before the invasion of Iraq. Hezbollah and Hamas may still be with us even if we had not invaded Iraq, but I truly believe they have been emboldened by our situation there and the strength our enemies have found by our continual incompetence in managing it and our plummeting regard by other nations throughout the world.

So you took the rabbit trail into radical Islam I never spoke of before and again did not deal with the actual response. I guess we just disagree - God grieves at the loss of any soul to Satan, but we can rejoice and make jokes about it. (again don't misread - he NEEDED to die!)

Sunshine??

tim said...

I find it interesting that when you went to compare your listening to other viewpoints you immediately went to radical islam and then lumped me into a category of liberal that sympathizes with them, even without any evidence whatsoever that I have that viewpoint. It's pretty easy to write off that viewpoint, I know I do too. Do you think that's what I'm like, a radical islamist? Tougher to deal with somebody who has a faith in Christ, but sees the world very differently - as I do.

Hmm, sounds a lot like what you hated about the columnist making all those generalizations about the SUV driver and his assumptions about Hugh Hewitt, which you deplored.

Jesus spent most of energy and yes even anger dealing with the religeous leaders and institutions of his day. I have no doubt he would be doing the same thing today, my point is that the Church has become too blind and too comfortable in the conservative political ideology to even realize it or care. Nobody has it all right, and I put myself at the top of the list.

tim said...

I guess, bottom line, and we all have different things that 'rile' us up but the whole righteous anger about an AP headline reminds me of Matthew 23:24 "You strain out a gnat, while you swallow a camel."

This comes right after Jesus ripping into the religous leaders for not caring about the weightier matters (Jesus' words, not mine)like justice, mercy and faith, etc.
Hmmm, but some of those things may point back at us - lot harder to get angry or upset about those things isn't it?

And getting upset about a meaningless headline (yes freaking meaningless) really keeps everybody from dealing with the real issues in that whole mess too, in which Plame and Wilson are not guiltless, but the President and his people have a lot to be ashamed about in it also.

Corrie said...

An AP headline is indeed a gnat - who questions the liberal bias of the media anymore? - but what camel am I swallowing, Tim?

Do I wish things were going better in Iraq? Of course. In some respects, we won too quickly. The Baathist dead-enders who now make up a large chunk of the Sunni insurgency survived to fight another day. Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle are real ugly places. It's not a park filled with children chasing butterflies.

But then, it never was, Michael Moore's apologist propaganda notwithstanding. Uday and Qusay's torture chambers were real places, and now they are gone forever.

For all its many problems, Iraq is a better place, and moving toward a better place, than it was four years ago. Maybe history will prove me wrong. Maybe those people really are incapable of setting aside their religious and tribal differences and forging a modern nation without a dictator at the helm. That could be. We'll have to wait and see. I'm an optimist.

As to my glee at the prospect of Zarkawi in hell, I'm just getting a head start on eternity. You do realize, don't you, that once we are in God's presence we will ALL rejoice at the eternal torture of the damned, even our loved ones? Because then we will see just how great God's glory is, and just how awful sin really is, and we will rejoice at God's triumphant justice.

You say you want to see the jihadis dealt with effectively, but you don't propose any plans. Do you suggest giving them what they want? What they want is all Jews dead, and everyone else on the planet a Muslim or a dhimmi. Is that what you want? I don't. They don't negotiate. There's nothing to discuss.

We have our own religious nutjobs who can't be negotiated with, but they live in dirt-floor shacks in the Idaho wilderness. We can ignore them and leave them to their fantasies. They're not a threat.

The jihadis ARE a threat.

tim said...

"You do realize, don't you, that once we are in God's presence we will ALL rejoice at the eternal torture of the damned, even our loved ones?"

Gosh, I guess I really didn't realize this and I'm not trying to be flip about it. I'm not 100% sure what Heaven will actually be like, (since I'm not Tim Lahaye) but I guess I imagined somehow God would spare us the thought of those (including our loved ones) who are in Hell. It's going to happen (despite the thoughts of your model CS Lewis, who most believe had a universalist approach to salvation - hell was not necessarily forever) I think the Bible is clear we will all be in one accord in worship and knowing the truth and no tears, but I just would like to see some Biblical support for the idea that we will be 'rejoicing at the eternal torture of the damned'. Would you care to provide me a reference?

I'm still not sure how I became an apologist for the jihadis, but you seem to want to make me one. One thing I am very, very sure of, if Bill Clinton were president in the current situation, conservatives would be 100% opposed to the entire Iraq mess and would have second guessed him right out of office.

Corrie said...

Read Revelation, especially chapters 14, 15, and 19. It's pretty clear that the saved rejoice at the fate of the condemned.

I'd really like to believe that Hell is not forever, or that salvation is universal. I just can't find much support for that in the text.

That leaves me with the picture of a God who is far holier than I can possibly comprehend, if I'm promised that I will rejoice at the justice of what to my human mind seems horribly unjust.

Anyone calling for "let's just work through our differences" with the headchoppers is either an apologist or a blind fool IMO. That's the way I see it. There is no negotiation possible, because they have said so themselves. And making excuses for their behavior, as folks on the left do, is by defninition being an apologist.

You still haven't offered any solutions.

If Clinton had dealt with Osama when he had the chance, we probably would not be in Iraq, because 9/11 would not have happened. (And NO, I'm not claiming that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But it's clear he had contacts with AQ, and it's clear he was continuiing work on WMD. Post-9/11, that situation was a real and growing - if not yet imminent - threat.)

Back to work.

tim said...

"We have our own religious nutjobs who can't be negotiated with, but they live in dirt-floor shacks in the Idaho wilderness. We can ignore them and leave them to their fantasies. They're not a threat"

Or they broadcast every day to millions of viewers and shape and influence Christian thought and actions and misuse of their financial resources. Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Paul Crouch, the list is endless.

tim said...

"Anyone calling for "let's just work through our differences" with the headchoppers is either an apologist or a blind fool IMO. That's the way I see it."

Why do you keep talking about this. Where have I ever espoused this or even talked about it?

I did offer a solution - we put Afghanistan in a stranglehold and we don't let up until Bin Laden is dead or so holed up he can't do anything. A true conservative doesn't believe in putting our noses into places that are not an imminent threat to the US. Iraq may of been a threat to Israel, but they were never a threat to us. The continuing good will of the world that we would of gotten for a)the injustice of the 911 attacks and b) our relentless pursuit of justice in hunting down bin laden, would have done more to put pressure on the whack jobs in the middle east than anything else. IMHO.

But Middle East politics is far from my area of knowledge as you can probably tell, which is why I haven't said anything about it until you brought up radical islam out of nowhere.

Corrie said...

Unbelievable. Or maybe all too believable. You have just equated conservative Christian religious broadcasters with Osama bin Laden and al-Zarkawi.

Pat Roberston (I've never heard of the other guys; I evidently don't get out much) has never to my knowedge advocated, much less approved of, much less PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT the violent murder of thousands of innocents.

You, sir, are off the deep end. The sad thing is, you don't even realize it.

tim said...

I do not compare these guys to Osama Bin Laden, I was just refuting your point that "our religeous nut jobs" are stuck away in Idaho and have no impact or influence. I think almost anybody reading that would realize what I meant.

They obviously are not as physically dangerous as the islamist 'nutjobs', but a spin around christian tv will give you quite an eye opening picture of 'god's leaders' and the things they put into believers heads.

Of course, since we're on the subject, we won't talk about McVeigh or the abortion clinic bombers - I agree, they are nutjobs and do not represent Christ - but they have done some significant damage.

tim said...

You know you raise a good point and I'm serious about this. Most of my evangelical friends, and obviously I have many and still am in that circle somewhat, would also think I have gone 'off the deep end.'

And, believe it or not, that is troubling to me. So I do get tied up in wondering if my change in political views is in fact, changing my faith for the worse. I think they would believe so, in fact my 'Christianity' has definitely been brought into question by some of them. I do wonder, honestly, can I think so differently from what I felt was true Christianity and still have a valid and real faith? I really don't know for sure. I think I want to, but their is no doubt as you can tell, I am rebelling against the hoops they seem to want me to jump through. But what if they're right?

What do I hang on to and what do I get rid of? And if I get rid of some of those values I no longer agree with, where does it stop? Oh well, I guess bottom line is like Paul said, we each have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Corrie said...

Of course you made the comparison. All "religious nut jobs" are created equal, right? They're all dangerous, right?
Except theirs advocate the violent overthrow of elected governments and the murder of innocents, and ours tell people to send money and vote GOP. It's all the same, right?

(For the record, I'm no fan of Robertson. But he's no Osama, and you DID set them up as equivalent.)

McVeigh was not a Christian and was not motivated by religious ideology - he was an anti-government zealot. Why he keeps getting trotted out, I don't understand. The clinic bombers have damaged some property (they don't attack during busines hours, unlike the falafel-stand bombers and wedding-party bombers), and have killed a couple of abortionists.

And IIRC, Christian religious leaders - including the "nutjobs" you cite - have pretty unanimously condemned them. As do I.


Bottom line - Your examples don't examp. As they say down South, that dog won't hunt.

Corrie said...

Thanks for bewing willing to listen to reason, Tim. We all have to be careful not to toss the baby out with the bathwater. "Sure they're crazy - but what if they're right?"

Only a fool does not tremble at the thought of a God who is in fact perfectly, infinitely holy and perfectly, infinitely just.

Our only hope is in his perfect, infinite love and mercy, poured out at the foot of the Cross.

I am an unapologetic Manichean - there is Good, and there is Evil. I want to be on the side of Good. I believe that as a Christian, I am. I've read the Book and I know how the story ends.

I know that Evangelicals never get any credit from the Peace and Social Justice crowd. But we do a LOT of social work - we just do it behind the scenes, colunteering in soup kitchens, rehabbing houses, etc.

We also believe that this modern American culture - despite the fact that it gives us the freedom to assemble and worship - contains some seriously unsavory elements. Having read the ending of the Book, I know it's going to get a LOT worse before it gets better. But that doesn't mean I can't fight against it. "Do not go gently into that dark night," the poet wrote.

God bless you, Tim, and I mean that sincerely.

tim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tim said...

What's worse corrie, physical death or spiritual death?

And we always want to ignore McVeigh's ties to white supremacist groups, who ALL adhere to a deep faith in God, including the KKK. Misguided, definitely, but show me one of those groups who do not talk about thier following the 'true christian god.'

Thanks for your thoughts - it's been an interesting couple of years. I used to work with another associate pastor who as soon as the Iraq war started put one of those big 'war is not the answer' posters in his office. And we were a conservative church and this drove me nuts. I did question everything about him and couldn't even work with him. And now here I am in agreement with most of his views - very strange.

tim said...

When I mention physical vs spiritual death here is what I mean. I honestly believe Joseph Smith (the founder of mormonism - read a great book "under the banner of heaven" by Jon Krakauer - is more evil and done infinitely greater harm in the course of history than Adolf Hitler. Most people would think I'm crazy, but Jesus is very clear about this and I paraphrase, 'don't worry about those who can only kill your physical body, worry about God who has the power over spiritual death'. I'm not using that to say I'm a total pacifist here on earth, but in the scope of the spiritual world, which is where all Christians live, those decieving people spiritually are as or more dangerous than those who can harm us physically but have no power over our eternal destiny. I don't think that's off the deep end.

Corrie said...

That's a very interesting point of view, tim. You make a good point. Of course, the same could be said of the founder of every non-Christian religion and worldview. There are some - fundamentalists mostly - who come right out and say that every non-Christian worldview is Satanic.

And honestly, I have a hard time diagreeing with them, philosophically. If Jesus is indeed the only way to heaven (as I believe Scripture clearly teaches), then a lot of people are in for a very nasty surprise at the end. But tactically, in the realm of human conversation, it just doesn't cut a lot of wood to say to someone, "Not only are you going to hell, but you secretly worship Satan."

Honey and vinegar.

There's another aspect, too. Spiritual battles can only be fought with spiritual weapons. And the only effective spiritual weapons we have are prayer and the Word.

But some people are so spiritual that they're no earthly good. We're called to be IN the world.

tim said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1154836800&en=66046c9d043af045&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Amen to this in my humble opinion and here I thought I was out there on my own.

Corrie said...

Tim, have you considered getting your own blog?

tim said...

Laughing - I suppose that would be the thing to do rather than using yours for all of my windy pontifications. I'm very new to this and not real techno-savvy, but your point is well taken. Aren't you lucky I latched on to yours? lol.